Can manipulation under anesthesia alone provide clinical outcomes similar to arthroscopic circumferential capsular release in primary frozen shoulder (FS)?: the necessity of arthroscopic capsular release in primary FS

Similar outcomes between arthroscopic capsular release and manipulation under anaesthesia for frozen shoulder: A meta-analysis

To compared the arthroscopic capsular release (ACR) with manipulation under anaesthesia (MUA) for the surgical treatment of frozen shoulder (FS) based on postoperative outcomes and complications. PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Web of Science were searched on October 2, 2023 to retrieve eligible studies that compared ACR with MUA in terms of clinical outcomes (pain visual analogue scale, external rotation, forward flexion and adverse events) for patients with FS. Mean differences (MD) were calculated for continuous outcomes and odds ratios (OR) were calculated for dichotomous outcomes. Six papers, including 5 clinical studies (a total of 690 shoulders), were included in the final meta-analysis. The forward flexion was found to be larger in the ACR group at 3 months (MD, 2.73; 95%CI, 0.42-5.04; I2 = 44%; P = 0.02) and 6 months (MD, 2.36; 95%CI, 1.29-3.44; I2 = 0%; P < 0.0001). Except for this, ACR was comparable with MUA in terms of pain visual analogue scale at 3, 6 and 12 months (p = 0.25, p = 0.11, p = 0.28, respectively), external rotation at 3, 6 and 12 months (p = 0.15, p = 0.52, p = 0.23, respectively), and forward flexion at 12 months (p = 0.08). There were no differences in complication rates between the two groups (OR, 0.82; 95%CI, 0.47-1.44; I2 = 0%; P = 0.50). In comparison with MUA, ACR demonstrated better outcomes for forward flexion at 3 and 6 months, while there were no significant differences between ACR and MUA in terms of pain visual analogue scale, external rotation and adverse events.

Arthroscopic capsular release versus manipulation under anaesthesia for treating frozen shoulder - a prospective randomised study

PURPOSE

Arthroscopic capsular release (ACR) and Manipulation under anaesthesia(MUA) have been widely used in the treatment of frozen shoulder (FS). However, there is only limited Level-I evidence to prefer ACR over MUA. The purpose of our study was to conduct a randomised trial comparing ACR versus MUA to assess the difference in outcome, complications and cost-effectiveness of both procedures.

METHODS

From May 2020 to June 2021, patients presenting with FS were randomised into two groups ACR (n = 44) and MUA (n = 41). Patients with arthritis, full-thickness cuff tears, history of trauma/previous surgery around the shoulder were excluded from the study. Range of movement (ROM), pain grading using visual analogue scale (VAS), functional scores- UCLA, CONSTANT and EuroQol-5D scores were measured pre-operatively and post-operatively. MRI was done at three weeks post-operatively for screening complications of either procedure. Quality-adjusted life years (QALY) was used for cost-analysis.

RESULTS

Post-operatively, patients had significant improvement in pain, ROM and functional scores in both groups (P < 0.001) with no significant difference between groups at 24 weeks of follow-up. Diabetic patients undergoing ACR had lesser improvement in abduction and external rotation when compared to non-diabetic patients. Labral tears in MUA group and bone bruises in ACR group were the most common complications noted on the post-operative MRI. For ACR cost per QALY gained was 896 USD while that for MUA was 424 USD.

CONCLUSION

Both ACR and MUA resulted in good improvement in pain and shoulder function. Good outcomes, simple technique and better cost-effectiveness would still make MUA an attractive option over ACR for treating FS.

Trends in Practice Among Shoulder Specialists in the Management of Frozen Shoulder: A Consensus Survey

Background:

The management of frozen shoulder (FS) differs depending on experience level and variation between scientific guidelines and actual practice.

Purpose:

To determine the current trends and practices in the management of FS among shoulder specialists and compare them with senior shoulder specialists.

Study Design:

Consensus statement.

Methods:

A team of 15 senior shoulder specialists (faculty group) prepared a questionnaire comprising 26 questions regarding the definition, terminology, clinical signs, investigations, management, and prognosis of FS. The questionnaire was mailed to all the registered shoulder specialists of Shoulder and Elbow Society, India (SESI) (specialist group; n = 230), as well as to the faculty group (n = 15). The responses of the 2 groups were compared, and levels of consensus were determined: strong (>75%), broad (60%-74.9%), inconclusive (40%-59.9%), or disagreement (<40%).

Result:

Overall, 142 of the 230 participants in the specialist group and all 15 participants in the faculty group responded to the survey. Both groups strongly agreed that plain radiographs are required to rule out a secondary cause of FS, routine magnetic resonance imaging is not indicated to confirm FS, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs should be administered at bedtime, steroid injection (triamcinolone or methylprednisolone) is the next best option if analgesics fail to provide pain relief, passive physical therapy should be avoided in the freezing phase, <10% of patients would require any surgical intervention, and patients with diabetes and thyroid dysfunction tend to fare poorly. There was broad agreement that routine thyroid dysfunction screening is unnecessary for women, a single 40-mg steroid injection via intra-articular route is preferred, and arthroscopic capsular release (ACR) results in a better outcome than manipulation under anesthesia (MUA). Agreement was inconclusive regarding the use of combined random blood sugar (RBS) and glycosylated hemoglobin versus lone RBS to screen for diabetes in patients with FS, preference of ACR versus MUA to treat resistant FS, and the timing of surgical intervention. There was disagreement over the most appropriate term for FS, the preferred physical therapy modality for pain relief, the most important movement restriction for early diagnosis of FS, and complications seen after MUA.

Conclusion:

This survey summarized the trend in prevalent practices regarding FS among the shoulder specialists and senior shoulder surgeons of SESI.

Clinical Guidelines in the Management of Frozen Shoulder: An Update!

Among all the prevalent painful conditions of the shoulder, frozen shoulder remains one of the most debated and ill-understood conditions. It is a condition often associated with diabetes and thyroid dysfunction, and which should always be investigated in patients with a primary stiff shoulder. Though the duration of 'traditional clinicopathological staging' of frozen shoulder is not constant and varies with the intervention(s), the classification certainly helps the clinician in planning the treatment of frozen shoulder at various stages. Most patients respond very well to combination of conservative treatment resulting in gradual resolution of symptoms in 12-18 months. However, the most effective treatment in isolation is uncertain. Currently, resistant cases that do not respond to conservative treatment for 6-9 months could be offered surgical treatment as either arthroscopic capsular release or manipulation under anaesthesia. Though both invasive options are not clinically superior to another, but manipulation could result in unwarranted complications like fractures of humerus or rotator cuff tear.