Arthroscopic release of the glenohumeral joint in shoulder stiffness: a review of 26 cases. French Society for Arthroscopy

Comparing surgical outcomes of anterior capsular release vs circumferential release for persistent capsular stiffness

Purpose

To consolidate the existing literature evaluating anterior capsular release and circumferential capsular release in the treatment of adhesive capsulitis (AC) of the shoulder.

Methods

The electronic databases PUBMED, EMBASE, MEDLINE and CENTRAL (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) were searched from data inception to October 8, 2020. Data are presented descriptively where appropriate. A meta-analysis was conducted for patient-reported outcomes.

Results

Overall, there were forty-six articles included. The majority of patients underwent circumferential release compared to anterior release (80.1% vs. 19.9%). Concomitant Manipulation Under Anesthesia (MUA) was employed in 25 studies, with a higher occurrence in the anterior compared to the circumferential release group (70% vs 60%). Both groups experienced significant improvements postoperatively in range of motion (ROM) and patient-reported outcomes. Complication rates were low for both anterior release (0.67%) and 360° release (0.44%).

Conclusion

Both anterior and circumferential release are effective techniques for treating AC with low complication rates. Future studies should improve documentation of patient demographics, surgical techniques and outcomes to determine an individualized treatment protocol for patients.

Level of evidence

Level IV, Systematic Review of Level I-IV studies.

Arthroscopic Management of the Stiff Shoulder

Shoulder stiffness affects a diverse population of patients suffering a decrease in function and shoulder pain. Arthroscopic management of this debilitating spectrum of pathology is a safe and effective course of action in cases recalcitrant to nonoperative therapy. Arthroscopic management of the stiff shoulder has been reported to be effective in the treatment of stiffness due to adhesive capsulitis, birth palsy, stiffness in the setting of rotator cuff tears, and osteoarthritis in the posttraumatic patient, in the postoperative patient, and in the throwing athlete. Arthroscopic management is most effective in treating the stiff shoulder in the setting of adhesive capsulitis recalcitrant to nonoperative therapy or posttraumatic stiffness. Results are more guarded in the treatment of postoperative stiffness. Excessive force and trauma to the shoulder, including fracture of the humerus, can be avoided with a 360[degrees] capsular release for shoulder stiffness rather than manipulation under anesthesia.

Clinical Outcome after Arthroscopic Capsular Release for Adhesive Capsulitis of the Shoulder

Background

This study was undertaken to evaluate the outcome of the arthroscopic capsular release for adhesive capsulitis of the shoulder.

Methods

This study retrospectively investigated thirty shoulders in 29 patients who presented with recalcitrant adhesive capsulitis and underwent arthroscopic treatments. Other than typical findings of adhesive capsulitis, combined pathologies in the glenohumeral joint and subacromial space were evaluated by arthroscopy. Clinical evaluations were performed using the Constant’s score and ranges of motion (ROM) at preoperative, 6 months postoperatively and at the final follow-up.

Results

Our study included 17 women and 12 men with a mean age of 53.8 years (range, 34–74). Mean follow-up duration was 24 months (range, 12–40 months). Assessment of combined pathologies revealed that partial rotator cuff tear of less than 25% thickness, was most common (overall 83.3%; with bursal 57% and articular 23%). Subacromial synovitis and adhesion were also frequent (53.3%). The Constant score and ranges of motion significantly improved at the final follow-up, compared with preoperative levels. However, clinical results at 6 months postoperatively were found to be significantly inferior to those observed at the final follow-up (p≤0.001 for all factors). Functional impairment was the major complaint in 59.3% patients at the 6 months follow-up.

Conclusions

Although arthroscopic capsular release yielded favorable outcome at the mean 24 months follow-up, pain and motion limitations at 6-month postoperatively persisted in more than 50% of our patients. While combined pathologies were commonly encountered during arthroscopy, although their effects on surgical outcome in adhesive capsulitis remains unclear in this study.

An Intra-articular Steroid Injection at 6 Weeks Postoperatively for Shoulder Stiffness After Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Repair Does Not Affect Repair Integrity

BACKGROUND

Shoulder stiffness is a common complication after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair. However, there is no consensus on the treatment of stiffness after repair. Although one treatment option is an intra-articular steroid injection, it may negatively affect repair integrity, and there is a paucity of literature regarding the timing of intra-articular injections for stiffness after repair and its effect on repair integrity.

PURPOSE

To compare repair integrity and clinical outcomes after an intra-articular steroid injection administered at 6 weeks and 12 weeks postoperatively for shoulder stiffness after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair.

STUDY DESIGN

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.

METHODS

Patients who developed stiffness after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair were given a series of 3 intra-articular steroid injections every 4 weeks from 6 (6-week group) and 12 weeks (12-week group) postoperatively. The control group had rotator cuff tears but neither stiffness nor injections. Shoulder range of motion (ROM), the Korean Shoulder Scoring System (KSS) score, and the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) shoulder score were assessed preoperatively with a minimum of 2-year follow-up. Repair integrity was assessed using magnetic resonance imaging at 6 months postoperatively.

