Literature Decoded

Living reprintoriginally published in Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy 2022CC BY 4.0Read the version of record Opt out

Literature DecodedLiving reprint
Living reprint · journal article Journal version available

Recurrence in traumatic anterior shoulder dislocations increases the prevalence of Hill–Sachs and Bankart lesions: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Systematic review and meta-analysis first published in Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy (2022), reprinted in full under its CC BY 4.0 licence.

Cain Rutgers1*, Lukas. P. E. Verweij2, Simone Priester-Vink3, Derek F. P. van Deurzen2, Mario Maas4, Michel P. J. van den Bekerom2

1grid.12380.380000 0004 1754 9227Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1105, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands2grid.440209.b0000 0004 0501 8269Shoulder and Elbow Unit, Joint Research, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, OLVG, Amsterdam, The Netherlands3grid.440209.b0000 0004 0501 8269Medical Library, Department of Research and Epidemiology, OLVG, Amsterdam, The Netherlands4grid.7177.60000000084992262Division of Musculoskeletal Radiology, Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Amsterdam UMC, Location AMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands*Corresponding author

Reprinted 2026-10-01 19 min read Living reprint · journal article Version of record: Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy 2022Licence: CC BY 4.0

Reading mode
In plain languageSystematic review and meta-analysis first published in Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy (2022), reprinted in full under its CC BY 4.0 licence.

Systematic review and meta-analysis first published in Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy (2022), reprinted in full under its CC BY 4.0 licence.

No plain-language summary has been written for this reprint yet. The authors' abstract and full text follow, unchanged apart from layout.

Educational summary of research findings; not medical advice. Discuss care decisions with a qualified clinician.

Bottom line

What the evidence supports

How to read it

No plain-language summary has been written for this reprint yet. The authors' abstract and full text follow, unchanged apart from layout.

Limitations

The findings apply to the included study populations and may not generalise to every person or setting.

Disclaimer

Educational summary of research findings; not medical advice. Discuss care decisions with a qualified clinician.

The paper

Full manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

The extent of shoulder instability and the indication for surgery may be determined by the prevalence or size of associated lesions. However, a varying prevalence is reported and the actual values are therefore unclear. In addition, it is unclear whether these lesions are present after the first dislocation and whether or not these lesions increase in size after recurrence. The aim of this systematic review was (1) to determine the prevalence of lesions associated with traumatic anterior shoulder dislocations, (2) to determine if the prevalence is higher following recurrent dislocations compared to first-time dislocations and (3) to determine if the prevalence is higher following complete dislocations compared to subluxations.

Methods

PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane and Web of Science were searched. Studies examining shoulders after traumatic anterior dislocations during arthroscopy or with MRI/MRA or CT published after 1999 were included. A total of 22 studies (1920 shoulders) were included.

Results

The proportion of Hill–Sachs and Bankart lesions was higher in recurrent dislocations (85%; 66%) compared to first-time dislocations (71%; 59%) and this was statistically significant (P < 0.01; P = 0.05). No significant difference between recurrent and first-time dislocations was observed for SLAP lesions, rotator-cuff tears, bony Bankart lesions, HAGL lesions and ALPSA lesions. The proportion of Hill–Sachs lesions was significantly higher in complete dislocations (82%) compared to subluxations (54%; P < 0.01).

Conclusion

Higher proportions of Hill–Sachs and Bankart were observed in recurrent dislocations compared to first-time dislocations. No difference was observed for bony Bankart, HAGL, SLAP, rotator-cuff tear and ALPSA. Especially when a Hill–Sachs or Bankart is present after first-time dislocation, early surgical stabilization may need to be considered as other lesions may not be expected after recurrence and to limit lesion growth. However, results should be interpreted with caution due to substantial heterogeneity and large variance.

Level of evidence

IV.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00167-021-06847-7.

Keywords: Epidemiology; Prevalence; Shoulder instability; Shoulder dislocation; Glenoid labrum; Labrum lesions; Hill–Sachs

Introduction

Anterior shoulder dislocations commonly occur following a fall or direct impact to the shoulder at home or during sports/recreation activities, reporting an incidence of 23.9 per 100,000 person-years and making up 45% of all dislocations1–3. Over 95% of dislocations occur in the anterior direction, with the other 5% occurring in the posterior or inferior direction4.

Traumatic anterior shoulder dislocations are often accompanied by lesions of the soft-tissue and bony structures in and around the glenohumeral joint5. Soft-tissue lesions are typically diagnosed through imaging, such as MRI or MRA, bony lesions through CT or CTA and ligamentous lesions through CTA or MRA. Compared to the gold standard arthroscopy, the sensitivity of imaging techniques varies between 60 and 95% soft-tissue lesions while CTA shows sensitivity and specificity close to 100% for bony lesions.6–10

Evidence regarding the prevalence of lesions is lacking. Systematic reviews determining the prevalence are limited and epidemiological studies show a varying range in the observed prevalence of lesions11–13. Multiple variables may attribute to this disagreement, such as the experience of the assessor, machine settings14, accuracy of diagnostic tools15, selection bias and unclear differentiation between first-time or recurrent (≥ 2) dislocation or subluxation16. A lack in epidemiological knowledge is problematic because the optimal management can vary between lesions. Little glenoid bone loss and low risk of recurrence may indicate a Bankart repair, whereas high glenoid bone loss and high risk of recurrence may indicate bony reconstruction such as the Latarjet procedure17, 18. Delayed surgical intervention, when this is needed, may cause a higher recurrence rate, degenerative changes and an increase in symptoms, especially in overhead and contact sports athletes19–21. Some lesions are more likely related to these outcomes than others, such as bony lesions, which are thought to be a risk factor for failure of conservative management and after soft-tissue stabilization21, 22. This makes the presence and size of bony lesions important for surgical decision-making. Epidemiological knowledge of associated lesions may allow professionals to anticipate on these lesions and assist in deciding on the optimal management23–27.

