Frozen shoulder is a common condition that affects the working population. The longevity and severity of symptoms often results in great economic burden to health services and absence from work. This prospective cohort study aimed to investigate whether early intervention with arthroscopic capsular release resulted in improvement of symptoms and any potential economic benefit to society. Patients were recruited prospectively. Data was gathered by way of questionnaire to ascertain demographics, previous primary care treatment and absence from work. Oxford Shoulder Score (OSS) was also calculated. Arthroscopic capsular release was performed and further data gathered at four week post-operative follow up. Economic impact of delay to treatment and cost of intervention was calculated using government data from the national tariff which costs different forms of treatment. Statistical analysis was then performed on the results. Twenty five patients enrolled. Mean pre-operative OSS: 37.4 (range 27–58, SD 7.4). Mean post-operative OSS: 15.9 (range 12–22, SD 2.3). P<0.01. Mean improvement in OSS: 21.5 (range 12–38, SD 7.1). The cost of non-operative treatment per patient was £3954. The cost of arthroscopic capsular release per patient was £1861, a difference of £2093. There were no complications. Arthroscopic capsular release improved shoulder function on OSS within four weeks. The cost of arthroscopic capsular release is significantly less than the cost of treating the patients non-operatively. Early surgical intervention may improve symptoms quickly and reduce economic burden of the disease. A randomised controlled trial comparing timings of intervention would further elucidate potential benefits

Introduction: Significant internal rotation limitation is thought to be due to posterior capsular thickening and therefore adding a posterior release to the anterior and inferior releases seems sensible. However, this is technically more difficult. Aims: To assess the overall outcome of arthroscopic capsular release and to establish whether inclusion of a posterior capsular release has an additional beneficial. Methods: 48 patients with primary or secondary frozen shoulder in whom conservative physiotherapy had failed were included. 27 had an anterior and inferior release only, whilst the 21 included a posterior release. All data was collected prospectively. Results: Aetiology of the frozen shoulder was primary (22), diabetic (7), post-traumatic (7) and post-operative (11). There a highly significant improvement in Constant score (P < 0.001) and range of motion (P< 0.001) by 5 months in both groups. The mean satisfaction score (minimum 1 and maximum 10) was 7 post-operatively. There was no significant difference in Constant Score between the two groups (P = 0.56) and no significant difference in the improvement of the range of motion, in particular internal rotation (P=0.35). Conclusion: There was an overall rapid significant improvement following arthroscopic capsular release, but no significant difference in the overall outcome with the addition of a posterior release. Clinical relevance: Adding a posterior release to an arthroscopic capsulectomy does not seem to add any significant benefit to the outcome

