Arthroscopic capsular release to treat idiopathic frozen shoulder: How much release is needed?

Arthroscopic adhesiolysis in elderly patients with post-traumatic frozen shoulder

PURPOSE

The aim of the current study is to investigate the efficacy and risk factors associated with arthroscopic adhesiolysis in treating elderly traumatic frozen shoulder.

METHODS

One hundred and two elderly patients with post-traumatic frozen shoulder treated at our Hospital were selected. The patients were randomly divided into a study group and a control group, with 51 cases in each group. The study group was treated with arthroscopic adhesiolysis, and the control group received physical therapy combined with joint manipulation.

RESULTS

The operation time and intraoperative blood loss of the study group were (54.98 ± 5.94) min and (53.28 ± 4.93) ml, respectively. The Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) (0.87 ± 0.12, P = 0.021), Present Pain Intensity (PPI) (0.76 ± 0.07, P = 0.016), and Pain Rating Index (PRI) (5.32 ± 0.32, P < 0.001) scores were lower in the study group than the control group at 3 months post-treatment. Moreover, no significant differences were seen in terms of pain relief, daily living activities, shoulder joint function, and muscle strength between the two groups before the treatment; however, at 3 months post-treatment, the study group demonstrated better outcomes in these dimensions compared to the control group (all P ≤ 0.021), with notably improved shoulder joint mobility (all P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Arthroscopic adhesiolysis exerts beneficial outcomes for elderly patients with post-traumatic frozen shoulder. Age and fat infiltration are identified as risk factors influencing the efficacy of arthroscopic adhesiolysis in this patient population.

Does the intervention for adhesive capsulitis in patients with diabetes differ from that for patients without diabetes?: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Adhesive capsulitis (AC) is often accompanied by pain and restriction in range of movement, which long lasting symptoms often have negative impact on patients' work and lives. Since diabetes mellitus (DM) is an independent risk factor for developing AC, and AC with DM have more limitations of joint motion than general people.

AIMS

The aim of the present study is to evaluate the difference of clinical efficacy between diabetes and non-diabetes, and to explore whether AC with diabetes need special intervention compared to non-diabetes.

METHODS

Pubmed NCBI and Embase were searched for studies published in the last 30 years. We conducted a literature search for terms regarding AC and DM on Pubmed NCBI and Embase.

RESULTS

A total of 9 studies eligible for inclusion. The affected shoulders in these studies ranged from 26 to 135, 460 shoulders (551 participants) in total, including 166 shoulders in diabetic group and 394 shoulders in non-diabetic/idiopathic group. Interventions included shock wave therapy, hydrodilatation, arthroscopic capsular release, manipulation under cervical nerve root block. Evaluation indicators included pain, certain shoulder questionnaires, range of motion. Positive clinical efficacy were emerged after interventions between the 2 groups. The studies that better improvement of pain in non-diabetic/idiopathic group were 2 of 6, that of certain shoulder questionnaires were 4 of 8, that of range of motion were 3 of 6.

CONCLUSIONS

Whether AC combined with DM or not, the current treatment could achieve positive clinical effectiveness and there is some statistical evidence show that the curative effect of AC combined with DM is worse than non-diabetic. In other words, the available evidence suggests that patients with DM might require additional rehabilitation measures with routine glycemic control.

A retrospective comparative study on the effectiveness of multisite injection versus arthroscopic capsular release for idiopathic frozen shoulder

Arthroscopic capsular release is a most well-known technique with favorable outcomes for frozen shoulder. However, considering the surgical trauma and the improvement of multisite injection, we design a study to compare the pain relief and safety of multisite injection (MI) versus arthroscopic capsular release (ACR) for frozen shoulder. A total of 80 patients with unilater al frozen shoulder were enrolled in this study. Group RBT (n = 40) received multisite injection (0.5% lidocaine and triamcinolone acetonide, once a week, no more than 2 injections), while Group ACR received arthroscopic capsular release. The following parameters were employed to compare: visual analog scale (VAS), range of motion (ROM), the Disability of Arm, Hand, and Shoulder (DASH) score and Oxford shoulder score (OSS). Side effects were also recorded. The VAS, ROM, DASH and OSS all improved significantly (P < 0.001). Internal rotation and external rotation at 1 month after operation were better in ACR group (40.35 ± 4.79 Vs 36.58 ± 7.49, 40.55 ± 4.37 Vs 38.63 ± 4.01, P = 0.009,0.043). However, no significance in terms of functional results and ROM was found at 6 months after operation. The OSS, DASH and VAS in patients with diabetes were 44.25 ± 3.05, 2.29 ± 1.12 and 0.50 ± 0.72, compared with 43.89 ± 3.09, 2.34 ± 1.49 and 0.29 ± 0.56 in patients without diabetes (P = 0.636, 0.889, 0.157). Multisite injection and arthroscopic capsular release are both effective treatments in the treatment of frozen shoulder. However, multisite injection is a simple, cost effective and superior alternative.

