{"title":"FARES和Spaso方法治疗肩前脱位:一项前瞻性随机对照研究,证明联合入路的益处。","authors":"Kun-Han Lee, Shu-Hao Chang, Li-Wei Hung","doi":"10.1038/s41598-025-04311-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Anterior shoulder dislocation is a common orthopedic emergency. While many reduction methods require sedation, the FARES (FAst, REliable, and Safe) and Spaso methods allow reduction without anesthesia. We conducted a single-center, prospective, randomized controlled trial comparing the FARES and Spaso methods for anterior shoulder dislocation reduction. Patients aged 20 to 90 years were enrolled. The assigned closed reduction procedures were performed without patient sedation by trained orthopedic residents. If two attempts with the assigned method failed, the alternative method was used. The primary outcome was the first-attempt success rate, while secondary outcomes included overall success rate with both methods, reduction time, and pain scores. During November 2013 and December 2015, a total of 32 patients were randomized to the FARES (n = 17) or Spaso (n = 15) method. The first-attempt success rates were 71.6% for the FARES group and 80.0% for the Spaso group (p = 0.691). Among patients with failed closed reduction using the first technique, all patients in the Spaso-following-FARES group achieved successful reduction, whereas none in the FARES-following-Spaso group achieved successful reduction (p = 0.092). Pain scores during reduction were comparable between the FARES (4.29 ± 1.69) and Spaso (3.80 ± 2.65) techniques, with no statistically significant difference (p = 0.542). Follow-up data were available for 28/32 patients (87.5%; mean 5.3 ± 2.2 years). Four patients were lost (3 FARES, 1 Spaso; p = 0.726). Recurrent dislocation occurred in 3 patients (10.7%; 1 FARES, 2 Spaso; p = 0.947), and 2 patients (1 per group; p = 0.876) underwent surgery (arthroscopic stabilization and rotator cuff repair). Both the FARES and Spaso methods were effective for reducing anterior shoulder dislocations. Combining these methods may improve overall reduction rates. Clinical trial registration: This trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (Registration number: NCT01979237) on 08/11/2013.</p>","PeriodicalId":21811,"journal":{"name":"Scientific Reports","volume":"15 1","pages":"18974"},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12125210/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"FARES and Spaso method for anterior shoulder dislocation: a prospective randomized control study demonstrating the benefit of a combined approach.\",\"authors\":\"Kun-Han Lee, Shu-Hao Chang, Li-Wei Hung\",\"doi\":\"10.1038/s41598-025-04311-x\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Anterior shoulder dislocation is a common orthopedic emergency. While many reduction methods require sedation, the FARES (FAst, REliable, and Safe) and Spaso methods allow reduction without anesthesia. We conducted a single-center, prospective, randomized controlled trial comparing the FARES and Spaso methods for anterior shoulder dislocation reduction. Patients aged 20 to 90 years were enrolled. The assigned closed reduction procedures were performed without patient sedation by trained orthopedic residents. If two attempts with the assigned method failed, the alternative method was used. The primary outcome was the first-attempt success rate, while secondary outcomes included overall success rate with both methods, reduction time, and pain scores. During November 2013 and December 2015, a total of 32 patients were randomized to the FARES (n = 17) or Spaso (n = 15) method. The first-attempt success rates were 71.6% for the FARES group and 80.0% for the Spaso group (p = 0.691). Among patients with failed closed reduction using the first technique, all patients in the Spaso-following-FARES group achieved successful reduction, whereas none in the FARES-following-Spaso group achieved successful reduction (p = 0.092). Pain scores during reduction were comparable between the FARES (4.29 ± 1.69) and Spaso (3.80 ± 2.65) techniques, with no statistically significant difference (p = 0.542). Follow-up data were available for 28/32 patients (87.5%; mean 5.3 ± 2.2 years). Four patients were lost (3 FARES, 1 Spaso; p = 0.726). Recurrent dislocation occurred in 3 patients (10.7%; 1 FARES, 2 Spaso; p = 0.947), and 2 patients (1 per group; p = 0.876) underwent surgery (arthroscopic stabilization and rotator cuff repair). Both the FARES and Spaso methods were effective for reducing anterior shoulder dislocations. Combining these methods may improve overall reduction rates. Clinical trial registration: This trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (Registration number: NCT01979237) on 08/11/2013.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":21811,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Scientific Reports\",\"volume\":\"15 1\",\"pages\":\"18974\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12125210/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Scientific Reports\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"103\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-04311-x\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"综合性期刊\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Scientific Reports","FirstCategoryId":"103","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-04311-x","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"综合性期刊","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
FARES and Spaso method for anterior shoulder dislocation: a prospective randomized control study demonstrating the benefit of a combined approach.