Introduction: Upper root injuries (C5–C6±C7) account for 75 % of all obstetric brachial plexus palsies (OBPP). Among them, about thirty percent develop a medial contracture of the shoulder due to an imbalance between strong internal rotators and weak external rotators. This causes glenohumeral deformities. To decrease the internal contracture it had been proposed either to release the subscapularis (Sever procedure) or to perform a capsular release (Fairbank procedure). Arthroscopic capsular release was proposed in young patient to reduce the medial contracture. Material & methods: Six children with an average age of 23 months and 1 case aged 12 years old, had a medial contracture of the shoulder secondary to a C5–C6 ( 3 cases) or C5–C7 (4 cases) obstetrical palsy. An arthroscopic evaluation of the deformities was performed in 3 cases. Next a surgical subscapularis release was applied in association with a latissimus dorsi transfer. An arthroscopic evaluation of the joint associated with an arthroscopic capsular release (release of the coracohumeral ligament) was performed in 4 cases. In addition, the latissimus dorsi was transfered. Pre and Post operative passive external rotation were measured in degrees in R1 position. Pre and post operative medial rotation were evaluated according to the Mallet classification. A comparative evaluation of the glenohumeral deformities were performed between pre-operative MRI and arthroscopic results. Results: An arthroscopic evaluation of the glenohumeral joint was performed in 6 cases. In one case the arthroscopic evaluation could not be performed. In the 6 cases, arthroscopy confirmed the MRI lesion : 3 posterior subluxations, 1 posterior luxation and 2 normal joints. The subscapularis release allowed an increase in the passive lateral rotation of an average of 50°. However, a decrease of 1 point in the medial rotation was noted according to Mallet evaluation. The coracohumeral ligament arthroscopic release allowed an increase in the passive lateral rotation of an average of 60° without decreasing the passive medial rotation. Whatever the method used, a reduction of the subluxation of the glenohumeral joint was obtained. Discussion & Conclusion: Medial contracture of the shoulder may begin in the first two years of life and an early reduction with muscular release and transfers was proposed. However, the precise nature of the progressive limitation of the external passive rotation remains unclear. Is the limitation due to a contracture of the medial rotators or a capsular retraction or a combination of both? Harryman demonstrated the role of the rotator interval capsule and coracohumeral ligament in limiting the external rotation. Our hypothesis was that capsular retraction occurred before the muscular contracture. As a result we decided to perform a capsular release in patients under 24 months. The results on the passive external rotation were similar with both methods. Although, the technique of an arthroscopic release was difficult and demanding, it appears that this technique is beneficial as it allows an evaluation of the joint deformity and treatment of the contracture in the same time. Arthroscopic release is a safe but demanding technique which allows an increase in the external passive rotation in OBPP. It should be noted that this technique requires a significant practice

Background. Frozen Shoulder is a common condition which causes significant morbidity in people of working age. The 2 most popular forms of surgical treatment for this condition are Manipulation under Anaesthesia (MUA) or MUA plus Arthroscopic Capsular Release (ACR). Both treatment modalities are known to give good results, but no-one has compared the two to see which is better. Aim. To compare the outcome in patients with primary frozen shoulder, who are treated by either MUA or MUA plus ACR. Methods. 56 patients with primary frozen shoulder were treated by either MUA or MUA plus ACR. Each patient had their American Shoulder and Elbow Score (ASES), and their Oxford Shoulder Score (OSS) measured pre- and post-operatively. Results. The patients who had MUA plus ACR had a mean ASES of 19.6 pre-operatively, 78.3 at 6 months, and a mean of 80.1 at 12 months. The mean OSS was 32.5 pre-operatively, 53.6 at 6 months and 53.8 at 12 months. The patients who had a MUA had a mean ASES of 28.7 pre-operatively, 57.9 at 6 months and 58 at 12 months. The mean OSS was 33 pre-operatively, 42.5 at 6 months and 48 at 12 months. Conclusions. Both treatments give good results; MUA plus ACR give significantly superior results at 6 to 12 months post-operatively. However, there is no significant difference beyond 12 months

Background – Frozen Shoulder is a common condition which causes significant morbidity in people of working age. The 2 most popular forms of surgical treatment for this condition are Manipulation under Anaesthesia (MUA) or MUA plus Arthroscopic Capsular Release (ACR). Both treatment modalities are known to give good results, but no-one has compared the 2 to see which is better. Aim – To compare the outcome in patients with primary frozen shoulder, who are treated by either MUA or MUA plus ACR. Method – 61 patients with primary frozen shoulder were treated by either MUA or MUA plus ACR. Each patient had their American Shoulder and Elbow Score (ASES), and their Oxford Shoulder Score (OSS) measured pre and post-operatively. Results – The patients who had MUA plus ACR had a mean ASES of 24.8 preoperatively, 64 at 4 months, and a mean of 75.4 at 12 months. The mean OSS was 32.5 pre-operatively, 48.5 at 4 months and 53.4 at 12months. The patients who had a MUA had a mean ASES of 28.7 pre-operatively, 60.9 at 4months and 69.6 at 12months. The mean OSS was 33 preoperatively, 46.5 at 4 months and 50.9 at 12 months. Conclusions – Both treatments give good results. MUA plus ACR give superior numerical results at 6 to 12 months post-operatively, however, these figures did not reach statistical significance

