ReviewInternational orthopaedics2026
From reduction to replacement: a reconstructibility-based framework for chronic locked shoulder dislocations.
Review in International orthopaedics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeChronic locked glenohumeral dislocation is uncommon, and treatment algorithms have traditionally relied heavily on defect-size thresholds. This review proposes a unified, surgery-oriented framework for chronic locked anterior and posterior dislocations based on joint reconstructibility rather than defect size alone.
methodsA narrative review considered PubMed-indexed literature on chronic, locked or neglected glenohumeral dislocation, including reduction techniques, joint-preserving reconstruction and arthroplasty. Shoulder-instability literature was used selectively to support biomechanical or technical principles as indirect evidence.
resultsTreatment is structured around four sequential steps: REDUCE, achieving safe reduction at an acceptable biological cost; ASSESS, determining whether the reduced joint remains reconstructible; RESTORE, identifying and treating the lesion compromising stability; and REPLACE, when durable reconstruction is unlikely. Defect-size ranges overlap substantially between procedures and should not be interpreted as isolated thresholds. Anterior reduction should prioritize subscapularis preservation, followed by targeted correction of glenoid, humeral or combined pathology. Posterior reduction requires humeral-head disimpaction before reduction and subsequent stability reassessment. Modified McLaughlin is an established joint-preserving option for selected intermediate reverse Hill-Sachs defects, although increasing duration of dislocation has been independently associated with worse functional outcomes following this procedure. Anatomical reconstruction may preserve viable humeral heads with larger defects, whereas arthroplasty is considered when reliable reconstruction is unlikely.
conclusionTreatment should integrate defect morphology and size with chronicity, joint viability, glenoid bone stock, cuff and subscapularis integrity, reducibility, post-reduction stability and patient factors. The REDUCE-ASSESS-RESTORE-REPLACE framework provides a practical decision architecture for chronic locked dislocation in both directions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42752630What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.