Establishing the Minimal Clinically Important Difference and Patient Acceptable Symptom State Thresholds Following Arthroscopic Capsular Release for the Treatment of Idiopathic Shoulder Adhesive Capsulitis

PURPOSE

To determine the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and the patient acceptable symptom state (PASS) threshold for the visual analog scale (VAS), Constant, Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE), and American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) scores following arthroscopic capsular release for the treatment of idiopathic shoulder adhesive capsulitis.

METHODS

A retrospective review of prospective collected data was performed in patients undergoing arthroscopic capsular release for the treatment of idiopathic adhesive capsulitis at a single institution from January 2018 through January 2019. Patient-reported outcome measures were collected preoperatively and 6 months' postoperatively. Delta was defined as the change between preoperative and 6 months' postoperative scores. Distribution-based and anchored-based (response to a satisfaction question at 1 year) approaches were used to estimate MCIDs and PASS, respectively. The optimal cut-off point where sensitivity and specificity were maximized (Youden index) and the percentage of patients achieving those thresholds were also calculated.

RESULTS

Overall, a total of 100 patients without diabetes who underwent arthroscopic capsular release and completed baseline and 6-month patient-reported outcome measures were included. The distribution-based MCID for VAS, Constant, SANE, and ASES were calculated to be 1.1, 10.1, 9.3, and 8.2, respectively. The rate of patients who achieved MCID thresholds was 98% for VAS, 96% for Constant, 98% for SANE, and 99% for ASES. The PASS threshold values for VAS, Constant, and ASES were ≤2, ≥70, ≥80, and ≥80, respectively. The rate of patients who achieved PASS thresholds was 84% for VAS, 84% for Constant, 89% for SANE, and 78% for ASES.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients without diabetes and idiopathic adhesive capsulitis, high rates of MCID and PASS thresholds can be achieved with arthroscopic anteroinferior capsular release LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, retrospective cohort study.

Combination of Superior and Posterior Capsular Release Versus Superior Capsular Release Alone in Arthroscopic Repair of Large-to-Massive Rotator Cuff Tears

Background

Superior capsular release has been used to reduce tendon tension, especially in arthroscopic repair of large-to-massive rotator cuff tears. Some clinicians have used a more extensive release of capsules in arthroscopic cuff repair for adequate reduction of torn tendons to footprints.

Purpose

To explore the effects of additional posterior capsular release for superior capsular release in arthroscopic repair of large-to-massive rotator cuff tears.

Study Design

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.

Methods

We compared 26 shoulders that underwent superior and posterior capsular release (group S&P) with 26 shoulders that underwent superior capsular release alone (group S) in arthroscopic repair of large-to-massive rotator cuff tears between January 23, 2013 and December 2, 2015. The visual analog scale for pain, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score, Constant score, and range of motion (ROM) and muscle power were checked preoperatively and at 2 years postoperatively. Follow-up ultrasound was checked at 2 years postoperatively.

Results

In both groups, the overall mean functional outcomes improved from preoperatively to postoperatively. Patients in group S&P showed more pre- to postoperative improvement than patients in group S with regard to internal rotation ROM (mean difference, 30.0° vs 20.6°; P < .001) and internal rotation power (3.4 vs 1.8 kgf; P = .001). Patients in group S had a higher retear rate on the follow-up ultrasound than patients in group S&P, but this difference did not reach statistical significance (23.1% vs 11.5%, respectively; P = .465).