Introduction: Idiopathic Adhesive capsulitis [IAC] of the shoulder is a self limited condition that can cause significant morbidity. Most patients (90%) respond to conservative management and those who fails (10%) undergo manipulation under anaesthesia (MUA) Patients who are refractory to both treatments, benefits from arthroscopic capsular release. Aim: To assess the efficacy of arthroscopic capsular release in patients with IAC refractory to physiotherapy and MUA. Also to compare the clinical outcome between arthroscopic capsular release and MUA. Materials and methods: We studied 59 patients with IAC, divided into 2 groups. Group A [36patients] had MUA and Group B [23 patients] underwent arthroscopic capsular release. The mean age was (54years). The mean follow up was 21 and 9 months for group A and B respectively. Results: We assessed our results according to three parameters:. Final outcome using the Constant and Murley score. The improvement in the score averaged 42 and 47 points in group A and B respectively. Early Post operative pain using visual analogue score (VAS) average of 6 and 3 in group A and B respectively. Overall patient satisfaction: 81% in group A and 89% in group B. Conclusion:. Patients with IAC who fails to respond physiotherapy and MUA do well after arthroscopic capsular release with little operative morbidity. Complete normal functional outcome of shoulder is not a prerequisite for patient satisfaction

Aims. This systematic review places a recently completed multicentre randomized controlled trial (RCT), UK FROST, in the context of existing randomized evidence for the management of primary frozen shoulder. UK FROST compared the effectiveness of pre-specified physiotherapy techniques with a steroid injection (PTSI), manipulation under anaesthesia (MUA) with a steroid injection, and arthroscopic capsular release (ACR). This review updates a 2012 review focusing on the effectiveness of MUA, ACR, hydrodilatation, and PTSI. Methods. MEDLINE, Embase, PEDro, Science Citation Index, Clinicaltrials.gov, CENTRAL, and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry were searched up to December 2018. Reference lists of included studies were screened. No language restrictions applied. Eligible studies were RCTs comparing the effectiveness of MUA, ACR, PTSI, and hydrodilatation against each other, or supportive care or no treatment, for the management of primary frozen shoulder. Results. Nine RCTs were included. The primary outcome of patient-reported shoulder function at long-term follow-up (> 6 months and ≤ 12 months) was reported for five treatment comparisons across four studies. Standardized mean differences (SMD) were: ACR versus MUA: 0.21 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.00 to 0.42), ACR versus supportive care: -0.13 (95% CI -1.10 to 0.83), and ACR versus PTSI: 0.33 (95% CI 0.07 to 0.59) and 0.25 (95% CI -0.34 to 0.85), all favouring ACR; MUA versus supportive care: 0 (95% CI -0.44 to 0.44) not favouring either; and MUA versus PTSI: 0.12 (95% CI -0.14 to 0.37) favouring MUA. None of these differences met the threshold of clinical significance agreed for the UK FROST and most confidence intervals included zero. Conclusion. The findings from a recent multicentre RCT provided the strongest evidence that, when compared with each other, neither PTSI, MUA, nor ACR are clinically superior. Evidence from smaller RCTs did not change this conclusion. The effectiveness of hydrodilatation based on four RCTs was inconclusive and there remains an evidence gap. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(9):773–784

