Conservative management following closed reduction of traumatic anterior dislocation of the shoulder

Anatomic Bankart Repair Compared With Nonoperative Treatment and/or Arthroscopic Lavage for First‐Time Traumatic Shoulder Dislocation

“…With regard to global patient satisfaction, there were no differences when anatomic Bankart repair was compared with immobilization or arthroscopic lavage. In contrast to our review, Handoll et al 6 reported that global patient satisfaction from 2 trials showed significantly fewer surgical group patients who expressed dissatisfaction with the results of their treatment (RR, 0.21; 95% CI, 0.06 to 0.64). We were unable to confirm this finding, likely because of the significant statistically heterogeneity observed in this pooled analysis.…”

“…Despite the fact that there is significant heterogeneity across studies with respect to which outcome measures were used and reported, our study is the first to pool data from a disease‐specific quality‐of‐life measure (i.e., WOSI questionnaire) from more than 1 study. This is in contrast to the Cochrane review by Handoll et al, 6 in which the 79‐month follow‐up reported in the study by Kirkley et al 19 did not show a statistically significant improvement in WOSI scores for a total of 31 patients. One caveat in interpreting these results is that the study by Robinson et al 20 accounted for 85.5% of the weight in the pooled analysis for WOSI scores and compared anatomic Bankart repair with lavage (as opposed to traditional nonoperative treatment).…”

“…It is clear that anatomic Bankart repair results in a significant reduction in the risk of recurrent shoulder instability over an intermediate follow‐up period (2 to 10 years) compared with nonoperative treatment in the form of rehabilitation and compared with arthroscopic lavage. The risk of recurrent instability after anatomic Bankart repair is approximately one‐fifth the risk after all other forms of treatment in the included trials—our findings are similar to those previously reported in the literature 1,6,8 . A subgroup comparison of anatomic Bankart repair with each of the aforementioned control groups confirms its superiority in decreasing the risk of recurrent instability.…”

“…The risk of recurrent instability after anatomic Bankart repair is approximately one-fifth the risk after all other forms of treatment in the included trials-our findings are similar to those previously reported in the literature. 1,6,8 A subgroup comparison of anatomic Bankart repair with each of the aforementioned control groups confirms its superiority in decreasing the risk of recurrent instability. This is the first meta-analysis to show that anatomic Bankart repair is superior to arthroscopic lavage alone with respect to decreasing the rate of recurrent instability.…”

Anatomic Bankart Repair Compared With Nonoperative Treatment and/or Arthroscopic Lavage for First‐Time Traumatic Shoulder Dislocation

“…With regard to global patient satisfaction, there were no differences when anatomic Bankart repair was compared with immobilization or arthroscopic lavage. In contrast to our review, Handoll et al 6 reported that global patient satisfaction from 2 trials showed significantly fewer surgical group patients who expressed dissatisfaction with the results of their treatment (RR, 0.21; 95% CI, 0.06 to 0.64). We were unable to confirm this finding, likely because of the significant statistically heterogeneity observed in this pooled analysis.…”

“…Despite the fact that there is significant heterogeneity across studies with respect to which outcome measures were used and reported, our study is the first to pool data from a disease‐specific quality‐of‐life measure (i.e., WOSI questionnaire) from more than 1 study. This is in contrast to the Cochrane review by Handoll et al, 6 in which the 79‐month follow‐up reported in the study by Kirkley et al 19 did not show a statistically significant improvement in WOSI scores for a total of 31 patients. One caveat in interpreting these results is that the study by Robinson et al 20 accounted for 85.5% of the weight in the pooled analysis for WOSI scores and compared anatomic Bankart repair with lavage (as opposed to traditional nonoperative treatment).…”

“…It is clear that anatomic Bankart repair results in a significant reduction in the risk of recurrent shoulder instability over an intermediate follow‐up period (2 to 10 years) compared with nonoperative treatment in the form of rehabilitation and compared with arthroscopic lavage. The risk of recurrent instability after anatomic Bankart repair is approximately one‐fifth the risk after all other forms of treatment in the included trials—our findings are similar to those previously reported in the literature 1,6,8 . A subgroup comparison of anatomic Bankart repair with each of the aforementioned control groups confirms its superiority in decreasing the risk of recurrent instability.…”

“…The risk of recurrent instability after anatomic Bankart repair is approximately one-fifth the risk after all other forms of treatment in the included trials-our findings are similar to those previously reported in the literature. 1,6,8 A subgroup comparison of anatomic Bankart repair with each of the aforementioned control groups confirms its superiority in decreasing the risk of recurrent instability. This is the first meta-analysis to show that anatomic Bankart repair is superior to arthroscopic lavage alone with respect to decreasing the rate of recurrent instability.…”

Case report of old anterior dislocation of the shoulder joint and review of the literature

“…There is also no agreement on the type of braking and there is still discussion on whether to immobilise the shoulder joint in internal or external rotation (9)(10)(11). A study has reported no difference between these two types of braking in terms of recurrence rates and healing outcomes of joint dislocation and return to activity levels (12). Negligent and untimely access to medical care after trauma results in rare old undisplaced shoulder dislocations that are challenging to treat, and the patients in this paper were primarily untimely for further consultation.…”

Anatomic Bankart Repair Compared With Nonoperative Treatment and/or Arthroscopic Lavage for First‐Time Traumatic Shoulder Dislocation