Recent literature shows a paradigm shift from a more conservative approach to earlier surgical intervention to prevent recurrence and increase shoulder function21, 28. The presence and size of lesions may influence the extent of instability and determine the technique of surgical shoulder stabilization. Therefore, the aim of this systematic review was (1) to determine the prevalence of lesions associated with traumatic anterior shoulder dislocations, (2) to determine if the prevalence is higher following recurrent dislocations compared to first-time dislocations and (3) to determine if the prevalence is higher following complete dislocations compared to subluxations. It was hypothesized that lesions were more prevalent following recurrent dislocations compared to first-time dislocations and following complete dislocations compared to subluxations.

Materials and methods

This systematic literature review was written according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statements, extended with a reporting standard to fit the needs for a systematic literature review23. This review has been registered to the Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO registration ID: CRD42021233391, date of submission: 26-01-2021)29.

Search strategy

Relevant studies were identified by searching PubMed, Embase/Ovid, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews/Wiley, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials/Wiley, and Web of Science/Clarivate Analytics by C.R. and S.P.V. The search was started and completed on December 17, 2020. The following terms, including synonyms and closely related words, were used as index terms or free-text words: ‘Shoulder dislocation’, ‘Arthroscopy’, ‘MRI’, ‘CT’ and terms for all included lesions. A filter was applied to find articles published from 2000 until at least the end of 2020. The complete search strategies can be found in Additional file 1.

Study selection and quality assessment

Studies were independently assessed for eligibility by 2 authors (C.R. and L.P.E.V.), who individually screened the titles and abstracts using Rayyan (Hamad Bin Khalifa University, Doha, Qatar)30. Eligible studies were included in the full-text screening, which was also performed individually by 2 authors (C.R. and L.P.E.V.). Studies that met the inclusion criteria were included for analysis. Disagreement between authors was resolved by discussion and consensus.

Studies reporting the prevalence of associated lesions following traumatic anterior shoulder dislocations diagnosed lesions through arthroscopy, MRI, MRA, CT or CTA in a cohort of at least 10 patients were included. Studies written in English, Dutch or German were included. All cohorts had to be studied after the year 2000 due to the rapid progression of accuracy of diagnostic tools31. When case cohorts of two separate articles were overlapping, the article with the most different types of lesions was included. When this was the same between two articles, the article with the largest sample size was included. Cohort studies that followed patients after an intervention were only included when the prevalence of lesions for the entire population at the start of the follow-up period was reported.

Reviews, case reports, meta-analyses, biomechanical studies and cadaveric studies were excluded. Studies measuring the accuracy of diagnostic tools were excluded to prevent selection bias.

Risk of bias

The risk of bias was independently assessed by 2 authors (C.R. and L.P.E.V.) using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) standard for critical appraisal. This tool was designed for systematic reviews reporting prevalence data32. Disagreement between authors was resolved by discussion and consensus.

Identification of lesions

Arthroscopy was considered the gold standard for all lesions. When lesions were not identified by arthroscopy, MRI or MRA was considered the highest ranking modality for soft-tissue lesions and CT or CTA was considered the highest ranking modality for bony lesions.

Data extraction

Baseline characteristics included sample size, male/female ratio, mean age with range and standard deviation (SD), indication for inclusion (e.g., arthroscopic surgery), highest ranking modality and population characteristics (e.g., athletes or military personnel). The primary outcome was the prevalence of lesions associated with traumatic anterior shoulder dislocations. The included lesions were defined in Table 1 in cooperation with an experienced musculoskeletal radiologist (M.M.) and orthopedic surgeon that specializes in shoulder and elbow pathology (M.P.J.B.). The authors of the included articles may not have used the same definitions. Secondary outcomes include the number of dislocations, whether patients experienced a complete dislocation or subluxation and whether patients experienced a recurrent dislocation (≥ 2) or first-time dislocation. A dislocation was defined as any type of anterior dislocation, including subluxations and complete dislocations. A complete dislocation was defined as an anterior dislocation requiring manual reduction. All data were extracted and transferred by 1 Author (C.R.) to Excel (Microsoft Corporation. Microsoft Excel [Internet]. 2012. Available from: https://office.microsoft.com/excel). To evaluate the reliability and completeness of the data extracted by C.R., the data from a random sample of 10 articles were independently extracted and transferred by Author 2 (L.P.E.V.) to an independent Excel database. The two databases were compared by both authors. Both databases corresponded with each other.

Table 1. Included lesions and definitions
LesionsDefinition
Bony lesions
Hill–SachsImpression fracture of the posterolateral humeral head
Glenoid lesionDepressed or raised surface of the glenoid
Loose bodiesA loose osseous fragment inside the glenohumeral joint, originating from the glenoid rim or humeral head
Bony BankartA bony lesion or fracture involving the anterior labrum and glenoid rim
Soft-tissue lesions
BankartA tear of the anterior labrum at 2–6 o’clock position
Posterior BankartA tear of the posterior labrum at 6–11 o’clock
PerthesAnteroinferior labrum is partially detached and periosteum is stripped medially but still intact
Anterior Labral Periosteal Sleeve Avulsion (ALPSA)The labroligamentous complex is displaced medially; however, the labrum and glenoid rim are still intact
Superior Labral tear from Anterior to Posterior (SLAP tear)A tear of the superior labrum at 11–2 o’clock position
GlenoLabral Articular Disruption (GLAD)The labroligamentous complex is partially teared and the cartilage is damaged
Capsular lesionsA lesion to the shoulder joint capsule including the following lesions: HAGL, GAGL, AIGHL, IGHL, PHAGL
Humeral Avulsion of the Glenohumeral Ligament (HAGL)Avulsion fracture of the inferior glenohumeral ligament at the humeral insertion
Glenoid Avulsion of the Glenohumeral Ligament (GAGL)Avulsion fracture of the inferior glenohumeral ligament at the glenoid insertion
Anterior Inferior GlenoHumeral Ligament avulsion(AIGHL)Avulsion fracture of the anterior inferior glenohumeral ligament
Inferior GlenoHumeral Ligament avulsion (IGHL)Avulsion fracture of the inferior glenohumeral ligament
Posterior Humeral Avulsion of the Glenohumeral Ligament (PHAGL)Avulsion fracture of the posterior inferior glenohumeral ligament at the humeral insertion
Rotator-cuff tearA tear of the m. Subscapularis, m. Infraspinatus, m. Supraspinatus or m. Teres minor
Chondral lesionChondral injury of the glenoid or humeral head
Long head of the biceps tear(Partial) tear of the long head of the biceps

