Patient experiences of hydrodistension as a treatment for frozen shoulder: A longitudinal qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Frozen shoulder is a condition associated with severe shoulder pain and loss of function impacting on a persons' physical and mental health. Hydrodistension treatment that has been widely adopted within the UK National Health Service for the condition. However, evidence of clinical effectiveness and understanding of the patient experiences of this treatment are lacking. This study explored the experiences of people with a frozen shoulder who received hydrodistension treatment. METHODS: A qualitative design with repeat semi-structured interviews was used to explore participants' experiences of hydrodistension treatment. Participants were interviewed 2-4 weeks and again at 8-10 weeks after treatment. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Findings were analysed using an inductive thematic analysis framework. The study is reported in accordance with the consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative (COREQ) research. RESULTS: 15 participants were interviewed online or over the phone. Three themes were identified: 'Preparing for and having a hydrodistension', 'Physiotherapy after hydrodistension', and 'Outcome of hydrodistension '. Participants believed hydrodistension would benefit them, was well tolerated by many, and the effects were apparent to most within the first week. Physiotherapy still seemed to be valued to support recovery beyond this timepoint, despite these early effects. Some participant's experienced harms including severe procedural pain and blood sugar dysregulation. CONCLUSION: This is the first study to investigate the experiences of people who undergo hydrodistension for frozen shoulder. Hydrodistension appears an acceptable treatment to participants with a frozen shoulder, acceptability is enhanced through adequate shared decision making. Further high-quality research is required to understand the comparative effectiveness of hydrodistension as a treatment for frozen shoulder, including adverse events, and the benefit of treatment by a physiotherapist after hydrodistension.

Developing an application for the UK Pre-Doctoral Clinical and Practitioner Academic Fellowship (PCAF): the collective experience of a community of physiotherapists.

For physiotherapists and other healthcare professionals, developing capability and expertise in research can be challenging. However, involvement in research is beneficial at organisational and individual levels, both for clinicians and patients. One way to embark on research is to apply for a personal fellowship such as the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Pre-Doctoral Clinical Academic Fellowship (PCAF). While the NIHR has guidance on how to complete the application form, it can be difficult to implement this guidance and understand what a competitive application looks like. As a group of physiotherapists and academic supervisors, who have applied for NIHR PCAFs, what follows is a supportive resource, to inform others who might be thinking of applying. CONTRIBUTION OF PAPER.

The impact of introducing hydrodistension as a treatment for frozen shoulder in a primary care musculoskeletal service: A retrospective audit.

INTRODUCTION: Hydrodistension, where a relatively high volume of local anaesthetic, corticosteroid, and sterile saline are injected into the shoulder joint, is a treatment of interest for frozen shoulder. In the UK National Health Service this is typically provided in the hospital setting. In 2017 we introduced hydrodistension into our physiotherapy led musculoskeletal service. This report describes the findings from our audit of onward referral for orthopaedic assessment following the introduction of hydrodistension to our frozen shoulder treatment pathway. METHODS: A retrospective audit of data from 102 patients who followed our hydrodistension treatment pathway for frozen shoulder since 2017 was conducted. All 102 patients received at least one hydrodistension procedure performed by a physiotherapist. This involved injecting the glenohumeral joint with a combination of local anaesthetic, corticosteroid, and saline under ultrasound guidance with a total volume of 25-35 mls. This data was compared to the outcomes of 102 patients who presented with frozen shoulder prior to 2017 who did not receive hydrodistension. RESULTS: Of 102 patients who received hydrodistension within the musculoskeletal service, six patients required onward referral to orthopaedics. Of the 102 patients who did not receive hydrodistension prior to 2017, 58 required onward referral to orthopaedics. CONCLUSION: We report a reduction in onward referral to orthopaedics following the introduction of hydrodistension to our physiotherapist-led treatment pathway for patients with frozen shoulder. This preliminary data identifies the need to further evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of hydrodistension performed by physiotherapists for patients with frozen shoulder.

