To achieve expert clinical consensus in the delivery of hydrodilatation for the treatment of primary frozen shoulder to inform clinical practice and the design of an intervention for evaluation. We conducted a two-stage, electronic questionnaire-based, modified Delphi survey of shoulder experts in the UK NHS. Round one required positive, negative, or neutral ratings about hydrodilatation. In round two, each participant was reminded of their round one responses and the modal (or ‘group’) response from all participants. This allowed participants to modify their responses in round two. We proposed respectively mandating or encouraging elements of hydrodilatation with 100% and 90% positive consensus, and respectively disallowing or discouraging with 90% and 80% negative consensus. Other elements would be optional.Aims
Methods
Frozen shoulder is a common, painful condition that results in impairment of function. Corticosteroid injections are commonly used for frozen shoulder and can be given as glenohumeral joint (GHJ) injection or suprascapular nerve block (SSNB). Both injection types have been shown to significantly improve shoulder pain and range of motion. It is not currently known which is superior in terms of relieving patients’ symptoms. This is the protocol for a randomized clinical trial to investigate the clinical effectiveness of corticosteroid injection given as either a GHJ injection or SSNB. The Therapeutic Injections For Frozen Shoulder (TIFFS) study is a single centre, parallel, two-arm, randomized clinical trial. Participants will be allocated on a 1:1 basis to either a GHJ corticosteroid injection or SSNB. Participants in both trial arms will then receive physiotherapy as normal for frozen shoulder. The primary analysis will compare the Oxford Shoulder Score (OSS) at three months after injection. Secondary outcomes include OSS at six and 12 months, range of shoulder movement at three months, and Numeric Pain Rating Scale, abbreviated Disabilities of Arm, Shoulder and Hand score, and EuroQol five-level five-dimension health index at three months, six months, and one year after injection. A minimum of 40 patients will be recruited to obtain 80% power to detect a minimally important difference of ten points on the OSS between the groups at three months after injection. The study is registered under ClinicalTrials.gov with the identifier NCT04965376.Aims
Methods
Some surgeons are reluctant to perform a reverse
total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) on both shoulders because of concerns
regarding difficulty with activities of daily living post-operatively
as a result of limited rotation of the shoulders. Nevertheless,
we hypothesised that outcomes and patient satisfaction following
bilateral RTSA would be comparable to those following unilateral
RTSA. A single-surgeon RTSA registry was reviewed for patients who underwent
bilateral staged RTSA with a minimum follow-up of two years. A unilateral
RTSA matched control was selected for each shoulder in those patients
undergoing bilateral procedures. The Constant–Murley score (CMS), American
Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score, Subjective Shoulder Values
(SSV), visual analogue scale (VAS) for pain, range of movement and
strength were measured pre- and post-operatively. The mean CMS,
ASES, SSV, VAS scores, strength and active forward elevation were
significantly improved
(all p <
0.01) following each operation in those undergoing bilateral
procedures. The mean active external rotation (p = 0.63 and p =
0.19) and internal rotation (p = 0.77 and p = 0.24) were not significantly
improved. The improvement in the mean ASES score after the first
RTSA was greater than the improvement in its control group (p =
0.0039). The improvement in the mean CMS, ASES scores and active
forward elevation was significantly less after the second RTSA than
in its control group (p = 0.0244, p = 0.0183, and p = 0.0280, respectively).
Pain relief and function significantly improved after each RTSA
in those undergoing a bilateral procedure. Bilateral RTSA is thus a reasonable form of treatment for patients
with severe bilateral rotator cuff deficiency, although inferior
results may be seen after the second procedure compared with the
first. Cite this article:
