JOURNAL ARTICLE
REVIEW
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW
Add like
Add dislike
Add to saved papers

The True Recurrence Rate and Factors Predicting Recurrent Instability After Nonsurgical Management of Traumatic Primary Anterior Shoulder Dislocation: A Systematic Review.

Arthroscopy 2016 December
PURPOSE: To (1) define the cumulative recurrence rate after primary anterior shoulder dislocation in Level I and II comparative studies and (2) to pool risk ratios for common risk factors to provide a clinically practical hierarchy of modifiable and nonmodifiable risk factors for recurrence.

METHODS: Level I and II prognostic studies were identified using the electronic databases CINAHL, Embase, and MEDLINE from inception to December 2014. Included studies (n = 15) had recurrent dislocation as the main outcome, and a minimum 2-year follow-up. The cumulative odds ratio of prognostic factors was calculated where appropriate. Bias was assessed in each study using the Quality in Prognosis Studies (QUIPS) tool.

RESULTS: The reported rate of recurrence ranged from 19% to 88% (pooled overall = 21%; pooled Level I only = 47%). The pooled time to recurrence was 10.8 months (standard deviation 0.42). Male sex (n = 6 studies) conferred a 2.68 (1.66-4.31; P < .001) and patient age <20 years (n = 4 studies) conferred a 12.76 (5.77-28.2; P < .001; vs >20 years) increased odds of recurrence. An associated greater tuberosity fracture (n = 7 studies) decreased the odds of recurrence by 3.8 times (2.94-5.00; P < .001). The quality of evidence was moderate for age, low for sex, and very low for all other prognostic variables.

CONCLUSIONS: The pooled rate of recurrence after primary anterior shoulder instability was found to be 21% among moderate- to high-quality prognostic studies. Male sex and younger age predicted a significantly higher risk of recurrent instability (approaching 80%), whereas concurrent fracture of the greater tuberosity significantly decreased the risk of subsequent recurrent dislocation. However, considering the quality of available evidence for these predictors, there remains a clear need for further high-quality prospective studies.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II, systematic review of Level I and II prognostic studies.

Full text links

We have located links that may give you full text access.
Can't access the paper?
Try logging in through your university/institutional subscription. For a smoother one-click institutional access experience, please use our mobile app.

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Mobile app image

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.

By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.

Your Privacy Choices Toggle icon

You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app