Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36048234›Full record

Trial reportInternational orthopaedics2022

Arthroscopic capsular release versus manipulation under anaesthesia for treating frozen shoulder - a prospective randomised study.

Silvampatti Ramasamy Sundararajan, Terence Dsouza, Ramakanth Rajagopalakrishnan, Pushpa Bt, Palanisamy Arumugam, Shanmuganathan Rajasekaran

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in International orthopaedics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.4field-weighted citation impact, top 11% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Silvampatti Ramasamy SundararajanDepartment of Arthroscopy and Sports Medicine, Ganga Medical Centre & Hospitals Pvt Ltd, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu, 641043, India. sundarbone70@hotmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9775-7223
Terence DsouzaDepartment of Arthroscopy and Sports Medicine, Ganga Medical Centre & Hospitals Pvt Ltd, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu, 641043, India.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3359-4522
Ramakanth RajagopalakrishnanDepartment of Arthroscopy and Sports Medicine, Ganga Medical Centre & Hospitals Pvt Ltd, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu, 641043, India.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8288-9330
Pushpa BtDepartment of Radiology, Ganga Medical Centre & Hospitals Pvt Ltd, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu, 641043, India.
Palanisamy ArumugamDepartment of physiotherapy, Ganga Medical Centre & Hospitals Pvt Ltd, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu, 641043, India.
Shanmuganathan RajasekaranDepartment of Orthopaedics & Spine Surgery, Ganga Medical Centre & Hospitals Pvt Ltd, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu, 641043, India.
Ganga Hospital · IN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeArthroscopic capsular release (ACR) and Manipulation under anaesthesia(MUA) have been widely used in the treatment of frozen shoulder (FS). However, there is only limited Level-I evidence to prefer ACR over MUA. The purpose of our study was to conduct a randomised trial comparing ACR versus MUA to assess the difference in outcome, complications and cost-effectiveness of both procedures.

methodsFrom May 2020 to June 2021, patients presenting with FS were randomised into two groups ACR (n = 44) and MUA (n = 41). Patients with arthritis, full-thickness cuff tears, history of trauma/previous surgery around the shoulder were excluded from the study. Range of movement (ROM), pain grading using visual analogue scale (VAS), functional scores- UCLA, CONSTANT and EuroQol-5D scores were measured pre-operatively and post-operatively. MRI was done at three weeks post-operatively for screening complications of either procedure. Quality-adjusted life years (QALY) was used for cost-analysis.

resultsPost-operatively, patients had significant improvement in pain, ROM and functional scores in both groups (P < 0.001) with no significant difference between groups at 24 weeks of follow-up. Diabetic patients undergoing ACR had lesser improvement in abduction and external rotation when compared to non-diabetic patients. Labral tears in MUA group and bone bruises in ACR group were the most common complications noted on the post-operative MRI. For ACR cost per QALY gained was 896 USD while that for MUA was 424 USD.

conclusionBoth ACR and MUA resulted in good improvement in pain and shoulder function. Good outcomes, simple technique and better cost-effectiveness would still make MUA an attractive option over ACR for treating FS.

Indexed as

AnesthesiaBursitisShoulder JointArthroscopyHumansJoint Capsule ReleasePainProspective StudiesRange of Motion, ArticularTreatment OutcomeACRAdhesive capsulitisArthroscopic capsular releaseFrozen shoulderManipulation under anaesthesiaMUAPeriarthritis

Identifiers

PMID36048234
OpenAlexW4294126063

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.