Aims. A pragmatic multicentre randomized controlled trial, UK FROzen Shoulder Trial (UK FROST), was conducted in the UK NHS comparing the cost-effectiveness of commonly used treatments for adults with primary frozen shoulder in secondary care. Methods. A cost utility analysis from the NHS perspective was performed. Differences between manipulation under anaesthesia (MUA), arthroscopic capsular release (ACR), and early structured physiotherapy plus steroid injection (ESP) in costs (2018 GBP price base) and quality adjusted life years (QALYs) at one year were used to estimate the cost-effectiveness of the treatments using regression methods. Results. ACR was £1,734 more costly than ESP ((95% confidence intervals (CIs) £1,529 to £1,938)) and £1,457 more costly than MUA (95% CI £1,283 to £1,632). MUA was £276 (95% CI £66 to £487) more expensive than ESP. Overall, ACR had worse QALYs compared with MUA (-0.0293; 95% CI -0.0616 to 0.0030) and MUA had better QALYs compared with ESP (0.0396; 95% CI -0.0008 to 0.0800). At a £20,000 per QALY willingness-to-pay threshold, MUA had the highest probability of being cost-effective (0.8632) then ESP (0.1366) and ACR (0.0002). The results were robust to sensitivity analyses. Conclusion. While ESP was less costly, MUA was the most cost-effective option. ACR was not cost-effective. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(8):685–695

The April 2014 Shoulder & Elbow Roundup. 360 . looks at: arthroscopic capsular release successful after six months; MCIC in cuff surgery; analgesia following arthroscopic cuff repair; platelet-rich fibrin; and cuff tear and suprascapular nerve neuropathy?

Aim: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the results of arthroscopic capsular release in patients with primary adhesive capsulitis of the glenohumeral joint. Methods: Twenty-eight shoulders in 27 patients with adhesive capsulitis of the glenohumeral joint were treated with manipulation and arthroscopic capsular release. Their average age was 54.5 years (range, 39–67). During surgery, synovectomy and a combined anterior, posterior and inferior arthroscopic release using electrocautery or laser was performed. Range of motion and evaluation with the Constant score before and after surgery was performed in all patients. Results: The mean follow-up was 32 months (24–63). The mean Constant score significantly improved from 44.6 (28–52) preoperatively to 86.3 (73–52) postoperatively (p< 0.001, paired t-test). Range of motion for all planes significantly improved. Abduction improved from 72° preoperatively to 165° postoperatively; Internal rotation improved from 13° to 60° and external rotation from 10° to 75°. Subjectively all patients had remarkably less pain, and there were no complications. Conclusions: Our study suggest that arthroscopic treatment of primary adhesive capsulitis with capsular release is an effective and reliable method for restoring a painless motion of the glenohumeral joint

Shoulder arthritis in the young adult is a deceptive title. The literature is filled with articles that separate outcomes based on an arbitrary age threshold and attempt to provide recommendations for management and even potential criteria for implanting one strategy over another using age as the primary determinant. However, under the age of 50, as few as one out of five patients will have arthritis that can be accurately classified as osteoarthritis. Other conditions such as post-traumatic arthritis, post-surgical arthritis including capsulorrhaphy arthropathy, and rheumatoid arthritis create a mosaic of pathologic bone and soft tissue changes in our younger patients that distort the conclusions regarding “shoulder arthritis” in the young adult. In addition, we are now seeing more patients with unique conditions that are still poorly understood, including arthritis of the pharmacologically performance-enhanced shoulder. Early arthritis in the young adult is often recognised at the time of arthroscopic surgery performed for other preoperative indications. Palliative treatment is the first option, which equals “debridement.” If the procedure fails to resolve the symptoms, and the symptoms can be localised to an intra-articular source, then additional treatment options may include a variety of cartilage restoration procedures that have been developed primarily for the knee and then subsequently used in the shoulder, including microfracture, and osteochondral grafting. The results of these treatments have been rarely reported with only case series and expert opinion to support their use. When arthritis is moderate or severe in young adults, non-arthroplasty interventions have included arthroscopic capsular release, debridement, acromioplasty, distal clavicle resection, microfracture, osteophyte debridement, axillary nerve neurolysis, and bicep tenotomy or tenodesis, or some combination of these techniques. Again, the literature is very limited, with most case series less than 5 years of follow-up. The results are typically acceptable for pain relief, some functional improvement, but not restoration to completely normal function from the patient's perspective. Attempts to resurface the arthritic joint have resulted in limited benefits over a short period of time in most studies. While a few remarkable procedures have provided reasonable outcomes, they are typically in the hands of the developer of the procedure and subsequently, other surgeons fail to achieve the same results. This has been the case with fascia lata grafting of the glenoid, dermal allografts, meniscal allografts, and even biologic resurfacing with large osteochondral grafts for osteoarthritis. Most surgical interventions that show high value in terms of improvement in quality of life require 10-year follow-up. It is unlikely that any of these arthroscopic procedures or resurfacing procedures will provide outcomes that would be valuable in terms of population healthcare; they are currently used on an individual basis to try to delay progression to arthroplasty, with surgeon bias based on personal experience, training, or expert opinion. Arthroplasty in the young adult remains controversial. Without question, study after study supports total shoulder arthroplasty over hemiarthroplasty once the decision has been made that joint replacement is the only remaining option

