ACE Report Cover
Oxford chair vs. traditional treatment of acute shoulder dislocation
Translate this  ACE Report Translate this  ACE Report Translate this  ACE Report
Idioma
Download Download Download
Descargar
Cite this Report Cite this Report Cite this Report
Citar
Add to Favorites Add to Favorites Add to Favorites Remove from Favorites Remove from Favorites Remove from Favorites
+ Favoritos
Translate this  ACE Report Translate this  ACE Report Translate this  ACE Report
Idioma
Download Download Download
Descargar
Cite this Report Cite this Report Cite this Report
Citar
Add to Favorites Add to Favorites Add to Favorites Remove from Favorites Remove from Favorites Remove from Favorites
+ Favoritos

TRAUMA

The effectiveness of a specially designed shoulder chair for closed reduction of acute shoulder dislocation in the emergency department: a randomised control trial

OrthoEvidence Journal (OE Journal) - ACE Report

OE Journal. 2014;2(1):31 Emerg Med J. 2013 Oct;30(10):795-800

Autores colaboradores

JY Chung CH Cheng CA Graham TH Rainer

60 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.


Detalles de la financiación de la publicación +
Financiación:
Non-Industry funded
Patrocinador:
Hong Kong College of Emergency Medicine Research Grant
Conflictos:
None disclosed

Riesgo de sesgo

6,5/10

Criterios de información

17/20

Índice de fragilidad

N/A

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)?

Sí = 1

Incierto = 0,5

No relevante = 0

No = 0

La evaluación de los criterios de información evalúa la transparencia con la que los autores informan de las características metodológicas y del ensayo dentro de la publicación. La evaluación se divide en cinco categorías que se presentan a continuación.

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

El Índice de Fragilidad es una herramienta que ayuda en la interpretación de hallazgos significativos, proporcionando una medida de fuerza para un resultado. El Índice de Fragilidad representa el número de eventos consecutivos que es necesario añadir a un resultado dicotómico para que el hallazgo deje de ser significativo. Un número pequeño representa un hallazgo más débil y un número grande un hallazgo más fuerte.

¿Por qué se necesitaba ahora este estudio?

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.

¿Cuál era la pregunta principal de la investigación?

How does the efficacy of shoulder reduction treatment with the Oxford chair compare to a conventional shoulder reduction treatment?

Características del estudio +
Población:
60 patients, > 18 years of age, with a diagnosis of anterior or posterior glenohumeral shoulder dislocation who were at least 150 cm tall.
Intervención:
Shoulder chair group: Patients in this group had their shoulder reduction performed by emergency physicians or nurse practitioners. Sedation was not administered due to concerns about its use in unsupported patients in a sitting position. A video clip demonstrating the technique used for the Oxford chair was provided as training material and hands on practice included. The front rest of the chair was positioned at a 45 degree angle, and patients were instructed to sit on the chair with there anterior chest wall laying prone on the front rest. The affected arm was rested with the axilla placed over the tip of the front rest and relaxation techniques performed (dimmed lights and soft talking). Once the patient was relaxed, the treating doctor or nurse grasped the patients forearm and applied longitudinal traction in conjunction with gravity. The operator was allowed to apply gentle external rotation to the shoulder in order to facilitate joint reduction. Patients were treated with the traditional method after three attempts or if they asked to be sedated. (Mean age: 43.7 +/-22.51, n= 30, 30 completed follow up, F=17/M=13).
Comparación:
Traditional practice group: Patients in this group received any recognised method for closed reduction according to the emergency clinicians' preference and clinical judgement. Kocher's manoeuver was suggested as a primary reduction technique by the authors of the study, but this did not mean that all patients were treated with that method. Oral Paracetamol (1g) and rescue analgesia of intravenous morphine (2mg) was given to patients on request (Mean age: 50.1 +/- 23.15, n=30, 30 completed follow up, F=10/M=20).
Resultados:
The primary outcome measured in this study was the length of patient stay in the emergency department. The secondary outcomes measured in this study were: length of procedure, successful reduction rate, and pain levels experienced before and after treatment.
Métodos:
RCT: Single Center
Tiempo:
Measurements were taken until patients were discharged from the emergency department.

¿Cuáles fueron los hallazgos importantes?

  • 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.
¿Qué es lo que más debo recordar?

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.

¿Cómo afectará esto al cuidado de mis pacientes?

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.

DESCARGO DE RESPONSABILIDAD

El contenido de esta página tiene únicamente fines informativos y no pretende sustituir el consejo, diagnóstico o tratamiento médico profesional. Si necesita tratamiento médico, busque siempre el consejo de su médico o acuda al servicio de urgencias más cercano. Las opiniones, creencias y puntos de vista expresados por las personas sobre el contenido que se encuentra en esta página no reflejan las opiniones, creencias y puntos de vista de OrthoEvidence.

0 de 4 artículos mensuales GRATIS desbloqueados
Ha alcanzado su límite de vistas de 4 artículos gratuitos este mes

Acceda a OrtoEvidencia por tan sólo 1,99 $ a la semana.

Manténgase conectado con las últimas pruebas. Cancele en cualquier momento.
  • Valoraciones críticas de los últimos ensayos controlados aleatorizados de gran impacto y revisiones sistemáticas en ortopedia
  • Acceso al contenido del podcast OrthoEvidence, que incluye colaboraciones con el Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, entrevistas con cirujanos reconocidos internacionalmente y mesas redondas sobre noticias y temas ortopédicos
  • Suscripción a The Pulse, un boletín quincenal basado en la evidencia y diseñado para ayudarle a tomar mejores decisiones clínicas
Upgrade
Close Dialog
Bienvenido
¿Ha olvidado su contraseña?
Comience hoy mismo su prueba GRATUITA

Su cuenta estará afiliada a
e incluye acceso gratuito a OrthoEvidence


O
¿Olvidó su contraseña?

O
Compruebe su correo electrónico

Si existe una cuenta con la dirección de correo electrónico proporcionada, se le enviará un correo electrónico para restablecer la contraseña. Si no ve el correo electrónico, compruebe su carpeta de correo no deseado o spam.

Si necesita más ayuda póngase en contacto con nuestro equipo de asistencia.

Inicie sesión para activar esta función

Para acceder a esta función, debe iniciar sesión en una cuenta activa de OrthoEvidence. Por favor, inicie sesión o cree una cuenta de prueba GRATUITA.

Traducir Informe ACE

OrthoEvidence utiliza un servicio de traducción de terceros para que el contenido sea accesible en varios idiomas. Tenga en cuenta que, aunque se hace todo lo posible para garantizar la exactitud, las traducciones no siempre son perfectas.

Cómo citar esto ACE Report

OrthoEvidence. Oxford chair vs. traditional treatment of acute shoulder dislocation. OE Journal. 2014;2(1):31. Available from: https://myorthoevidence.com/AceReport/Show/oxford-chair-vs-traditional-treatment-of-acute-shoulder-dislocation

Copiar cita
Inicie sesión para activar esta función

Para acceder a esta función, debe iniciar sesión en una cuenta activa de OrthoEvidence. Por favor, inicie sesión o cree una cuenta de prueba GRATUITA.

Función de miembro Premium

Para acceder a esta función, debe iniciar sesión en una cuenta Premium de OrthoEvidence.

Compartir ACE Report