The management of first-time traumatic anterior shoulder dislocations has been a topic of extensive study yet remains controversial. Development of a treatment plan requires an understanding of patient-specific considerations, including demographics, functional demands, and extent of pathology. Each of these can influence rates of recurrence and return to activity. The purpose of this review is to provide a framework for decision-making following a first-time anterior shoulder dislocation, with particular focus on the high-risk young and athletic population. A summary of surgical treatment options and their outcomes is outlined, along with future biomechanical and clinical perspectives.

Background: There is currently no consensus on immobilization protocols following shoulder surgery. The aim of this study was to establish patterns and types of sling use for various surgical procedures in the United States (US) and Europe, and to identify factors associated with the variations. Methods: An online survey was sent to all members of the American Shoulder and Elbow Society (ASES) and European Society for Surgery of the Shoulder and Elbow (ESSSE). The survey gathered member data, including practice location and years in practice. It also obtained preferences for the type and duration of sling use after the following surgical procedures: arthroscopic Bankart repair, Latarjet, arthroscopic superior/posterosuperior rotator cuff repair (ARCR) of tears 3 cm, anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty (aTSA) and reverse TSA (rTSA), and isolated biceps tenodesis (BT). Relationships between physician location and sling type for each procedure were analyzed using Fisher’s exact tests and post-hoc tests using Bonferroni-adjusted p-values. Relationships looking at years in practice and sling duration preferred were analyzed using Spearman’s correlation tests. Results: In total, 499 surgeons with a median of 15 years of experience (IQR = 9–25) responded, with 54.7% from the US and 45.3% from Europe. US respondents reported higher abduction pillow sling use than European respondents for the following: Bankart repair (62% vs. 15%, p < 0.0001), Latarjet (53% vs. 12%, p < 0.001), ARCR < 3 cm (80% vs. 42%, p < 0.001) and >3 cm (84% vs. 61%, p < 0.001), aTSA (50% vs. 21%, p < 0.001) and rTSA with subscapularis repair (61% vs. 22%, p < 0.001) and without subscapularis repair (57% vs. 17%, p < 0.001), and isolated BT (18% vs. 7%, p = 0.006). European respondents reported higher simple sling use than US respondents for the following: Bankart repair (74% vs. 31%, p < 0.001), Latarjet (78% vs. 44%, p < 0.001), ARCR < 3 cm (50% vs. 17%, p < 0.001) and >3 cm (34% vs. 13%, p < 0.001), and aTSA (69% vs. 41%, p < 0.001) and rTSA with subscapularis repair (70% vs. 35%, p < 0.001) and without subscapularis repair (73% vs. 39%, p < 0.001). Increasing years of experience demonstrated a negative correlation with the duration of sling use after Bankart repair (r = −0.20, p < 0.001), Latarjet (r = −0.25, p < 0.001), ARCR < 3 cm (r = −0.14, p = 0.014) and >3 cm (r = −0.20, p < 0.002), and aTSA (r = −0.37, p < 0.001), and rTSA with subscapularis repair (r = −0.10, p = 0.049) and without subscapularis repair (r = −0.19, p = 0.022. Thus, the more experienced surgeons tended to recommend shorter durations of post-operative sling use. US surgeons reported longer post-operative sling durations for Bankart repair (4.8 vs. 4.1 weeks, p < 0.001), Latarjet (4.6 vs. 3.6 weeks, p < 0.001), ARCR < 3 cm (5.2 vs. 4.5 weeks p < 0.001) and >3 cm (5.9 vs. 5.1 weeks, p < 0.001), aTSA (4.9 vs. 4.3 weeks, p < 0.001), rTSR without subscapularis repair (4.0 vs. 3.6 weeks, p = 0.031), and isolated BT (3.7 vs. 3.3 weeks, p = 0.012) than Europe respondents. No significant differences between regions within the US and Europe were demonstrated. Conclusions: There is considerable variation in the immobilization advocated by surgeons, with geographic location and years of clinical experience influencing patterns of sling use. Future work is required to establish the most clinically beneficial protocols for immobilization following shoulder surgery. Level of Evidence: Level IV.

Purpose: To systematically review the literature for studies investigating the biomechanical properties of constructs used to repair isolated subscapularis tears in time zero human cadaveric studies. Methods: A systematic review was performed using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses guidelines. Three electronic databases were searched for studies that reported on the construct technique and biomechanical outcomes for the repair of isolated subscapularis tears in human cadaveric specimens. Ultimate load, gap formation, stiffness, and failure mode were documented. Methodological quality was assessed using the Quality Appraisal for Cadaveric Studies (QUACS) scale. Results: Six articles qualified (104 shoulders [72 single‐row, 26 double‐row, 6 transosseous]; mean QUACS score 10.5 ± 1) and were analyzed. Studies varied in the number and type of anchors and construct technique (1‐2 anchors single‐row; 3‐4 anchors double‐row; bioabsorbable or titanium anchors) and suture(s) used (no. 2 FiberWire or FiberTape), subscapularis tear type (25%, 33%, 50%, or 100% tear), and whether a knotless or knotted fixation was used. In studies that created full‐thickness, upper subscapularis tears (Fox‐Romeo II/III or Lafosse II), no significant differences were seen in ultimate load, gap formation, and stiffness for knotted versus knotless single‐row repair (2 studies) and single‐row versus double‐row repair (1 study). Double‐row repair of complete subscapularis tears demonstrated higher ultimate load, stiffness, and lower gap formation in 1 study. Ultimate load differed between the studies and constructs (single‐row: range, 244 N to 678 N; double‐row: range 332 N to 508 N, transosseous: 453 N). Suture cutout was the most common mode of failure (59%). Conclusion: Because of the limited number of studies and varying study designs in examining the biomechanical properties of repair constructs used for subscapularis tears, there is inconclusive evidence to determine which construct type is superior for repairing subscapularis tears. Clinical Relevance: Results from biomechanical studies of clinically relevant subscapularis repair constructs are important to guide decision‐making for choosing the optimal construct for patients with subscapularis tears.

Pitching biomechanical research is highly focused on injury prevention with little attention to how biomechanical data can facilitate skill development. The overall purpose of this study was to explore how sensor-derived segment kinematics and timing relate to command and ball velocity during baseball pitching. We used a cross-sectional design to analyze a series of pitches thrown from 10 collegiate baseball pitchers. We collected biomechanical data from six inertial sensors, subjective command from the pitchers, and ball velocity from a radar device. Stepwise regression analyses were used to explore biomechanical variables associated with command for all pitches and ball velocity for fastballs only. We found that only peak forearm linear acceleration was significantly associated with command, whereas several segment kinematic measures were significantly associated with ball velocity. Our results suggest that different biomechanical variables are linked to specific pithing skills. Our findings suggest that end-effector (forearm) movement is more important for pitch command, whereas proximal-to-distal (pelvis, trunk, upper arm, forearm) segmental movement is important for ball velocity.