Surgical treatments compared with early structured physiotherapy in secondary care for adults with primary frozen shoulder: the UK FROST three-arm RCT.

BACKGROUND: Frozen shoulder causes pain and stiffness. It affects around 10% of people in their fifties and is slightly more common in women. Costly and invasive surgical interventions are used, without high-quality evidence that these are effective. OBJECTIVES: To compare the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of three treatments in secondary care for adults with frozen shoulder; to qualitatively explore the acceptability of these treatments to patients and health-care professionals; and to update a systematic review to explore the trial findings in the context of existing evidence for the three treatments. DESIGN: This was a pragmatic, parallel-group, multicentre, open-label, three-arm, randomised superiority trial with unequal allocation (2 : 2 : 1). An economic evaluation and a nested qualitative study were also carried out. SETTING: The orthopaedic departments of 35 hospitals across the UK were recruited from April 2015, with final follow-up in December 2018. PARTICIPANTS: Participants were adults (aged ≥ 18 years) with unilateral frozen shoulder, characterised by restriction of passive external rotation in the affected shoulder to < 50% of the opposite shoulder, and with plain radiographs excluding other pathology. INTERVENTIONS: The inventions were early structured physiotherapy with a steroid injection, manipulation under anaesthesia with a steroid injection and arthroscopic capsular release followed by manipulation. Both of the surgical interventions were followed with post-procedural physiotherapy. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome and end point was the Oxford Shoulder Score at 12 months post randomisation. A difference of 5 points between early structured physiotherapy and manipulation under anaesthesia or arthroscopic capsular release or of 4 points between manipulation under anaesthesia and arthroscopic capsular release was judged clinically important. RESULTS: The mean age of the 503 participants was 54 years; 319 were female (63%) and 150 had diabetes (30%). The primary analyses comprised 473 participants (94%). At the primary end point of 12 months, participants randomised to arthroscopic capsular release had, on average, a statistically significantly higher (better) Oxford Shoulder Score than those randomised to manipulation under anaesthesia (2.01 points, 95% confidence interval 0.10 to 3.91 points; p = 0.04) or early structured physiotherapy (3.06 points, 95% confidence interval 0.71 to 5.41 points; p = 0.01). Manipulation under anaesthesia did not result in statistically significantly better Oxford Shoulder Score than early structured physiotherapy (1.05 points, 95% confidence interval -1.28 to 3.39 points; p = 0.38). No differences were deemed of clinical importance. Serious adverse events were rare but occurred in participants randomised to surgery (arthroscopic capsular release,n = 8; manipulation under anaesthesia,n = 2). There was, however, one serious adverse event in a participant who received non-trial physiotherapy. The base-case economic analysis showed that manipulation under anaesthesia was more expensive than early structured physiotherapy, with slightly better utilities. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for manipulation under anaesthesia was £6984 per additional quality-adjusted life-year, and this intervention was probably 86% cost-effective at the threshold of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year. Arthroscopic capsular release was more costly than early structured physiotherapy and manipulation under anaesthesia, with no statistically significant benefit in utilities. Participants in the qualitative study wanted early medical help and a quicker pathway to resolve their shoulder problem. Nine studies were identified from the updated systematic review, including UK FROST, of which only two could be pooled, and found that arthroscopic capsular release was more effective than physiotherapy in the long-term shoulder functioning of patients, but not to the clinically important magnitude used in UK FROST. LIMITATIONS: Implementing physiotherapy to the trial standard in clinical practice might prove challenging but could avoid theatre use and post-procedural physiotherapy. There are potential confounding effects of waiting times in the trial. CONCLUSIONS: None of the three interventions was clearly superior. Early structured physiotherapy with a steroid injection is an accessible and low-cost option. Manipulation under anaesthesia is the most cost-effective option. Arthroscopic capsular release carries higher risks and higher costs. FUTURE WORK: Evaluation in a randomised controlled trial is recommended to address the increasing popularity of hydrodilatation despite the paucity of high-quality evidence. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN48804508. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 71. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Frozen shoulder occurs when the soft tissue envelope around the shoulder joint becomes inflamed, scarred and contracted, making movement painful and stiff. It affects around 1 in 10 people and is more common in women. Most patients are treated in the community. Those who do not improve are offered treatments in hospital. This includes costly and invasive surgical options. It is unclear which treatment provides the best patient outcomes and is cost-effective. UK FROST (UK FROzen Shoulder Trial) comprised 503 patients (from 35 UK hospitals) who randomly received one of three commonly offered treatments for frozen shoulder: early physiotherapy to restore movement, including a steroid injection for pain reliefmanipulation under anaesthesia, to stretch and tear the tight capsule to restore movement, and a steroid injection followed by physiotherapyarthroscopic capsular release, which uses keyhole surgery, including manipulation, to restore movement, followed by physiotherapy with pain medication. No important differences were found between the three treatments in shoulder function or pain at 12 months. Fewer patients who received arthroscopic capsular release required further treatment, and patients who received arthroscopic capsular release had slightly better shoulder function and pain outcomes than those who received the manipulation procedure or early physiotherapy. This improvement, however, was unlikely to be of clinical benefit to patients. Arthroscopic capsular release had slightly higher risks and substantially higher costs. Six serious complications were reported in patients who received arthroscopic capsular release (mostly owing to co-existing health problems) and two were reported in patients who received manipulation under anaesthesia. Physiotherapy was the least expensive treatment, but patients who received manipulation under anaesthesia had slightly better general health than those who received physiotherapy. Early physiotherapy with steroid injection could be accessed quicker than the surgical alternatives. Manipulation under anaesthesia cost more than physiotherapy but provided the best value for money. Patients in the study wanted early access to medical help to improve their shoulder problems.

