Aims. 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. Methods. 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. Results. Between 4 August 2020 and 4 August 2021, shoulder experts from 47 hospitals in the UK completed the study. There were 106 participants (consultant upper limb orthopaedic surgeons, n = 50; consultant radiologists, n = 52; consultant physiotherapist, n = 1; extended scope physiotherapists, n = 3) who completed round one, of whom 97 (92%) completed round two. No elements of hydrodilatation were “mandated” (100% positive rating). Elements that were “encouraged” (≥ 80% positive rating) were the use of image guidance, local anaesthetic, normal saline, and steroids to deliver the injection. Injecting according to patient tolerance, physiotherapy, and home exercises were also “encouraged”. No elements were “discouraged” (≥ 80% negative rating) although using hypertonic saline was rated as being “disallowed” (≥ 90% negative rating). Conclusion. In the absence of rigorous evidence, our Delphi study allowed us to achieve expert consensus about positive, negative, and neutral ratings of hydrodilatation in the management of frozen shoulder in a hospital setting. This should inform clinical practice and the design of an intervention for evaluation. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(9):701–709

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

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

There are many types of treatment used to manage the frozen shoulder, but there is no consensus on how best to manage patients with this painful and debilitating condition. We conducted a review of the evidence of the effectiveness of interventions used to manage primary frozen shoulder using the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, the Physiotherapy Evidence Database, MEDLINE and EMBASE without language or date restrictions up to April 2009. Two authors independently applied selection criteria and assessed the quality of systematic reviews using the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) tool. Data were synthesised narratively, with emphasis placed on assessing the quality of evidence. In total, 758 titles and abstracts were identified and screened, which resulted in the inclusion of 11 systematic reviews. Although these met most of the AMSTAR quality criteria, there was insufficient evidence to draw firm conclusions about the effectiveness of treatments commonly used to manage a frozen shoulder. This was mostly due to poor methodological quality and small sample size in primary studies included in the reviews. We found no reviews evaluating surgical interventions. More rigorous randomised trials are needed to evaluate the treatments used for frozen shoulder

Aims. Ultrasound (US)-guided injections are widely used in patients with conditions of the shoulder in order to improve their accuracy. However, the clinical efficacy of US-guided injections compared with blind injections remains controversial. The aim of this study was to compare the accuracy and efficacy of US-guided compared with blind corticosteroid injections into the glenohumeral joint in patients with primary frozen shoulder (FS). Methods. Intra-articular corticosteroid injections were administered to 90 patients primary FS, who were randomly assigned to either an US-guided (n = 45) or a blind technique (n = 45), by a shoulder specialist. Immediately after injection, fluoroscopic images were obtained to assess the accuracy of the injection. The outcome was assessed using a visual analogue scale (VAS) for pain, the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score, the subjective shoulder value (SSV) and range of movement (ROM) for all patients at the time of presentation and at three, six, and 12 weeks after injection. Results. The accuracy of injection in the US and blind groups was 100% (45/45) and 71.1% (32/45), respectively; this difference was significant (p < 0.001). Both groups had significant improvements in VAS pain score, ASES score, SSV, forward flexion, abduction, external rotation, and internal rotation throughout follow-up until 12 weeks after injection (all p < 0.001). There were no significant differences between the VAS pain scores, the ASES score, the SSV and all ROMs between the two groups at the time points assessed (all p > 0.05). No injection-related adverse effects were noted in either group. Conclusion. We found no significant differences in pain and functional outcomes between the two groups, although an US-guided injection was associated with greater accuracy. Considering that it is both costly and time-consuming, an US-guided intra-articular injection of corticosteroid seems not always to be necessary in the treatment of FS as it gives similar outcomes as a blind injection. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(2):353–359

