Advice only versus advice and a physiotherapy programme for acute traumatic anterior shoulder dislocation: the ARTISAN RCT.

Background: The extra benefit of a programme of physiotherapy in addition to advice alone, following first-time traumatic shoulder dislocation, is uncertain. We compared the clinical and cost-effectiveness of a single session of advice with a single session of advice and a programme of physiotherapy. Objective: The primary objective was to quantify and draw inferences about observed differences in the Oxford Shoulder Instability Score between the trial treatment groups 6 months post randomisation, in adults with a first-time traumatic shoulder dislocation. Design: A pragmatic, multicentre, superiority, randomised controlled trial with embedded qualitative study. Setting: Forty-one hospitals in the UK NHS. Participants: Adults with a radiologically confirmed first-time traumatic anterior shoulder dislocation, being managed non-operatively. People with neurovascular complications or bilateral dislocations, and those unable to adhere to trial procedures or unable to attend physiotherapy within 6 weeks of injury, or who had previously been randomised, were excluded. Interventions: All participants received the same initial shoulder examination followed by advice to aid self-management, lasting up to 1 hour and administered by a physiotherapist (control). Participants randomised to receive an additional programme of physiotherapy were offered sessions lasting for up to 30 minutes, over a maximum duration of 4 months from the date of randomisation (intervention). Main outcome measures: The primary outcome measure was the Oxford Shoulder Instability Score. This is a self-completed outcome measure containing 12 questions (0-4 points each), with possible scores from 0 (worst function) to 48 (best function). Measurements were collected at 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months and 12 months by postal questionnaire; 6 months was the primary outcome time point. The primary health outcome for economic evaluation was the quality-adjusted life-year, in accordance with National Institute of Health and Care Excellence guidelines. Results: Between 14 November 2018 and 14 March 2022, 482 participants were randomised to advice (n = 240) or advice and a programme of physiotherapy (n = 242). Participants were 34% female, with a mean age of 45 years, and treatment arms were balanced at baseline. There was not a statistically significant difference in the primary outcome between advice only and advice plus a programme of physiotherapy at 6 months for the primary intention-to-treat adjusted analysis (favours physiotherapy: 1.5, 95% confidence interval -0.3 to 3.5) or at earlier 3-month and 6-week time points on the Oxford Shoulder Instability Score (0-48; higher scores indicate better function). The probability of physiotherapy being cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £30,000 was 0.95. Conclusions: We found little difference in the primary outcome or other secondary outcomes. Advice with additional physiotherapy sessions was found likely to be cost-effective. However, small imprecise incremental costs and quality-adjusted life-years raise questions on whether it is the best use of scarce physiotherapy resources given current service demands. Limitations: Loss to follow-up was 27%; however, the observed standard deviation was much smaller than anticipated. These changes in parameters reduced the number of participants required to observe the planned target difference of four points. Our post hoc sensitivity analysis, accounting for missing data, gives similar results. Future work: Further research should be directed towards optimising self-management strategies. Study registration: This study is registered as ISRCTN63184243. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 16/167/56) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 22. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

The shoulder dislocates (comes out of its socket joint) when the upper end of the arm bone is forced out during an injury. This common problem occurs mostly in men in their 20s and women aged over 80. After the bone is put back in its socket, most people are managed with physiotherapy. In the United Kingdom, once the bone is back in its socket, there is a range of physiotherapy provision: some hospitals offer advice, and some offer advice and a course of additional physiotherapy sessions. We compared advice alone to advice and physiotherapy for people who had a shoulder that had come out of its joint for the first time. Physiotherapy advice and additional sessions included education about the injury and exercises to move and strengthen the shoulder. When we started this project, this was the first time these two treatments had been compared. Our aim was to compare what activities the two groups could do 6 months after injury via a questionnaire. We also compared quality of life and the cost of rehabilitation at 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months and 12 months after injury. Adults with a shoulder out of its joint and who were not having surgery were asked to take part. All adults who were eligible and consented to take part were assigned, by chance, to either a single session of advice or the same session followed by physiotherapy. Between 14 November 2018 and 14 March 2022 we collected data on 482 people, from 41 NHS sites across the UK. We found at 6 months there was little evidence that additional physiotherapy was better, when compared to advice alone. Cost-effectiveness analysis (comparing changes in costs and quality of life) suggests additional physiotherapy might provide value for money. However, the changes involved are small and uncertain.

