Scientific Articles   |    
The Effect of Variation in Definition on the Diagnosis of Multidirectional Instability of the Shoulder
Edward G. McFarland, MD1; Tae Kyun Kim, MD, P2; Hyung Bin Park, MD1; Carlos A. Neira, MD3; Maria Isabel Gutierrez, MD, MSC4
1 Division of Sports Medicine and Shoulder Surgery, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, The Johns Hopkins University, 10753 Falls Road, Suite 215, Lutherville, MD 21093. E-mail address for E.G. McFarland: emcfarl@jhmi.edu
2 Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seongnam, Kyungki-do, Korea
3 Orthopaedic Service, Hospital San Juan de Dios, Cali, Columbia
4 Department of Mental Hygiene, Bloomberg School of Public Health, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD 21205
View Disclosures and Other Information
The authors did not receive grants or outside funding in support of their research or preparation of this manuscript. They did not receive payments or other benefits or a commitment or agreement to provide such benefits from a commercial entity. No commercial entity paid or directed, or agreed to pay or direct, any benefits to any research fund, foundation, educational institution, or other charitable or nonprofit organization with which the authors are affiliated or associated.
Investigation performed at The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland

The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Incorporated
J Bone Joint Surg Am, 2003 Nov 01;85(11):2138-2144
5 Recommendations (Recommend) | 3 Comments | Saved by 3 Users Save Case


Background: There currently is a wide variation in the definition of multidirectional instability of the shoulder in the literature. The purpose of this study was to determine if these variations influence the distribution of the diagnoses in a cohort of patients with shoulder instability.

Methods: A cohort of 168 patients who underwent shoulder surgery for instability of any type was studied. Statistical analysis was performed in two steps. First, the instability of the shoulder in each patient was classified with the use of four existing systems, and the number of patients classified as having multidirectional instability was compared among the classification systems. Second, the definition of multidirectional instability was modified so that the result of laxity testing was the criterion for making the diagnosis, and the changes in the distribution of patients with a diagnosis of multidirectional instability were analyzed.

Results: Classification with the four existing systems resulted in significant differences in the number of patients diagnosed as having multidirectional instability, with two (1.2%), seven (4.2%), thirteen (7.7%), and fourteen patients (8.3%) so diagnosed (p < 0.05). Modification of the definition of multidirectional instability so that it was based on laxity testing resulted in a wide variation in the number of patients diagnosed as having multidirectional instability; these numbers ranged from fourteen (8.3%) to 139 (82.7%) (p < 0.05).

Conclusions: This study demonstrated that variations in the criteria used for the diagnosis of multidirectional instability significantly affect the distribution of patients with that diagnosis. The use of laxity testing tends to result in an overestimation of the number of patients with this condition. This observation is important because the results of studies may vary if patients with traumatic instability are considered to have multidirectional instability on the basis of laxity testing. Investigators studying patients with multidirectional instability should carefully define the inclusion criteria that they used.

Figures in this Article
    Sign In to Your Personal ProfileSign In To Access Full Content
    Not a Subscriber?
    Get online access for 30 days for $35
    New to JBJS?
    Sign up for a full subscription to both the print and online editions
    Register for a FREE limited account to get full access to all CME activities, to comment on public articles, or to sign up for alerts.
    Register for a FREE limited account to get full access to all CME activities
    Have a subscription to the print edition?
    Current subscribers to The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery in either the print or quarterly DVD formats receive free online access to JBJS.org.
    Forgot your password?
    Enter your username and email address. We'll send you a reminder to the email address on record.

    Forgot your username or need assistance? Please contact customer service at subs@jbjs.org. If your access is provided
    by your institution, please contact you librarian or administrator for username and password information. Institutional
    administrators, to reset your institution's master username or password, please contact subs@jbjs.org


    Accreditation Statement
    These activities have been planned and implemented in accordance with the Essential Areas and policies of the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education (ACCME) through the joint sponsorship of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons and The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Inc. The American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons is accredited by the ACCME to provide continuing medical education for physicians.
    CME Activities Associated with This Article
    Submit a Comment
    Please read the other comments before you post yours. Contributors must reveal any conflict of interest.
    Comments are moderated and will appear on the site at the discretion of JBJS editorial staff.

    * = Required Field
    (if multiple authors, separate names by comma)
    Example: John Doe

    Related Content
    The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery
    JBJS Case Connector
    Topic Collections
    Related Audio and Videos
    PubMed Articles
    Clinical Trials
    Readers of This Also Read...
    JBJS Jobs
    Georgia - Choice Care Occupational Medicine & Orthopaedics
    Louisiana - Ochsner Health System
    OK - The University of Oklahoma
    IL - The University of Chicago's Department of Orthopaedic Surgery and Rehabilitation Medicine