Frozen shoulder is a recognised complication following simple arthroscopic shoulder procedures, but its exact incidence has not been reported. Our aim was to analyse a single-surgeon series of patients undergoing arthroscopic subacromial decompression (ASD; group 1) or ASD in combination with arthroscopic acromioclavicular joint (ACJ) excision (group 2), to establish the incidence of frozen shoulder post-operatively. Our secondary aim was to identify associated risk factors and to compare this cohort with a group of patients with primary frozen shoulder. We undertook a retrospective analysis of 200 consecutive procedures performed between August 2011 and November 2013. Group 1 included 96 procedures and group 2 104 procedures. Frozen shoulder was diagnosed post-operatively using the British Elbow and Shoulder Society criteria. A comparative group from the same institution involved 136 patients undergoing arthroscopic capsular release for primary idiopathic frozen shoulder. . The incidence of frozen shoulder was 5.21% in group 1 and 5.71% in group 2. Age between 46 and 60 years (p = 0.002) and a previous idiopathic contralateral frozen shoulder (p < 0.001) were statistically significant risk factors for the development of secondary frozen shoulder. Comparison of baseline characteristics against the comparator groups showed no statistically significant differences for age, gender, diabetes and previous contralateral frozen shoulder. . These results suggest that the risk of frozen shoulder following simple arthroscopic procedures is just over 5%, with no increased risk if the ACJ is also excised. Patients aged between 46 and 60 years and a previous history of frozen shoulder increase the relative risk of secondary frozen shoulder by 7.8 (95% confidence interval (CI) 2.1 to 28.3)and 18.5 (95% CI 7.4 to 46.3) respectively. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015; 97-B:963–6

We treated 22 patients with a diagnosis of primary frozen shoulder resistant to conservative treatment by manipulation under anaesthetic and arthroscopic release of the rotator interval, at a mean time from onset of 15 months (3 to 36). Biopsies were taken from this site and histological and immunocytochemical analysis was performed to identify the types of cell present. The tissue was characterised by the presence of fibroblasts, proliferating fibroblasts and chronic inflammatory cells. The infiltrate of chronic inflammatory cells was predominantly made up of mast cells, with T cells, B cells and macrophages also present. The pathology of frozen shoulder includes a chronic inflammatory response with fibroblastic proliferation which may be immunomodulated

The effect of timing of a manipulation under anaesthetic (MUA) and injection of corticosteroid and local anaesthetic for the treatment of frozen shoulder has attracted little attention to date. All studies describe a period of conservative treatment before proceeding to an MUA. Delay has been associated with a poorer outcome. We present a retrospective review of a prospectively collected, single-surgeon, consecutive series of 246 patients with a primary frozen shoulder treated by MUA within four weeks of presentation. The mean duration of presenting symptoms was 28 weeks (6 to 156), and time to initial post-operative assessment was 26 days (5 to 126). The Oxford shoulder score (OSS) improved by a mean of 16 points (Wilcoxon signed-ranks test, p < 0.001) with a mean OSS at this time of 43 (7 to 48). Linear regression analysis showed no correlation between the duration of presenting symptoms and OSS at initial follow-up (R2 < 0.001) or peri-operative change in OSS (R2 < 0.001) or OSS at long-term follow-up (R2 < 0.03). Further analysis at a mean of 42 months (8 to 127) revealed a sustained improvement with a mean OSS of 44 (16 to 48). A good outcome follows an MUA and injection of corticosteroid and local anaesthetic in patients with primary frozen shoulder, independent of the duration of the presenting symptoms, and this improvement is maintained in the long term

We prospectively studied 50 patients with the diagnosis of primary frozen shoulder. The serum lipid levels were measured in 43 of these patients and compared with those in 43 age-matched and sex-matched control subjects. The fasting serum triglyceride and cholesterol levels were significantly elevated in the frozen-shoulder group (cholesterol p < 0.01; triglyceride p < 0.02)

Of 935 consecutive patients referred with shoulder pain, 50 fitted the criteria for primary frozen shoulder. Twelve patients who failed to improve after conservative treatment and manipulation had excision of the coracohumeral ligament and the rotator interval of the capsule. The specimens were examined histologically, using special stains for collagen. Immunocytochemistry was performed with monoclonal antibodies against leucocyte common antigen (LCA, CD45) and a macrophage/synovial antigen (PGMI, CD68) to assess the inflammatory component, and vimentin and smooth-muscle actin to evaluate fibroblasts and myofibroblasts. Our histological and immunocytochemical findings show that the pathological process is active fibroblastic proliferation, accompanied by some transformation to a smooth muscle phenotype (myofibroblasts). The fibroblasts lay down collagen which appears as a thick nodular band or fleshy mass. These appearances are very similar to those in Dupuytren's disease of the hand, with no inflammation and no synovial involvement. The contracture acts as a check-rein against external rotation, causing loss of both active and passive movement

Aims

Manipulation under anaesthetic (MUA) is a recognised form of treatment for patients with a frozen shoulder. However, not all patients benefit. Some have persistent or recurrent symptoms. There are no clear recommendations in the literature on the optimal management of recurrent frozen shoulder after a MUA. We aimed to address this issue in this study.

