With the largest range of motion and relatively low stability, shoulder joint is the most prone to dislocation.[1,2] Shoulder dislocation, nearly 90% to 95% of anterior dislocation,[2,4] accounts for about 45% of all dislocation in orthopedics, which is predominant in young people.[1,5] It is more than triple the incidence rate for women. According to Kirkley's study, the occurrence of 1st shoulder dislocation is 8 to 8.2/100,000 people/year. Shoulder dislocation often occurs when the arm is forced to abduct, rotate, and overextend, which can lead to the humerus head out of the shoulder joint.[8–14]
The treatment of shoulder dislocation can be divided into operation and conservative therapy. Surgical treatment is used only for complex dislocation or failure of conservative reduction.[15,16] Therefore, conservative treatment is the main measure. Conservative treatment is usually followed by internal or external rotation fixation after reduction. Some studies have shown that internal rotation fixation can reduce the recurrence rate compared with external rotation fixation,[17–19] while others have the opposite results. Consequently, it is necessary to conduct a systematic review of immobilization in external rotation vs internal rotation on shoulder dislocation with the increasing of related studies in recent years. This study will be performed to analyze and integrate the existed evidence regarding efficacy and safety of immobilization in external rotation and internal rotation on shoulder dislocation, which can conclude higher evidence for the treatment of shoulder dislocation.
2.1 Study registration
This protocol has been registered in the international prospective register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO), and the registration number is CRD42018106030. Available at: http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?ID=CRD42018106030. The steps of this protocol will follow the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) statement guidelines. Since this study is a secondary literature study based on randomized controlled trials (RCTs), no ethical approval and patient consent are required.
2.2 Inclusion criteria for study selection
2.2.1 Type of studies
We will only include RCTs. Retrospective studies, review, case reports, cohort studies, and experimental studies will be excluded. There are no restrictions on languages.
2.2.2 Type of participants
We will include studies that the patients must be definitely diagnosed as shoulder dislocation, not limited by gender, ethnicity, nationality, primary disease, or clinical stage, which was based on imaging diagnostic criteria.
2.2.3 Type of interventions
We will include the studies that immobilization in external rotation is considered as an intervention in the treatment group, while immobilization in internal rotation is included in the control group.
2.2.4 Type of outcome measurements
18.104.22.168 Primary outcomes
Recurrence rate will be defined as the primary outcome to assess the frequency of recurrence of dislocation.
22.214.171.124 Secondary outcomes
- Compliance rate, measured by any instrument.
- Adverse events, measured by any instrument.
- Shoulder function, measured by the Western Ontario Shoulder Instability.
2.3 Search strategy
Relevant literature were retrieved using multiple online databases including the PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, the Cochrane Library, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), ClinicalTrials.gov, the Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure Database (CNKI), Wanfang, and VIP Database. No limits were imposed on the dates, types, and statuses of the publications eligible for inclusion. The key terms used in the searches were: “shoulder dislocation,” “glenohumeral dislocation,” “glenohumeral subluxation,” “bankart lesion,” “external rotation,” “internal rotation,” “fixation,” “immobilisation,” “reduction.” Different search strategies were used for the Chinese and foreign language databases. In addition, the reference lists of previously published systematic reviews on the subject of external rotation and internal rotation immobilization for the treatment of shoulder dislocation were manually examined for pertinent studies.
2.4 Selection of studies
Two reviewers independently read the title and abstract of the literature, and screened the documents according to inclusion and exclusion criteria. When they are uncertain to determine whether to exclude, we will read the full text to identify the studies that need to be included.
2.5 Data extraction
The following data will be independently extracted by 2 authors: the name of 1st author, year of publication, country, number of patients under total disc replacement and lumbar fusion, sample size, age, gender of patients, disease course, follow-up duration. When relevant data have not been reported, we will contact the authors by email or in other ways to attempt to obtain the missing information. The review authors will resolve any disagreements by discussion, including input from a 3rd independent review author if required. The flow diagram (Fig. 1) will be used to show the details of the study selection process.