Conclusion

In the current study, patients who underwent superior and posterior capsular release in arthroscopic repair of large-to-massive rotator cuff tears had greater postoperative improvement in internal rotation ROM and power compared with patients who underwent superior capsular release alone.

A high level of scientific evidence is available to guide treatment of primary shoulder stiffness: The SIAGASCOT consensus

PURPOSE

Shoulder stiffness (SS) is a condition characterised by active and passive restricted glenohumeral range of motion, which can occur spontaneously in an idiopathic manner or be associated with a known underlying aetiology. Several treatment options are available and currently no consensus has been obtained on which treatment algorithm represents the best choice for the patient. Herein we present the results of a national consensus on the treatment of primary SS.

METHODS

The project followed the modified Delphi consensus process, involving a steering, a rating and a peer-review group. Sixteen questions were generated and subsequently answered by the steering group after a thorough literature search. A rating group composed by professionals specialised in the diagnosis and treatment of shoulder pathologies rated the question-answer sets according to the scientific evidence and their clinical experience.

RESULTS

Recommendations were rated with an average of 8.4 points out of maximum 9 points. None of the 16 answers received a rating of less than 8 and all the answers were considered as appropriate. The majority of responses were assessed as Grade A, signifying a substantial availability of scientific evidence to guide treatment and support recommendations encompassing diagnostics, physiotherapy, electrophysical agents, oral and injective medical therapies, as well as surgical interventions for primary SS.

CONCLUSIONS

A consensus regarding the conservative and surgical treatment of primary SS could be achieved at a national level. This consensus sets basis for evidence-based clinical practice in the management of primary SS and can serve as a model for similar initiatives and adaptable guidelines in other European countries and potentially on a global scale.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level I.

Arthroscopic capsular release for frozen shoulder: when etiology matters

PURPOSE

No therapeutic intervention is universally accepted for frozen shoulder, and the most effective management to restore motion and diminish pain has yet to be defined. The aim of this study was to investigate functional and psychological outcomes in patients who underwent arthroscopic capsular release for a frozen shoulder.

METHODS

A retrospective study with prospective data collection was conducted with 78 patients suffering from frozen shoulder resistance to conservative treatment. Considering the etiology, there were 36 (46.2%) idiopathic, 31 (39.7%) postoperative, and 11 (14.1%) posttraumatic cases. Preoperatively, each patient was evaluated with the range of motion (ROM) assessment and the Constant-Murley score (CMS). At follow-up, the 4-point subjective satisfaction scale (SSS), the ROM assessment, the SF-12 questionnaire, the numerical rating scale (NRS) for the subjective assessment of pain, the CMS and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) were assessed.

RESULTS

After a mean follow-up of 54.2 ± 22.3 months, ROM and CMS showed a statistically significant improvement between pre- and postoperative values (all p < 0.001). Before surgery, the mean CMS was 36.9% that of sex- and age-matched healthy individuals, and all patients showed a CMS lower than the normative data. At the final follow-up visit, the mean CMS was 99.9% that of sex- and age-matched healthy individuals, and 49 (62.8%) patients showed a CMS equal to or higher than the normative data. The mean increase in the CMS was 56.1 ± 8.3 points. The mean SSS, HADS-A, HADS-D, and NRS were 3.7 ± 0.5, 2.5 ± 1.6, 2.2 ± 1.3, and 2.2 ± 1.0, respectively. All patients returned to their previous level of work and sports activity after 2 and 2.5 months, respectively. The multivariate analysis showed the association between a higher postoperative CMS and the idiopathic etiology of a frozen shoulder (p = 0.004, β = 3.971). No intraoperative complications occurred. Postoperatively, four patients (5.1%) were treated with intra-articular steroid injections to manage residual symptoms. One patient (1.3%) with a postoperative frozen shoulder showed persistent symptoms and underwent a new successful arthroscopic capsular release.

CONCLUSION

High patient satisfaction and statistically significant ROM and CMS recovery can be achieved after arthroscopic capsular release to manage frozen shoulder. Better functional outcomes are expected when the etiology is idiopathic. Results can help surgeons identify the patients who will most benefit from surgery and should be discussed with the patient.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III.

