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

BACKGROUND: Acute anterior dislocation, which is the most common type of shoulder dislocation, usually results from an injury. Subsequently, the shoulder is less stable and is more susceptible to re-dislocation, especially in active young adults. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2006. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects (benefits and harms) of conservative interventions after closed reduction of traumatic anterior dislocation of the shoulder. These might include immobilisation, rehabilitative interventions or both. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Bone, Joint and Muscle Trauma Group Specialised Register (September 2013), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2013, Issue 8), MEDLINE (1946 to September 2013), EMBASE (1980 to Week 38, 2013), CINAHL (1982 to September 2013), PEDro (1929 to November 2012), OTseeker (inception to November 2012) and trial registries. We also searched conference proceedings and reference lists of included studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing various conservative interventions versus control (no or sham treatment) or other conservative interventions applied after closed reduction of traumatic anterior dislocation of the shoulder. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: All review authors independently selected trials, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. Study authors were contacted for additional information. Results of comparable groups of trials were pooled. MAIN RESULTS: We included three randomised trials and one quasi-randomised trial, which involved 470 participants (371 male) with primary traumatic anterior dislocation of the shoulder reduced by various closed methods. Three studies evaluated mixed populations; in the fourth study, all participants were male and 80% were soldiers. All trials were at some risk of bias but to a differing extent. One was at high risk in all domains of the risk of bias tool, and one was at unclear or high risk in all domains; the other two trials were deemed to have predominantly low risk across all domains. Overall, reflecting both the risk of bias and the imprecision of findings, we judged the quality of evidence to be "very low" for all outcomes, meaning that we are very uncertain about the estimates of effect.The four trials evaluated the same comparison - immobilisation in external rotation versus internal rotation - and each of our three primary outcomes (re-dislocation, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) for shoulder instability and resumption of activities) was reported by one or more of the trials, with two-year or longer follow-up. Pooling was possible for "re-dislocation" (three trials) and for aspects of "resumption of sport/activities at pre-injury level" (two trials).There was no evidence to show a difference between the two groups in re-dislocation at two-year or longer follow-up (risk ratio (RR) 1.06 favouring internal rotation, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.73 to 1.54; P value 0.77; 252 participants; three trials). In a low-risk population, with an illustrative baseline risk of 247 re-dislocations per 1000, these data equate to 15 more (95% CI 67 fewer to 133 more) re-dislocations per 1000 after immobilisation in external rotation. In a medium-risk population, with an illustrative baseline risk of 436 re-dislocations per 1000, the data equate to 26 more (95% CI 118 fewer to 235 more) re-dislocations after immobilisation in external rotation.Nor was evidence found to show a difference between the two groups in return to pre-injury levels of activity at two-year or longer follow-up (RR 1.25 favouring external rotation, 95% CI 0.71 to 2.2; P value 0.43; 278 participants; two trials). In a low-risk population, with an illustrative baseline risk of 204 participants per 1000 returning to pre-injury levels of activity, this equates to 41 more (95% CI 59 fewer to 245 more) participants per 1000 resuming activity after immobilisation in external rotation. In a high-risk population, with an illustrative baseline risk of 605 participants per 1000 returning to pre-injury levels of activity, this equates to 161 more (95% CI 76 fewer to 395 more) participants per 1000 resuming activity after immobilisation in external rotation.One trial reported that the difference between the two groups in Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index scores, analysed using non-parametric statistics, was "not significant (P = 0.32)". Of our secondary outcomes, pooling was possible for "any instability" (two trials) and for important adverse events (three events, two trials). However, adverse event data were collected only in an ad hoc way, and it is unclear whether identification and reporting of such events was comprehensive. No report addressed participant satisfaction or health-related quality of life outcome measures.There was no evidence confirming a difference between the two positions of immobilisation in any of the primary or secondary outcomes; for each outcome, the confidence intervals were wide, covering the possibility of substantial benefit for each intervention. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Numerous conservative strategies may be adopted after closed reduction of a traumatic anterior dislocation of the shoulder, and many warrant investigation. However, our review reveals that evidence from randomised controlled trials is only available for a single approach: immobilisation in external rotation versus immobilisation in the traditional position of internal rotation. Moreover, this evidence is insufficient to demonstrate whether immobilisation in external rotation confers any benefit over immobilisation in internal rotation.We identified six unpublished trials and two ongoing trials that compare immobilisation in external versus internal rotation. Given this, the main priority for research on this question consists of the publication of completed trials, and the completion and publication of ongoing trials. Meanwhile, increased attention to other interventions is required. Sufficiently powered, good quality, well reported randomised controlled trials with long-term surveillance should be conducted to examine the optimum duration of immobilisation, whether immobilisation is necessary at all (in older age groups particularly), which rehabilitative interventions work best and the acceptability to participants of different care strategies.