RESULTS

Seventy-four of 209 patients (35.4%) who underwent arthroscopic rotator cuff repair developed stiffness. There were no significant differences in retear rates among the 6-week (5.7%, 2/35 patients), 12-week (10.3%, 4/39 patients), and control groups (14.1%, 19/135 patients) ( P = .374). Both the 6- and 12-week groups showed significant improvement in ROM (both P < .001), KSS scores (both P < .001), and UCLA scores (both P < .001) at the final follow-up. The 6-week group showed significantly better ROM ( P < .001), KSS scores ( P < .001), and UCLA scores ( P < .001) than the 12-week group at 3 months postoperatively. However, both the 6- and 12-week groups showed significantly lower KSS (81.3 ± 12.0 [ P = .004] and 83.4 ± 8.6 [ P = .035], respectively) and UCLA (29.3 ± 4.6 [ P = .006] and 30.0 ± 3.3 [ P = .042], respectively) scores than the control group (90.4 ± 13.6 and 32.3 ± 4.7, respectively) at the last follow-up.

CONCLUSION

An intra-articular steroid injection administered at 6 weeks postoperatively for shoulder stiffness after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair may be effective for reducing patients' pain and improving shoulder ROM at 3 months postoperatively without compromising repair integrity.

MID-LONG TERM RESULTS OF MANIPULATION AND ARTHROSCOPIC RELEASE IN FROZEN SHOULDER

OBJECTIVE

Surgical treatment options should be discussed in cases of frozen shoulder, which is usually treated in a conservative manner. In this study, we evaluated the efficacy of manipulation and arthroscopic release in cases of frozen shoulder which resisted conservative treatment.

METHODS

A total of 32 patients who underwent manipulation and arthroscopic capsular release in 34 shoulders were included in the study. The average follow-up period was 49.5 months (range: 24-90 months). No reason for onset could be found in 8 (25%) patients, who were classified as primary frozen shoulder; twenty-four (75%) patients were classified as secondary frozen shoulder due to underlying pathologies. The average pre-operative complaint period was 11 months (range: 3-24 months). After arthroscopic examination, manipulation was performed first, followed by arthroscopic capsular release. The range of motion in both shoulders was compared before the procedure and in the last follow-up visit. Constant and Oxford classifications were used to assess functional results, and the results were assessed statistically.

RESULTS

Patient values for passive elevation, abduction, adduction-external rotation, abduction-external rotation, and abduction-internal rotation increased in a statistically significant manner between the preoperative assessment and follow-up evaluation (p<0.01). The average change of 47.97±21.03 units observed in the patients' values obtained in the control measurements against the pre-op Constant scores was determined to be statistically significant (p<0.01). According to the Oxford classification, 29 shoulders were sufficient.

CONCLUSION

Successful results can be obtained with arthroscopic release performed after manipulation in patients with frozen shoulder resistant to conservative treatment. Level of Evidence IV, Case Series.

Management of Failed Rotator Cuff Repair in Young Patients

Management of failed rotator cuff repair may be difficult, especially in young patients. Various nonmodifiable and modifiable patient factors, including age, tendon quality, rotator cuff tear characteristics, acute or chronic rotator cuff tear, bone quality, tobacco use, and medications, affect rotator cuff repair healing. Surgical variables, such as the technique, timing, tension on the repair, the biomechanical construct, and fixation, as well as the postoperative rehabilitation strategy also affect rotator cuff repair healing. Variable outcomes have been reported in patients who undergo revision rotator cuff repair; however, a systematic surgical approach may increase the likelihood of a successful outcome. Numerous cellular and mechanical biologic augments, including platelet-rich plasma, platelet-rich fibrin matrix, mesenchymal stem cells, and acellular dermal matrix grafts, have been used in rotator cuff repair; however, conflicting or inconclusive outcomes have been reported in patients who undergo revision rotator cuff repair with the use of these augments. A variety of tendon transfer options, including latissimus dorsi, teres major, lower trapezius, pectoralis minor, pectoralis major, combined pectoralis major and latissimus dorsi, and combined latissimus dorsi and teres major, are available for the management of massive irreparable rotator cuff tears. Ultimately, the optimization of surgical techniques and the use of appropriate biologic/tendon transfer techniques, if indicated, is the best method for the management of failed rotator cuff repair.

Contact pressure of the coracoacromial arch in shoulders with joint contracture: A cadaveric study

BACKGROUNDS

There have been many reports describing that the capsular fibrosis of the shoulder joint is the main cause of frozen shoulder, whereas others reported the significance of subacromial impingement as an etiological factor. The purpose of this study was to investigate the contact pressure between the coracoacromial arch and the rotator cuff tendons to clarify the contact phenomenon in shoulders with joint contracture.

METHODS

Fourteen fresh-frozen cadaveric shoulders were used. Specimens were divided into two groups: normal group (8 shoulders, definition: more than 61° of flexion and abduction and more than 21° of external rotation) and joint contracture group (6 shoulders, definition: less than 60° of flexion and abduction and less than 20° of external rotation). Contact pressure and area beneath the coracoacromial arch were measured by a flexible force sensor during flexion, abduction, internal and external rotation in adduction and abduction, extension and horizontal extension motions.

