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

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

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.

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.