Experiences and perceptions of trial participants and healthcare professionals in the UK Frozen Shoulder Trial (UK FROST): a nested qualitative study.

OBJECTIVES: To explore the experiences and perceptions of trial participants and healthcare professionals in the UK Frozen Shoulder Trial (UK FROST), a multicentre randomised controlled trial that compared manipulation under anaesthesia (MUA), arthroscopic capsular release (ACR) with a 12-week early structured physiotherapy programme (ESP) in people with unilateral frozen shoulder referred to secondary care. DESIGN: Nested qualitative study with semistructured interviews. We used constant comparison method to develop our themes. SETTING: This qualitative study was nested within the UK FROST. PARTICIPANTS: 44 trial participants (ESP: 14; MUA: 15; ACR: 15), and 8 surgeons and 8 physiotherapists who delivered the treatments in the trial. RESULTS: Trial participants found UK FROST treatments acceptable and satisfactory in terms of content, delivery and treatment benefits. Participants in all arms experienced improvements in pain, shoulder movements, and function. Participants said they would choose the same treatment that they received in the trial.Surgeons and physiotherapists felt that the content and delivery of UK FROST treatments was not significantly different to their routine practice except for the additional number of physiotherapy sessions offered in the trial. They had mixed feelings about the effectiveness of UK FROST treatments. Both stressed the value of including hydrodilatation as a comparator of other treatment options. Physiotherapists raised concerns about the capacity to deliver the number of UK FROST physiotherapy sessions in routine clinical settings.Shared perceptions of trial participants, surgeons and physiotherapists were: (1) Pain relief and return of shoulder movements and function are important outcomes and (2) Adherence to exercises leads to better outcomes. CONCLUSION: In general, our findings indicated that trial participants, and surgeons and physiotherapists who delivered the treatments had positive experiences and perceptions in the UK FROST. Early qualitative investigations to explore the feasibility of delivering treatments in real-world settings are suggested in future trials in the frozen shoulder. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Register, ID: ISRCTN48804508. Registered on 25 July 2014; Results.

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.

Exploring the outcomes in studies of primary frozen shoulder: is there a need for a core outcome set?

PURPOSE: In our study we explored the need to define a core outcome set for primary frozen shoulder. METHODS: We investigated the outcomes used by studies included in a systematic review of the management of primary frozen shoulder; surveyed which primary outcome measures health care professionals considered important; and re-examined papers previously obtained for a systematic review of patients' views of interventions for frozen shoulder to investigate their views on outcomes. RESULTS: Thirty-one studies investigated the outcomes range of movement (28 studies), pain (22), function and disability (22), adverse events (13), quality of life (7) and other outcomes (5). Many different types of pain and ranges of movement were measured. Function and disability was measured using fifteen instruments, the content of which varied considerably. Function and disability, pain and range of movement (132, 108 and 104 respondents, respectively) were most often cited by health care professionals as the primary outcome measure that should be used. Searches identified one paper that included patients' views. Outcomes of importance to patients were pain at night, general pain, reduced mobility (resulting in modification of activities) and the emotional impact of frozen shoulder. CONCLUSIONS: We identified a diverse range of outcomes that have been used or are considered to be important. The development of a core outcome set would improve the design and reporting of studies and availability of data for evidence synthesis. Methods used to develop a core outcome set should be robust, transparent and reflect the views of all stakeholders.

Conservative management following closed reduction of traumatic anterior dislocation of the shoulder.