RESULTS

The peak contact pressure under the acromion was observed at 90° in flexion and abduction in the normal group, whereas that in the contracture group was observed at 30° in flexion (P = 0.037) and at 30° in abduction (P = 0.041). Contact pressure in the contracture group was significantly higher than that in the normal group at 20° and 30° of abduction (P = 0.043, P = 0.041, respectively). There were no significant differences of contact pressure during other motions. Although no significant differences of contact pressure beneath the coracoacromial ligament were observed, contact area significantly increased in extension and horizontal extension motion.

CONCLUSION

The contact between the acromion and the rotator cuff was observed in lower angles of flexion and abduction in shoulders with contracture than in those without. When treating patients with shoulder contracture, we need to perform rehabilitation taking such an abnormal movement into consideration.

Adhesive Capsulitis of the Shoulder. Is there Consensus Regarding the Treatment? A Comprehensive Review

Background:

Adhesive capsulitis of the shoulder (ACS) is a common self-limiting condition characterized by disabling pain and restricted movements. Its pathophysiology is poorly understood, clinically it is characterized by stages of pain and stiffness, and finally often patients never recover fully. However, there is no consensus about available methods of treatment for ACS. The aims of this paper are to discuss and develop issues regarding approaches to management in ACS in the stages of it.

Methods:

A review of the literature was performed and guidelines for the treatment of that clinical entity for doctors and health care professionals are provided.

Results:

Anti-inflammatory medications, steroid and/or hyaluronate injections and physiotherapy is the mainstay of conservative management either alone in the first stages or in combination with other treatment modalities in the later stages. Next line of treatment, involving minor to moderate intervention, includes suprascapular nerve block, distension arthrography and manipulation under anaesthesia. In order to avoid complications of “blind intervention”, arthroscopic capsular release is gradually more commonly applied, and in recalcitrant severe cases open release is a useful option.

Conclusion:

Various modalities of conservative management and gradually more surgical release are applied. However, often clinicians choose on personal experience and training rather than on published evidence.

Adhesive Capsulitis of the Shoulder Joint: Value of Glenohumeral Distance on Magnetic Resonance Arthrography

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the usefulness of glenohumeral distance (GHD) on axial images of magnetic resonance (MR) arthrography for diagnosis of adhesive capsulitis and to compare this finding with previously reported classic MR arthrographic findings of adhesive capsulitis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Our study was approved by the institutional ethical review board of our institute. We evaluated 41 patients (M-F, 35:6; mean age, 46 years; adhesive capsulitis, 21; no adhesive capsulitis, 20) who underwent MR arthrography. Two radiologists measured GHD, width of the axillary recess, and capsular thickness in consensus. The GHD was measured from the subchondral bone of the glenoid fossa to the subchondral bone of the humeral head at the level of the midline of the humeral head. Glenohumeral distance (anterior, middle, posterior, and mean), width of the axillary recess, and capsular thickness (anterior, posterior, and mean) were compared in the adhesive capsulitis and no adhesive capsulitis groups using the Mann-Whitney U test.

RESULTS

The mean GHD of the no adhesive capsulitis group was longer than that of the adhesive capsulitis group. The length differences were statistically significant (P < 0.05). The mean width of the axillary recess of the no adhesive capsulitis group was significantly wider than that of the adhesive capsulitis group (P < 0.001). The mean capsular thickness of the no adhesive capsulitis group was significantly thinner than that in the adhesive capsulitis group (P = 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

A decreased GHD on MR arthrography can be another useful feature to diagnose adhesive capsulitis in addition to previously presented radiologic features such as capsular thickening and reduced axillary recess capacity.

Arthroscopic treatment of refractory adhesive capsulitis of the shoulder

OBJECTIVE

to evaluate the results of arthroscopic treatment of refractory adhesive capsulitis of the shoulder associated as for improved range of motion after a minimum follow up of six years.

METHODS

from August 2002 to December 2004, ten patients with adhesive capsulitis of the shoulder resistant to conservative treatment underwent arthroscopic surgery. One interscalene catheter was placed for postoperative analgesia before the procedure. All were in Phase II, with a minimum follow up of two years. The mean age was 52.9 years (39-66), predominantly female (90%), six on the left shoulder. The time between onset of symptoms and surgical treatment ranged from six to 20 months. Four adhesive capsulitis were found to be primary (40%) and six secondary (60%).

RESULTS

the preoperative mean of active anterior elevation was 92°, of external rotation was 10.5° of the L5 level internal rotation; the postoperative ones were 149°, 40° and T12 level, respectively. Therefore, the average gain was 57° for the anterior elevation, 29.5° for external rotation in six spinous processes. There was a significant difference in movements' gains between the pre and post-operative periods (p<0.001). By the Constant Score (range of motion), there was an increase of 13.8 (average pre) to 32 points (average post).

