RESUMO
Background: The management of frozen shoulder (FS) differs depending on experience level and variation between scientific guidelines and actual practice. Purpose: To determine the current trends and practices in the management of FS among shoulder specialists and compare them with senior shoulder specialists. Study Design: Consensus statement. Methods: A team of 15 senior shoulder specialists (faculty group) prepared a questionnaire comprising 26 questions regarding the definition, terminology, clinical signs, investigations, management, and prognosis of FS. The questionnaire was mailed to all the registered shoulder specialists of Shoulder and Elbow Society, India (SESI) (specialist group; n = 230), as well as to the faculty group (n = 15). The responses of the 2 groups were compared, and levels of consensus were determined: strong (>75%), broad (60%-74.9%), inconclusive (40%-59.9%), or disagreement (<40%). Result: Overall, 142 of the 230 participants in the specialist group and all 15 participants in the faculty group responded to the survey. Both groups strongly agreed that plain radiographs are required to rule out a secondary cause of FS, routine magnetic resonance imaging is not indicated to confirm FS, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs should be administered at bedtime, steroid injection (triamcinolone or methylprednisolone) is the next best option if analgesics fail to provide pain relief, passive physical therapy should be avoided in the freezing phase, <10% of patients would require any surgical intervention, and patients with diabetes and thyroid dysfunction tend to fare poorly. There was broad agreement that routine thyroid dysfunction screening is unnecessary for women, a single 40-mg steroid injection via intra-articular route is preferred, and arthroscopic capsular release (ACR) results in a better outcome than manipulation under anesthesia (MUA). Agreement was inconclusive regarding the use of combined random blood sugar (RBS) and glycosylated hemoglobin versus lone RBS to screen for diabetes in patients with FS, preference of ACR versus MUA to treat resistant FS, and the timing of surgical intervention. There was disagreement over the most appropriate term for FS, the preferred physical therapy modality for pain relief, the most important movement restriction for early diagnosis of FS, and complications seen after MUA. Conclusion: This survey summarized the trend in prevalent practices regarding FS among the shoulder specialists and senior shoulder surgeons of SESI.
RESUMO
PURPOSE: There is a lack of consensus regarding need for Venous Thrombo Embolism (VTE) prophylaxis following arthroscopic knee surgery and open soft tissue knee reconstruction. Clear cut guidelines like ones for trauma surgery and arthroplasty do not exist and the published literature is limited to case reports with a few society guidelines. Given this lack of consensus, we conducted a modified Delphi questionnaire of international experts to provide recommendations on this topic. METHODS: The consensus statements were generated using an anonymised 3 round modified Delphi questionnaire, sent to an international panel of 38 knee surgeons, with an 80% agreement being set as the limit for consensus. The responses were analysed using descriptive statistics with measures like mode, median and box plots. Feedback was provided to all panelists based on responses from the previous rounds to help generate the consensus. RESULTS: Six consensus statements were generated after the three rounds of Delphi. Patient factors, prolonged surgery duration and family history of thrombogenic events emerged as the main points to be taken into consideration for prophylaxis. CONCLUSION: It was established through this study, that there exists a select group of patients undergoing arthroscopic surgery that justify the usage of VTE prophylaxis. The expert responses to most of the questions in different scenarios favoured usage of VTE prophylaxis based on patient factors like advanced age, past history of VTE, smoking, oral contraceptive use etc. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level V.