BACKGROUND: Acute anterior dislocation, which is the most common type of shoulder dislocation, usually results from an injury. Subsequently, the shoulder is less stable and is more susceptible to re-dislocation, especially in active young adults. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2006. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects (benefits and harms) of conservative interventions after closed reduction of traumatic anterior dislocation of the shoulder. These might include immobilisation, rehabilitative interventions or both. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Bone, Joint and Muscle Trauma Group Specialised Register (September 2013), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2013, Issue 8), MEDLINE (1946 to September 2013), EMBASE (1980 to Week 38, 2013), CINAHL (1982 to September 2013), PEDro (1929 to November 2012), OTseeker (inception to November 2012) and trial registries. We also searched conference proceedings and reference lists of included studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing various conservative interventions versus control (no or sham treatment) or other conservative interventions applied after closed reduction of traumatic anterior dislocation of the shoulder. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: All review authors independently selected trials, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. Study authors were contacted for additional information. Results of comparable groups of trials were pooled. MAIN RESULTS: We included three randomised trials and one quasi-randomised trial, which involved 470 participants (371 male) with primary traumatic anterior dislocation of the shoulder reduced by various closed methods. Three studies evaluated mixed populations; in the fourth study, all participants were male and 80% were soldiers. All trials were at some risk of bias but to a differing extent. One was at high risk in all domains of the risk of bias tool, and one was at unclear or high risk in all domains; the other two trials were deemed to have predominantly low risk across all domains. Overall, reflecting both the risk of bias and the imprecision of findings, we judged the quality of evidence to be "very low" for all outcomes, meaning that we are very uncertain about the estimates of effect.The four trials evaluated the same comparison - immobilisation in external rotation versus internal rotation - and each of our three primary outcomes (re-dislocation, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) for shoulder instability and resumption of activities) was reported by one or more of the trials, with two-year or longer follow-up. Pooling was possible for "re-dislocation" (three trials) and for aspects of "resumption of sport/activities at pre-injury level" (two trials).There was no evidence to show a difference between the two groups in re-dislocation at two-year or longer follow-up (risk ratio (RR) 1.06 favouring internal rotation, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.73 to 1.54; P value 0.77; 252 participants; three trials). In a low-risk population, with an illustrative baseline risk of 247 re-dislocations per 1000, these data equate to 15 more (95% CI 67 fewer to 133 more) re-dislocations per 1000 after immobilisation in external rotation. In a medium-risk population, with an illustrative baseline risk of 436 re-dislocations per 1000, the data equate to 26 more (95% CI 118 fewer to 235 more) re-dislocations after immobilisation in external rotation.Nor was evidence found to show a difference between the two groups in return to pre-injury levels of activity at two-year or longer follow-up (RR 1.25 favouring external rotation, 95% CI 0.71 to 2.2; P value 0.43; 278 participants; two trials). In a low-risk population, with an illustrative baseline risk of 204 participants per 1000 returning to pre-injury levels of activity, this equates to 41 more (95% CI 59 fewer to 245 more) participants per 1000 resuming activity after immobilisation in external rotation. In a high-risk population, with an illustrative baseline risk of 605 participants per 1000 returning to pre-injury levels of activity, this equates to 161 more (95% CI 76 fewer to 395 more) participants per 1000 resuming activity after immobilisation in external rotation.One trial reported that the difference between the two groups in Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index scores, analysed using non-parametric statistics, was "not significant (P = 0.32)". Of our secondary outcomes, pooling was possible for "any instability" (two trials) and for important adverse events (three events, two trials). However, adverse event data were collected only in an ad hoc way, and it is unclear whether identification and reporting of such events was comprehensive. No report addressed participant satisfaction or health-related quality of life outcome measures.There was no evidence confirming a difference between the two positions of immobilisation in any of the primary or secondary outcomes; for each outcome, the confidence intervals were wide, covering the possibility of substantial benefit for each intervention. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Numerous conservative strategies may be adopted after closed reduction of a traumatic anterior dislocation of the shoulder, and many warrant investigation. However, our review reveals that evidence from randomised controlled trials is only available for a single approach: immobilisation in external rotation versus immobilisation in the traditional position of internal rotation. Moreover, this evidence is insufficient to demonstrate whether immobilisation in external rotation confers any benefit over immobilisation in internal rotation.We identified six unpublished trials and two ongoing trials that compare immobilisation in external versus internal rotation. Given this, the main priority for research on this question consists of the publication of completed trials, and the completion and publication of ongoing trials. Meanwhile, increased attention to other interventions is required. Sufficiently powered, good quality, well reported randomised controlled trials with long-term surveillance should be conducted to examine the optimum duration of immobilisation, whether immobilisation is necessary at all (in older age groups particularly), which rehabilitative interventions work best and the acceptability to participants of different care strategies.

A questionnaire survey of UK physiotherapists on the diagnosis and management of contracted (frozen) shoulder.