Management of adults with primary frozen shoulder in secondary care (UK FROST): a multicentre, pragmatic, three-arm, superiority randomised clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Manipulation under anaesthesia and arthroscopic capsular release are costly and invasive treatments for frozen shoulder, but their effectiveness remains uncertain. We compared these two surgical interventions with early structured physiotherapy plus steroid injection. METHODS: In this multicentre, pragmatic, three-arm, superiority randomised trial, patients referred to secondary care for treatment of primary frozen shoulder were recruited from 35 hospital sites in the UK. Participants were adults (≥18 years) with unilateral frozen shoulder, characterised by restriction of passive external rotation (≥50%) in the affected shoulder. Participants were randomly assigned (2:2:1) to receive manipulation under anaesthesia, arthroscopic capsular release, or early structured physiotherapy. In manipulation under anaesthesia, the surgeon manipulated the affected shoulder to stretch and tear the tight capsule while the participant was under general anaesthesia, supplemented by a steroid injection. Arthroscopic capsular release, also done under general anaesthesia, involved surgically dividing the contracted anterior capsule in the rotator interval, followed by manipulation, with optional steroid injection. Both forms of surgery were followed by postprocedural physiotherapy. Early structured physiotherapy involved mobilisation techniques and a graduated home exercise programme supplemented by a steroid injection. Both early structured physiotherapy and postprocedural physiotherapy involved 12 sessions during up to 12 weeks. The primary outcome was the Oxford Shoulder Score (OSS; 0-48) at 12 months after randomisation, analysed by initial randomisation group. We sought a target difference of 5 OSS points between physiotherapy and either form of surgery, or 4 points between manipulation and capsular release. The trial registration is ISRCTN48804508. FINDINGS: Between April 1, 2015, and Dec 31, 2017, we screened 914 patients, of whom 503 (55%) were randomly assigned. At 12 months, OSS data were available for 189 (94%) of 201 participants assigned to manipulation (mean estimate 38·3 points, 95% CI 36·9 to 39·7), 191 (94%) of 203 participants assigned to capsular release (40·3 points, 38·9 to 41·7), and 93 (94%) of 99 participants assigned to physiotherapy (37·2 points, 35·3 to 39·2). The mean group differences were 2·01 points (0·10 to 3·91) between the capsular release and manipulation groups, 3·06 points (0·71 to 5·41) between capsular release and physiotherapy, and 1·05 points (-1·28 to 3·39) between manipulation and physiotherapy. Eight serious adverse events were reported with capsular release and two with manipulation. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of £20 000 per quality-adjusted life-year, manipulation under anaesthesia had the highest probability of being cost-effective (0·8632, compared with 0·1366 for physiotherapy and 0·0002 for capsular release). INTERPRETATION: All mean differences on the assessment of shoulder pain and function (OSS) at the primary endpoint of 12 months were less than the target differences. Therefore, none of the three interventions were clinically superior. Arthoscopic capsular release carried higher risks, and manipulation under anaesthesia was the most cost-effective. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