One-stage rotator cuff repair in stiff shoulders shows comparable range of motion, clinical outcome and retear rates to non-stiff shoulders: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

One-stage treatment involving rotator cuff repair and shoulder capsule release is mainly used to treat patients with rotator cuff tears (RCTs) and concomitant shoulder stiffness. Despite the increasing attention to the efficacy and safety of one-stage treatment, controversy still remains. Therefore, this systematic review aims to summarize the indications, operation procedure and rehabilitation protocol, and compare the range of motions (ROMs), functional outcomes and retear rates of one-stage treatment for RCTs in stiff shoulders and non-stiff shoulders.

METHODS

Multiple databases (PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Embase and MEDLINE) were searched for studies that investigated outcomes after one-stage treatment for RCTs concomitant with shoulder stiffness compared with rotator cuff repair for RCTs alone, according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses criteria. Descriptive statistics, including range of motion, patient-reported outcome and retear rate, are presented without meta-analysis due to the heterogeneity and low levels of evidence.

RESULTS

A total of 9 cohort studies were included, with 305 patients treated with one-stage treatment involving rotator cuff repair and simultaneous shoulder capsular release and 1059 patients treated with rotator cuff repair alone. Patients in both groups had significant symptom improvement and functional recovery after the one-stage treatment for the stiffness group and standard repair for the non-stiffness group, and most patients could return to normal life and work within 6 months after the operation. The retear rate in the one-stage treatment group was not higher than that in the rotator cuff repair group. No statistically significant differences between the two groups were observed in terms of range of motion and patient-reported outcomes in the vast majority of studies at the final follow-up, including the visual analog scale for pain, the Constant score, the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score, the University of California Los Angeles Shoulder Score, the Oxford shoulder score and the Simple Shoulder Test.

CONCLUSION

One-stage treatment for RCTs in stiff shoulders provides comparable ROM and patient-reported clinical outcomes as rotator cuff repair for non-stiff RCTs. In addition, the rate of postoperative retear in stiff shoulder treated with one-stage treatment was not higher than in non-stiff shoulders.

Effect of intraarticular pressure on glenohumeral kinematics during a simulated abduction motion: a cadaveric study

BACKGROUND

The current understanding of glenohumeral joint stability is defined by active restrictions and passive stabilizers including naturally-occurring negative intraarticular pressure. Cadaveric specimens have been used to evaluate the role of intraarticular pressure on joint stability, although, while the shoulder's negative intraarticular pressure is universally acknowledged, it has been inconsistently accounted for.

HYPOTHESIS

During continuous, passive humeral abduction, releasing the native intraarticular pressure increases joint translation, and restoring this pressure decreases joint translations.

STUDY DESIGN

Descriptive Laboratory Study.

METHODS

A validated shoulder testing system was used to passively abduct the humerus in the scapular plane and measure joint translations for seven (n = 7) cadaveric specimens. The pressure within the glenohumeral joint was measured via a 25-gauge needle during passive abduction of the arm, which was released and subsequently restored. During motion, the rotator cuff muscles were loaded using stepper motors in a force feedback loop and electromagnetic sensors were used to continuously measure the position of the humerus and scapula. Joint translation was defined according to the instant center of rotation of the glenohumeral head according to the recommendations by the International Society of Biomechanics.

RESULTS

Area under the translation versus abduction angle curve suggests that releasing the pressure within the capsule results in significantly less posterior translation of the glenohumeral head as compared to intact (85-90˚, p < 0.05). Posterior and superior translations were reduced after 70˚ of abduction when the pressure within the joint was restored.

CONCLUSION

With our testing system employing a smooth continuous passive motion, we were able to show that releasing intraarticular pressure does not have a major effect on the path of humeral head motion during glenohumeral abduction. However, both violating the capsule and restoring intraarticular pressure after releasing alter glenohumeral translations. Future studies should study the effect of simultaneous external rotation and abduction on the relationship between joint motion and IAP, especially in higher degrees of abduction.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Thoroughly simulating the glenohumeral joint environment in the cadaveric setting may strengthen the conclusions that can be translated from this setting to the clinic.

Adhesive Capsulitis

Adhesive capsulitis, colloquially known as "frozen shoulder," is a relatively common disorder, affecting approximately 2% to 5% of the general population. The incidence may be higher as the condition can be relatively mild and self-limited and thus many patients who experience it may never present for treatment. It involves a pathologic process of gradual fibrosis of the glenohumeral joint that leads to limited active and passive range of motion, contracture of the joint capsule, and shoulder pain.