Statistical analysis

Baseline characteristics and outcome data were presented using descriptive statistics reported as mean and SD. In case the SD was not reported, it was estimated using the sample size and range according to Walter et al.33. The data were pooled and a weighted mean was calculated. Proportions of lesions were analyzed for the amount of dislocations (1, ≥ 2) and type of dislocation (complete dislocation, subluxation). Other outcomes, such as modality, age, patient characteristics and indication, could not be analyzed because there were not enough data. Instead, these outcomes were described. When the prevalence of a lesion was not reported in an article, it did not take part in the analysis. Proportions were compared with chi-square tests. Confidence intervals (CI) were reported where possible. Odds-ratios (ORs) and 95% CI were calculated with Review Manager version 5.3 (the Nordic Cochrane Center, Copenhagen, Denmark). P values ≤ 0.05 were considered significant. Heterogeneity between studies was determined by the I2 value. I2 > 50% was considered to signify substantial heterogeneity34.

Results

Screening and study characteristics

After duplicates were removed, 6662 studies were screened by title and abstract. The full-text of 79 articles was read to determine if the article was eligible for inclusion. The search strategy resulted in 22 articles meeting the inclusion criteria. Reasons for exclusion during full-text screening are shown in Fig. 1.

Fig. 1
Fig. 1. PRISMA Flow diagram60

Seven studies had a prospective design and 15 studies had a retrospective design (Additional file 2: Table 1). Arthroscopy was the modality of choice in 15 studies. The highest ranking modality was MRI or MRA in four studies and CT in two studies. One MRI study identified soft-tissue and bony lesions while the other three identified only soft-tissue lesion. Both CT studies identified only bony lesions. Athletes were studied in three articles and military personnel was studied in two articles. A population older than 35 was studied in two articles. The indication for inclusion was surgery in 13 articles, diagnostic imaging in six articles, a dislocation event in two articles and diagnostic arthroscopy in one article.

A total of 1920 shoulders were studied for lesions associated with traumatic anterior shoulder dislocation. The pooled mean age was 26.2 ± 8.9 years. There were 581 complete dislocations from 6 studies, 101 subluxations from 3 studies, 1152 recurrent dislocations from 15 studies and 392 first-time dislocations from 10 studies. For every dislocation, 1.8 lesions were identified. Lesions were determined using arthroscopy in 72% of shoulders and imaging in 28% of shoulders.

Quality control

Four articles had one question of the JBI critical appraisal answered with ‘No’. All other questions were answered with ‘Yes’. Question 1, regarding the appropriateness of the studied sample was answered with ‘No’ for Takase et al. Their objective was to investigate lesions in all shoulders; however, they only included patients undergoing Bankart repair. Question 4, regarding how detailed the study setting was described was answered with ‘No’ for Ozaki et al. Their methods describe the presence of Hill–Sachs as inclusion criteria, however from the results can be concluded that a general population was studied, including without Hill–Sachs. Question 7, regarding the reliability of measurements and standardized methods for all patients was answered with ‘No’ for Owens et al. and Kim et al. Both studies diagnosed part of their population by arthroscopy and part by imaging (Additional file 2: Table 2). Two authors (C.R. and L.P.E.V.) completed the JBI critical appraisal independently of each other. Minor differences were found which were resolved by discussion and consensus.

Prevalence of bony lesions

In a pooled sample of 1,845 shoulders from 22 studies, a bony lesion was reported in 96%. A Hill–Sachs (69%) lesion was most prevalent and bony Bankart (13%) least prevalent (Table 2). The lesion prevalence found in each individual study was summarized in Additional file 2: Table 3.

Table 2. Prevalence of bony lesions
Studies (n)Shoulder (n)Prevalence (%)Range (%)
Hill–Sachs2017316913–100
Bony glenoid10983376–86
Loose body7566159–44
Bony Bankart8889130–43

Prevalence of soft-tissue lesions

In a pooled sample of 1320 shoulders from 17 studies, a labral lesion was reported in 97% of shoulders. A Bankart (67%) lesion was most prevalent, followed by posterior Bankart (23%) and SLAP (23%) lesions (Table 3). A Perthes lesion was least prevalent (14%).

Table 3. Prevalence of labral lesions
Studies (n)Shoulder (n)Prevalence (%)Range (%)
Bankart149936720–100
Posterior Bankart3204233–42
Perthes379140–32
ALPSA8542180–26
SLAP151,245230–64
GLAD435540–20

In a pooled sample of 1018 shoulders from 11 studies, a capsular lesion was reported in 16% (Table 4).

Table 4. Prevalence of capsular lesions
Studies (n)Shoulder (n)Prevalence (%)Range (%)
HAGL1098831–21
AIGHL13090N.a
IGHL14233N.a
PHAGL14231N.a
GAGL12540N.a

In a pooled sample of 1634 shoulders from 19 studies, there were 1.3 soft-tissue lesions per shoulder. Excluding labral lesions, a rotator-cuff tear (17%) was most prevalent (Table 5). A long head of the biceps lesion was least prevalent. (8%).

Table 5. Prevalence of soft-tissue lesions
Studies (n)Shoulder (n)Prevalence (%)Range (%)
Rotator-cuff tear131290172–64
Chondral332594–28
Long head of the biceps325785–18

Meta-analyses of lesion prevalence for first-time and recurrent dislocations

A lower proportion of Hill–Sachs lesions was observed following first-time dislocation (71%, range 58–83%) compared to recurrent dislocation (85%, range 70–95%; P = 0.01, I2 = 71%; Fig. 2).

Fig. 2
Fig. 2. Meta-analysis of Hill–Sachs first-time vs recurrent proportions. This meta-analysis shows the odds ratio for studies (n = 7) that reported the prevalence of Hill–Sachs lesions in first-time dislocations compared to recurrent dislocations

A lower proportion of Bankart lesions was observed following first-time dislocation (59%, range 18–100%) compared to recurrent dislocation (66%, range 28–100%; P = 0.05, I2 = 46%; Fig. 3).