CONCLUSION

the arthroscopic treatment proved effective in refractory adhesive capsulitis of the shoulder resistant to conservative treatment, improving the range of joint movements of patients evaluated after a minimum follow up of six years.

Arthroscopic treatment of adhesive capsulitis of the shoulder with minimum follow up of six years

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the results of the arthroscopic treatment of adhesive capsulitis of the shoulder with six to nine years of follow up.

METHODS

From August 2002 to December 2004, ten patients underwent arthroscopic capsular release for adhesive capsulitis refractory to conservative treatment. An interscalene catheter was used for postoperative analgesia, before the procedure. All were in stage II, with a minimum follow up of six years. The mean age was of 52.9 years old (range, 39 to 66), with female predominance (90%) and six left shoulders. The time between the onset of symptoms and surgery varied from six to 20 months. There were four patients in the primary form (40%) and six in the secondary (60%).

RESULTS

In the preoperative evaluation, the mean active anterior elevation was 92°, 10.5° of external rotation, and internal rotation level L5. Postoperatively, the mean active elevation was 149°, 40° of external rotation and internal level T12, respectively. Thus, the average gains were 57° in forward active elevation, 29.5° in external rotation and six spinous processes, these values being statistically significant (p <0.001). According to the Constant functional score (arc of movements), the value increased from 13.8 (preoperative mean) to 32 points (postoperative mean).

CONCLUSION

Arthroscopic treatment of adhesive capsulitis of the shoulder refractory to conservative treatment allows effective gain of range of motion of this joint.

Clinical outcomes of rotator cuff repair with arthroscopic capsular release and manipulation for rotator cuff tear with stiffness: a matched-pair comparative study between patients with and without stiffness

PURPOSE

To compare clinical outcomes after surgical treatment between rotator cuff tears with and without shoulder stiffness and evaluate the serial changes in pain intensity, functional scores, and range of motion (ROM).

METHODS

The study comprised 26 patients with preoperative stiffness (stiff group) and 26 patients without stiffness (non-stiff group). The stiff group underwent arthroscopic or mini-open rotator cuff repair with arthroscopic capsular release and manipulation. The non-stiff group with rotator cuff repair only was matched for age and sex with the stiff group. The visual analog scale (VAS) pain score; University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) score; American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score; and ROM were evaluated preoperatively; 3, 6, and 12 months after surgery; and at final follow-up.

RESULTS

Both groups had significant improvements in the VAS pain score, UCLA score, ASES score, and ROM at final follow-up. There were no significant differences between the 2 groups regarding VAS pain score, UCLA score, and ASES score at any period after surgery. In the stiff group, mean forward flexion was significantly lower than that in the non-stiff group at 3 months after surgery (143.1° v 154.2°, P = .003). Mean external rotation and internal rotation were significantly lower than those in the non-stiff group at 3 months after surgery (37.9° v 44.2°, P = .043, and 15.8 v 13.9, P < .001, respectively) and 6 months after surgery (49.1° v 57.3°, P = .002, and 13.2 v 12.0, P = .033, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Overall satisfactory clinical outcomes could be achieved in both the stiff and non-stiff groups, although the stiff group had slower postoperative recovery of ROM until 6 months after surgery.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, retrospective comparative study, prognosis study.

The impact of arthroscopic capsular release in patients with primary frozen shoulder on shoulder muscular strength

The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of arthroscopic capsular release in patients with primary frozen shoulder on muscular strength of nonaffected and treated shoulder after at least two-year follow-up after the surgery. The assessment included twenty-seven patients, who underwent arthroscopic capsular release due to persistent limitation of range of passive and active motion, shoulder pain, and limited function of upper limb despite 6-month conservative treatment. All the patients underwent arthroscopic superior, anteroinferior, and posterior capsular release. After at least two-year follow-up, measurement of muscular strength of abductors, flexors, and external and internal rotators of the operated and nonaffected shoulder, as well as determination of range of motion (ROM) and function (ASES) in the operated and nonaffected shoulder, was performed. Measurement of muscular strength in the patient group did not reveal statistically significant differences between operated and nonaffected shoulder. The arthroscopic capsular release does not have significant impact on the decrease in the muscular strength of the operated shoulder.

Functional results and patient satisfaction after arthroscopic capsular release of idiopathic and post-traumatic stiff shoulder

PURPOSE

The purpose of this prospective study was to compare the functional results and patient satisfaction after arthroscopic shoulder capsular release in patients with idiopathic and posttraumatic stiff shoulder.

METHODS

The study included 50 patients who underwent arthroscopic capsular release after failure of conservative treatment. The etiology of stiffness was either idiopathic (25 patients) or post-traumatic (25 patients). There were 28 women and 22 men with an average age of 49 years (range, 32-70 years). All patients were treated with physical therapy for a mean of six months (range, 3-12 months) before surgery. Range of motion was measured three times: 48 hours after surgery, then one month and six months after surgery.