Sex Is Associated with the Success or Failure of Manipulation Alone for Joint Stiffness Associated with Rotator Cuff Repair

Purpose: One-stage arthroscopic rotator cuff repair with manipulation has been recently performed for rotator cuff tears with shoulder stiffness, whereas some patients require capsular release due to severe stiffness that is difficult to treat with manipulation. The purpose of this study was to analyze patient backgrounds and related factors of success or failure of manipulation alone for the treatment of shoulder stiffness associated with rotator cuff tears. Methods: This study included 64 patients with rotator cuff tears and shoulder stiffness who underwent arthroscopic rotator cuff repair with manipulation alone or with manipulation and capsular release of the glenohumeral joint at our institution between January 2015 and September 2019. The patients were divided into two groups: those whose shoulder stiffness could be improved by manipulation alone (Manipulation group) and those whose stiffness could not be improved by manipulation alone and required capsular release (Capsular release addition group). Analysis was performed between the two groups regarding patient backgrounds and related factors, including rotator cuff tear morphology and range of motions pre- and postoperatively. Results: Exactly 45 patients and 19 patients were included in Manipulation group and Capsular release addition group, respectively. A comparison between the two groups showed that patient age (p = 0.0040), sex (p = 0.0005), and injury due to trauma (p = 0.0018) were significantly related to the success or failure of manipulation alone. Multivariate logistic regression analysis on these three factors showed that sex (odds ratio, 5.5; p = 0.048) was significantly associated with the success or failure of manipulation alone. In both groups, the passive ROM of all patients improved at the last postoperative follow-up compared to their pre-operative values (p < 0.001), except for internal rotation in the Capsular release addition group (p = 0.49). Conclusion: Young male patients who have shoulder stiffness associated with rotator cuff tears should be considered for arthroscopic capsular release rather than manipulation.

Arthroscopic rotator interval release for frozen shoulder, comparative study between diabetic and non-diabetic patients

INTRODUCTION

The objective of this study is to evaluate the outcomes of arthroscopic rotator interval release for the treatment of frozen shoulder and compare the results in patients with and without diabetes.

METHODS

thirty-two patients with frozen shoulders were divided into two groups; 19 diabetics and 13 non-diabetics. All patients underwent arthroscopic rotator interval release. The VAS and UCLA score were assessed pre-operatively and post-operatively; after 1, 3, and 12 months and compared between groups.

RESULTS

The VAS and UCLA score was significantly improved in both groups during follow-up intervals (p < 0.01). There was no significant difference between diabetic and non-diabetic patients in VAS and UCLA scores during follow-up times (p-values > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Arthroscopic rotator interval release provides significant improvement of frozen shoulder with no difference in results between diabetic and non-diabetic patients.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level 2; Prospective Comparative study.

Surgical versus Nonsurgical Multimodality Treatment in an Idiopathic Frozen Shoulder: A Retrospective Study of Clinical and Functional Outcomes

This retrospective study compared the clinical and functional outcomes of patients diagnosed with an idiopathic frozen shoulder with symptom onset of a maximum of six months, treated by arthroscopic capsular release followed by corticosteroid injection and physiotherapy to patients who received only corticosteroid injection followed by physiotherapy. The patients who underwent arthroscopic capsular release, intraoperative corticosteroid injection, and physiotherapy (Group I, n = 30) or received only corticosteroids injection and physiotherapy (Group II, n = 29) were examined in terms of shoulder range of motion (ROM), pain intensity, and function before a given treatment and three, six, and twelve months later. The groups were comparable pre-treatment in terms of ROM, pain, and functional outcome. Group I had statistically and clinically significantly better ROM and function at three and six months post-treatment than Group II. Despite being statistically significant, the between-group differences at twelve-month follow-up in ROM and function were too small to be considered clinically notable. The between-group comparison of pain revealed no significant differences at any post-treatment point of time. The early arthroscopic capsular release preceding corticosteroid injection and physiotherapy seemed more effective at three- and six-month follow-up; however, it brought a comparable result to corticosteroid injection and subsequent physiotherapy at twelve months follow-up.