Shoulder resurfacing arthroplasty is a bone conserving option for patients with glenohumeral arthritis. We report the early results of this procedure at our unit with a minimum follow up of 2 years (mean follow up of 36 months). A historical analysis of prospectively collected clinical data was reviewed on a consecutive series of 22 patients (mean age of 73 years) with end stage gleno-humeral arthrosis who had undergone humeral resurfacing hemiarthroplasty performed by a single surgeon. Pain and function were assessed using the Oxford shoulder score and patient satisfaction was recorded. Radiographs were evaluated for implant loosening. 82% of patients had significant improvement in their oxford shoulder score from pre-operatively to two years post-operatively. Complications included one case of intra-operative conversion to a stemmed hemiarthroplasty due to fracture of the humeral head, one case of adhesive capsulitis that required MUA and arthroscopic capsular release and two cases of revision to a total shoulder replacement for pain. Humeral resurfacing arthroplasty is a viable treatment option for glenohumeral arthritis with good short term results

Background: The treatment of post-traumatic elbow stiffness has seen many important changes over the years, particularly greater the development of arthroscopy. In this study mid-term clinical results of arthroscopy for post-traumatic elbow stiffness are evaluated in 15 sporting patients, with an average age of 32. Methods: 8 patients reported post-traumatic stiffness due to fracture of the radial head, 3 to fracture-dislocation, 1 to fracture of the radial diaphysis complicated by osteosynthesis, and the remaining 3 patients to stress syndromes with osteochondral detachment. Surgical treatment consists in debridment, arthroscopic capsular release, and removal of bone fragments by arthroscopy. Patients were followed-up from 4 up to 36 months, with a mean follow-up time of 18 months. Results: Results obtained have been good to excellent in 84% of cases with a average range in post-operative movement of 13–137° and reduction in pain symptomatology. Conclusion: In light of our mid-term clinical results on a small series of cases, arthroscopic surgical treatment would appear to be an acceptable option in management of the post-traumatic stiff elbow

Background. Adhesive capsulitis (frozen shoulder) is a debilitating condition affecting 2–5% of the adult population. Its aetiology is still unclear and there is no consensus on the most effective treatment. The aim of this retrospective study was to investigate the mid-term functional outcome of one specific treatment protocol. Methods. Patients with a diagnosis of idiopathic adhesive capsulitis treated by one orthopaedic surgeon between 2004 and 2008 were identified from outpatient clinic letters. All patients had initially received conservative treatment, consisting of physiotherapy with capsular stretches and subacromial injections. Patients in whom conservative treatment failed underwent an arthroscopic capsular release. At a minimum of two years following diagnosis patients were sent the Oxford Shoulder Score (OSS [0 to 48]), Western Ontario Rotator Cuff Index (WORC [0 to 2100]) and a satisfaction questionnaire by post. In addition case notes were reviewed and type of treatment and range of movement (ROM) recorded. Results. 60 patients with the diagnosis of idiopathic adhesive capsulitis were identified. 42 patients (70%) returned the completed questionnaires. Range of movement data was available from 43 patients (72%). Mean OSS was 41 (SD 10.7) and mean WORC 307 (SD 437.1). Analysis showed that patients in whom conservative treatment was successful had significantly better functional outcome scores in OSS and WORC and better ROM than patients who underwent surgery. Overall 33 patients (79%) were satisfied or very satisfied with the outcome of their treatment. Conclusion. This study shows that patients who respond to conservative treatment have a better functional outcome than patients who undergo surgery following failed conservative treatment. Further studies are needed to directly compare the two types of treatment