United Kingdom Frozen Shoulder Trial (UK FROST), multi-centre, randomised, 12 month, parallel group, superiority study to compare the clinical and cost-effectiveness of Early Structured Physiotherapy versus manipulation under anaesthesia versus arthroscopic capsular release for patients referred to secondary care with a primary frozen shoulder: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Frozen shoulder (also known as adhesive capsulitis) occurs when the capsule, or the soft tissue envelope around the ball and socket shoulder joint, becomes scarred and contracted, making the shoulder tight, painful and stiff. It affects around 1 in 12 men and 1 in 10 women of working age. Although this condition can settle with time (typically taking 1 to 3 years), for some people it causes severe symptoms and needs referral to hospital. Our aim is to evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of two invasive and costly surgical interventions that are commonly used in secondary care in the National Health Service (NHS) compared with a non-surgical comparator of Early Structured Physiotherapy. METHODS: We will conduct a randomised controlled trial (RCT) of 500 adult patients with a clinical diagnosis of frozen shoulder, and who have radiographs that exclude other pathology. Early Structured Physiotherapy with an intra-articular steroid injection will be compared with manipulation under anaesthesia with a steroid injection or arthroscopic (keyhole) capsular release followed by manipulation. Both surgical interventions will be followed with a programme of post-procedural physiotherapy. These treatments will be undertaken in NHS hospitals across the United Kingdom. The primary outcome and endpoint will be the Oxford Shoulder Score (a patient self-reported assessment of shoulder function) at 12 months. This will also be measured at baseline, 3 and 6 months after randomisation; and on the day that treatment starts and 6 months later. Secondary outcomes include the Disabilities of Arm Shoulder and Hand (QuickDASH) score, the EQ-5D-5 L score, pain, extent of recovery and complications. We will explore the acceptability of the different treatments to patients and health care professionals using qualitative methods. DISCUSSION: The three treatments being compared are the most frequently used in secondary care in the NHS, but there is uncertainty about which one works best and at what cost. UK FROST is a rigorously designed and adequately powered study to inform clinical decisions for the treatment of this common condition in adults. TRIAL REGISTRATION: International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Register, ID: ISRCTN48804508 . Registered on 25 July 2014.

The ProFHER (PROximal Fracture of the Humerus: Evaluation by Randomisation) trial - a pragmatic multicentre randomised controlled trial evaluating the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of surgical compared with non-surgical treatment for proximal fracture of the humerus in adults.

BACKGROUND: Proximal humeral fractures account for 5-6% of all fractures in adults. There is considerable variation in whether or not surgery is used in the management of displaced fractures involving the surgical neck. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of surgical compared with non-surgical treatment of the majority of displaced fractures of the proximal humerus involving the surgical neck in adults. DESIGN: A pragmatic parallel-group multicentre randomised controlled trial with an economic evaluation. Follow-up was for 2 years. SETTING: Recruitment was undertaken in the orthopaedic departments of 33 acute NHS hospitals in the UK. Patient care pathways included outpatient and community-based rehabilitation. PARTICIPANTS: Adults (aged ≥ 16 years) presenting within 3 weeks of their injury with a displaced fracture of the proximal humerus involving the surgical neck. INTERVENTIONS: The choice of surgical intervention was left to the treating surgeons, who used techniques with which they were experienced. Non-surgical treatment was initial sling immobilisation followed by active rehabilitation. Provision of rehabilitation was comparable in both groups. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the Oxford Shoulder Score (OSS) assessed at 6, 12 and 24 months. Secondary outcomes were the 12-item Short Form health survey, surgical and other shoulder fracture-related complications, secondary surgery to the shoulder or increased/new shoulder-related therapy, medical complications during inpatient stay and mortality. European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions data and treatment costs were also collected. RESULTS: The mean age of the 250 trial participants was 66 years and 192 (77%) were female. Independent assessment using the Neer classification identified 18 one-part fractures, 128 two-part fractures and 104 three- or four-part fractures. OSS data were available for 215 participants at 2 years. We found no statistically or clinically significant differences in OSS scores between the two treatment groups (scale 0-48, with a higher score indicating a better outcome) over the 2-year period [difference of 0.75 points in favour of the surgery group, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.33 to 2.84; p = 0.479; data from 114 surgery and 117 non-surgery participants] or at individual time points. We found no statistically significant differences between surgical and non-surgical group participants in SF-12 physical or mental component summary scores; surgical or shoulder fracture-related complications (30 vs. 23 respectively); those undergoing further shoulder-related therapy, either surgery (11 vs. 11 respectively) or other therapy (seven vs. four respectively); or mortality (nine vs. five respectively). The base-case economic analysis showed that, at 2 years, the cost of surgical intervention was, on average, £1780.73 more per patient (95% CI £1152.71 to £2408.75) than the cost of non-surgical intervention. It was also slightly less beneficial in terms of utilities, although this difference was not statistically significant. The net monetary benefit associated with surgery is negative. There was only a 5% probability of surgery achieving the criterion of costing < £20,000 to gain a quality-adjusted life-year, which was confirmed by extensive sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Current surgical practice does not result in a better outcome for most patients with displaced fractures of the proximal humerus involving the surgical neck and is not cost-effective in the UK setting. Two areas for future work are the setting up of a national database of these fractures, including the collection of patient-reported outcomes, and research on the best ways of informing patients with these and other upper limb fractures about initial self-care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN50850043. FUNDING: This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 19, No. 24. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Surgical vs nonsurgical treatment of adults with displaced fractures of the proximal humerus: the PROFHER randomized clinical trial.

