IntroductionGlenohumeral (shoulder) dislocations are the most common large joint dislocations seen in the emergency department (ED). They cause pain, often severe, and require timely interventions to minimise discomfort and tissue damage. Commonly used reposition or relocation techniques often involve traction and/or leverage. These techniques have high success rates but may be painful and time consuming. They may also cause complications. Recently, other techniques—the biomechanical reposition techniques (BRTs)—have become more popular since they may cause less pain, require less time and cause fewer complications. To our knowledge, no research exists comparing the various BRTs. Our objective is to establish which BRT or BRT combination is fastest, least painful and associated with the lowest complication rate for adult ED patients with anterior glenohumeral dislocations (AGDs).Methods and analysisAdults presenting to the participating EDs with isolated AGDs, as determined by radiographs, will be randomised to one of three BRTs: Cunningham, modified Milch or scapular manipulation. Main study parameters/endpoints are ED length of stay and patients’ self-report of pain. Secondary study parameters/endpoints are procedure times, need for analgesic and/or sedative medications, iatrogenic complications and rates of successful reduction.Ethics and disseminationNon-biomechanical AGD repositioning techniques based on traction and/or leverage are inherently painful and potentially harmful. We believe that the three BRTs used in this study are more physiological, more patient friendly, less likely to cause pain, more time efficient and less likely to produce complications. By comparing these three techniques, we hope to improve the care provided to adults with acute AGDs by reducing their ED length of stay and minimising pain and procedure-related complications. We also hope to define which of the three BRTs is quickest, most likely to be successful and least likely to require sedative or analgesic medications to achieve reduction.Trial registration numberNTR5839.

Background: Anterior shoulder dislocations (ASD) are commonly seen in Emergency Departments (ED). ED overcrowding is increasingly burdening many healthcare systems. Little is known about factors influencing ED length-of-stay (LOS) for ASD. This study defines the factors influencing ED LOS for ASD patients. Methods: Retrospective chart reviews were performed on all patients ≥12 years admitted with an anterior shoulder dislocation at two regional hospitals in the Netherlands between 2010 and 2016. The electronic patient records were reviewed for baseline patient characteristics, trauma mechanism, reduction methods, medication used, complications and the LOS at the ED. The main objective was determining factors influencing the LOS in patients with an anterior shoulder dislocation at the ED. Results: During the study period, 716 ASD occurred in 574 patients, 374 (65.2%) in males. There were 389 (54.3%) primary ASD; the remainder (327, 45.7%) were recurrent. Median LOS was 92 min (IQR 66 min), with a significantly shorter LOS in those with recurrent dislocations (p < 0.001), younger age group (p < 0.03) and in patients who received no medications in the ED (p < 0.001). Traction-countertraction and leverage techniques were associated with a significant more use of ED medication compared to other techniques. Although the use of more medication might suggest the LOS would be longer for these techniques, we did not find a significant difference between different reduction techniques and LOS. Conclusion: To our knowledge this study is the largest of its kind, demonstrating ED LOS in ASD patients is influenced by age, the need for medication and dislocation history, primary versus recurrent. Notably, we found that biomechanical reduction techniques, which are not primarily traction-countertraction or leverage techniques, e.g. scapular manipulation and Cunningham, were associated with less ED medication use. Further research is needed to define how reduction methods influence ED medication use, patient satisfaction and ED throughput times.

Introduction Anterior shoulder dislocations are commonly seen in the emergency department for which several closed reduction techniques exist. The aim of this systematic review is to identify the most successful principle of closed reduction techniques for an acute anterior shoulder dislocation in the emergency department without the use of sedation or intra-articular lidocaine injection. Methods A literature search was conducted up to 15-08-2022 in the electronic databases of PubMed, Embase and CENTRAL for randomized and observational studies comparing two or more closed reduction techniques for anterior shoulder dislocations. Included techniques were grouped based on their main operating mechanism resulting in a traction–countertraction (TCT), leverage and biomechanical reduction technique (BRT) group. The primary outcome was success rate and secondary outcomes were reduction time and endured pain scores. Meta-analyses were conducted between reduction groups and for the primary outcome a network meta-analysis was performed. Results A total of 3118 articles were screened on title and abstract, of which 9 were included, with a total of 987 patients. Success rates were 0.80 (95% CI 0.74; 0.85), 0.81 (95% CI 0.63; 0.92) and 0.80 (95% CI 0.56; 0.93) for BRT, leverage and TCT, respectively. No differences in success rates were observed between the three separate reduction groups. In the network meta-analysis, similar yet more precise effect estimates were found. However, in a post hoc analysis the BRT group was more successful than the combined leverage and TCT group with a relative risk of 1.33 (95% CI 1.19, 1.48). Conclusion All included techniques showed good results with regard to success of reduction. The BRT might be the preferred technique for the reduction of an anterior shoulder dislocation, as patients experience the least pain and it results in the fastest reduction.

Background Biomechanical reduction techniques for shoulder dislocations have demonstrated high reduction success rates with a limited pain experience for the patient. We postulated that the combination of biomechanical reduction techniques with the shortest length of stay would also have the lowest pain experience and the highest first reduction success rate. Methods A randomized multicenter clinical trial was performed to compare different biomechanical reduction techniques in treating anterior shoulder dislocations without the use of invasive pain relief. Patients who were able to perform adduction of the arm were randomly assigned to Cunningham, the modified Milch, and the scapular manipulation technique. Those who were not able to do so were randomly assigned to modified Milch and the scapular manipulation technique. Primary outcomes were emergency department length of stay and pain experienced during the reduction process, measured by the numeric pain rating scale. Secondary outcomes were reduction time, reduction success, use of analgesics or sedatives, and complications. Results Three hundred eight patients were included, of whom 134 were in the adduction group. In both groups, no differences in emergency department length of stay and experienced pain were observed between the treatment arms. In the adduction group, the modified Milch technique had the highest first reduction success rates 52% (p = 0.016), within protocol 61% (p = 0.94), and with sedation in the ED 100% ( −). In the no-adduction group, the modified Milch was also the most successful primary reduction technique with 51% success (p = 0.040), within protocol 66% (p = 0.90), and with sedation in the ED 98% (p = 0.93). No complications were recorded in any of the techniques. Conclusion A combination of biomechanical techniques resulted in a similar length of stay in the emergency department and showed similar pain scores with an overall high success rate of reduction. In both groups, the modified Milch had the highest first-reduction success rate. Trial registration Netherlands Trial Register NTR5839—1 April 2016. Ethical committee Noord-Holland with the CCMO-number NL54173.094.15