Fig. 3
Fig. 3. Meta-analysis of Bankart first-time vs recurrent dislocation proportions. This meta-analysis shows the odds ratio for studies (n = 5) that reported the prevalence of Bankart lesions in first-time dislocations compared to recurrent dislocations

No significant difference was observed for SLAP lesions following first-time dislocation (27%, range 16–45%) compared to recurrent dislocation (28%, range 20–45%; P = n.s., I2 = 0%; Fig. 4).

Fig. 4
Fig. 4. Meta-analysis of SLAP first-time vs recurrent dislocation proportions. This meta-analysis shows the odds ratio for studies (n = 5) that report the prevalence of SLAP lesions in first-time dislocations compared to recurrent dislocations

No significant difference was observed for partial- or full thickness rotator-cuff tears following first-time dislocation (7%, range 0–12%) compared to recurrent dislocation (14%, range 3–20%; P = n.s., I2 = 0%; Fig. 5).

Fig. 5
Fig. 5. Meta-analysis of rotator-cuff tear first-time vs recurrent dislocation proportions. This meta-analysis shows the odds ratio for studies (n = 5) that report the prevalence of rotator-cuff tears in first-time dislocations compared to recurrent dislocations

No significant difference was observed for bony Bankart lesions following first-time dislocation (12%, range 9–18%) compared to recurrent dislocation (17%, range 11–28%; P = n.s., I2 = 25%; Fig. 6).

Fig. 6
Fig. 6. Meta-analysis of bony Bankart first-time vs recurrent dislocation proportions. This meta-analysis shows the odds ratio for studies (n = 4) that report the prevalence of bony Bankart lesions in first-time dislocations compared to recurrent dislocations

No significant difference was observed for HAGL lesions following first-time dislocation (4%, range 0–9%) compared to recurrent dislocation (1%, range 0–4%; P = n.s., I2 = 54%; Fig. 7).

Fig. 7
Fig. 7. Meta-analysis of HAGL first-time vs recurrent dislocation proportions. This meta-analysis shows the odds ratio for studies (n = 4) that report the prevalence of HAGL lesions in first-time dislocations compared to recurrent dislocations

No significant difference was observed for ALPSA lesions following first-time dislocation (16%, range 0–30%) compared to recurrent dislocation (22%, range 13–19%; P = n.s., I2 = 62%; Fig. 8).

Fig. 8
Fig. 8. Proportions of ALPSA lesions for first-time dislocations compared to recurrent dislocations. This meta-analysis shows the odds ratio for studies (n = 3) that report the prevalence of ALPSA lesions in first-time dislocations compared to recurrent dislocations

Meta-analysis of lesions prevalence for subluxations and complete dislocations

A lower proportion of Hill–Sachs lesions was observed following subluxation (54%, range 43–60%) compared to complete dislocation (82%, range 65–86%; P < 0.01, I2 = 35%; Fig. 9).

Fig. 9
Fig. 9. Meta-analysis of Hill–Sachs subluxation vs complete dislocation proportions. This meta-analysis shows the odds ratio for studies (n = 3) that report the prevalence of Hill–Sachs lesions in sub-dislocations compared to complete dislocations

Discussion

The most important finding of the present study was that Hill–Sachs and Bankart lesions were found in higher proportions in recurrent dislocations compared to first-time dislocations. The prevalence of bony Bankart, HAGL, SLAP, rotator-cuff tear and ALPSA were similar when comparing recurrent- and first-time dislocations, suggesting these lesions may be more common after first-time dislocation than previously thought. However, results should be interpreted with caution due to the large range in prevalence; heterogeneity found in the Hill–Sachs, HAGL and ALPSA analyses; and limited amount of studies reporting on capsular lesions.

Current data may be valuable for health professionals in the outpatient clinic with regard to shared decision-making. The results may assist in estimating the risk of new lesions after recurrence, especially as literature on this topic is currently lacking. When Hill–Sachs and Bankart lesions are present, current results suggest that no other lesions may be expected after recurrence. Also, as the optimal management may differ between lesions, the epidemiological results may assist in anticipating which lesion is likely present and which type of surgical procedure may be indicated35–39. For optimal shared decision-making, the amount of dislocations and whether the dislocation was complete or not should be taken into consideration.

The initial size, location and the subsequent increase of a bony lesion after a recurrent dislocation may be an important factor in surgical decision-making. Hasegawa et al. found the number of dislocation events to be a predictor of the amount of bipolar bone loss40. A correlation between bony lesion size and risk of recurrence has been described by multiple authors and literature suggests early surgical intervention to decrease risk of recurrence and increase return-to-play41, 42. Current results may confirm this conclusion. Untreated traumatic rotator-cuff tears may cause more pain and dysfunction over time and together with capsulolabral damage may lead to increased instability20. Individual capsulolabral and HAGL lesions are also thought to play a role in glenohumeral instability43–45. The hypothesis that lesions increase in size after recurrence rather than in prevalence is supported by current results and literature. Literature suggests that instability increases over time in untreated shoulders even though current results suggest that most lesions may not increase in prevalence after recurrence. Health professionals may therefore need to consider early surgical stabilization after first-time dislocation to limit the increase in size of these lesions.

A varying prevalence was found between studies for most lesions. Challenges in classifying, measuring and defining lesions may attribute to this. The glenoid track method is used to determine the extent of glenoid bone loss but lacks a standardized method to produce the image, causing challenges with regard to reproducibility and the reliability46. It may be difficult to identify lesions of the labrum correctly, such as Bankart, as literature shows discrepancies in defining lesions according to the clockface-method47, 48. The Snyder classification is used to evaluate SLAP lesions but shows high inter-observer and intra-observer variability, even between experience specialists49. Lastly, the Outerbridge classification is used for the classification of chondral lesions but studied only limited times in small populations50. Extensions or revision of current classification systems may assist in better identification and evaluation of lesions, as was done by Maffet et al. for the SLAP lesion51. The varying prevalence may also be explained by demographical differences. This includes sports that are more popular in certain countries but also the glenoid morphology, which may differ between populations52.

