Operative versus nonoperative treatment after primary traumatic anterior glenohumeral dislocation
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Stanford University Medical Center, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA USA.Journal of shoulder and elbow surgery / American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons ... [et al.] (Impact Factor: 2.37). 11/2011; 21(1):e17-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.jse.2011.08.055
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: The number of anterior shoulder dislocations that predispose to recurrence is unknown; some clinicians recommend surgical repair after the initial episode and others after multiple recurrences. The purpose of this study was to quantify the forces during successive anterior dislocations of cadaveric shoulders and to inspect the capsule and labrum afterwards, in order to assess the propensity for recurrence. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-two human cadaveric shoulders were tested using a custom cadaveric shoulder dislocation device with simulated muscle loading. Each was positioned in the apprehension position and the humerus was moved in horizontal abduction until the shoulder dislocated. The joint reaction force was measured, as was the force that developed passively in the pectoralis major muscle. Following 3 successive dislocations, each was inspected for anterior capsulolabral lesions. RESULTS: There was a significant decrease in force after the second dislocation. In 11, there was no labral avulsion and a significant decrease in force after the first dislocation. In the other 11, there was a labral avulsion and a significant decrease in force after the second dislocation. CONCLUSION: Two successive anterior shoulder dislocations may increase propensity for recurrence; but this is influenced by the type of capsulolabral lesion that occurs. No labral avulsion, likely a result of capsular stretching, may be a worse prognostic finding than labral avulsion after the initial episode.Journal of shoulder and elbow surgery / American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons ... [et al.] 02/2013; 22(8). DOI:10.1016/j.jse.2012.11.013 · 2.37 Impact Factor
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.