Aims. The primary aim of this study was to assess the feasibility of recruiting and retaining patients to a patient-blinded randomized controlled trial comparing corticosteroid injection (CSI) to autologous protein solution (APS) injection for the treatment of subacromial shoulder pain in a community care setting. The study focused on recruitment rates and retention of participants throughout, and collected data on the interventions’ safety and efficacy. Methods. Participants were recruited from two community musculoskeletal treatment centres in the UK. Patients were eligible if aged 18 years or older, and had a clinical diagnosis of subacromial impingement syndrome which the treating clinician thought was suitable for treatment with a subacromial injection. Consenting patients were randomly allocated 1:1 to a patient-blinded subacromial injection of CSI (standard care) or APS. The primary outcome measures of this study relate to rates of recruitment, retention, and compliance with intervention and follow-up to determine feasibility. Secondary outcome measures relate to the safety and efficacy of the interventions. Results. A total of 53 patients were deemed eligible, and 50 patients (94%) recruited between April 2022 and October 2022. Overall, 49 patients (98%) complied with treatment. Outcome data were collected in 100% of participants at three months and 94% at six months. There were no significant adverse events. Both groups demonstrated improvement in patient-reported outcome measures over the six-month period. Conclusion. Our study shows that it is feasible to recruit to a patient-blinded randomized controlled trial comparing APS and CSI for subacromial pain in terms of clinical outcomes and health-resource use in the UK. Safety and efficacy data are presented. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2024;5(7):534–542

Aims. Steroid injections are used for subacromial pain syndrome and can be administered via the anterolateral or posterior approach to the subacromial space. It is not currently known which approach is superior in terms of improving clinical symptoms and function. This is the protocol for a randomized controlled trial (RCT) to compare the clinical effectiveness of a steroid injection given via the anterolateral or the posterior approach to the subacromial space. Methods. The Subacromial Approach Injection Trial (SAInT) study is a single-centre, parallel, two-arm RCT. Participants will be allocated on a 1:1 basis to a subacromial steroid injection via either the anterolateral or the posterior approach to the subacromial space. Participants in both trial arms will then receive physiotherapy as standard of care for subacromial pain syndrome. The primary analysis will compare the change in Oxford Shoulder Score (OSS) at three months after injection. Secondary outcomes include the change in OSS at six and 12 months, as well as the Pain Numeric Rating Scale (0 = no pain, 10 = worst pain), Disabilities of Arm, Shoulder and Hand questionnaire (DASH), and 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36) (RAND) at three months, six months, and one year after injection. Assessment of pain experienced during the injection will also be determined. A minimum of 86 patients will be recruited to obtain an 80% power to detect a minimally important difference of six points on the OSS change between the groups at three months after injection. Conclusion. The results of this trial will demonstrate if there is a difference in shoulder pain and function after a subacromial space steroid injection between the anterolateral versus posterior approach in patients with subacromial pain syndrome. This will help to guide treatment for patients with subacromial pain syndrome. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2024;5(9):729–735

Aims. The aims of this study were to compare the use of resources, costs, and quality of life outcomes associated with subacromial decompression, arthroscopy only (placebo surgery), and no treatment for subacromial pain in the United Kingdom National Health Service (NHS), and to estimate their cost-effectiveness. Patients and Methods. The use of resources, costs, and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were assessed in the trial at six months and one year. Results were extrapolated to two years after randomization. Differences between treatment arms, based on the intention-to-treat principle, were adjusted for covariates and missing data were handled using multiple imputation. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated, with uncertainty around the values estimated using bootstrapping. Results. Cumulative mean QALYs/mean costs of health care service use and surgery per patient from baseline to 12 months were estimated as 0.640 (standard error (. se. ) 0.024)/£3147 (. se. 166) in the decompression arm, 0.656 (. se. 0.020)/£2830 (. se. 183) in the arthroscopy only arm and 0.522 (. se. 0.029)/£1451 (. se. 151) in the no treatment arm. Statistically significant differences in cumulative QALYs and costs were found at six and 12 months for the decompression versus no treatment comparison only. The probabilities of decompression being cost-effective compared with no treatment at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £20 000 per QALY were close to 0% at six months and approximately 50% at one year, with this probability potentially increasing for the extrapolation to two years. Discussion. The evidence for cost-effectiveness at 12 months was inconclusive. Decompression could be cost-effective in the longer-term, but results of this analysis are sensitive to the assumptions made about how costs and QALYs are extrapolated beyond the follow-up of the trial

The October 2014 Shoulder & Elbow Roundup. 360 . looks at: PRP is not effective in tennis elbow; eccentric physiotherapy effective in subacromial pain; dexamethasone in shoulder surgery; arthroscopic remplissage for engaging Hill-Sach’s lesions; a consistent approach to subacromial impingement; delay in fixation of proximal humeral fractures detrimental to outcomes

The global economy has been facing a financial crisis. Healthcare costs are spiraling, and there is a projected £30 billion health funding gap by 2020 in the UK.¹ This has prompted a drive for efficiency in healthcare provision in the UK, and in 2012, the Health and Social Care Act was introduced, heralding a fundamental change to the structure of the National Health Service, especially in the way that healthcare is funded in England.²

What is happening in the UK is a reflection of a global problem. Rationing of healthcare is a topic of much discussion; as unless spending is capped, providing healthcare will become unsustainable. Who decides how money is spent, and which services should be rationed?

In this article we aim to discuss the impact that rationing may have on orthopaedic surgery, and we will discuss our own experiences of attempts to ration local services.³ We also seek to inform and educate the general orthopaedic community on this topic.