We have carried out a prospective double-blind randomised controlled trial to compare the efficacy of a single subacromial injection of the non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug, tenoxicam, with a single injection of methylprednisolone in patients with subacromial impingement. A total of 58 patients were randomly allocated into two groups. Group A received 40 mg of methylprednisolone and group B 20 mg of tenoxicam as a subacromial injection along with lignocaine. The Constant-Murley shoulder score was used as the primary outcome measure and the Disability of Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) and the Oxford Shoulder Score (OSS) as secondary measures. Six weeks after injection the improvement in the Constant-Murley score was significantly greater in the methylprednisolone group (p = 0.003) than in the tenoxicam group. The improvement in the DASH score was greater in the steroid group and the difference was statistically significant and consistent two (p < 0.01), four (p < 0.01) and six weeks (p < 0.020) after the injection. The improvement in the OSS was consistently greater in the steroid group than in the tenoxicam group. Although the difference was statistically significant at two (p < 0.001) and four (p = 0.003) weeks after the injection, it was not at six weeks (p = 0.055). Subacromial injection of tenoxicam does not offer an equivalent outcome to subacromial injection of corticosteroid at six weeks. Corticosteroid is significantly better than tenoxicam for improving shoulder function in tendonitis of the rotator cuff after six weeks.

In 100 patients the fulcrum axis which is the line connecting the anterior tip of the coracoid and the posterolateral angle of the acromion, was used to position true anteroposterior radiographs of the shoulder. This method was then compared with the conventional radiological technique in a further 100 patients.

Three orthopaedic surgeons counted the number of images without overlap between the humeral head and glenoid and calculated the amount of the glenoid surface visible in each radiograph. The analysis was repeated for intraobserver reliability. The learning curves of both techniques were studied.

The amount of free visible glenoid space was significantly higher using the fulcrum-axis method (64 vs 31) and the comparable glenoid size increased significantly (8.56 vs 6.47). Thus the accuracy of the anteroposterior radiographs of the shoulder is impaired by using this technique. The intra and interobserver reliability showed a high consistency. No learning curve was observed for either technique.

Our aim in this prospective study was to evaluate the outcome of total shoulder replacement in the treatment of young and middle-aged active patients with primary glenohumeral osteoarthritis. We reviewed 21 patients (21 shoulders) with a mean age of 55 years (37 to 60). The mean follow-up was seven years (5 to 9). The same anatomical, third-generation, cemented implant had been used in all patients. All the patients were evaluated radiologically and clinically using the Constant and Murley score.

No patients required revision. In one a tear of the supraspinatus tendon occurred. Overall, 20 patients (95%) were either very satisfied (n = 18) or satisfied (n = 2) with the outcome. Significant differences (p < 0.0001) were found for all categories of the Constant and Murley score pre- and post-operatively. The mean Constant and Murley score increased from 24.1 points (10 to 45) to 64.5 points (39 to 93), and the relative score from 30.4% (11% to 50%) to 83% (54% to 116%). No clinical or radiological signs of loosening of the implant were seen.

For young and middle-aged patients with osteoarthritis, third-generation total shoulder replacement is a viable method of treatment with a low rate of complications and excellent results in the mid-term.