To assess the indication and role of shoulder arthroscopy for the problem shoulder arthroplasty. Between 1995–2000, 28 patients who had excessive pain or limitation of motion following a shoulder arthroplasty underwent arthroscopy. A pre-operative diagnosis was made in 13 out of the 28 patients. Of the 13 patients who had a pre-operative diagnosis an impingement syndrome was confirmed and successfully treated by arthroscopic subacromial decompression in 10, a rotator cuff tear was confirmed and debrided in two and in one loose bodies removed. Of the 15 patients who did not have a pre-operative diagnosis a post-arthroplasty capsular fibrosis was found in seven, six undergoing a successful arthroscopic capsular release. Loose or worn components were found in four of the shoulders, a small cuff tear was identified in one, a florid synovitis was present in another, loose cement was found in a further patient and in one no abnormality could be found. During the procedures orientation within the joint was often hindered by the reflection from the prosthesis making it difficult to differentiate between the real and mirror images of both the tissues and arthroscopic instruments. Access was also often compromised. Arthroscopy following shoulder arthroplasty is useful for the diagnosis and treatment of pain and loss of motion in selected patients, but can be technically demanding. Diagnostic arthroscopy following shoulder arthroplasty should be considered for patients suffering from pain in whom no cause can be found using less invasive investigations

Introduction: Shoulder arthroplasty is generally a successful procedure. However, in a small percentage excessive pain or limitation of motion, does occur. We examine the role of arthroscopy in the diagnosis and treatment of these patients. Methods and Results: Between 1995–2000, 29 patients who had excessive pain or limitation of motion following arthroplasty underwent arthroscopy. Time between procedures was 37.3 months (range 4–95). Impingement syndrome confirmed and successfully treated by ASD in 10, a rotator cuff tear in 3. Loose bodies removed in 1. Arthroscopic washout was performed in 1 patient for acute septic joint. 6 of 7 with capsular fibrosis underwent a successful arthroscopic capsular release. Loose or worn components were found in 4, a florid synovitis in 1, loose cement in another and in 1 no abnormality could be found. Discussion: Arthroscopy is a useful tool for diagnosis and treatment of painful or stiff shoulder arthroplasty. However, it leads to a number of technical difficulties. Orientation within the joint is often hindered as the reflection from the prosthesis makes it difficult to differentiate between the real and mirror images of the tissues and arthroscopic instruments. Access is often compromised in stiff shoulders. Conclusion: Arthroscopy following shoulder arthroplasty is useful for the diagnosis and treatment of pain and loss of motion in selected patients, but can be technically difficult. Diagnostic arthroscopy following shoulder arthroplasty should be considered for patients suffering from pain in whom no cause could be found using less invasive investigations