Are Corticosteroid Injections Associated With Secondary Adrenal Insufficiency in Adults With Musculoskeletal Pain? A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Prospective Studies.

BACKGROUND: Corticosteroid injection is a common treatment for individuals experiencing musculoskeletal pain, and it is part of the management of numerous orthopaedic conditions. However, there is concern about offering corticosteroid injections for musculoskeletal pain because of the possibility of secondary adrenal insufficiency. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: In this systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies, we asked: (1) Are corticosteroid injections associated with secondary adrenal insufficiency as measured by 7-day morning serum cortisol? (2) Does this association differ depending on whether the shot was administered in the spine or the appendicular skeleton? METHODS: We searched the Allied and Complementary Medicine (AMED), Embase, EmCare, MEDLINE, CINAHL, and Web of Science from inception to January 22, 2021. We retrieved 4303 unique records, of which 17 were eventually included. Study appraisal was via the Downs and Black tool, with an average quality rating of fair. A Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations assessment was conducted with the overall certainty of evidence being low to moderate. Reflecting heterogeneity in the study estimates, a pooled random-effects estimate of cortisol levels 7 days after corticosteroid injection was calculated. Fifteen studies or subgroups (254 participants) provided appropriate estimates for statistical pooling. A total of 106 participants received a spine injection, and 148 participants received an appendicular skeleton injection, including the glenohumeral joint, subacromial bursa, trochanteric bursa, and knee. RESULTS: Seven days after corticosteroid injection, the mean morning serum cortisol was 212 nmol/L (95% confidence interval 133 to 290), suggesting that secondary adrenal insufficiency was a possible outcome. There is a difference in the secondary adrenal insufficiency risk depending on whether the injection was in the spine or the appendicular skeleton. For spinal injection, the mean cortisol was 98 nmol/L (95% CI 48 to 149), suggesting secondary adrenal insufficiency was likely. For appendicular skeleton injection the mean cortisol was 311 nmol/L (95% CI 213 to 409) suggesting hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis integrity was likely. CONCLUSION: Clinicians offering spinal injections should discuss the possibility of short-term secondary adrenal insufficiency with patients, and together, they can decide whether the treatment remains appropriate and whether mitigation strategies are needed. Clinicians offering appendicular skeleton injections should not limit care because of concerns about secondary adrenal insufficiency based on the best available evidence, and clinical guidelines could be reviewed accordingly. Further research is needed to understand whether age and/or sex determine risk of secondary adrenal insufficiency and what clinical impact secondary adrenal insufficiency has on patients undergoing spinal injection. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, therapeutic study.

Effectiveness of early versus delayed rehabilitation following total shoulder replacement: A systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effectiveness of early versus delayed rehabilitation following total shoulder replacement. DESIGN: Intervention systematic review with narrative synthesis. LITERATURE SEARCH: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Scopus and the Cochrane Library were searched from inception to the 29th of July 2021. STUDY SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials comparing early versus delayed rehabilitation following primary anatomic, primary reverse, or revision total shoulder replacement. DATA SYNTHESIS: A revised Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool for randomised controlled trials was used, as well as the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach to evaluate the quality of evidence. A narrative synthesis was undertaken. RESULTS: Three eligible randomised controlled trials (n = 230) were included. There was very low-quality evidence of no statistically significant difference (P > 0.05) in pain, shoulder function, health-related quality of life or lesser tuberosity osteotomy healing at 12 months between early or delayed rehabilitation. There was conflicting and very low-quality evidence of a difference between the effect of early and delayed rehabilitation on shoulder range of movement. There was limited, very low-quality evidence of statistically significantly improved pain and function (P < 0.05) in the early post-operative period with early rehabilitation following anatomic total shoulder replacement. CONCLUSIONS: No differences were seen in patient-reported or clinician-reported outcomes at 12 months post-surgery between early and delayed rehabilitation following total shoulder replacement. There is very low-quality evidence that early rehabilitation may improve shoulder pain and function in the early post-operative phase following anatomic total shoulder replacement.