IMPORTANCE: The need for surgery for the majority of patients with displaced proximal humeral fractures is unclear, but its use is increasing. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the clinical effectiveness of surgical vs nonsurgical treatment for adults with displaced fractures of the proximal humerus involving the surgical neck. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A pragmatic, multicenter, parallel-group, randomized clinical trial, the Proximal Fracture of the Humerus Evaluation by Randomization (PROFHER) trial, recruited 250 patients aged 16 years or older (mean age, 66 years [range, 24-92 years]; 192 [77%] were female; and 249 [99.6%] were white) who presented at the orthopedic departments of 32 acute UK National Health Service hospitals between September 2008 and April 2011 within 3 weeks after sustaining a displaced fracture of the proximal humerus involving the surgical neck. Patients were followed up for 2 years (up to April 2013) and 215 had complete follow-up data. The data for 231 patients (114 in surgical group and 117 in nonsurgical group) were included in the primary analysis. INTERVENTIONS: Fracture fixation or humeral head replacement were performed by surgeons experienced in these techniques. Nonsurgical treatment was sling immobilization. Standardized outpatient and community-based rehabilitation was provided to both groups. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Primary outcome was the Oxford Shoulder Score (range, 0-48; higher scores indicate better outcomes) assessed during a 2-year period, with assessment and data collection at 6, 12, and 24 months. Sample size was based on a minimal clinically important difference of 5 points for the Oxford Shoulder Score. Secondary outcomes were the Short-Form 12 (SF-12), complications, subsequent therapy, and mortality. RESULTS: There was no significant mean treatment group difference in the Oxford Shoulder Score averaged over 2 years (39.07 points for the surgical group vs 38.32 points for the nonsurgical group; difference of 0.75 points [95% CI, -1.33 to 2.84 points]; P = .48) or at individual time points. There were also no significant between-group differences over 2 years in the mean SF-12 physical component score (surgical group: 1.77 points higher [95% CI, -0.84 to 4.39 points]; P = .18); the mean SF-12 mental component score (surgical group: 1.28 points lower [95% CI, -3.80 to 1.23 points]; P = .32); complications related to surgery or shoulder fracture (30 patients in surgical group vs 23 patients in nonsurgical group; P = .28), requiring secondary surgery to the shoulder (11 patients in both groups), and increased or new shoulder-related therapy (7 patients vs 4 patients, respectively; P = .58); and mortality (9 patients vs 5 patients; P = .27). Ten medical complications (2 cardiovascular events, 2 respiratory events, 2 gastrointestinal events, and 4 others) occurred in the surgical group during the postoperative hospital stay. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among patients with displaced proximal humeral fractures involving the surgical neck, there was no significant difference between surgical treatment compared with nonsurgical treatment in patient-reported clinical outcomes over 2 years following fracture occurrence. These results do not support the trend of increased surgery for patients with displaced fractures of the proximal humerus. TRIAL REGISTRATION: isrctn.com Identifier: ISRCTN50850043.