OBJECTIVE: To gain insights into the diagnosis and management of contracted (frozen) shoulder (CFS) in a sample of UK physiotherapists, underpinning the development of evidence-based clinical guidelines. METHODS: An anonymous online questionnaire was developed and distributed via iCSP, targeting physiotherapists who treat CFS. For treatments, respondents were invited to consider 'pain-predominant' and 'stiffness-predominant' scenarios, choose from listed treatment options, and specify any unlisted conservative options they might consider. Frequency analysis was used for closed-ended questions, and content analysis was used for open-ended questions. RESULTS: In total, 289 valid responses were received. All respondents thought that movement restriction informed diagnosis. Of those specifying the manner of testing movements, 98% (121/123) included passive testing. Of those describing specific patterns of restriction, 71% (93/131) emphasised external rotation. Fifty-four percent (152/282) of valid respondents would consider suggesting/requesting imaging investigations, usually to exclude bony abnormalities. For treatment, only 46 respondents reported considering any unlisted conservative options, usually liaison regarding medication. For pain-predominant CFS, the preferred physiotherapeutic options were advice/education (96%; 277/288), injection (80%; 230/288), gentle exercise (79%; 228/288), superficial heat/cold (69%; 199/288) and acupuncture (68%; 196/288). For stiffness-predominant CFS, the preferred options were stretching (93%; 268/288), advice/education (88%; 252/288), joint mobilisations (87%; 250/288), function-based exercises (75%; 216/288) and hands-on soft-tissue techniques (59%; 170/288). Some dissociation was noted between clinical practice and research evidence. Eighty-five percent (253/284) of respondents would consider referring for an orthopaedic opinion. CONCLUSIONS: Acknowledging restricted passive external rotation (vs the capsular pattern) as diagnostic of CFS would standardise and might improve the clinical aspect of diagnosis. The value of X-rays in differential diagnosis was under-recognised. Modalities used to treat CFS were dichotomised by pain-predominant and stiffness-predominant classifications, which may be more useful than existing classifications.

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.

Acromioclavicular joint reconstruction using the Nottingham Surgilig: a preliminary report.

Eleven patients with a chronic acromio-clavicular joint disruption underwent acromio-clavicular joint stabilisation using the Nottingham Surgilig and were followed up clinically and radiologically for an average of 24 months post operation. The mean post-operative Constant score was 83.1, the Imatani score was 81.2 and the Walsh score was 14.1. Eighty-two per cent of patients were satisfied with the operation. There was one case of rupture through the central portion of the Surgilig, and following laboratory analysis, the ligament has been modified since. In 4 patients there was evidence of loosening of the screw but only one complained of this being a problem. This short-term outcome analysis of the Nottingham Surgilig is the first such report outside the Nottingham unit where the prosthesis was originally developed. Our results are encouraging and justify further use and evaluation of this relatively new technique.

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.

Does the presence of a full-thickness rotator cuff tear influence outcome after proximal humeral fractures?

BACKGROUND: Prevalence of rotator cuff tears increases with advancing age. Despite proximal humeral fractures being common in the elderly, the influence of a coexistent rotator cuff tear on outcome has, to our knowledge, not been previously investigated. This study prospectively assessed whether the presence of a rotator cuff tear in association with a proximal humeral fracture influences functional prognosis. METHODS: Eighty-five patients treated conservatively for proximal humeral fractures were evaluated prospectively with ultrasonography to determine the status of the rotator cuff. Every patient was managed by immobilization in an arm sling for 2 weeks followed by physiotherapy. Functional outcome was measured using the Constant and the Oxford shoulder score, at 3 and 12 months postinjury. RESULTS: There were 43 patients with full-thickness cuff tears and 42 patients with no cuff tear or a partial-thickness tear. Full thickness cuff tears were more frequent in patients more than 60 years old. The outcome scores at 3 and 12 months showed no statistically significant difference for either the Constant or the Oxford shoulder score with regard to cuff integrity. Analysis of these scores showed no correlation between presence or absence of a full-thickness cuff tear and shoulder function. CONCLUSION: The results indicate that rotator cuff integrity is not a predictor of shoulder function at 12 months after proximal humeral fracture, as measured by outcome scores and therefore there is no clinical indication for routine imaging of the rotator cuff in patients for whom conservative management is the preferred treatment option.

Accuracy and dispersal of subacromial and glenohumeral injections in cadavers.

OBJECTIVE: "Blind" shoulder injections are often inaccurate and infiltrate untargeted structures. We tested a hypothesis that optimizing certain anatomical and positional factors would improve accuracy and reduce dispersal. METHODS: We evaluated one subacromial and one glenohumeral injection technique on cadavers. RESULTS: Mean accuracy was 91% for subacromial-targeted and 74 and 91% (worst- and best-case scenarios) for joint-targeted injections. Mean dispersal was 19% for subacromial-targeted and 16% for joint-targeted injections. All results bettered those reported previously. CONCLUSION: These "optimized" techniques might improve accuracy and limit dispersal of blind shoulder injections in clinical situations, benefiting efficacy and safety. However, evaluation is required in a clinical setting.