The term subluxation presents difficulties in interpretation as a clear method of identifying subluxations in practice is currently lacking. One can even question whether a Hill–Sachs lesion can be caused by subluxation as the (postero-superior) humeral head may not impact against the glenoid. When Hill–Sachs is present following subluxation the displacement may have been such that one should speak of a complete dislocation, perhaps with spontaneous reduction. Current literature suggests that false identification of Hill–Sachs lesions may be a result of normal ossification of the humeral head in developing shoulders, possibly explaining Hill–Sachs lesions following subluxation53. It is interesting that some studies identified posterior Bankart lesions in patients suffering from anterior dislocation. A systematic review by Ernat et al. discussed 270° and 360° arthroscopic repair in a group of patients who suffered from an isolated anterior instability, suggesting that posterior lesions may occur after anterior dislocation54.

The large range in prevalence found in this review may also be partly explained by the varying accuracy of diagnostic tools between studies. The sensitivity and specificity of MRA compared to the gold standard arthroscopy for Perthes was found to be 67% and 100%, respectively, by Kehdr et al. and sensitivity was found to be 100% by Elkharbotly et al.6, 8 Perthes and GLAD lesions may be difficult to diagnose because the labrum can remain in its natural position even though the labrum is torn47, 55, 56. Inexperienced assessors are thought to make less accurate and less reliable diagnoses, an effect that is enhanced for difficult to diagnose lesions, such as Perthes and GLAD57, 58. Accuracy may be improved by taking notice of subtle MR intensity changes or placing the arm in the ABER position, although the latter is debated due to increased scan time and discomfort56, 59.

The results of our study should be interpreted with caution in light of the following limitations. First, some lesions were reported in only a small amount of studies, increasing the risk of selection bias. The meta-analysis of the bony Bankart, HAGL and ALPSA only included four or less studies and the prevalence of the AIGHL, IGHL, PHAGL and GAGL were determined from one study. In case of these lesions, the data may not be sufficient to draw firm conclusions. Second, there is a risk of selection bias because most studies included patients undergoing surgical intervention. In a patient group not undergoing surgical intervention, there may be a lower frequency of lesions. Third, demographical differences may affect the prevalence of lesions due to high-risk sports being popular in certain countries or varying glenoid morphology between populations52. Fourth, not all lesions may have been identified in retrospective arthroscopy studies because the procedure may have had a different goal, causing the surgeon to pay less attention to uncommon lesions. These limitations may be reflected by the varying prevalence found between studies and substantial heterogeneity.

Future research should focus on multiple aspects. First, determining the role of lesion size and lesion growth in evaluating risk of recurrence, return-to-play and surgical decision-making. This includes soft-tissue lesions and the role of posterior lesions following anterior dislocation. Literature suggests there may be a correlation but high level evidence is currently lacking. Second, creating standardized methods to diagnose and classify radiological and symptomatic lesions and to define the term subluxation. This may lower the observed variance. Third, determine the sensitivity and specificity of diagnostic tools in large and representative populations as this is currently debated in the literature. Fourth, for both soft-tissue lesions and bony lesions, the aim should be to increase the accuracy of the diagnosis for MRI. It is especially important to improve bone MRI so the patient is not exposed to the radiation from CT. Fifth, study the prevalence of shoulder lesions following anterior dislocation in larger and more populations to increase the value of future systematic reviews like this one. Lastly, demographical variations of glenoid morphology between populations should be studied, also in currently less represented populations.

Conclusion

Higher proportions of Hill–Sachs and Bankart were observed in recurrent dislocations compared to first-time dislocations. No difference was observed for bony Bankart, HAGL, SLAP, rotator-cuff tear and ALPSA. Especially when a Hill–Sachs or Bankart is present after first-time dislocation, early surgical stabilization may need to be considered as other lesions may not be expected after recurrence and to limit lesion growth. However, results should be interpreted with caution due to substantial heterogeneity and large variance.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material — available with the version of record.

Supplementary material — available with the version of record.

Abbreviations

PRISMA
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses
JBI
Joanna Briggs Institute
CI
Confidence interval
SD
Standard deviation

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Declarations

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Author contribution

CR contributed to all processes of the review and drafted the manuscript. LPEV contributed to the screening of studies, extracting data, statistical analysis and writing of the manuscript. SPV contributed to the writing of the search term and adapting the search to all databases. DFPD contributed to interpreting the results and writing the discussion from an orthopedic perspective. MM contributed to interpreting the results and writing the discussion from a radiological perspective. MPJB supervised the process and contributed to setting up the review, interpreting the results and writing the discussion.

Funding

No funding or sponsorship was received.

Declarations

None.

Not applicable.

Not applicable.

Sources

References

60 references, in the article's own order. Citation numbers in the text are this list's numbers (49 records are cited).

  1. Management of recent first-time anterior shoulder dislocations

    Khiami F, Gérometta A, Loriaut P

    2015Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 101:S51–57 · PMID 25596982doi:10.1016/j.otsr.2014.06.027

  2. The epidemiology of shoulder dislocations in Malaysia

    Yeap JS, Lee DJ, Fazir M, Borhan TA, Kareem BA

    2004Med J Malays 59(Suppl F):19–23 · PMID 15941156

  3. Epidemiology of shoulder dislocations presenting to emergency departments in the United States

    Zacchilli MA, Owens BD

    2010J Bone Jt Surg Am 92:542–549 · PMID 20194311doi:10.2106/JBJS.I.00450

  4. Acute shoulder injury

    Cibulas A, Leyva A, Cibulas G, Foss M, Boron A, Dennison J, et al.

