What is the Most Effective Treatment for Frozen Shoulder?

What you need to know Consider the diagnosis in patients with pain and limitation of passive external rotation of the shoulder There is insufficient evidence to reliably recommend a treatment approach. Moderate evidence supports corticosteroid injection or hydrodilatation; and physiotherapy in reduction of pain and stiffness Consider specialist referral if the patient does not respond to conservative treatment or if the diagnosis is in doub

A qualitative study of patients' perceptions and priorities when living with primary frozen shoulder

OBJECTIVES: To elucidate the experiences and perceptions of people living with primary frozen shoulder and their priorities for treatment. DESIGN: Qualitative study design using semistructured interviews. SETTING: General practitioner (GP) and musculoskeletal clinics in primary and secondary care in one National Health Service Trust in England. PARTICIPANTS: 12 patients diagnosed with primary frozen shoulder were purposively recruited from a GP's surgery, community clinics and hospital clinics. Recruitment targeted the phases of frozen shoulder: pain predominant (n=5), stiffness predominant (n=4) and residual stiffness predominant following hospital treatment (n=2). One participant dropped out. Inclusion criteria: adult, male and female patients of any age, attending the clinics, who had been diagnosed with primary frozen shoulder. RESULTS: The most important experiential themes identified by participants were: pain which was severe as well as inexplicable; inconvenience/disability arising from increasing restriction of movement (due to pain initially, gradually giving way to stiffness); confusion/anxiety associated with delay in diagnosis and uncertainty about the implications for the future; and treatment-related aspects. Participants not directly referred to a specialist (whether physiotherapist, physician or surgeon) wanted a faster, better-defined care pathway. Specialist consultation brought more definitive diagnosis, relief from anxiety and usually self-rated improvement. The main treatment priority was improved function, though there was recognition that this might be facilitated by relief of pain or stiffness. There was a general lack of information from clinicians about the condition with over-reliance on verbal communication and very little written information. CONCLUSIONS: Awareness of frozen shoulder should be increased among non-specialists and the best available information made accessible for patients. Our results also highlight the importance of patient participation in frozen shoulder research

Does regional anaesthesia reduce complications following total hip and knee replacement compared with general anaesthesia?:An analysis from the National Joint Registry for England, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man

Background Regional anesthesia is increasingly used in enhanced recovery programs following total hip replacement (THR) and total knee replacement (TKR). However, debate remains about its potential benefit over general anesthesia given that complications following surgery are rare. We assessed the risk of complications in THR and TKR patients receiving regional anesthesia compared with general anesthesia using the world’s largest joint replacement registry. Methods We studied the National Joint Registry for England, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man linked to English hospital inpatient episodes for 779,491 patients undergoing THR and TKR. Patients received either regional anesthesia (n = 544,620, 70%) or general anesthesia (n = 234,871, 30%). Outcomes assessed at 90 days included length of stay, readmissions, and complications. Regression models were adjusted for patient and surgical factors to determine the effect of anesthesia on outcomes. Results Length of stay was reduced with regional anesthesia compared with general anesthesia (THR = −0.49 days, 95% confidence interval [CI] = −0.51 to −0.47 days, P < .001; TKR = −0.47 days, CI = −0.49 to −0.45 days, P < .001). Regional anesthesia also had a reduced risk of readmission (THR odds ratio [OR] = 0.93, CI = 0.90-0.96; TKA OR = 0.91, CI = 0.89-0.93), any complication (THR OR = 0.88, CI = 0.85-0.91; TKA OR = 0.90, CI = 0.87-0.93), urinary tract infection (THR OR = 0.85, CI = 0.77-0.94; TKR OR = 0.87, CI = 0.79-0.96), and surgical site infection (THR OR = 0.87, CI = 0.80-0.95; TKR OR = 0.84, CI = 0.78-0.89). Anesthesia type did not affect the risk of revision surgery or mortality. Conclusion Regional anesthesia was associated with reduced length of stay, readmissions, and complications following THR and TKR when compared with general anesthesia. We recommend regional anesthesia should be considered the reference standard for patients undergoing THR and TKR

Factor structure of the Oxford Shoulder Score: secondary analyses of the UK FROST and PROFHER trial populations

