Immobilization in External Rotation and Abduction Versus Arthroscopic Stabilization After First-Time Anterior Shoulder Dislocation: A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Treatment of first-time shoulder dislocation (FSD) is a topic of debate. After high rates of recurrent instability after nonoperative management were reported in the literature, primary repair of FSD significantly increased. At the same time, new concepts were proposed that had promising results for immobilization in external rotation (ER) and abduction (ABD). Purpose: The aim of this study was to evaluate the recurrence rates (primary outcome) and clinical outcomes (secondary outcome parameters) of immobilization in ER+ABD versus arthroscopic primary stabilization after FSD. Study Design: Randomized controlled trial; Level of evidence, 1. Methods: In a multicenter randomized controlled trial, patients with FSD were randomized to either treatment with immobilization in 60° of ER plus 30° of ABD (group 1) or surgical treatment with arthroscopic Bankart repair (group 2). Clinical evaluation was performed 1, 3, and 6 weeks as well as 6, 12, and 24 months postoperatively or after reduction, including range of motion, instability testing, subjective shoulder value, Constant-Murley score, Rowe score, and Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index. Recurrent instability events were prospectively recorded. Results: Between 2011 and 2017, a total of 112 patients were included in this study. Of these, 60 patients were allocated to group 1 and 52 to group 2. At the 24-month follow-up, 91 patients (81.3%) were available for clinical examination. The recurrence rate was 19.1% in group 1 and 2.3% in group 2 ( P = .016). No significant differences were found between groups regarding clinical shoulder scores ( P > .05). Due to noncompliance with the immobilization treatment protocol, 4 patients (6.7%) were excluded. Conclusion: Immobilization in ER+ABD versus primary arthroscopic shoulder stabilization for the treatment of FSD showed no differences in clinical shoulder scores. However, recurrent instability was significantly higher after nonoperative treatment.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".