    2019Radiol Clin N Am 57:883–896 · PMID 31351539doi:10.1016/j.rcl.2019.03.004

  5. First-time anterior shoulder dislocations: should they be arthroscopically stabilised?

    Sedeek SM, Bin Abd Razak HR, Ee GWW, Tan AHC

    2014Singap Med J 55:511–516 · PMID 25631890doi:10.11622/smedj.2014132

  6. Shoulder joint instability evaluation by CT arthrography and MR arthrography

    Elkharbotly A

    2016Egypt J Radiol Nucl Med 47:937–948doi:10.1016/j.ejrnm.2016.03.018

  7. Shoulder anatomy and normal variants

    Kadi R, Milants A, Shahabpour M

    2017J Belg Soc Radiol 101:3 · PMID 30498801doi:10.5334/jbr-btr.1467

  8. Comparative study of direct MR arthrography and CT arthrography with arthroscopic correlation in preoperative evaluation of anterior shoulder instability

    Khedr SA, Kassem HM, Azab MA

    2013Egypt J Radiol Nucl Med 44:817–827doi:10.1016/j.ejrnm.2013.06.010

  9. Imaging modality for measuring the presence and extent of the labral lesions of the shoulder: a systematic review and meta-analysis

    Liu F, Cheng X, Dong J, Zhou D, Sun Q, Bai X, et al.

    2019BMC Musculoskelet Disord 20:487 · PMID 31656171doi:10.1186/s12891-019-2876-6

  10. Posterior and superior compression test and weight-bearing on elbow test for the diagnosis of superior labrum anterior to posterior lesion

    Liu YL, Cui GQ, Ao YF, Xiao J, Yan H, Yu CL

    2007Zhonghua wai ke za zhi [Chin J Surg] 45:1382–1384 · PMID 18241586

  11. Prevalence of lesions associated with traumatic recurrent shoulder dislocation

    Carrazzone OL, Tamaoki MJ, Ambra LF, Neto NA, Matsumoto MH, Belloti JC

    2011Rev Bras Ortop 46:281–287 · PMID 27027020doi:10.1590/S0102-36162011000300009

  12. Magnetic resonance imaging arthrogram findings in recurrent dislocation of shoulder

    Karuppal R

    2017J Evol Med 6:3452–3458

  13. Pathoanatomy of first-time, traumatic, anterior glenohumeral subluxation events

    Owens BD, Nelson BJ, Duffey ML, Mountcastle SB, Taylor DC, Cameron KL, et al.

    2010J Bone Jt Surg Am 92:1605–1611 · PMID 20595566doi:10.2106/JBJS.I.00851

  14. The diagnostic accuracy of MRI for the detection of partial- and full-thickness rotator cuff tears in adults

    Smith TO, Daniell H, Geere JA, Toms AP, Hing CB

    2012Magn Reson Imaging 30:336–346 · PMID 22260933doi:10.1016/j.mri.2011.12.008

  15. Agreement between magnetic resonance imaging and arthroscopic evaluation of the shoulder joint in primary anterior dislocation of the shoulder

    Kirkley A, Litchfield R, Thain L, Spouge A

    2003Clin J Sport Med 13:148–151 · PMID 12792208doi:10.1097/00042752-200305000-00004

  16. MR arthrography evaluation in patients with traumatic anterior shoulder instability

    Saba L, De Filippo M

    2016J Orthop 14:73–76 · PMID 27829728doi:10.1016/j.jor.2016.10.017

  17. The instability severity index score. A simple pre-operative score to select patients for arthroscopic or open shoulder stabilisation

    Balg F, Boileau P

    2007J Bone Jt Surg Br 89:1470–1477 · PMID 17998184doi:10.1302/0301-620X.89B11.18962

  18. Arthroscopic Bankart repair for the management of anterior shoulder instability: indications and outcomes

    DeFroda S, Bokshan S, Stern E, Sullivan K, Owens BD

    2017Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med 10:442–451 · PMID 28971317doi:10.1007/s12178-017-9435-2

  19. Shoulder instability in the overhead athlete

    DeFroda SF, Goyal D, Patel N, Gupta N, Mulcahey MK

    2018Curr Sports Med Rep 17:308–314 · PMID 30204635doi:10.1249/JSR.0000000000000517

  20. Rotator cuff tear and glenohumeral instability: a systematic review

    Gombera MM, Sekiya JK

    2014Clin Orthop Relat Res 472:2448–2456 · PMID 24043432doi:10.1007/s11999-013-3290-2

  21. Assessment and management of shoulder dislocation

    Verweij LP, Baden DN, van der Zande JM, van den Bekerom MP

    2020BMJ 371:m4485 · PMID 33288499doi:10.1136/bmj.m4485

  22. Age, participation in competitive sports, bony lesions, ALPSA lesions, > 1 preoperative dislocations, surgical delay and ISIS score > 3 are risk factors for recurrence following arthroscopic Bankart repair: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 4584 shoulders

    Verweij LPE, van Spanning SH, Grillo A, Kerkhoffs G, Priester-Vink S, van Deurzen DFP, et al.

    2021Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 29:4004–4014 · PMID 34420117doi:10.1007/s00167-021-06704-7

  23. How are systematic reviews of prevalence conducted? A methodological study

    Borges Migliavaca C, Stein C, Colpani V, Barker TH, Munn Z, Falavigna M, et al.

    2020BMC Med Res Methodol 20:96 · PMID 32336279doi:10.1186/s12874-020-00975-3

  24. The development of a critical appraisal tool for use in systematic reviews addressing questions of prevalence

    Munn Z, Moola S, Riitano D, Lisy K

    2014Int J Health Policy Manag 3:123–128 · PMID 25197676doi:10.15171/ijhpm.2014.71

  25. Risk factors which predispose first-time traumatic anterior shoulder dislocations to recurrent instability in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis

    Olds M, Ellis R, Donaldson K, Parmar P, Kersten P

    2015Br J Sports Med 49:913–922 · PMID 25900943doi:10.1136/bjsports-2014-094342

  26. Generalized joint laxity and multidirectional instability of the shoulder

    Saccomanno MF, Fodale M, Capasso L, Cazzato G, Milano G

    2013Joints 1:171–179 · PMID 25606530doi:10.11138/jts/2013.1.4.171

  27. Bony Bankart is a positive predictive factor after primary shoulder dislocation

    Salomonsson B, von Heine A, Dahlborn M, Abbaszadegan H, Ahlström S, Dalén N, et al.

    2010Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 18:1425–1431 · PMID 19997719doi:10.1007/s00167-009-0998-3

  28. Management of the first episode of traumatic shoulder dislocation

    Boffano M, Mortera S, Piana R

    2017EFORT Open Rev 2:35–40 · PMID 28461966doi:10.1302/2058-5241.2.160018

  29. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration

    Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gøtzsche PC, Ioannidis JP, et al.