2.6 Assessment of risk of bias
Two authors will assess the methodological quality of the included studies using the criteria outlined in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions 5.1.0. Two authors will also compare the results and will discuss any differences until agreement is reached. The domains to be assessed will include: random sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding of participants and personnel, blinding of outcome assessment, incomplete outcome data, selective reporting, and other bias.
For other sources of bias, 2 aspects have been identified: trials stopped early owing to some data-dependent processes; baselines extreme imbalanced.
2.7 Measures of treatment effects
The outcomes of interest will include dichotomous data and continuous variables. Dichotomous data will be expressed as the risk ratio (RR), and mean difference (MD) will be used to assess differences in the continuous outcomes between the groups. Also, standardized mean difference (SMD) will be chosen if the clinical outcomes are the same, but have been measured using different methods in different trials. The corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) for each parameter will be computed for the treatment group vs the control group. If quantitative synthesis is not appropriate, descriptive review will be selected.
2.8 Assessment of heterogeneity
Statistical heterogeneity across the included studies will be examined using the I2 statistic, with an I2 > 50% regarded as being indicative of the possibility of statistical heterogeneity, resulting in the selection of a random-effects model for the computation of MD or SMD with its corresponding 95% CI. Otherwise, no obvious heterogeneity will be considered to be present in the included studies for values of I2 < 50%, in which case the fixed-effects model will be selected to generate the MD or SMD with its corresponding 95% CI.
2.9 Assessment of publication bias
If more than 10 original studies are included, funnel plots will be made according to the data of the included studies to observe publication bias. If the funnel plot is asymmetric, it indicates publication bias. We will discuss the sources and explanations of bias.
2.10 Data synthesis
A forest plot for each parameter will be constructed to illustrate the weight ratio of each incorporated study. All statistical analyses will be carried out using the RevMan5.3 software, and the significance threshold will be a 2-sided P < .05.
2.11 Sensitivity analysis
To evaluate the sensitivity of the meta-analysis, studies will be excluded one by one, and the differences of the combing effects before and after exclusion will be compared, and if the pooled outcomes are found to have been reversed after the exclusions, the outcomes may be unstable.
2.12 Subgroup analysis
When heterogeneity is high, if the necessary data are available, subgroup analyses will be conducted for different comparators separately. In addition, if the expected efficacy is not observed in all the subjects, subgroup analysis could help us show whether the treatment is effective in some specific subgroups. At the same time, subgroup analysis can also help us to show whether the therapeutic effect is better in particular subjects if it is found to be effective in all subjects.
2.13 Grading the quality of evidence
The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) method is used to evaluate the quality of evidence for each outcome of meta-analysis. The GRADE Working Group recommended that the quality of evidence can be classified into four levels: high (++++), moderate (+++), low (++), and very low (+). Evidence quality is generally judged on the basis of risk of bias, inconsistency, indirectness, inaccuracy, and publication bias. We can evaluate it on this page: https://gradepro.org/.
This systematic review and meta-analysis will integrate the latest and most comprehensive original clinical research evidence in this field. It mainly evaluates the efficacy and safety of external rotation and internal rotation fixation in the treatment of shoulder dislocation, which by assessing the outcome such as recurrence rate, compliance rate, adverse events, and other outcomes.
At the same time, this study has been registered on the international prospective register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO), which will make the procedures and results of this study more transparent and further improve its credibility. In addition, GRADE evidence-based evaluation method will be used to evaluate the quality level of original research evidence in this study, which can contribute to the transformation of study results and the formation of guideline. We hope that high-level evidence for the treatment of shoulder dislocation can be concluded in this study, which can provide recommendations for clinicians to make decisions about this disease.
Conceptualization: Xin Cui, Long Liang.
Data curation: Xin Cui, Hongyan Zhang, Yue Zhang.
Methodology: Long Liang, Jing Zhao.
Resources: Hongyan Zhang, Yongyao Li, Hao Cheng.
Software: Xin Cui, Hongyan Zhang, Shiheng Wang.
Supervision: Jing Zhao.