RESULTS

Constant score showed improvement for both groups of patients in the period of six months after surgery. In the group with idiopathic stiffness the score increased from 36 to 86, while in the group with post-traumatic stiff shoulder the score advanced from 32 to 91. The idiopathic stiff shoulder group had an improved active forward flexion from 90 to 161°, external rotation from 10 to 40°, and internal rotation from L5 to L1. In the post-traumatic stiff shoulder groupthe forward flexion was improved from 95 to 170°, external rotation from 13 to 40° and internal rotation from L4 to L1.

CONCLUSION

There was an improvement of range of motions and patients' satisfaction after arthroscopic shoulder capsular release and manipulation under anesthesia, equally in idiopathic and post-traumatic stiff shoulder, compared to the situation before surgery. Post-traumatic contracture patients expressed higher level of satisfaction with their shoulder function than the idiopathic stiff shoulder patients.

Comparison of manipulation and arthroscopic capsular release for adhesive capsulitis: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

It is currently unclear as to whether there is a difference in the clinical effectiveness of an arthroscopic capsular release compared to a manipulation under anaesthesia (MUA) in patients with recalcitrant idiopathic adhesive capsulitis.

METHODS

A systematic review was performed using computerized keyword searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Two reviewers independently performed searches and article reduction. Studies that reported outcomes data following either a manipulation under regional or general anaesthesia or an arthroscopic capsular release in patients with idiopathic adhesive capsulitis were included. Data on clinical measures of shoulder range of motion and subjective outcome measures were extracted and summarized.

RESULTS

Twenty-two studies (21 studies provided level IV evidence) including 989 patients were included resulting in a comparison of 9 MUA and 17 capsular release groups. Patients were 60% female with a median age of 52 years old (range, 24-91 years). Median duration of symptoms and follow-up were 9 months (range, 3-50) and 35 months (range, 3-189), respectively. There were minimal differences in the median changes in abduction, flexion, and external rotation range of motion (ROM), and final Constant score between the MUA and capsular release groups.

CONCLUSION

The quality of evidence available is low and the data available demonstrate little benefit for a capsular release instead of, or in addition to, an MUA. A high quality study is required to definitively evaluate the relative benefits of these procedures.

Arthroscopic management of recalcitrant stiffness following rotator cuff repair: A retrospective analysis

BACKGROUND

Rotator cuff repair surgery is one of the most commonly performed procedures in the world but limited literature exists for guidance of optimal management of post-operative arthrofibrosis following cuff repair. The purpose of this study is to report the results of arthroscopic capsular release, lysis of adhesions, manipulation under anesthesia, and aggressive physical therapy in patients with recalcitrant postoperative stiffness after rotator cuff repair.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Twenty-nine patients who had recalcitrant arthrofibrosis following either an arthroscopic (62%), open (28%), or mini-open (10%) rotator cuff repair were included in study. The average age at the time of index cuff repair surgery was 49.8 years (range 24-70 years). Sixteen patients (55%) were involved in worker's compensation claims. The mean time from the date of index operation to lysis of adhesions was 9.7 months (range 4.2-36.2 months), and the mean time from lysis of adhesion to most recent follow-up 18.2 months (range 4.1-43.7 months). Post-operative evaluation was performed using American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Score (ASES), Visual Analog Score (VAS), Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE), and Simple Shoulder Test (SST) on 18 (62%), while range of motion (ROM), dynamometer strength testing, and Constant-Murley Scoring were performed on 13 (45%). Statistical analysis was performed using a Student's t-test.

RESULTS

Prior to arthroscopic lysis of adhesions, mean forward active elevation (FE) was 103.8°, (range 60-145° (SD 26.3) and external rotation at the side (ERS) was 25.3°, (range 5-70° SD 15.1°). Post-operatively, at the most recent follow-up, FE was significantly improved to 158.3°, (range 110-180° SD 22.3°), and ERS improved to 58.9°, (range 15-90° SD 18.6°) in both cases. Involvement in a worker's compensation claim resulted in a lower ASES, VAS, and SANE score, but there was no statistically significant difference in motion.

CONCLUSION

Arthroscopic capsular release, lysis of adhesions, and manipulation under anesthesia is a safe, reliable method of treating persistent stiffness following rotator cuff repair.

Shoulder stiffness and rotator cuff repair

INTRODUCTION

Shoulder stiffness is a frequent complication of surgical repair of rotator cuff tears. Post-operative stiffness negatively affects surgical outcomes leading to a substantial comorbidity and to the failure of surgical treatment. Also, a stiff shoulder could commonly be concomitant with an rotator cuff tear (RCT).

SOURCES OF DATA

We performed a comprehensive search of CINAHL, Embase, Medline and the Cochrane Central Registry of Controlled Trials, from inception of the database to 31 July 2011. Sixteen articles published in peer-reviewed journals were included in this comprehensive review.

AREAS OF CONTROVERSY

The management of shoulder stiffness is still controversial. The role of rehabilitation programs (standard versus early passive mobilization) after RCT repair on the development of stiffness is not clear, while the role of arthroscopic capsular release for post-operative stiffness is better defined, although a threshold of decreased the range of movement for which capsular release is advised has not been identified.

