Aims. This systematic review places a recently completed multicentre randomized controlled trial (RCT), UK FROST, in the context of existing randomized evidence for the management of primary frozen shoulder. UK FROST compared the effectiveness of pre-specified physiotherapy techniques with a steroid injection (PTSI), manipulation under anaesthesia (MUA) with a steroid injection, and arthroscopic capsular release (ACR). This review updates a 2012 review focusing on the effectiveness of MUA, ACR, hydrodilatation, and PTSI. Methods. MEDLINE, Embase, PEDro, Science Citation Index, Clinicaltrials.gov, CENTRAL, and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry were searched up to December 2018. Reference lists of included studies were screened. No language restrictions applied. Eligible studies were RCTs comparing the effectiveness of MUA, ACR, PTSI, and hydrodilatation against each other, or supportive care or no treatment, for the management of primary frozen shoulder. Results. Nine RCTs were included. The primary outcome of patient-reported shoulder function at long-term follow-up (> 6 months and ≤ 12 months) was reported for five treatment comparisons across four studies. Standardized mean differences (SMD) were: ACR versus MUA: 0.21 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.00 to 0.42), ACR versus supportive care: -0.13 (95% CI -1.10 to 0.83), and ACR versus PTSI: 0.33 (95% CI 0.07 to 0.59) and 0.25 (95% CI -0.34 to 0.85), all favouring ACR; MUA versus supportive care: 0 (95% CI -0.44 to 0.44) not favouring either; and MUA versus PTSI: 0.12 (95% CI -0.14 to 0.37) favouring MUA. None of these differences met the threshold of clinical significance agreed for the UK FROST and most confidence intervals included zero. Conclusion. The findings from a recent multicentre RCT provided the strongest evidence that, when compared with each other, neither PTSI, MUA, nor ACR are clinically superior. Evidence from smaller RCTs did not change this conclusion. The effectiveness of hydrodilatation based on four RCTs was inconclusive and there remains an evidence gap. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(9):773–784

Aims. The conventionally described mechanism of distal biceps tendon rupture (DBTR) is of a ‘considerable extension force suddenly applied to a resisting, actively flexed forearm’. This has been commonly paraphrased as an ‘eccentric contracture to a flexed elbow’. Both definitions have been frequently used in the literature with little objective analysis or citation. The aim of the present study was to use video footage of real time distal biceps ruptures to revisit and objectively define the mechanism of injury. Methods. An online search identified 61 videos reporting a DBTR. Videos were independently reviewed by three surgeons to assess forearm rotation, elbow flexion, shoulder position, and type of muscle contraction being exerted at the time of rupture. Prospective data on mechanism of injury and arm position was also collected concurrently for 22 consecutive patients diagnosed with an acute DBTR in order to corroborate the video analysis. Results. Four videos were excluded, leaving 57 for final analysis. Mechanisms of injury included deadlift, bicep curls, calisthenics, arm wrestling, heavy lifting, and boxing. In all, 98% of ruptures occurred with the arm in supination and 89% occurred at 0° to 10° of elbow flexion. Regarding muscle activity, 88% occurred during isometric contraction, 7% during eccentric contraction, and 5% during concentric contraction. Interobserver correlation scores were calculated as 0.66 to 0.89 using the free-marginal Fleiss Kappa tool. The prospectively collected patient data was consistent with the video analysis, with 82% of injuries occurring in supination and 95% in relative elbow extension. Conclusion. Contrary to the classically described injury mechanism, in this study the usual arm position during DBTR was forearm supination and elbow extension, and the muscle contraction was typically isometric. This was demonstrated for both video analysis and ‘real’ patients across a range of activities leading to rupture. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(10):826–831