Aims

The primary aim of this study was to assess the feasibility of recruiting and retaining patients to a patient-blinded randomized controlled trial comparing corticosteroid injection (CSI) to autologous protein solution (APS) injection for the treatment of subacromial shoulder pain in a community care setting. The study focused on recruitment rates and retention of participants throughout, and collected data on the interventions’ safety and efficacy.

Aims

The management of mid-shaft clavicle fractures (MSCFs) has evolved over the last three decades. Controversy exists over which specific fracture patterns to treat and when. This review aims to synthesize the literature in order to formulate an appropriate management algorithm for these injuries in both adolescents and adults.

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. A pragmatic multicentre randomized controlled trial, UK FROzen Shoulder Trial (UK FROST), was conducted in the UK NHS comparing the cost-effectiveness of commonly used treatments for adults with primary frozen shoulder in secondary care. Methods. A cost utility analysis from the NHS perspective was performed. Differences between manipulation under anaesthesia (MUA), arthroscopic capsular release (ACR), and early structured physiotherapy plus steroid injection (ESP) in costs (2018 GBP price base) and quality adjusted life years (QALYs) at one year were used to estimate the cost-effectiveness of the treatments using regression methods. Results. ACR was £1,734 more costly than ESP ((95% confidence intervals (CIs) £1,529 to £1,938)) and £1,457 more costly than MUA (95% CI £1,283 to £1,632). MUA was £276 (95% CI £66 to £487) more expensive than ESP. Overall, ACR had worse QALYs compared with MUA (-0.0293; 95% CI -0.0616 to 0.0030) and MUA had better QALYs compared with ESP (0.0396; 95% CI -0.0008 to 0.0800). At a £20,000 per QALY willingness-to-pay threshold, MUA had the highest probability of being cost-effective (0.8632) then ESP (0.1366) and ACR (0.0002). The results were robust to sensitivity analyses. Conclusion. While ESP was less costly, MUA was the most cost-effective option. ACR was not cost-effective. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(8):685–695

Aims. The aim of this study was to examine the recent trend in delivery of arthroscopic subacromial decompression (ASD) in Scotland and to determine if this varies by geographical location. Methods. Scottish Morbidity Records were reviewed retrospectively between March 2014 and April 2018 to identify records for every admission to each NHS hospital. The Office of Population Censuses and Surveys (OPCS-4) surgical codes were used to identify patients undergoing primary ASD. Patients who underwent acromioclavicular joint excision (ACJE) and rotator cuff repair (RCR) were identified and grouped separately. Procedure rates were age and sex standardized against the European standard population. Results. During the study period the number of ASDs fell by 649 cases (29%) from 2,217 in the first year to 1,568 in the final year. The standardized annual procedure rate fell from 41.6 (95% confidence interval (CI) 39.9 to 43.4) to 28.9 (95% CI 27.4 to 30.3) per 100,000. The greatest reduction occurred between 2017 and 2018. The number of ACJEs rose from 41 to 188 (a 3.59-fold increase). The number of RCRs fell from 655 to 560 (-15%). In the year 2017 to 2018 there were four (28.6%) Scottish NHS board areas where the ASD rate was greater than 3 standard deviations (SDs) from the national average, and two (14.3%) NHS boards where the rate was less than 3 SDs from the national average. Conclusion. There has been a clear decline in the rate of ASD in Scotland since 2014. Over the same period there has been an increase in the rate of ACJE. The greatest decline occurred between 2017 and 2018, corresponding to the publication of epidemiological studies demonstrating a rise in ASD, and awareness of studies which questioned the benefit of ASD. This paper demonstrates the potential impact of information from epidemiological studies, referral guidelines, and well-designed large multicentre randomized controlled trials on clinical practice. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(3):360–364