Does capsular distension and a short period of countertraction improve outcome following manipulation under anesthesia for the treatment of primary adhesive capsulitis of the glenohumeral joint?

BACKGROUND

Despite the fact that primary adhesive capsulitis of the glenohumeral joint is often considered a self-limiting condition, not all patients make a full recovery. Manipulation under anesthesia (MUA) is performed to forcibly rupture the contracted capsule in a controlled manner. However, the technique, timing, and use of additional injections are often debated. In this study, we report the outcomes following the addition of capsular distension and countertraction to MUA as a treatment for adhesive capsulitis.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective case-cohort study comparing 3 groups: Group 1 underwent MUA alone (n = 54); group 2, MUA with capsular distension (n = 114); and group 3, MUA with capsular distension and countertraction (n = 167). The re-MUA rate, Constant-Murley shoulder (CMS) score, and visual analog scale (VAS) score (for pain) were measured after 6 weeks and 6 months.

RESULTS

The re-MUA rate fell with the addition of both capsular distension and countertraction: 63% in group 1, 39% in group 2, and 18% in group 3. Patients in group 3 recorded the greatest improvement in the CMS score after 6 weeks (+90% vs. +68% in group 2 and +58% in group 1), with all groups showing improvements compared with before treatment. The only independent risk factor identified for re-MUA was smoking. If a second MUA was performed, the CMS (+67%) and VAS (+61%) scores improved, but at 6 months, the CMS score (74.57 ± 7.6 vs. 83.30 ± 5.5) and VAS score (10.57 ± 1.8 vs. 12.96 ± 1.5) remained inferior to those of patients who only needed a single MUA.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

MUA combined with capsular distension and countertraction reduces the need for a second MUA and results in a faster improvement in functional outcome (CMS score) and reduction of pain (VAS score) compared with MUA alone or MUA with capsular distension. The results of this case-cohort study are of clinical relevance because they show that the efficacy of an MUA can be improved through relatively simple adaptations of the treatment protocol.

Technological review on endoscopic submucosal dissection: available equipment, recent developments and emerging techniques

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is widely practiced in Japan and the Eastern World and is rapidly expanding in western countries for the management of early malignancies of the upper and lower gastrointestinal tube. In addition, novel therapeutic applications deriving from ESD have emerged including the treatment of achalasia, of submucosal tumors, of diverticula, of strictures and of reflux disease. An ESD procedure necessitates not only skills and specific training, but also familiarization with a vast spectrum of devices (endoscopes, high-frequency generators and their settings, endoknives, hoods, irrigation devices) and techniques (such as countertraction, artificial ulcer closure), that render the procedure faster, more efficient and safer. This technological article gives an overview on current and novel equipment for an ESD and associated techniques.

Usefulness of the thread-traction method in esophageal endoscopic submucosal dissection: randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND AND AIM

To assess the usefulness of the thread-traction method (TT method) in esophageal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD).

METHODS

A total of 40 lesions that were scheduled to be treated by esophageal ESD were included in the study. The TT method was used for 20 lesions (group TT) and conventional ESD was used for 20 lesions (group C) after randomization. The hook-knife method was used in all cases. In group TT, after circumferential mucosal incision, a clip with thread was attached to the oral edge of the lesion.

RESULTS

ESD was carried out in all cases. Effective countertraction was created by the TT method, and it was possible to carry out an efficient dissection operation. Significant shortening of dissection time was achieved in group TT compared with group C (19.8 min vs 31.8 min, P = 0.044). Mean number of local injections during dissection was significantly less in group TT compared with that in group C (0.6 times vs 2.2 times, P < 0.001). As for the amount of local injection, group TT required significantly less compared with group C (2.6 mL vs 7.5 mL, P < 0.01). No complications were encountered.

CONCLUSION

The TT method in esophageal ESD was safe and contributed to shortening of dissection time. The TT method is expected to become widespread as a safe and useful procedure.