Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Predicting recurrent shoulder instability
  1. Mark R Hutchinson1,
  2. Bob McCormack2
  1. 1 Department of Orthopaedics and Sports Medicine, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, USA
  2. 2 Department of Orthopedic Surgery, University of British Columbia, New Westminster, British Columbia, Canada
  1. Correspondence to Dr Mark R Hutchinson, Orthopaedics and Sports Medicine, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL 60612, USA; mhutch{at}

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

As sports orthopaedic surgeons and sports medicine clinicians, it was with great excitement that we first read the manuscript of Margie Olds and colleagues regarding ‘Risk factors which predispose first-time traumatic anterior shoulder dislocations to recurrent instability in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis’.1 The authors had nicely defined their population and purpose, and for us as clinicians, it heralded great potential regarding patient education as well as treatment options (when should I pull the trigger and perform surgical stabilisation for a first time dislocator?).

The authors have done a wonderful job reviewing the global topic with particular documentation on the impact on the New Zealand healthcare system. They remind us, with supported references, of the known risk factors, including age; gender; hypermobility; occupational demands; sports specific demands, particularly those of overhead or collision sports; and also about pathological factors such as Hill-Sach's lesions or bony Bankart lesions. Their conclusions support commonly accepted dictums when caring for patients with first time dislocators: age is …

View Full Text


  • Contributors MRH provided initial review and evaluation of the manuscript, and BM provided additional review, perspective, and editorial clarifications.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Provenance and peer review Commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

Linked Articles