Successful ORIF of proximal humeral fractures requires a careful assessment of the patient factors (age/osteoporosis/functional expectations), accurate identification the fracture segments (head/shaft/tuberosities) and accessory factors which are of vascular and surgical relevance (length of posteromedial metaphyseal head extension, integrity of medial soft tissue hinge, head split segments, tuberosity/head segments impacted to-gether or distracted apart). Fixation of the fracture can be achieved by a number of techniques because of the multiple factors that often apply—numerous techniques are usually required of the surgeon. The principles of fixation require accurate restoration of the head and tuberosity orientation, fixation of the metaphyseal segments (tuberosities) results in a stable circular platform on which the head segment rests. Thus, the fixation of choice acts as a load sharing device not a load bearing device. This fixation is often augmented with tension band and circlage suture fixation. These concepts are especially applicable to the osteoporotic patient. The order of fixation requires that the medial hinge not be disrupted. If it is disrupted in the younger patient it requires fixation first. All tuberosity segments are tagged with ethibond sutures. The head and the largest tuberosity segment are reduced and held with k-wire or canulated scews, avoiding the central medullary canal entry point. If the head tuberosity segment is unstable in relation to the shaft, the fixation implant of choice (plate/intramedullary) is chosen and the head/tuberosity complex is reduced to the shaft. Depending on the fracture segments and the degree of comminution this may require compression of distraction. Post-op the patient is immobilised in external rotation to balance the cuff forces. If very rigid fixation is achieved then early mobilisation is undertaken to minimise the adhesions due to opening of the subdeltoid space. If fixation is tenuous movement is commenced a 3–4 weeks. AVN of the humeral head with good tuberosity head architecure can be salvaged. The diagnosis of AVN is determned at three months with a MRI and consideration given to Zolidronate therapy. Post-traumatic stiffness with good architecture can be salvaged with an arthroscopic capsular release

Introduction The value of collecting continuous prospective patient data, including operation records and outcome scores, is well known. In 1994, a systematic prospective patient data collection was initiated on all patients attending the Reading Shoulder Unit (RSU). Initially this was done with hand written records. In 1995 a Windows Access ® database was formulated on a portable laptop. This was used continuously through until September 2005 when an Internet web-based database was introduced. We present this collective data and trends in practice from a busy shoulder unit over this decade. Results Between 1995 and 2005, 10005 entries were made to the Reading Shoulder Unit database. 3233 patient visits to outpatient clinics were recorded. 6772 operations were recorded – this includes: arthroscopic decompressions (ASD) + AC joint excisions − 3514, MUA for frozen shoulder 842, shoulder arthroplasty 432, open stabilisation 356, arthroscopic stabilisation 192, arthroscopic rotator cuff repair (RCR) 402, open cuff repair 290, arthroscopic capsular release 78 and 248 trauma cases. Changes in the unit practice include the move from open to arthroscopic reconstructive surgery (RC and stabilisation), RCR rather than ASD alone in elderly patients with impingement and cuff weakness, and repairing partial rotator cuff tears when previously we did not. Conclusions With over 10000 continuous and prospective entries – the RSU database is invaluable for continuous audit of practice and assessment of outcomes of the different procedures. Several practices have changed through the decade; most notably from predominately open reconstructive surgery through to arthroscopic reconstructive surgery. We would recommend to every surgeon and unit to collect his own data prospectively to enable him to analyse and assess his results

The causes of a stiff elbow are numerous including: post-traumatic elbow, burns, head injury, osteoarthritis, inflammatory joint disease and congenital. Types of stiffness include: loss of elbow flexion, loss of elbow extension and loss of forearm rotation. All three have different prognoses in terms of the timing of surgery and the likelihood of restoration of function. Contractures can be classified into extrinsic and intrinsic (all intrinsic develop some extrinsic component). Functional impairment can be assessed medicolegally; however, in clinical practice the patient puts an individual value on the arc of motion. Objectively most functions can be undertaken with an arc of 30 to 130 degrees. The commonest cause of a Post-traumatic Stiff elbow is a radial head fracture or a complex fracture dislocation. Risk factors for stiffness include length of immobilisation, associated fracture with dislocation, intra-articular derangement, delayed surgical treatment, associated head injury, heterotopic ossification. Early restoration of bony columns and joint stability to allow early mobilisation reduces incidence of joint stiffness. Heterotopic ossification (HO) is common in fracture dislocation of the elbow. Neural Axis trauma alone causes HO in elbows in 5%. However, combined neural trauma and elbow trauma the incidence is 89%. Stiffness due to thermal injury is usually related to the degree rather than the site. The majority of patients have greater than 20% total body area involved. Extrinsic contractures are usually managed with a sequential release of soft tissues commencing with a capsular excision (retaining LCL/MCL), posterior bundle of the MCL +/− ulna nerve decompression (if there is loss of flexion to 100 degrees). This reliably achieved via a posterior incision, a lateral column exposure +/− ulna nerve mobilisation. A medial column exposure is a viable alternative. Arthroscopic capsular release although associated with a quicker easier rehabilitation is associated with increased neural injury. Timing of release is specific to the type of contracture, i.e. flexion contractures after approx. six months, extension contractures ASAP but after four months, loss of forearm rotation less 6 to 24 months. The use of Hinged Elbow Fixators is increasing. The indications include reconstructions that require protection whilst allowing early movement, persistent instability or recurrent/late instability or interposition arthroplasty. Post-operative rehabilitation requires good analgesia, joint stability and early movement. The role of CPM is often helpful but still being evaluated