Do partial thickness, bursal side cuff tears affect outcome following arthroscopic subacromial decompression? A prospective comparative cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The present study aimed to compare medium-term clinical outcomes of patients following arthroscopic subacromial decompression (ASAD): those with intact rotator cuff with two groups of increasing size of partial thickness bursal-side tears. METHODS: Patients undergoing shoulder arthroscopy by a single surgeon had pre- and postoperative Constant scores prospectively recorded. Arthroscopic surgery included the assessment of any supraspinatus tears using the Ellman criteria, as well as ASAD and cuff debridement. Groups were created based on the status of rotator cuff and size of bursal tear. Outcome in these patient groups was then compared and analyzed. RESULTS: Seventy-four patients were suitable for inclusion in the study: 32 patients without a cuff tear; 21 patients with a cuff tear of 9 mm or less in length; and 21 patients with a cuff tear of 10 mm or more in length. Baseline characteristics of the three groups were similar. All three groups showed a significant improvement in their Constant scores following surgery. There was, however, no significant difference in Constant scores between the three groups. CONCLUSIONS: The results of the present study show that patients with varying sizes of bursal-side tears respond to ASAD as well as those with no rotator cuff tear.

Protocol for the ProFHER (PROximal Fracture of the Humerus: Evaluation by Randomisation) trial: a pragmatic multi-centre randomised controlled trial of surgical versus non-surgical treatment for proximal fracture of the humerus in adults.

BACKGROUND: Proximal humeral fractures, which occur mainly in older adults, account for approximately 4 to 5% of all fractures. Approximately 40% of these fractures are displaced fractures involving the surgical neck. Management of this group of fractures is often challenging and the outcome is frequently unsatisfactory. In particular it is not clear whether surgery gives better outcomes than non-surgical management. Currently there is much variation in the use of surgery and a lack of good quality evidence to inform this decision. METHODS/DESIGN: We aim to undertake a pragmatic UK-based multi-centre randomised controlled trial evaluating the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of surgical versus standard non-surgical treatment for adults with an acute closed displaced fracture of the proximal humerus with involvement of the surgical neck. The choice of surgical intervention is left to the surgeon, who must use techniques that they are fully experienced with. This will avoid 'learning curve' problems. We will promote good standards of non-surgical care, similarly insisting on care-provider competence, and emphasize the need for comparable provision of rehabilitation for both groups of patients.We aim to recruit 250 patients from a minimum of 18 NHS trauma centres throughout the UK. These patients will be followed-up for 2 years. The primary outcome is the Oxford Shoulder Score, which will be collected via questionnaires completed by the trial participants at 6, 12 and 24 months. This is a 12-item condition-specific questionnaire providing a total score based on the person's subjective assessment of pain and activities of daily living impairment. We will also collect data for other outcomes, including general health measures and complications, and for an economic evaluation. Additionally, we plan a systematic collection of reasons for non-inclusion of eligible patients who were not recruited into the trial, and their baseline characteristics, treatment preferences and intended treatment. DISCUSSION: This article presents the protocol for a multi-centre randomised controlled trial. It gives extensive details of, and the basis for, the chosen methods, and describes the key measures taken to avoid bias and to ensure validity. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN50850043.

A comparison of the Constant and Oxford shoulder scores in patients with conservatively treated proximal humeral fractures.

The Oxford shoulder scores (OSS) and Constant scores were collected prospectively for 103 patients treated conservatively for proximal humeral fractures. The paired scores were analyzed by assessing the degree of correlation, the agreement between the scores, and their sensitivity to change. Linear regression analysis was also performed. The scores correlated well with a coefficient of .84 (P < .001), demonstrating a clear relationship between the scoring systems. There was good agreement between the scores and both were sensitive to change over time (P < .001). We have also produced a regression equation (R2 = .70, P < .001) to predict the Constant score from the OSS. This study documents and compares the behavior of two scoring systems commonly used in the assessment of patients with proximal humeral fractures. The OSS may be considered as an alternative for assessing longer term follow-up, as, being solely subjective, it is easier to administer and correlates well with the Constant score.