Oxford chair vs. traditional treatment of acute shoulder dislocation .
OrthoEvidence Journal (OE Journal) - ACE Report
OE Journal. 2014;2(1):31 Emerg Med J. 2013 Oct;30(10):795-80060 patients, over 18 years of age, who were diagnosed with anterior or posterior glenohumeral shoulder dislocation were randomly assigned into one of two groups to compare the efficacy of shoulder reduction treatment with the Oxford chair (group 1) to a traditional shoulder reduction treatment (group 2). Results of the study indicated that there were no differences between the groups with regards to length of stay in the emergency department, procedure time, or pain experienced before or after treatments were completed. However, a significant difference in success rate was found, favouring the traditional treatment group over the Oxford chair method.
Was the allocation sequence adequately generated?
Was allocation adequately concealed?
Blinding Treatment Providers: Was knowledge of the allocated interventions adequately prevented?
Blinding Outcome Assessors: Was knowledge of the allocated interventions adequately prevented?
Blinding Patients: Was knowledge of the allocated interventions adequately prevented?
Was loss to follow-up (missing outcome data) infrequent?
Are reports of the study free of suggestion of selective outcome reporting?
Were outcomes objective, patient-important and assessed in a manner to limit bias (ie. duplicate assessors, Independent assessors)?
Was the sample size sufficiently large to assure a balance of prognosis and sufficiently large number of outcome events?
Was investigator expertise/experience with both treatment and control techniques likely the same (ie.were criteria for surgeon participation/expertise provided)?
Yes = 1
Uncertain = 0.5
Not Relevant = 0
No = 0
The Reporting Criteria Assessment evaluates the transparency with which authors report the methodological and trial characteristics of the trial within the publication. The assessment is divided into five categories which are presented below.
4/4
Randomization
3/4
Outcome Measurements
2/4
Inclusion / Exclusion
4/4
Therapy Description
4/4
Statistics
Detsky AS, Naylor CD, O'Rourke K, McGeer AJ, L'Abbé KA. J Clin Epidemiol. 1992;45:255-65
The Fragility Index is a tool that aids in the interpretation of significant findings, providing a measure of strength for a result. The Fragility Index represents the number of consecutive events that need to be added to a dichotomous outcome to make the finding no longer significant. A small number represents a weaker finding and a large number represents a stronger finding.
Why was this study needed now?
Acute shoulder dislocation is a common occurrence that often leads to treatment in the emergency department. A variety of managements currently exist for shoulder dislocation, but no single method has been shown to be superior to another, and most require analgesia or sedation to reduce the pain experienced during the treatment. Shoulder reduction without anesthesia has been discussed as a possible alternative by various studies, and multiple reports have been completed attempting to demonstrate a painless procedure without any premedication. Patient comfort and relaxation are influential factors in a successful shoulder reduction, and a new shoulder reduction method using a specifically designed chair (Oxford Chair), potentially offers this to patients receiving the procedure. The goal of this study was to compare the efficacy of shoulder reduction treatment with the Oxford chair to a conventional shoulder reduction treatment.
What was the principal research question?
How does the efficacy of shoulder reduction treatment with the Oxford chair compare to a conventional shoulder reduction treatment?
- 7 failed reductions occurred in the Oxford chair group following treatment. These patients went on to have successful reduction with the traditional method. Only 1 patient failed reduction in the traditional method group.
- Median length of stay in the emergency department was 152 min in the oxford chair group compared to 173 min in the traditional group, however this difference was not significant (p=0.183)
- Median procedure time was 3 min in the oxford chair group compared to 5 min in the traditional group (p=0.179).
- When comparing groups on a per-protocol basis, a significantly shorter procedure time for the Oxford chair group was found compared to the traditional treatment group (2 min vs. 6 min, respectively) (p<0.001).
- Success rate was 97% for the traditional group and 77% in the Oxford chair group, showing a significantly higher success rate in the traditional treatment group (p=0.023).
- No differences between the groups was shown regarding average pain experienced at baseline, 30 min after oral analgesic, during the procedure, or at discharge (p>0.05).
- When patients who experienced successful reduction in their first treatment were compared between groups, it was found that patients in the Oxford chair group had significantly less time to reduction (2 min vs. 5 min) (p=0.008), and length of stay (125 min vs. 180) (p=0.025) than those in the traditional treatment group.
What should I remember most?
Median length of stay and median procedure time was not significantly different between groups. The success rate for the oxford chair was significantly lower than the traditional treatment method. No statistically significant differences were found in pain score at any point.
How will this affect the care of my patients?
Results of this study found that traditional treatment methods for shoulder reduction resulted in a significantly higher success rate than those treated with the Oxford chair method. No differences were found between treatment methods regarding length of stay, procedure time, and pain experienced before or after treatment. Patient factors, such as those who have had precious shoulder surgery or fracture dislocations may have affected the results of this study. Further research is needed to clearly identify the effect the Oxford chair treatment method on acute shoulder dislocations.
DISCLAIMER
This content found on this page is for informational purposes only and is not intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. If you require medical treatment, always seek the advice of your physician or go to your nearest emergency department. The opinions, beliefs, and viewpoints expressed by the individuals on the content found on this page do not reflect the opinions, beliefs, and viewpoints of OrthoEvidence.
0 of 4 monthly FREE articles unlocked