AREAS OF AGREEMENT

Several factors have been identified to predispose the development of shoulder stiffness. There is also evidence in favor of surgical management of RCTs even when accompanied by shoulder stiffness, and there are strong evidences that arthroscopic capsular release is reliable and effective in managing shoulder stiffness.

GROWING POINTS

The post-operative rehabilitation protocol remains controversial. We are still far from definitive guidelines for the management of pre- and post-operative stiffness, and prospective double-blinded randomized clinical trials are needed to obtain evidence allowing to establish a reliable and effective management plan for shoulder stiffness.

Pain management in the rehabilitation of stiff shoulder: prospective multicenter comparative study of 193 cases

INTRODUCTION

The present study investigated the impact of respecting pain threshold on clinical recovery in stiff shoulder.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A prospective multicenter comparative study followed up 193 cases of shoulder stiffness for a mean 12-month period (range, 8-31 months) after four different treatment protocols: (1) conventional sub-pain-threshold rehabilitation (58 cases); (2) self-rehabilitation exceeding the pain threshold (59 cases); (3) supervised suprathreshold rehabilitation (31 cases); and (4) capsulotomy with sub-threshold rehabilitation (45 cases). Follow-up was daily for the first 6 weeks then weekly for the next 6; each session included assessment of the painfulness, feasibility and duration of each rehabilitation and self-rehabilitation exercise and of pain status, disability and psychological status. The surgeon followed patients up at 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, 1 year and at last follow-up.

RESULTS

Sub-threshold rehabilitation provided progressive results, limited in time (P<0.05). Suprathreshold self-rehabilitation provided reduced pain (P<0.05) as of the first days, with nocturnal pain ceasing after 7 days' rehabilitation in 43% of cases. Supervision of self-rehabilitation exercises optimized the clinical result (P<0.05). Capsulotomy did not influence pain evolution over the first 8 weeks, but then improved it. Failure (at 1 year, 14-17%; last follow-up, 3.5%) correlated directly with the number of exercises performed by the patient (P<0.05).

DISCUSSION

The dogma of respecting the pain threshold is dated: pain inflicted on a passive patient impairs clinical evolution, but pain managed by an informed active patient under experienced supervision provides rapid recovery of function and pain-free status.

Management of the stiff shoulder. A prospective multicenter comparative study of the six main techniques in use: 235 cases

INTRODUCTION

Stiffness in the shoulder is a frequent symptom associated with a number of clinical entities whose management remains inadequately defined.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This prospective study of 235 cases of stiffness in the shoulder compared six therapeutic techniques with a mean follow-up of 13 months (range, 3-28 months) (T1: 58 cases, conventional rehabilitation under the pain threshold, T2: 59 cases, self-rehabilitation over the pain threshold, T3: 31 cases, T2 + supervision, T4: 11 cases, T1 + capsular distension, T5: 31 cases, T1 + locoregional anesthesia, T6: 45 cases, T1 + T5 + capsulotomy). The therapeutic power of each technique and its impact on the result were assessed at each self-rehabilitation and rehabilitation session during the first 6 weeks and then at 3 months, 6 months, and at the final revision depending on subjective criteria (pain, discomfort, and morale) and objective criteria (Constant score, goniometric measurements).

RESULTS

Conventional rehabilitation (T1) is less effective than self-rehabilitation over the pain threshold (T2 & T3) during the first 6 weeks (P<0.05). Self-rehabilitation stagnates between the 6th and 12th week except when it is supervised by a therapist (T3). Anesthesia (T4) and capsular distension (T5) do not lead to significantly different progression beyond 6 months. Capsulotomy does not demonstrate greater therapeutic power but its failure rate (persisting stiffness at 1 year) is 0% versus 14-17% for the other techniques (P<0.05).

DISCUSSION

The techniques are complementary and therapeutic success stems from an algorithm adapted to the individual patient with, over the first 3 months, successive self-rehabilitation and conventional rehabilitation, possibly completed by capsular distension or anesthesia between the 3rd and 6th months. In case of failure at 6 months, endoscopic capsulotomy can be proposed. Therapeutic patient education and active participation are the key to treatment success or failure.

[Frozen shoulder. Diagnosis and therapy]

The condition of shoulder stiffness is often called adhesive capsulitis or frozen shoulder. It is regarded as a distinct clinical entity showing a benign and regular course. The major clinical feature is significant reduction in both active and passive range of motion (ROM) accompanied by stage-dependent pain, allowing for a clinical diagnosis. There are primary and secondary forms, the former having an unknown etiology and increased occurrence in patients with metabolic disorders and the latter being seen with prior injury or operation. Three stages, each lasting 4-6 months, mark the clinical course. The progression of the disease is self-limiting and may occasionally resolve in partial restitution. In the first stage ("freezing"), the shoulder continuously loses passive motion and causes worsening pain. Continuing stiffness and improvements in pain and inflammation are characteristic of the second stage ("frozen"). In the third stage ("thawing"), restriction of shoulder motion decreases, and ROM increases. Treatment should be adjusted to these stages. Recommendations include analgesics and joint injections in the first stage and physiotherapy in combination with manual therapy in the second and third stages. In cases of failure, passive exercise under interscalene block, manipulation under general anesthesia, or arthroscopic arthrolysis should be considered.