Acute rehabilitation following traumatic anterior shoulder dislocation (ARTISAN): pragmatic, multicentre, randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effects of an additional programme of physiotherapy in adults with a first-time traumatic shoulder dislocation compared with single session of advice, supporting materials, and option to self-refer to physiotherapy. DESIGN: Pragmatic, multicentre, randomised controlled trial (ARTISAN). SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Trauma research teams at 41 UK NHS Trust sites screened adults with a first time traumatic anterior shoulder dislocation confirmed radiologically, being managed non-operatively. People were excluded if they presented with both shoulders dislocated, had a neurovascular complication, or were considered for surgical management. INTERVENTIONS: One session of advice, supporting materials, and option to self-refer to physiotherapy (n=240) was assessed against the same advice and supporting materials and an additional programme of physiotherapy (n=242). Analyses were on an intention-to-treat basis with secondary per protocol analyses. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the Oxford shoulder instability score (a single composite measure of shoulder function), measured six months after treatment allocation. Secondary outcomes included the QuickDASH, EQ-5D-5L, and complications. RESULTS: 482 participants were recruited from 40 sites in the UK. 354 (73%) participants completed the primary outcome score (n=180 allocated to advice only, n=174 allocated to advice and physiotherapy). Participants were mostly male (66%), with a mean age of 45 years. No significant difference was noted between advice compared with advice and a programme of physiotherapy at six months for the primary intention-to-treat adjusted analysis (between group difference favouring physiotherapy 1.5 (95% confidence interval -0.3 to 3.5)) or at earlier three month and six week timepoints. Complication profiles were similar across the two groups (P>0.05). CONCLUSIONS: An additional programme of current physiotherapy is not superior to advice, supporting materials, and the option to self-refer to physiotherapy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN63184243.

Development of a single-session physiotherapy and self-management intervention for the treatment of primary traumatic anterior shoulder dislocation for the 'Acute Rehabilitation following Traumatic anterior shoulder dISlocAtioN (ARTISAN)' multi centre RCT.

OBJECTIVE: Optimum physiotherapy management for people with a conservatively managed primary traumatic anterior shoulder dislocation is not known. The purpose of the ARTISAN trial is to compare the clinical and cost-effectiveness of a course of usual care physiotherapy with a single session of physiotherapy and self-management, the ARTISAN intervention. ARTISAN is a UK multi-centre, two-arm, parallel group, randomised controlled trial with 1:1 treatment allocation. DESIGN: The intervention was developed following the Medical Research Council framework for developing and evaluating complex interventions and will be reported in line with the template for intervention description and replication checklist (TIDieR) and the Consensus on Exercise Reporting Template (CERT). It was informed by published research, national clinical guidelines, current clinical practice and patient and public involvement. RESULTS: The ARTISAN intervention comprises education (Phase 1), progressive exercise (Phase 2 and Phase 3) and an optional return to sport component (Phase 4). Behaviour change strategies are embedded throughout intervention. The single session of physiotherapy is delivered by a chartered physiotherapist, within the first six weeks of injury, in an NHS outpatient setting. At the end of the initial session, paper-based booklets and/or a patient website with the same content are provided to participants to aid self-management and progression though the four phases of the trial intervention. CONCLUSION: The ARTISAN intervention was successfully implemented throughout the internal pilot and is suitable for testing in the subsequent definitive RCT ARTISAN trial. Trial Registration Number ISRCTN63184243.

Factors that influence the choice to undergo surgery for shoulder and elbow conditions.

BACKGROUND: Knowledge of the factors that influence the willingness of patients considering elective orthopaedic surgery is essential for patient-centered care. To date, however, these factors remain undefined in the orthopaedic population with shoulder and elbow disorders. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: In a cohort of patients seeking surgical consultation for shoulder or elbow conditions, we sought to identify factors that influenced the willingness and decision to undergo surgery. METHODS: In this prospective study, 384 patients completed a questionnaire collecting socioeconomic and health status data before consultation from June 2009 to December 2010. An additional 120 patients who were offered surgery after consultation completed a second questionnaire on their perceptions and concerns regarding surgery. Logistic regression analyses were used to identify factors influencing the willingness and decision to undergo surgery. RESULTS: Lower income (odds ratio [OR], 0.02; CI, 0.02-0.08; p < 0.001) and living alone (OR, 0.25; CI, 0.08-0.77; p = 0.015) were negative predictors of willingness to consider surgery. Physical functioning did not influence willingness (p = 0.994). A greater perceived level of the likelihood of surgical success by the patient (OR, 41.84; CI, 5.24-333.82; p < 0.001) and greater fluency in the English language (OR, 28.39; CI, 3.49-230.88; p = 0.002) were positive predictors of willingness. Willingness to consider surgery as a possible treatment option before the consultation was a predictor of patients' ultimate decisions to undergo surgery (OR, 4.56; CI, 1.05-19.76; p = 0.042). Patients expressing concern about surgery being an inconvenience to daily life, however, were less likely to decide to proceed with surgery (OR, 0.12; CI, 0.02-0.68; p = 0.017). CONCLUSIONS: Many of the identified factors may act as barriers to potentially beneficial surgical interventions. Although most are not modifiable, an awareness of the influence of individual demographics and possible perceptions of patients' choices may show that more in-depth questioning and provisions for cultural differences may be required during the consultation to enable patients to make fully informed decisions. Future studies using qualitative methods would provide a greater in-depth understanding of patients' perceptions regarding surgery and their decision to proceed. Larger or more homogeneous cohorts also would enable additional identification of these factors for different shoulder and elbow conditions. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II, prognostic study. See the Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.