Immobilization in external rotation after primary shoulder dislocation reduces the risk of recurrence in young patients. A randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Patients that sustain anterior shoulder dislocation frequently experience recurrence. Immobilisation in external rotation has been proposed as a treatment that could lower this risk. HYPOTHESIS: There is a difference in recurrence rates between immobilization in internal or external rotation following a first-time anterior shoulder dislocation. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Single-center randomized controlled trial. Fifty patients with a first episode of traumatic anterior dislocation were randomly assigned to immobilization in internal rotation (IR; 25 patients) or external rotation (ER; 25 patients) for three weeks. Clinical follow-up: 24 months. Additionally, some patients underwent a magnetic resonance imaging with intra-articular contrast (MR arthrography) within seven days after trauma, and then at three months. PRIMARY OUTCOME: recurrence of dislocation. Secondary outcome: healing rate of labral lesions on MR arthrography. RESULTS: Follow-up rate in the IR and ER group was 92% and 96% respectively. Recurrence rate did not show a statistically significant difference overall (IR 47.8% vs. ER 29.2%; p=0.188), but showed a significant difference favouring ER in the 20-40 years subgroup (IR 50% vs. ER 6.4%; p=0.044). Labral lesions' healing rate was 46.2% vs. 60% (IR vs ER; p=0.680). The recurrence rate among those with healed vs. non-healed labrum (regardless of immobilization) was 11.1% vs. 77.7% (p=0.001). DISCUSSION: This study suggests that immobilization in ER compared to IR reduces the risk of recurrence after a first-time anterior shoulder dislocation in patients aged between 20 and 40 years. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II, low-powered prospective randomized trial.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".