Physical tests for shoulder impingements and local lesions of bursa, tendon or labrum that may accompany impingement.

BACKGROUND: Impingement is a common cause of shoulder pain. Impingement mechanisms may occur subacromially (under the coraco-acromial arch) or internally (within the shoulder joint), and a number of secondary pathologies may be associated. These include subacromial-subdeltoid bursitis (inflammation of the subacromial portion of the bursa, the subdeltoid portion, or both), tendinopathy or tears affecting the rotator cuff or the long head of biceps tendon, and glenoid labral damage. Accurate diagnosis based on physical tests would facilitate early optimisation of the clinical management approach. Most people with shoulder pain are diagnosed and managed in the primary care setting. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of physical tests for shoulder impingements (subacromial or internal) or local lesions of bursa, rotator cuff or labrum that may accompany impingement, in people whose symptoms and/or history suggest any of these disorders. SEARCH METHODS: We searched electronic databases for primary studies in two stages. In the first stage, we searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, AMED and DARE (all from inception to November 2005). In the second stage, we searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and AMED (2005 to 15 February 2010). Searches were delimited to articles written in English. SELECTION CRITERIA: We considered for inclusion diagnostic test accuracy studies that directly compared the accuracy of one or more physical index tests for shoulder impingement against a reference test in any clinical setting. We considered diagnostic test accuracy studies with cross-sectional or cohort designs (retrospective or prospective), case-control studies and randomised controlled trials. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two pairs of review authors independently performed study selection, assessed the study quality using QUADAS, and extracted data onto a purpose-designed form, noting patient characteristics (including care setting), study design, index tests and reference standard, and the diagnostic 2 x 2 table. We presented information on sensitivities and specificities with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) for the index tests. Meta-analysis was not performed. MAIN RESULTS: We included 33 studies involving 4002 shoulders in 3852 patients. Although 28 studies were prospective, study quality was still generally poor. Mainly reflecting the use of surgery as a reference test in most studies, all but two studies were judged as not meeting the criteria for having a representative spectrum of patients. However, even these two studies only partly recruited from primary care.The target conditions assessed in the 33 studies were grouped under five main categories: subacromial or internal impingement, rotator cuff tendinopathy or tears, long head of biceps tendinopathy or tears, glenoid labral lesions and multiple undifferentiated target conditions. The majority of studies used arthroscopic surgery as the reference standard. Eight studies utilised reference standards which were potentially applicable to primary care (local anaesthesia, one study; ultrasound, three studies) or the hospital outpatient setting (magnetic resonance imaging, four studies). One study used a variety of reference standards, some applicable to primary care or the hospital outpatient setting. In two of these studies the reference standard used was acceptable for identifying the target condition, but in six it was only partially so. The studies evaluated numerous standard, modified, or combination index tests and 14 novel index tests. There were 170 target condition/index test combinations, but only six instances of any index test being performed and interpreted similarly in two studies. Only two studies of a modified empty can test for full thickness tear of the rotator cuff, and two studies of a modified anterior slide test for type II superior labrum anterior to posterior (SLAP) lesions, were clinically homogenous. Due to the limited number of studies, meta-analyses were considered inappropriate. Sensitivity and specificity estimates from each study are presented on forest plots for the 170 target condition/index test combinations grouped according to target condition. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient evidence upon which to base selection of physical tests for shoulder impingements, and local lesions of bursa, tendon or labrum that may accompany impingement, in primary care. The large body of literature revealed extreme diversity in the performance and interpretation of tests, which hinders synthesis of the evidence and/or clinical applicability.