“…With regard to global patient satisfaction, there were no differences when anatomic Bankart repair was compared with immobilization or arthroscopic lavage. In contrast to our review, Handoll et al 6 reported that global patient satisfaction from 2 trials showed significantly fewer surgical group patients who expressed dissatisfaction with the results of their treatment (RR, 0.21; 95% CI, 0.06 to 0.64). We were unable to confirm this finding, likely because of the significant statistically heterogeneity observed in this pooled analysis.…”

“…Despite the fact that there is significant heterogeneity across studies with respect to which outcome measures were used and reported, our study is the first to pool data from a disease‐specific quality‐of‐life measure (i.e., WOSI questionnaire) from more than 1 study. This is in contrast to the Cochrane review by Handoll et al, 6 in which the 79‐month follow‐up reported in the study by Kirkley et al 19 did not show a statistically significant improvement in WOSI scores for a total of 31 patients. One caveat in interpreting these results is that the study by Robinson et al 20 accounted for 85.5% of the weight in the pooled analysis for WOSI scores and compared anatomic Bankart repair with lavage (as opposed to traditional nonoperative treatment).…”

“…It is clear that anatomic Bankart repair results in a significant reduction in the risk of recurrent shoulder instability over an intermediate follow‐up period (2 to 10 years) compared with nonoperative treatment in the form of rehabilitation and compared with arthroscopic lavage. The risk of recurrent instability after anatomic Bankart repair is approximately one‐fifth the risk after all other forms of treatment in the included trials—our findings are similar to those previously reported in the literature 1,6,8 . A subgroup comparison of anatomic Bankart repair with each of the aforementioned control groups confirms its superiority in decreasing the risk of recurrent instability.…”

“…The risk of recurrent instability after anatomic Bankart repair is approximately one-fifth the risk after all other forms of treatment in the included trials-our findings are similar to those previously reported in the literature. 1,6,8 A subgroup comparison of anatomic Bankart repair with each of the aforementioned control groups confirms its superiority in decreasing the risk of recurrent instability. This is the first meta-analysis to show that anatomic Bankart repair is superior to arthroscopic lavage alone with respect to decreasing the rate of recurrent instability.…”

Case report of old anterior dislocation of the shoulder joint and review of the literature

“…There is also no agreement on the type of braking and there is still discussion on whether to immobilise the shoulder joint in internal or external rotation (9)(10)(11). A study has reported no difference between these two types of braking in terms of recurrence rates and healing outcomes of joint dislocation and return to activity levels (12). Negligent and untimely access to medical care after trauma results in rare old undisplaced shoulder dislocations that are challenging to treat, and the patients in this paper were primarily untimely for further consultation.…”

Anatomic Bankart Repair Compared With Nonoperative Treatment and/or Arthroscopic Lavage for First‐Time Traumatic Shoulder Dislocation

“…With regard to global patient satisfaction, there were no differences when anatomic Bankart repair was compared with immobilization or arthroscopic lavage. In contrast to our review, Handoll et al 6 reported that global patient satisfaction from 2 trials showed significantly fewer surgical group patients who expressed dissatisfaction with the results of their treatment (RR, 0.21; 95% CI, 0.06 to 0.64). We were unable to confirm this finding, likely because of the significant statistically heterogeneity observed in this pooled analysis.…”

“…Despite the fact that there is significant heterogeneity across studies with respect to which outcome measures were used and reported, our study is the first to pool data from a disease‐specific quality‐of‐life measure (i.e., WOSI questionnaire) from more than 1 study. This is in contrast to the Cochrane review by Handoll et al, 6 in which the 79‐month follow‐up reported in the study by Kirkley et al 19 did not show a statistically significant improvement in WOSI scores for a total of 31 patients. One caveat in interpreting these results is that the study by Robinson et al 20 accounted for 85.5% of the weight in the pooled analysis for WOSI scores and compared anatomic Bankart repair with lavage (as opposed to traditional nonoperative treatment).…”

“…It is clear that anatomic Bankart repair results in a significant reduction in the risk of recurrent shoulder instability over an intermediate follow‐up period (2 to 10 years) compared with nonoperative treatment in the form of rehabilitation and compared with arthroscopic lavage. The risk of recurrent instability after anatomic Bankart repair is approximately one‐fifth the risk after all other forms of treatment in the included trials—our findings are similar to those previously reported in the literature 1,6,8 . A subgroup comparison of anatomic Bankart repair with each of the aforementioned control groups confirms its superiority in decreasing the risk of recurrent instability.…”

“…The risk of recurrent instability after anatomic Bankart repair is approximately one-fifth the risk after all other forms of treatment in the included trials-our findings are similar to those previously reported in the literature. 1,6,8 A subgroup comparison of anatomic Bankart repair with each of the aforementioned control groups confirms its superiority in decreasing the risk of recurrent instability. This is the first meta-analysis to show that anatomic Bankart repair is superior to arthroscopic lavage alone with respect to decreasing the rate of recurrent instability.…”

Case report of old anterior dislocation of the shoulder joint and review of the literature

“…There is also no agreement on the type of braking and there is still discussion on whether to immobilise the shoulder joint in internal or external rotation (9)(10)(11). A study has reported no difference between these two types of braking in terms of recurrence rates and healing outcomes of joint dislocation and return to activity levels (12). Negligent and untimely access to medical care after trauma results in rare old undisplaced shoulder dislocations that are challenging to treat, and the patients in this paper were primarily untimely for further consultation.…”