Writing – original draft: Xin Cui, Long Liang.
Writing – review & editing: Xin Cui, Long Liang, Jing Zhao, Yongyao Li, Hao Cheng.
Xin Cui orcid: 0000-0003-2257-6724.
. Terra BB, Ejnisman B, Belangero PS, et al. arthroscopic treatment of first-time shoulder dislocations in younger athletes. Orthop J Sports Med 2019;7: 2325967119844352.
. Aydin N, Enes KM, Asansu M, et al. Treatment options for locked posterior shoulder dislocations and clinical outcomes. EFORT Open Rev 2019;4:194–200.
. Chaudhary D, Joshi D, Jain V, et al. A six months old neglected anterior shoulder dislocation
managed by closed reduction and Latarjet procedure. Chin J Traumatol 2016;19:295–7.
. Zuckerman JD, Koval KJ. Handbook of Fractures. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2006.
. Owens BD, Dawson L, Burks R, et al. Incidence of shoulder dislocation
in the United States military: demographic considerations from a high-risk population. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2009;91:791–6.
. Khiami F, Gerometta A, Loriaut P. Management of recent first-time anterior shoulder dislocations. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 2015;101:S51–7.
. Kirkley A, Werstine R, Ratjek A, et al. Prospective randomized clinical trial comparing the effectiveness of immediate arthroscopic stabilization versus immobilization and rehabilitation in first traumatic anterior dislocations of the shoulder: long-term evaluation. Arthroscopy 2005;21:55–63.
. Robinson CM, Shur N, Sharpe T, et al. Injuries associated with traumatic anterior glenohumeral dislocations. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2012;94:18–26.
. Hovelius L. Anterior dislocation of the shoulder in teen-agers and young adults. Five-year prognosis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1987;69:393–9.
. Hovelius L, Augustini BG, Fredin H, et al. Primary anterior dislocation of the shoulder in young patients. A ten-year prospective study. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1996;78:1677–84.
. Robinson CM, Howes J, Murdoch H, et al. Functional outcome and risk of recurrent instability after primary traumatic anterior shoulder dislocation
in young patients. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2006;88:2326–36.
. Handoll HH, Almaiyah MA, Rangan A. Surgical versus non-surgical treatment for acute anterior shoulder dislocation
. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2004. CD004325.
. Smith BI, Bliven KC, Morway GR, et al. Management of primary anterior shoulder dislocations using immobilization. J Athl Train 2015;50:550–2.
. Hovelius L, Olofsson A, Sandstrom B, et al. Nonoperative treatment of primary anterior shoulder dislocation
in patients forty years of age and younger. a prospective twenty-five-year follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2008;90:945–52.
. Padua R, Bondì R, Bondì L, et al. Surgical versus conservative treatment for acute first-time anterior shoulder dislocation
: the evidence. J Orthopaed Traumatol 2007;8:207–13.
. Blanchard D, Bourgeois S. Conservative management following closed reduction of a traumatic anterior dislocation of the shoulder. Orthop Nurs 2015;34:243–4.
. Itoi E, Hatakeyama Y, Kido T, et al. A new method of immobilization after traumatic anterior dislocation of the shoulder: a preliminary study. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2003;12:413–5.
. Heidari K, Asadollahi S, Vafaee R, et al. Immobilization in external rotation
combined with abduction reduces the risk of recurrence after primary anterior shoulder dislocation
. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2014;23:759–66.
. Itoi E, Hatakeyama Y, Sato T, et al. Immobilization in external rotation
after shoulder dislocation
reduces the risk of recurrence. A randomized controlled trial. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2007;89:2124–31.
. Liavaag S, Brox JI, Pripp AH, et al. Immobilization in external rotation
after primary shoulder dislocation
did not reduce the risk of recurrence: a randomized controlled trial. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2011;93:897–904.
. Shamseer L, Moher D, Clarke M, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review
and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation. BMJ 2015;350:g7647.
. Higgins JP, Altman DG, Gotzsche PC, et al. The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ 2011;343:d5928.