AimsFrozen shoulder and proximal humeral fracture can cause pain, stiffness and loss of function. The impact of these symptoms on patients can be measured using the comprehensively validated, 12-item Oxford Shoulder Score (OSS). Evidence suggests that pain and function may have a differential impact on patients’ experience of shoulder conditions, and this may be important for clinical management. We therefore explored the factor structure of the OSS within the UK FROST and PROFHER trial populations.MethodsWe performed exploratory factor analysis (EFA), followed by confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), on baseline UK FROST data from 490 of the 503 trial participants. Data at 6 months post-randomisation were used for 228 of the 250 participants for the PROFHER trial.ResultsUK FROST factor extraction results, using Velicer's Minimum Average Partial and Horn's Parallel Analysis tests, suggested a unifactorial solution, but two factors were weakly indicated by the less reliable ‘Kaiser’s eigenvalue &gt; 1’ and scree tests. We explored this further using EFA. Eight items (2 to 7, 9 and 10) loaded onto a ‘Function’ factor, three on a ‘Pain’ factor (1, 8 and 12) and item 11 cross-loaded. However, one- and two-factor models were rejected in CFA. Factor extraction of PROFHER data at 6 months demonstrated a single first-order factor solution, which was also subsequently rejected in CFA.ConclusionInsufficient evidence was found, within the constraints of the data available, to support the use of ‘Pain’ and ‘Function’ sub-scales of the OSS in either patient population

Development of an occupational advice intervention for patients undergoing elective hip and knee replacement: a Delphi study

Objective: To obtain consensus on the content and delivery of an occupational advice intervention for patients undergoing primary hip and knee replacement surgery. The primary targets for the intervention were (1) patients, carers and employers through the provision of individualised support and information about returning to work and (2) hospital orthopaedic teams through the development of a framework and materials to enable this support and information to be delivered. Design: Modified Delphi study as part of a wider intervention development study (The Occupational advice for Patients undergoing Arthroplasty of the Lower limb (OPAL) study: Health Technology Assessment Reference 15/28/02) (ISRCTN27426982). Setting: Five stakeholder groups (patients, employers, orthopaedic surgeons, general practitioners, allied health professionals and nurses) recruited from across the UK. Participants: Sixty-six participants. Methods: Statements for the Delphi process were developed relating to the content, format, delivery, timing and measurement of an occupational advice intervention. The statements were based on evidence gathered through the OPAL study that was processed using an intervention mapping framework. Intervention content was examined in round 1 and intervention format, delivery, timing and measurement were examined in round 2. In round 3, the developed intervention was presented to the stakeholder groups for comment. Consensus: For rounds 1 and 2, consensus was defined as 70% agreement or disagreement on a 4-point scale. Statements reaching consensus were ranked according to the distribution of responses to create a hierarchy of agreement. Round 3 comments were used to revise the final version of the developed occupational advice intervention. Results: Consensus was reached for 36 of 64 round 1 content statements (all agreement). In round 2, 13 questions were carried forward and an additional 81 statements were presented. Of these, 49 reached consensus (44 agreement/5 disagreement). Eleven respondents provided an appraisal of the intervention in round 3. Conclusions: The Delphi process informed the development of an occupational advice intervention as part of a wider intervention development study. Stakeholder agreement was achieved for a large number of intervention elements encompassing the content, format, delivery and timing of the intervention. The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the developed intervention will require evaluation in a randomised controlled trial

Standardisation of delivery and assessment of research training for specialty trainees based on curriculum requirements : recommendations based on a scoping review

OBJECTIVES: (1) To conduct a scoping review of postgraduate specialty training (ST) curricula for doctors within Health Education England in order to identify common themes and variations in requirements for training and assessment of research competencies. (2) To make recommendations on standardisation of training for clinical research across ST programmes. SETTING: Health Education England North East and National Institute for Health Research Clinical Research Network (CRN)-North East and North Cumbria. METHODS: Annual Review of Competence Progression (ARCP); Certificate of Completion of Training (CCT) checklists and curricula for ST were obtained from Health Education England North East and reviewed between June and September 2015. Research competence requirements based on knowledge, skills or behaviour-based domains were identified and entered onto a spreadsheet for analysis. Common themes with levels of competence required were identified. This information was used to construct and propose a model for delivery of training in clinical research across ST programmes. RESULTS: Sixty-two ST curricula were reviewed and seven common themes for research training were found in up to 97% of the curricula. Requirement for good clinical practice (GCP) in research training was included in 15% of curricula. One of the common themes involved knowledge-based competency, and three each of the remaining seven involved skills or behaviour-based competencies. There was less clarity and larger variation between specialties in how research competencies were assessed; and what evidence was required for ARCP and CCT to assure competence. 63% (19/30) of curricula from medical specialties had no mention of research requirements within their ARCP guidelines. CONCLUSIONS: Given that the majority of specialty curricula contain consistent themes around core research knowledge, consideration should be given to standardising the delivery and assessment of generic research competencies within ST. Our recommendations from this review could form the basis for developing structured research training for specialty trainees involving: (1) a taught course for knowledge-based competencies; (2) clinical placements with CRN teams for practical workplace-based experience and (3) developing research tutors to help support placements and assessment of these competencies