Frozen shoulder: evidence and a proposed model guiding rehabilitation

Frozen shoulder or adhesive capsulitis describes the common shoulder condition characterized by painful and limited active and passive range of motion. The etiology of frozen shoulder remains unclear; however, patients typically demonstrate a characteristic history, clinical presentation, and recovery. A classification schema is described, in which primary frozen shoulder and idiopathic adhesive capsulitis are considered identical and not associated with a systemic condition or history of injury. Secondary frozen shoulder is defined by 3 subcategories: systemic, extrinsic, and intrinsic. We also propose another classification system based on the patient's irritability level (low, moderate, and high), that we believe is helpful when making clinical decisions regarding rehabilitation intervention. Nonoperative interventions include patient education, modalities, stretching exercises, joint mobilization, and corticosteroid injections. Glenohumeral intra-articular corticosteroid injections, exercise, and joint mobilization all result in improved short- and long-term outcomes. However, there is strong evidence that glenohumeral intra-articular corticosteroid injections have a significantly greater 4- to 6-week beneficial effect compared to other forms of treatment. A rehabilitation model based on evidence and intervention strategies matched with irritability levels is proposed. Exercise and manual techniques are progressed as the patient's irritability reduces. Response to treatment is based on significant pain relief, improved satisfaction, and return of functional motion. Patients who do not respond or worsen should be referred for an intra-articular corticosteroid injection. Patients who have recalcitrant symptoms and disabling pain may respond to either standard or translational manipulation under anesthesia or arthroscopic release.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level 5.

Moderate preoperative shoulder stiffness does not alter the clinical outcome of rotator cuff repair with arthroscopic release and manipulation

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to determine whether moderate preoperative shoulder stiffness affects the clinical outcome of rotator cuff repair, and to evaluate the serial change in range of motion (ROM), functional scores, pain, and satisfaction after rotator cuff repair.

METHODS

Rotator cuff repair was performed in 125 consecutive patients (127 shoulders). Thirty patients had concomitant moderate shoulder stiffness at the time of the repair. There were no statistical differences in sex ratio, age, the size and retraction of the tear, or the associated pathologies and repair procedure between the stiffness and nonstiffness groups. Arthroscopic capsular release and manipulation were added to the stiffness group, and the same rehabilitation protocol was applied according to the size of the tear. Clinical outcomes were evaluated using ROM, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeon (ASES) score, Constant score, Simple Shoulder Test (SST), and short form 36. Pain and postoperative patient satisfaction were measured by a visual analog scale. All clinical parameters were prospectively recorded on the day before surgery, and at 3, 6, and 9 months postoperatively, and at their last follow-up visit.

RESULTS

Differences of ROM did not reach statistical significance after 6 months of operation. Other functional outcome instruments showed no statistical difference at any follow-up period. Postoperative cuff integrity after 1 year showed no statistical difference between 2 groups.

CONCLUSIONS

This study suggests that moderate preoperative shoulder stiffness does not affect clinical outcomes of rotator cuff repair if arthroscopic capsular release with manipulation is added to the index procedure. Arthroscopic capsular release with manipulation and a well programmed rehabilitation program can avoid any delay of surgery and limitation of motion after cuff repair in patients with concomitant moderate shoulder stiffness.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, retrospective comparative study.

Ectopic insertion of the pectoralis minor: implication in the arthroscopic treatment of shoulder stiffness

Although ectopic insertion of the pectoralis minor has been previously described in the literature, the role of such anatomical variations in producing shoulder symptoms (i.e., pain and/or stiffness) remains controversial. We describe here a case of shoulder stiffness in which an ectopic insertion of the pectoralis minor over the supraspinatus tendon was found to be the main reason for severe contracture in external rotation and anterior thoracic pain. During arthroscopy, external rotation could not be restored despite anterior and inferior capsulotomy and release of the capsule of the rotator interval. Complete restoration of the passive external rotation was obtained only after complete release of the pectoralis minor from the supraspinatus. This observation underlines the importance of recognising such an anatomical variation when performing an arthroscopic arthrolysis in a stiff shoulder.

Idiopathic adhesive capsulitis of the shoulder: a review

Many terms have been used to describe what has been called idiopathic adhesive capsulitis of the shoulder. This pathology is defined as a self-limiting condition of unknown etiology. The natural history is 18-30 months even though a high-percentage of patient present impaired range of movement even at long-term follow-up. The diagnosis is mainly clinical and no significant changes are normally present at MRI or CT scan. Several treatment options have been tried over the years with different approaches and results.

[Arthroscopic treatment of capsular shoulder stiffness.]

