PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to compare shoulder manipulation and arthroscopic arthrolysis with glenohumeral steroid injections in patients affected by idiopathic adhesive shoulder capsulitis. METHODS: In this prospective study we randomly assigned patients to enter group A (23 patients, shoulder manipulation and arthroscopic arthrolysis) and group B (21 patients, glenohumeral steroid injections). Patients were followed-up at three, six and 12 weeks, and at six and 12 months with the Constant and Murley, ASES, UCLA and SST evaluation scales. Moreover, passive forward flexion, abduction, and internal and external rotations were recorded. RESULTS: Range of motion showed satisfactory results in both groups at final follow-up: in group A the mean ABD increased from 60° to 154°, ER from 20° to 40°, and FF from 75° to 174°; in group B, ABD raised from 76° to 145°, ER from 20° to 35°, and FF from 115° to 164°. All the evaluation scales performed increased significantly at final follow-up in both groups. However, while patients of group A had already reached significant improvement at the six-week follow-up (p <0.03), in group B this happened only at the 12 week follow-up (p <0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Both types of treatment were effective in improving final range of motion; however, while patients of group A accomplished their goal by the six-week follow-up, in group B the same result was obtained at the 12-week follow-up.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to compare shoulder manipulation and arthroscopic arthrolysis with glenohumeral steroid injections in patients affected by idiopathic adhesive shoulder capsulitis. METHODS: In this prospective study we randomly assigned patients to enter group A (23 patients, shoulder manipulation and arthroscopic arthrolysis) and group B (21 patients, glenohumeral steroid injections). Patients were followed-up at three, six and 12 weeks, and at six and 12 months with the Constant and Murley, ASES, UCLA and SST evaluation scales. Moreover, passive forward flexion, abduction, and internal and external rotations were recorded. RESULTS: Range of motion showed satisfactory results in both groups at final follow-up: in group A the mean ABD increased from 60° to 154°, ER from 20° to 40°, and FF from 75° to 174°; in group B, ABD raised from 76° to 145°, ER from 20° to 35°, and FF from 115° to 164°. All the evaluation scales performed increased significantly at final follow-up in both groups. However, while patients of group A had already reached significant improvement at the six-week follow-up (p <0.03), in group B this happened only at the 12 week follow-up (p <0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Both types of treatment were effective in improving final range of motion; however, while patients of group A accomplished their goal by the six-week follow-up, in group B the same result was obtained at the 12-week follow-up.
Authors: M H Baums; G Spahn; M Nozaki; H Steckel; W Schultz; H-M Klinger Journal: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Date: 2006-10-10 Impact factor: 4.342
Authors: William N Levine; Christine P Kashyap; Sean F Bak; Christopher S Ahmad; Theodore A Blaine; Louis U Bigliani Journal: J Shoulder Elbow Surg Date: 2007-05-24 Impact factor: 3.019
Authors: Stephen Brealey; Matthew Northgraves; Lucksy Kottam; Ada Keding; Belen Corbacho; Lorna Goodchild; Cynthia Srikesavan; Saleema Rex; Charalambos P Charalambous; Nigel Hanchard; Alison Armstrong; Andrew Brooksbank; Andrew Carr; Cushla Cooper; Joseph Dias; Iona Donnelly; Catherine Hewitt; Sarah E Lamb; Catriona McDaid; Gerry Richardson; Sara Rodgers; Emma Sharp; Sally Spencer; David Torgerson; Francine Toye; Amar Rangan Journal: Health Technol Assess Date: 2020-12 Impact factor: 4.014
Authors: Niels Gunnar Juel; Gunnar Oland; Synnøve Kvalheim; Tormod Løve; Ole Marius Ekeberg Journal: Rheumatol Int Date: 2012-12-22 Impact factor: 2.631