    2009BMJ 339:b2700 · PMID 19622552doi:10.1136/bmj.b2700

  30. Rayyan-a web and mobile app for systematic reviews

    Ouzzani M, Hammady H, Fedorowicz Z, Elmagarmid A

    2016Syst Rev 5:210 · PMID 27919275doi:10.1186/s13643-016-0384-4

  31. How to measure a Hill-Sachs lesion: a systematic review

    Maio M, Sarmento M, Moura N, Cartucho A

    2019EFORT Open Rev 4:151–157 · PMID 31057952doi:10.1302/2058-5241.4.180031

  32. Methodological guidance for systematic reviews of observational epidemiological studies reporting prevalence and cumulative incidence data

    Munn Z, Moola S, Lisy K, Riitano D, Tufanaru C

    2015Int J Evid Based Healthc 13:147–153 · PMID 26317388doi:10.1097/XEB.0000000000000054

  33. Effect sizes can be calculated for studies reporting ranges for outcome variables in systematic reviews

    Walter SD, Yao X

    2007J Clin Epidemiol 60:849–852 · PMID 17606182doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.11.003

  34. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis

    Higgins JP, Thompson SG

    2002Stat Med 21:1539–1558 · PMID 12111919doi:10.1002/sim.1186

  35. Surgical versus nonsurgical treatment in first traumatic anterior dislocation of the shoulder in athletes

    Arliani GG, Astur DdC, Cohen C, Ejnisman B, Andreoli CV, Pochini AC, et al.

    2011Open Access J Sports Med 2:19–24 · PMID 24198566doi:10.2147/OAJSM.S17378

  36. Trends in the management of isolated SLAP tears in the United States

    Cvetanovich GL, Gowd AK, Agarwalla A, Forsythe B, Romeo AA, Verma NN

    2019Orthop J Sports Med 7:2325967119833997–2325967119833997 · PMID 30923727doi:10.1177/2325967119833997

  37. Understanding the Hill-Sachs lesion in its role in patients with recurrent anterior shoulder instability

    Fox JA, Sanchez A, Zajac TJ, Provencher MT

    2017Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med 10:469–479 · PMID 29101634doi:10.1007/s12178-017-9437-0

  38. Management of primary anterior shoulder dislocations: a narrative review

    Hasebroock AW, Brinkman J, Foster L, Bowens JP

    2019Sports Med 5:31–31 · PMID 31297678doi:10.1186/s40798-019-0203-2

  39. Controversies in the surgical management of shoulder instability: associated soft tissue procedures

    Marco SM, Lafuente J, Ibán MAR, Heredia JD

    2017Open Orthop J 11:989–1000 · PMID 28979603doi:10.2174/1874325001711010989

  40. The number of injury events associated with the critical size of bipolar bone defects in rugby players with traumatic anterior shoulder instability

    Hasegawa Y, Kawasaki T, Nojiri S, Sobue S, Kaketa T, Gonda Y, et al.

    2019Am J Sports Med 47:2803–2808 · PMID 31425666doi:10.1177/0363546519869673

  41. Arthroscopic Bankart repair versus conservative management for first-time traumatic anterior shoulder instability: a systematic review and meta-analysis

    Hurley ET, Manjunath AK, Bloom DA, Pauzenberger L, Mullett H, Alaia MJ, et al.

    2020Arthroscopy 36:2526–2532 · PMID 32389771doi:10.1016/j.arthro.2020.04.046

  42. A clinical review of return-to-play considerations after anterior shoulder dislocation

    Watson S, Allen B, Grant JA

    2016Sports Health 8:336–341 · PMID 27255423doi:10.1177/1941738116651956

  43. Humeral avulsion of glenohumeral ligaments

    George MS, Khazzam M, Kuhn JE

    2011J Am Acad Orthop Surg 19:127–133 · PMID 21368093doi:10.5435/00124635-201103000-00001

  44. Anterior labroligamentous periosteal sleeve avulsion lesion in arthroscopic capsulolabral repair for anterior shoulder instability

    Lee BG, Cho NS, Rhee YG

    2011Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 19:1563–1569 · PMID 21607741doi:10.1007/s00167-011-1531-z

  45. Glenohumeral instability related to special conditions: SLAP tears, pan-labral tears, and multidirectional instability

    Van Blarcum GS, Svoboda SJ

    2017Sports Med Arthrosc Rev 25:e12–e17 · PMID 28777213doi:10.1097/JSA.0000000000000153

  46. Interobserver and intraobserver variability of glenoid track measurements

    Schneider AK, Hoy GA, Ek ET, Rotstein AH, Tate J, Taylor DM, et al.

    2017J Shoulder Elbow Surg 26:573–579 · PMID 27989718doi:10.1016/j.jse.2016.09.058

  47. Imaging the glenoid labrum and labral tears

    De Coninck T, Ngai SS, Tafur M, Chung CB

    2016Radiographics 36:1628–1647 · PMID 27726737doi:10.1148/rg.2016160020

  48. Bankart repair alone in combined Bankart and superior labral anterior-posterior lesions preserves range of motion without compromising joint stability

    Itoigawa Y, Hooke AW, Sperling JW, Steinmann SP, Zhao KD, Itoi E, et al.

    2020JSES Int 4:63–67 · PMID 32195465doi:10.1016/j.jseint.2019.11.001

  49. The snyder classification of superior labrum anterior and posterior (SLAP) lesions

    Ahsan ZS, Hsu JE, Gee AO

    2016Clin Orthop Relat Res 474:2075–2078 · PMID 27075334doi:10.1007/s11999-016-4826-z

  50. Classifications in brief: outerbridge classification of chondral lesions

    Slattery C, Kweon CY

    2018Clin Orthop Relat Res 476:2101–2104 · PMID 29533246doi:10.1007/s11999.0000000000000255

  51. Superior labrum-biceps tendon complex lesions of the shoulder

    Maffet MW, Gartsman GM, Moseley B

    1995Am J Sports Med 23:93–98 · PMID 7726358doi:10.1177/036354659502300116

  52. Assessment of the glenoid morphology based on demographic data in the Turkish population

    Sarı A, Dinçel YM, Günaydın B, Çetin MÜ, Özçaglayan Ö, Bilsel K

    2020Biomed Res Int 2020:5736136 · PMID 32104697doi:10.1155/2020/5736136

  53. Normal humeral head ossification in pediatric and adolescent shoulders can mimic Hill-Sachs lesions: a magnetic resonance imaging-based study

    Kelly A, Heath MR, Amoroso EE, Mackie AT, Greditzer HGt, Owens BD,, et al.

