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

Aims

Early large treatment effects can arise in small studies, which lessen as more data accumulate. This study aimed to retrospectively examine whether early treatment effects occurred for two multicentre orthopaedic randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and explore biases related to this.

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. 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

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

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