Frozen shoulder is commonly encountered in general orthopaedic practice. It may arise spontaneously without an obvious predisposing cause, or be associated with a variety of local or systemic disorders. Diagnosis is based upon the recognition of the characteristic features of the pain, and selective limitation of passive external rotation. The macroscopic and histological features of the capsular contracture are well-defined, but the underlying pathological processes remain poorly understood. It may cause protracted disability, and imposes a considerable burden on health service resources. Most patients are still managed by physiotherapy in primary care, and only the more refractory cases are referred for specialist intervention. Targeted therapy is not possible and treatment remains predominantly symptomatic. However, over the last ten years, more active interventions that may shorten the clinical course, such as capsular distension arthrography and arthroscopic capsular release, have become more popular.

This review describes the clinical and pathological features of frozen shoulder. We also outline the current treatment options, review the published results and present our own treatment algorithm.

The June 2014 Shoulder & Elbow Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at: suprascapular nerve and rotator cuff pathology; anchors in Bankart repair: it’s not what you’ve got, but how you use it; not all shoulder PROMs are equal; reverse shoulder arthroplasty OK in trauma; not all in the mind: frozen shoulder personality debunked; open and arthroscopic repair equivalent in shoulder instability; natural history of olecranon fractures not so bleak?; and resurfacing of the shoulder: a Danish perspective.

The October 2015 Shoulder & Elbow Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at: Culture time important in propionibacterium acnes; Microvascularisation of the cuff footprint; Degenerative cuff tears: evidence for repair; Middle ground in distal humeral fractures?; Haste needed in elbow heterotopic ossification; Iatrogenic frozen shoulder; Salvage of failed humeral fixation

This study prospectively evaluated the outcome of manipulation under anaesthesia and hydrodilatation as treatments for adhesive capsulitis. A total of 36 patients (38 shoulders) were randomised to receive either method, with all patients being treated in stage II of the disease process.

The mean age of the patients was 55.2 years (44 to 70) and the mean duration of symptoms was 33.7 weeks (12 to 76). Eighteen shoulders (17 patients) underwent manipulation under anaesthesia and 20 (19 patients) had hydrodilatation. There were three insulin-dependent diabetics in each group. The mean visual analogue score in the manipulation under anaesthesia group was 5.7 (3 to 8.5; n = 18) before treatment, 4.7 (0 to 8.5; n = 16) at two months (paired t-test p = 0.02), and 2.7 (0 to 9; n = 16) at six months (paired t-test, p = 0.0006). The mean score in the hydrodilatation group was 6.1 (4 to 10; n = 20) before treatment, 2.4 (0 to 8; n = 18) at two months (paired t-test, p = 0.001), and 1.7 (0 to 7; n = 18) at six months (paired t-test, p = 0.0006). The visual analogue scores in the hydrodilatation group were significantly better than in the manipulation under anaesthesia group over the six-month follow-up period (p < 0.0001).

The mean Constant score in those manipulated was 36 (26 to 66) before treatment, 58.5 (24 to 90) at two months (paired t-test, p = 0.001) and 59.5 (23 to 85) at six months (paired t-test, p = 0.0006). In the hydrodilatation group it was 28.8 (18 to 55) before treatment, 57.4 (17 to 80) at two months (paired t-test, p = 0.0004) and 65.9 (28 to 92) at six months (paired t-test, p = 0.0005). The Constant scores in the hydrodilatation group were significantly better than in the manipulated group over the six-month period of follow-up (p = 0.02).

The range of movement improved in all patients over the six months, but was not significantly different between the groups. At the final follow-up, 94% of patients (17 of 18) were satisfied or very satisfied after hydrodilatation compared with 81% (13 of 16) of those receiving a manipulation.

Most of our patients were treated successfully, but those undergoing hydrodilatation did better than those who were manipulated.