Which is the most appropriate anterior glenohumeral dislocation reduction technique among three different techniques? A prospective, randomized clinical trial


Creative Commons License

Batur A., arslan v., ENGİN M. Ç., ARSLAN Ş., KÖSE A.

Joint diseases and related surgery, vol.34, no.1, pp.144-150, 2023 (Scopus) identifier identifier identifier identifier

  • Publication Type: Article / Article
  • Volume: 34 Issue: 1
  • Publication Date: 2023
  • Doi Number: 10.52312/jdrs.2023.879
  • Journal Name: Joint diseases and related surgery
  • Journal Indexes: Scopus, TR DİZİN (ULAKBİM)
  • Page Numbers: pp.144-150
  • Keywords: Cunningham, external rotation, glenohumeral dislocation, reduction, shoulder, traction counter traction.
  • Hacettepe University Affiliated: Yes

Abstract

Objectives: This study aims to compare three glenohumeral dislocation (GHD) reduction techniques in terms of pain and reduction time and to offer clinicians an idea of the selection of the most appropriate technique. Patients and methods: T his m ulti-center, p rospective, randomized clinical study included a total of 90 patients (55 males, 35 females; median age: 29 years; range, 22 to 41 years) who had isolated anterior GHD without complication between December 2019 and December 2021. The patients were divided into three equal groups (traction-countertraction [TCT], external rotation [ExR], and Cunningham) using the block randomization method, and reductions were performed. Pre-reduction, intra-reduction, and post-reduction Visual Analog Scale (VAS) scores, reduction times, success rates, and complication rates were analyzed. Results: There was no statistically significant difference among the groups in terms of age (p=0.414), sex (p=0.954), pre-reduction VAS (p=0.175), and post-reduction VAS (p=0.204). The median intra-reduction VAS values in the TCT, the external rotation, and the Cunningham groups were 8 (range, 7 to 9), 5 (range, 4 to 7), and 4 (range, 2.75 to 5), respectively (p<0.001). The median reduction time and IQR were 105 (range, 82.5 to 120) sec for TCT, 270 (range, 232.5 to 300) sec for ExR, and 630 (range, 540 to 780) sec for Cunningham (p=0.001). Conclusion: The fastest, but most painful technique i s TCT, while the longest and the least painful technique is Cunningham. An inverse relationship is found between time and pain. Based on these findings, it seems to be reasonable to leave the choice of the ideal reduction technique to the clinician. The clinician should choose the technique to be used according to the conditions in the emergency department.