This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Submit a response View responses Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in ISI Web of Science Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal My Folders Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Quraishi, N. A. Articles by Chakrabarti, A. J. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Quraishi, N. A. Articles by Chakrabarti, A. J.

Thawing the frozen shoulder

A RANDOMISED TRIAL COMPARING MANIPULATION UNDER ANAESTHESIA WITH HYDRODILATATION

¹ Department of Neurosurgery, Toronto Western Hospital, 399 Bathhurst Street, West Wing 4th Floor, Toronto, Ontario M5T 2S8, Canada.
² Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Addenbrookes Hospital, Cambridge CB2 2QQ, UK.
³ Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Stirling Royal Infirmary, Livilands, Stirling, Stirlingshire FK8 2AU, Scotland
⁴ Department of Radiology and Orthopaedic Surgery, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Kings Lynn, Norfolk, FE30 4ET, UK.

Correspondence should be sent to Mr N. A. Quraishi; e-mail: nasquraishi{at}hotmail.com

This study prospectively evaluated the outcome of manipulation under anaesthesia and hydrodilatation as treatments for adhesive capsulitis. A total of 36 patients (38 shoulders) were randomised to receive either method, with all patients being treated in stage II of the disease process.

The mean age of the patients was 55.2 years (44 to 70) and the mean duration of symptoms was 33.7 weeks (12 to 76). Eighteen shoulders (17 patients) underwent manipulation under anaesthesia and 20 (19 patients) had hydrodilatation. There were three insulin-dependent diabetics in each group. The mean visual analogue score in the manipulation under anaesthesia group was 5.7 (3 to 8.5; n = 18) before treatment, 4.7 (0 to 8.5; n = 16) at two months (paired t-test p = 0.02), and 2.7 (0 to 9; n = 16) at six months (paired t-test, p = 0.0006). The mean score in the hydrodilatation group was 6.1 (4 to 10; n = 20) before treatment, 2.4 (0 to 8; n = 18) at two months (paired t-test, p = 0.001), and 1.7 (0 to 7; n = 18) at six months (paired t-test, p = 0.0006). The visual analogue scores in the hydrodilatation group were significantly better than in the manipulation under anaesthesia group over the six-month follow-up period (p < 0.0001).

The mean Constant score in those manipulated was 36 (26 to 66) before treatment, 58.5 (24 to 90) at two months (paired t-test, p = 0.001) and 59.5 (23 to 85) at six months (paired t-test, p = 0.0006). In the hydrodilatation group it was 28.8 (18 to 55) before treatment, 57.4 (17 to 80) at two months (paired t-test, p = 0.0004) and 65.9 (28 to 92) at six months (paired t-test, p = 0.0005). The Constant scores in the hydrodilatation group were significantly better than in the manipulated group over the six-month period of follow-up (p = 0.02).

The range of movement improved in all patients over the six months, but was not significantly different between the groups. At the final follow-up, 94% of patients (17 of 18) were satisfied or very satisfied after hydrodilatation compared with 81% (13 of 16) of those receiving a manipulation.

Most of our patients were treated successfully, but those undergoing hydrodilatation did better than those who were manipulated.

eLetters: