Talk:Separated shoulder

This page could use an X-ray of a normal shoulder for comparison. I wouldn't know where to get one though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.89.229.197 (talk) 17:24, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

All of this text has come from Acromioclavicular joint. I think it really needs to be separated into two articles, one about the injury, and another about the joint itself. Root4(one) 17:19, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

---

I decided to "move" the injury contents over here.

I probably don't need to refer to each and every article that says non-treatment of complete acromioclavicular separations is just as good as treatment. However, on this topic, I believe many people may find that hard to believe (I for one had trouble believing that when I was actively researching it). I think it is reasonable to have the links, even though they are old. It may be the case that most of these studies took place in the 1980s anyway. So whenever you need to convince someone (maybe yourself even) that surgery may not be the best option, here's the links.

It is my understanding that the issue of surgical treatment of acromioclavicular separations is still controversial. After all, the stone clinic seems to specialize in the repair of type III acromioclavicular separations (follow link on page). So some mention of the controversy may be warranted, esp. the 1992 Cox survey

I'm going to continue expanding this article... It might be interesting to have some mention of a number of the procedures that exist. I want to discuss the why and when people decide to consider surgical treatment of type 2 shoulder separations. I've found some controversy with regard even to this surgery, for instance how much clavicle is excised, and in some cases I believe I've found situations where the surgeons have peformed an excision with suturing of the sacrificed coracromial ligament. This would make sense for severe type two separations.

BTW, I'm not a doctor. I just happen to have suffered this injury, and I'm a bit annoyed at the "general public" papers describing the injury. When you talk about an injury where the parts I'm amazed at how many of the medical papers appear to contradict, or at the least conflict with, each other. For instance, some papers mention using weights to determine the degree of separation, yet I know I've found one paper (and papers refering to that paper) that, at least acutely, using weights has no utility. I suppose that's pretty normal in the medical field and other sciences, but its frustrating not to know which facts to ignore and which facts to accept, and from which papers I should read and from which papers I should dismiss.

So I'm doing this in hopes that we can find a general consensus of what the current trends are in shoulder separation treatments, current trends in diagnosis, and whatever else I may find and have time to detail.

Root4(one) 06:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

more refs and minor revisions added.

Wow, I never realized there was a function to post comments, I've always just edited the talk page directly. Warning: some refs on the page I have never read (because non free and I can't access unless I pay or view at library) but I have read the abstracts. As with all articles on wikipedia, take the information given witha grain of salt. Root4(one) 21:18, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Experts wanted!

Most of this page is a result of my original research. Although this has been said previously in the discuss page, because I haven't gotten any response so far, (and I think this page is a topic worth discussion) I decided to raise the Experts Wanted Banner. I suspect most of the data is accurate, but then again, I only have my opinion as a judge. Root4(one) 06:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

About two years ago i sustained a Tye 3 shoulder separation. This occurred during a fall from a push bike. Initially i was given the option to have surgery, but on consideration, research and consulting with other people online whom have had this injury i opted out. It seemed that for the most part a plate and pin to bring the clavicle into place and knit the area together was going to cause long term complications and pain, whereas letting the area find its own working medium whilst slightly deformative has been less traumatic. During the two years i have had various twinges of pain during some activities, most notably chucking wood, but i lead an active lifestyle which inclues Sea kayaking (greatly increased strength and flexibility) Climbing (some stiffness after long sessions) and i work as a Cycle courier (occasionally i wrench the limb down which increases the separation, something i try not to do on a regular basis as it takes a while for my collarbone to subside again)... but all in all i feel it has not been as restrictive had i opted for surgery.

Thanks for your input, but that constitutes OR and is subjective, based upon ONE instance. I've also separated my shoulder, but don't have insurance or money to pay for surgery. My story is opposite yours, but again, is OR and unwelcome, for good reason in Wikipedia. To permit OR would be to permit Bigfoot, Yeti and the Loch Ness Monster cavorting in one's living room in your UFO base home in Antarctica, in short, a farce, not an encyclopedia. As Wikipedia seeks to be encyclopedic in nature, OR is rejected, cited sources accepted.Wzrd1 (talk) 04:39, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Peer review comments, May 9, 2012

The following corrections should be made to the article to improve its content.
There is no epidemiological data (eg. Prevalence). This will provide a broader context for the injury, and possibly show how it may (if applicable) be correlated to other injuries.

Risk factors are not present in this article. By adding risk factors, the reader is provided with a capsular view of the problem as a whole, rather than simply a diagnostic tool.

When writing an informative article about a health problem and/or disorder, prevention plays a significant role. Without providing prevention, in addition to the risk factors it is simply erroneous medical data.

The following are positive points of this article.

The detail used in describing the condition is exceptional. Detail is important to clarify not only the prime factors that classify the condition, but also that which differentiate it from other similar conditions.

In the Surgical treatment section, the comments about follow-up events and actions are quite useful. If one who was injured was to have surgery, this section would be a great source of general information to assist the person in knowing what to expect after surgery.

The classification portion of this article has been well developed. It provides the lay person with the knowledge that there indeed are differences between variations in break sites.
NHearn (talk) 02:30, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Peer Review: 1. The organization of the page is good. It feels like it is in a sequential order. 2. The pictures are good and have been edited to show the shoulder separation better. The x-ray with the arrow helps to visualize the injury. 3. The surgical and non-surgical descriptions are informative. They have a good amount of information that is detailed. 4. The first statement could describe what exactly a shoulder separation is in more detail as opposed to saying that it is common. 5. There are grammatical errors such as “A separated shoulder is occurs because of a direct blow to the AC joint” and “The most common mechanism of injury is a fall on the tip of the shoulder or also a fall on an outstretched hand.” These types of errors make the page unprofessional. 6. Some of the paragraphs start after the picture that is inserted which could be avoided by editing the format of the page. The formatting is a little scattered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kin412cf (talk • contribs) 19:56, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

3 positives: 1.The introduction is written using proper anatomical terms. The anatomical terms are also used correctly to describe an overview of the problem. 2.The articles gives an detail information about the pathology. It gives information about different types of shoulder separations, and which type is more severe than the others. 3.The article offers a detailed information about the how to treatment, especially the surgical part. It briefly describe the surgical procedure, and let readers know which type would require surgery. 3 problems: 1.There could be more pictures to give readers a better grasp of the pathologies. The diagnosis is detailed but with some pictures it could be even better. 2.The non-surgical treatment part is a little too brief. It mentioned about physical therapy, but it could provide some pictures so the reader would know how is the therapy done. 3.It mentioned about that separated shoulder and shoulder dislocation are two different pathologies. However, it did not mention how they differ from each other. Kin412a (talk) 08:19, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Current Ref 3 is a footnote

Reads "^ An examination using radiography (a type of medical imaging) will show up as normal" talking about a Type I separation. The reference link is being used to provide a footnote, which isn't how you're supposed to use it.

Rufwork (talk) 00:55, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Picture of Type 3 classification doesn't exist

It looks like the Type 3 classification image is rerouting to Type 2. A quick search suggests Type 3 wasn't uploaded.

That is, two images from the article's Gallery tag, duplicated below, currently depict and link to the same image of a Type 2 dislocation. Wikipedia's back end seems to reroute the link to the nonexistent Type 3 to a "closest match" of the Type 2.

• 
  Classification type 2
• 
  Classification type 3

Rufwork (talk) 13:02, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Separated shoulder. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061109224128/http://www.worldortho.com/database/abstracts/u_limb/bjerneld.html to http://www.worldortho.com/database/abstracts/u_limb/bjerneld.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061109224136/http://www.worldortho.com/database/abstracts/u_limb/larsen.html to http://www.worldortho.com/database/abstracts/u_limb/larsen.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:57, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Recent improvements

Hi @Ozzie10aaaa: I just did a little work on this article using paraphrased evidence from the background section and (weak) conclusions from a 2019 Cochrane Review on surgery versus conservative approach. I just looked at the history and noticed all the work that you did in October! It is great. Please let me know if I have made any mistakes or if you have additional suggestions. JenOttawa (talk) 20:44, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

answered on your talk page--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:57, 26 November 2020 (UTC)