The shoulder capsular sitffness must be managed first by a physiotherapist and the arthroscopic release is indicated after failure. The clinical assessment is essential and reveals the loss of passive motion in specified direction. The x-rays and imaging are necessary for excluding the other etiologies of shoulder stiffness. The arthroscopic treatment is part of he treatment strategy which has to be explained to the patient. The arthroscopic treatment starts by measuring under anesthesia the loss of passive motion. The next step consists of the release of the rotator interval followed by resection of the anterior capsule. Finally, the posterior capsule is cut according to the location of the capsular retraction. The interest of the subacromial debridement is still of debate. The postoperative pain control and the rehabilitation are part of the treatment. The literature analysis demonstrates the efficiency of the arthroscopic treatment, even if the post-op care are often long. A delay of 6 months is currently necessary to obtain the final results. The main advantages of the arthroscopic treatment is to address specifically the retracted capsule and to perform a selective release which allow to start rehabilitation program early.

Intraarticular lesions in primary frozen shoulder after manipulation under general anesthesia

The aim of this study was to find intraarticular lesions after manipulation under general anesthesia in patients with primary frozen shoulder. In a prospective trial conducted between 2001 and 2003 in 30 patients with primary frozen shoulder, the affected shoulders were manipulated while the patients were under general anesthetia. Exclusion criteria were secondary stiffness caused by rotator cuff tears and glenohumeral arthritis. After manipulation, each patient was examined by arthroscopy, and any intraarticular lesions were documented. In all patients, during manipulation, a significant improvement in the range of motion was achieved. Under anesthesia, flexion improved on average from 70 degrees +/- 33 degrees to 180 degrees +/- 15 degrees, abduction from 50 degrees +/- 20 degrees to 170 degrees +/- 25 degrees, and external rotation from -5 degrees +/- 10 degrees to +40 degrees +/- 20 degrees. Arthroscopy revealed hemarthrosis in all patients after manipulation. In 22 patients, localized synovitis was detected in the area of the rotator interval, whereas in 8 patients, disseminated synovitis was observed as a feature of adhesive capsulitis. After manipulation, the capsule was seen to be ruptured superiorly in 11 patients, the anterior capsule was ruptured up to the infraglenoid pole in 24 patients, and 16 patients each had a capsular lesion located posteriorly. In 18 patients no additional joint damage was found after manipulation. In 4 patients, iatrogenic superior labrum anterior-posterior lesions were observed. Further injuries detected were 3 fresh partial tears of the subscapularis tendon, 4 anterior labral detachments (1 with a small osteochondral defect), and 2 tears of the middle glenohumeral ligament. Even though manipulation under anesthesia is effective in terms of joint mobilization, the method can cause iatrogenic intraarticular damage.

Arthroscopic release of adhesive capsulitis

Twenty-five patients with primary adhesive capsulitis underwent an arthroscopic release of the capsule of the shoulder joint. They were reviewed after a mean of 14.8 months (range, 3-40 months). Night pain and awakening were a feature in all 25 patients preoperatively but were only found in 3 postoperatively. There was marked improvement in pain from a preoperative visual analog scale score of 3.1 to a postoperative visual analog scale score of 12.6 on a scale of 15. Passive movement of the joint improved significantly, with mean passive elevation changing from 73.7 degrees preoperatively to 163 degrees postoperatively, mean passive external rotation changing from 10.6 degrees preoperatively to 46.8 degrees postoperatively, and passive internal rotation improving by a mean of 9 levels. The mean preoperative Constant score of 25.3 improved to 75.5 postoperatively, and the Constant score adjusted for age and gender averaged 91%. All patients completed the Short Form-36 questionnaire at their review, revealing a norm-based physical summary score of 48.7, falling within 1 SD of a normal population sample. This arthroscopic surgical technique is derived from the open surgical release. It is founded upon an understanding of the pathology of this condition. It appears to yield rapid relief of pain and dramatic improvement in movement and function in this painful and otherwise protracted condition.

Addressing glenohumeral stiffness while treating the painful and stiff shoulder arthroscopically

The shoulder can be primarily or secondarily stiff. Cadaveric cutting studies have shown increases in passive range of glenohumeral motion when certain portions of the capsule are released. This study has recorded the intraoperative gains made in passive range of motion for external rotation, flexion, abduction, and internal rotation with sequential release of the rotator interval, inferior capsule, and posterosuperior capsule, regardless of initial etiology, and followed-up over time. Thirty one of 60 shoulders, found clinically to have a loss of passive range of motion and having failed a nonoperative approach, underwent a capsular release. Eighteen patients underwent a partial capsular release (group 1) and 13 patients (group 2) underwent a complete capsular release. Thirty of 31 shoulders had statistically significant gains in passive range of motion with sequential release. In general, resection of the rotator interval contributed to gains in external rotation; resection of the inferior capsule (anteroinferior and posteroinferior) contributed gains to external rotation, forward flexion, and internal rotation; and resection of the posterosuperior capsule contributed to gains only in internal rotation. At a minimum of 18 months follow-up, 30 of 31 shoulders retained their intraoperative gains. There was no difference in the results between primarily and secondarily stiff shoulders for motion gains (P >.05). Arthroscopically addressing capsular tightness is beneficial in returning shoulders with a loss of passive glenohumeral motion to normal regardless of the etiology.