Systematic Review of Shoulder Imaging Abnormalities in Asymptomatic Adult Shoulders (SCRUTINY): Abnormalities of the glenohumeral joint.

OBJECTIVE: The primary objective was to determine the population prevalence of glenohumeral joint imaging abnormalities in asymptomatic adults. METHOD: We systematically reviewed studies reporting the prevalence of X-ray, ultrasound (US), computed tomography, and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) abnormalities in adults without shoulder symptoms (PROSPERO registration number CRD42018090041). This report presents the glenohumeral joint imaging findings. We searched Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and Web of Science from inception to June 2023 and assessed risk of bias using a tool designed for prevalence studies. The primary analysis was planned for the general population. The certainty of evidence was assessed using a modified Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) for prognostic studies. RESULTS: Thirty-five studies (4 X-ray, 10 US, 20 MRI, 1 X-ray and MRI) reported useable prevalence data. Two studies were population-based (846 shoulders), 15 studies included miscellaneous study populations (1715 shoulders) and 18 included athletes (727 shoulders). All were judged to be at high risk of bias. Clinical diversity precluded pooling. Population prevalence of glenohumeral osteoarthritis ranged from 15% to 75% (2 studies, 846 shoulders, 1 X-ray, 1 X-ray and MRI; low certainty evidence). Prevalence of labral abnormalities, humeral head cysts and long head of biceps tendon abnormalities were 20%, 5%, 30% respectively (1 study, 20 shoulders, X-ray and MRI; very low certainty evidence). CONCLUSION: The population-based prevalence of glenohumeral joint imaging abnormalities in asymptomatic individuals remains uncertain, but may range between 30% and 75%. Better estimates are needed to inform best evidence-based management of people with shoulder pain.

Minimal important difference, patient acceptable symptom state and longitudinal validity of oxford elbow score and the quickDASH in patients with tennis elbow.

BACKGROUND: The Oxford Elbow Score (OES) and the short version of Disabilities of Arms, Shoulder and Hand (QuickDASH) are common patient-reported outcomes for people with elbow problems. Our primary objective was to define thresholds for the Minimal Important Difference (MID) and Patient-Acceptable Symptom State (PASS) for the OES and QuickDASH. The secondary aim was to compare the longitudinal validity of these outcome measures. METHODS: We recruited 97 patients with clinically-diagnosed tennis elbow for a prospective observational cohort study in a pragmatic clinical setting. Fifty-five participants received no specific intervention, 14 underwent surgery (11 as primary treatment and 4 during follow-up), and 28 received either botulinum toxin injection or platelet rich plasma injection. We collected OES (0 to 100, higher is better) and QuickDASH (0 to 100, higher is worse), and global rating of change (as an external transition anchor question) at six weeks, three months, six months and 12 months. We defined MID and PASS values using three approaches. To assess the longitudinal validity of the measures, we calculated the Spearman's correlation coefficient between the change in the outcome scores and external transition anchor question, and the Area Under the Curve (AUC) from a receiver operating characteristics (ROC) analysis. To assess signal-to-noise ratio, we calculated standardized response means. RESULTS: Depending on the method, MID values ranged from 16 to 21 for OES Pain; 10 to 17 for OES Function; 14 to 28 for OES Social-psychological; 14 to 20 for OES Total score, and - 7 to -9 for QuickDASH. Patient-Acceptable Symptom State (PASS) cut offs were 74 to 84 for OES Pain; 88 to 91 for OES Function; 75 to 78 with OES Social-psychological; 80 to 81 with OES Total score and 19 to 23 with Quick-DASH. OES had stronger correlations with the anchor items, and AUC values suggested superior discrimination (between improved and not improved) compared with QuickDASH. OES also had superior signal-to-noise ratio compared with QuickDASH. CONCLUSION: The study provides MID and PASS values for OES and QuickDASH. Due to better longitudinal validity, OES may be a better choice for clinical trials. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02425982 (first registered April 24, 2015).

Finnish Subacromial Impingement Arthroscopy Controlled Trial (FIMPACT): a protocol for a randomised trial comparing arthroscopic subacromial decompression and diagnostic arthroscopy (placebo control), with an exercise therapy control, in the treatment of shoulder impingement syndrome.

INTRODUCTION: Arthroscopic subacromial decompression (ASD) is the most commonly performed surgical intervention for shoulder pain, yet evidence on its efficacy is limited. The rationale for the surgery rests on the tenet that symptom relief is achieved through decompression of the rotator cuff tendon passage. The primary objective of this superiority trial is to compare the efficacy of ASD versus diagnostic arthroscopy (DA) in patients with shoulder impingement syndrome (SIS), where DA differs only by the lack of subacromial decompression. A third group of supervised progressive exercise therapy (ET) will allow for pragmatic assessment of the relative benefits of surgical versus non-operative treatment strategies. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Finnish Subacromial Impingement Arthroscopy Controlled Trial is an ongoing multicentre, three-group randomised controlled study. We performed two-fold concealed allocation, first by randomising patients to surgical (ASD or DA) or conservative (ET) treatment in 2:1 ratio and then those allocated to surgery further to ASD or DA in 1:1 ratio. Our two primary outcomes are pain at rest and at arm activity, assessed using visual analogue scale (VAS). We will quantify the treatment effect as the difference between the groups in the change in the VAS scales with the associated 95% CI at 24 months. Our secondary outcomes are functional assessment (Constant score and Simple shoulder test), quality of life (15D and SF-36), patient satisfaction, proportions of responders and non-responders, reoperations/treatment conversions, all at 2 years post-randomisation, as well as adverse effects and complications. We recruited a total of 210 patients from three tertiary referral centres. We will conduct the primary analysis on the intention-to-treat basis. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of the Pirkanmaa Hospital District and duly registered at ClinicalTrials.gov. The findings of this study will be disseminated widely through peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT00428870; Pre-results.