    2021J Pediatr Orthop · PMID 34799540doi:10.1097/bpo.0000000000002017

  54. Arthroscopic repair of 270- and 360-degree glenoid labrum tears: a systematic review

    Ernat JJ, Yheulon CG, Shaha JS

    2020Arthroscopy 36:307–317 · PMID 31708356doi:10.1016/j.arthro.2019.07.027

  55. The glenolabral articular disruption lesion: MR arthrography with arthroscopic correlation

    Sanders TG, Tirman PF, Linares R, Feller JF, Richardson R

    1999AJR Am J Roentgenol 172:171–175 · PMID 9888763doi:10.2214/ajr.172.1.9888763

  56. Perthes lesion (a variant of the Bankart lesion)

    Wischer TK, Bredella MA, Genant HK, Stoller DW, Bost FW, Tirman PFJ

    2002AJR Am J Roentgenol 178:233–237 · PMID 11756126doi:10.2214/ajr.178.1.1780233

  57. Is MRA an unnecessary expense in the management of a clinically unstable shoulder? A comparison of MRA and arthroscopic findings in 90 patients

    Jonas SC, Walton MJ, Sarangi PP

    2012Acta Orthop 83:267–270 · PMID 22401678doi:10.3109/17453674.2012.672090

  58. Does the experience level of the radiologist, assessment in consensus, or the addition of the abduction and external rotation view improve the diagnostic reproducibility and accuracy of MRA of the shoulder?

    van Grinsven S, Hagenmaier F, van Loon CJ, van Gorp MJ, van Kints MJ, van Kampen A

    2014Clin Radiol 69:1157–1164 · PMID 25218253doi:10.1016/j.crad.2014.07.009

  59. Is a single direct MR arthrography series in ABER position as accurate in detecting anteroinferior labroligamentous lesions as conventional MR arthography?

    Schreinemachers SA, van der Hulst VPM, Jaap Willems W, Bipat S, van der Woude H-J

    2009Skelet Radiol 38:675–683 · PMID 19421749doi:10.1007/s00256-009-0692-z

  60. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement

    Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG

    2009PLoS Med 6:e1000097 · PMID 19621072doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097

Article record

The record

Status

Living reprint · journal article Journal version available

Status
Version of record: Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy 2022
Journal version
Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy (2022) · doi:10.1007/s00167-021-06847-7
Confirmed
2022-01-06
Licence
CC BY 4.0

This reprint has no DOI of its own: cite the journal article.

The journal's version is the version of record. This page re-typesets it under the article's licence; where they differ, the journal's version is authoritative.

Version history

  1. Published in Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy2022-01-06
  2. Living reprint on Literature Decoded2026-10-01
  3. Reprinted here2026-10-01
  4. This HTML2026-10-01

Cite this article

Citation
Rutgers C, Verweij LPE, Priester-Vink S, Deurzen DFPv, Maas M, Bekerom MPJvd. Recurrence in traumatic anterior shoulder dislocations increases the prevalence of Hill–Sachs and Bankart lesions: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2022;30(6):2130–2140. doi:10.1007/s00167-021-06847-7
BibTeX
@article{Rutgers2022Recurrence,
  title   = {Recurrence in traumatic anterior shoulder dislocations increases the prevalence of Hill–Sachs and Bankart lesions: a systematic review and meta-analysis},
  author  = {Cain Rutgers and Lukas. P. E. Verweij and Simone Priester-Vink and Derek F. P. van Deurzen and Mario Maas and Michel P. J. van den Bekerom},
  journal = {Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy},
  year    = {2022},
  volume  = {30},
  number  = {6},
  pages   = {2130–2140},
  doi     = {10.1007/s00167-021-06847-7},
  pmid    = {34988633}
}
RIS
TY  - JOUR
TI  - Recurrence in traumatic anterior shoulder dislocations increases the prevalence of Hill–Sachs and Bankart lesions: a systematic review and meta-analysis
AU  - Cain Rutgers
AU  - Lukas. P. E. Verweij
AU  - Simone Priester-Vink
AU  - Derek F. P. van Deurzen
AU  - Mario Maas
AU  - Michel P. J. van den Bekerom
JO  - Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy
PY  - 2022
VL  - 30
IS  - 6
SP  - 2130
EP  - 2140
DO  - 10.1007/s00167-021-06847-7
SN  - 0942-2056
UR  - https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-021-06847-7
ER  -

Cite the original article (the version of record), not this reprint.

Take it with you

One self-contained HTML file: the text, data and figures, readable offline.

Disclaimer and limitations

Educational summary of research findings; not medical advice. Discuss care decisions with a qualified clinician.

The findings apply to the included study populations and may not generalise to every person or setting.

Licence and attribution

This page reproduces Recurrence in traumatic anterior shoulder dislocations increases the prevalence of Hill–Sachs and Bankart lesions: a systematic review and meta-analysis by Cain Rutgers, Lukas. P. E. Verweij, Simone Priester-Vink, Derek F. P. van Deurzen, Mario Maas, Michel P. J. van den Bekerom, first published in Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy 2022;30(6):2130–2140, doi:10.1007/s00167-021-06847-7, PMID 34988633, PMC9165262. © The Author(s) 2022. It is used under the CC BY 4.0 licence.

Changes made:

The words, data, figures and conclusions are the authors’. Literature Decoded is not the publisher of record and does not claim endorsement by the authors or the journal. The version of record is the journal’s; cite it.

Licence statement in the article: “Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.”

Are you an author of this article? Claim it or ask us to take it down.

Cite this article

Living reprint · journal article