Introduction. Pathophysiology of glenohumeral arthritis differs depending upon type of arthritis. Osteoarthritis. Post-traumatic arthritis. Inflammatory arthritis (i.e. RA). Arthritis of instability. Crystalline arthritis (Milwaukee shoulder, cuff tear arthropathy). Avascular necrosis. Natural history as well as response to treatment are both pathology dependent. Soft-tissue involvement. Rotator cuff tear. Soft tissue contracture. Secondary osseous deformity. Regional osteopenia. Glenoid wear (concentric versus eccentric). Humeral collapse. Surgical options. Joint-sparing techniques. Arthroscopic capsular release/ joint debridement/synovectomy. Open debridement, subscapularis lengthening. Open capsular interposition. Osteotomy. Glenoid. Humeral. Cartilage transplantation. Arthrodesis. Resection arthroplasty. Joint replacement. Unconstrained. Hemiarthroplasty. Total shoulder replacement. Constrained. Joint-sparing Techniques. These techniques are only useful in patients with early changes or who are too young and active for joint replacement. Arthroscopic debridement or capsular release. Young patients. Normal joint alignment. Severe asymmetric capsular contracture (i.e. arthritis of instability). Open debridement. Large humeral osteophytes. Subscapularis lengthening. Open capsular interposition. Lateral edge of anterior capsule sutured to posterior labrum. Less severe degrees of contracture, subscapularis must be repaired anatomically. Osteotomy. Only useful in situations where there is abnormal humeral or glenoid alignment. Glenoid – posterior opening wedge for osteoarthritis in combination with posterior glenoid hypoplasia or increased retroversion. Humeral – most useful for post-fracture deformity (i.e. varus of the surgical neck). Cartilage Transplantation. Very early experience and really only attempted in any numbers in the knee. Chondrocyte transplantation very expensive and tedious. Currently, the most popular techniques involve transplanting plugs or cores of articular cartilage, subchondral bone, and cancellous bone. Autograft- harvest from non-weight-bearing or less weight-bearing area the same or different bone. Lateral femoral condyle. Posterolateral humeral head. Allograft. Early attempts limited by chondrocyte viability after harvest. Improved processing techniques have recently improved chondrocyte survival to 60–70%. Offers the desirable option of being able to preoperatively match radii of curvature of implant to donor site. Arthrodesis. Fortunately, rarely indicated. Patients miss the ability to rotate the humerus. Indications. Brachial plexus injury. Combined deltoid and rotator cuff deficiency. Young heavy labourer. Sepsis. Severe bone loss. Requires functional trapezius and serratus anterior. Resectional Arthroplasty (Jones Procedure). Even more rarely indicated than arthrodesis. Function is better if rotator cuff is attached to proximal humerus. Indications. Sepsis. Failed arthroplasty. Combined deltoid and rotator cuff deficiency. Conclusions. Hemiarthroplasty or total shoulder replacement with unconstrained implants is the surgical treatment of choice in the vast majority of patients with glenohumeral arthritis. Joint-sparing procedures are indicated in young patients with early, less extensive changes. Arthrodesis and resection arthroplasty are rarely indicated, except under unusual circumstances of soft-tissue deficiency, nerve injury, or sepsis. Cartilage transplantation shows promise in very select patients