Anterior shoulder dislocation is a common orthopedic emergency. While many reduction methods require sedation, the FARES (FAst, REliable, and Safe) and Spaso methods allow reduction without anesthesia. We conducted a single-center, prospective, randomized controlled trial comparing the FARES and Spaso methods for anterior shoulder dislocation reduction. Patients aged 20 to 90 years were enrolled. The assigned closed reduction procedures were performed without patient sedation by trained orthopedic residents. If two attempts with the assigned method failed, the alternative method was used. The primary outcome was the first-attempt success rate, while secondary outcomes included overall success rate with both methods, reduction time, and pain scores. During November 2013 and December 2015, a total of 32 patients were randomized to the FARES (n = 17) or Spaso (n = 15) method. The first-attempt success rates were 71.6% for the FARES group and 80.0% for the Spaso group (p = 0.691). Among patients with failed closed reduction using the first technique, all patients in the Spaso-following-FARES group achieved successful reduction, whereas none in the FARES-following-Spaso group achieved successful reduction (p = 0.092). Pain scores during reduction were comparable between the FARES (4.29 ± 1.69) and Spaso (3.80 ± 2.65) techniques, with no statistically significant difference (p = 0.542). Follow-up data were available for 28/32 patients (87.5%; mean 5.3 ± 2.2 years). Four patients were lost (3 FARES, 1 Spaso; p = 0.726). Recurrent dislocation occurred in 3 patients (10.7%; 1 FARES, 2 Spaso; p = 0.947), and 2 patients (1 per group; p = 0.876) underwent surgery (arthroscopic stabilization and rotator cuff repair). Both the FARES and Spaso methods were effective for reducing anterior shoulder dislocations. Combining these methods may improve overall reduction rates. Clinical trial registration: This trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (Registration number: NCT01979237) on 08/11/2013.
期刊介绍:
We publish original research from all areas of the natural sciences, psychology, medicine and engineering. You can learn more about what we publish by browsing our specific scientific subject areas below or explore Scientific Reports by browsing all articles and collections.
Scientific Reports has a 2-year impact factor: 4.380 (2021), and is the 6th most-cited journal in the world, with more than 540,000 citations in 2020 (Clarivate Analytics, 2021).
•Engineering
Engineering covers all aspects of engineering, technology, and applied science. It plays a crucial role in the development of technologies to address some of the world''s biggest challenges, helping to save lives and improve the way we live.
•Physical sciences
Physical sciences are those academic disciplines that aim to uncover the underlying laws of nature — often written in the language of mathematics. It is a collective term for areas of study including astronomy, chemistry, materials science and physics.
•Earth and environmental sciences
Earth and environmental sciences cover all aspects of Earth and planetary science and broadly encompass solid Earth processes, surface and atmospheric dynamics, Earth system history, climate and climate change, marine and freshwater systems, and ecology. It also considers the interactions between humans and these systems.
•Biological sciences
Biological sciences encompass all the divisions of natural sciences examining various aspects of vital processes. The concept includes anatomy, physiology, cell biology, biochemistry and biophysics, and covers all organisms from microorganisms, animals to plants.
•Health sciences
The health sciences study health, disease and healthcare. This field of study aims to develop knowledge, interventions and technology for use in healthcare to improve the treatment of patients.