A questionnaire survey of UK physiotherapists on the diagnosis and management of contracted (frozen) shoulder.

OBJECTIVE: To gain insights into the diagnosis and management of contracted (frozen) shoulder (CFS) in a sample of UK physiotherapists, underpinning the development of evidence-based clinical guidelines. METHODS: An anonymous online questionnaire was developed and distributed via iCSP, targeting physiotherapists who treat CFS. For treatments, respondents were invited to consider 'pain-predominant' and 'stiffness-predominant' scenarios, choose from listed treatment options, and specify any unlisted conservative options they might consider. Frequency analysis was used for closed-ended questions, and content analysis was used for open-ended questions. RESULTS: In total, 289 valid responses were received. All respondents thought that movement restriction informed diagnosis. Of those specifying the manner of testing movements, 98% (121/123) included passive testing. Of those describing specific patterns of restriction, 71% (93/131) emphasised external rotation. Fifty-four percent (152/282) of valid respondents would consider suggesting/requesting imaging investigations, usually to exclude bony abnormalities. For treatment, only 46 respondents reported considering any unlisted conservative options, usually liaison regarding medication. For pain-predominant CFS, the preferred physiotherapeutic options were advice/education (96%; 277/288), injection (80%; 230/288), gentle exercise (79%; 228/288), superficial heat/cold (69%; 199/288) and acupuncture (68%; 196/288). For stiffness-predominant CFS, the preferred options were stretching (93%; 268/288), advice/education (88%; 252/288), joint mobilisations (87%; 250/288), function-based exercises (75%; 216/288) and hands-on soft-tissue techniques (59%; 170/288). Some dissociation was noted between clinical practice and research evidence. Eighty-five percent (253/284) of respondents would consider referring for an orthopaedic opinion. CONCLUSIONS: Acknowledging restricted passive external rotation (vs the capsular pattern) as diagnostic of CFS would standardise and might improve the clinical aspect of diagnosis. The value of X-rays in differential diagnosis was under-recognised. Modalities used to treat CFS were dichotomised by pain-predominant and stiffness-predominant classifications, which may be more useful than existing classifications.

Diagnosis of shoulder pain by history and selective tissue tension: agreement between assessors.

STUDY DESIGN: Evaluation of agreement between assessors. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate agreement between an expert in selective tissue tension (STT) and 3 other trained assessors, all using STT in conjunction with a preliminary clinical history, on their diagnostic labelling of painful shoulders. BACKGROUND: Consensus on diagnostic labelling for shoulder pain is poor, hampering interpretation of the evidence for interventions. STT, a systematic approach to physical examination and diagnosis, offers potential for standardization, but its reliability is contentious. METHODS AND MEASURES: Four trained assessors, 1 of whom was considered an expert, separately assessed 56 painful shoulders in 53 subjects (32 male [mean+/-SD age, 51+/-13 years], 21 female [mean+/-SD age, 57+/-12 years]), using STT in conjunction with a preliminary clinical history. Assessors labelled each painful shoulder as "rotator cuff lesion," "bursitis," "capsulitis," "other diagnosis," or "no diagnosis." Combinations of diagnoses were allowed. RESULTS: A diagnosis was made in every case, with less than 7% of the diagnoses being combined. With the diagnostic categories pooled, agreement (kappa and 95% confidence interval [CI]) between the expert assessor and each of the other assessors was good, ranging from 0.61 (0.44-0.78) to 0.75 (0.60-0.90). For single diagnostic categories, agreement between the expert and each of the others (dichotomized data) ranged from 0.35 (-0.03-0.73) to 0.58 (0.29-0.87) for bursitis; 0.63 (0.40-0.86) to 0.82 (0.65-0.99) for capsulitis; 0.71 (0.49-0.93) to 0.79 (0.61-0.96) for rotator cuff lesions; and from 0.69 (0.35-1.00) to 0.78 (0.48-1.00) for other diagnoses. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, STT in conjunction with a preliminary clinical history enables good agreement between trained assessors. Future work is required to evaluate its criterion validity.