ArticleBone & joint open2025
Predictors of reintervention following hydrodistension as a treatment for adhesive capsulitis : a multicentre retrospective study.
Article in Bone & joint open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
21 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aims: The primary outcome was to determine the proportion of patients with adhesive capsulitis who required reintervention following a treatment of hydrodistension. The secondary outcome was to identify predictors of reintervention. Methods: A total of 712 hydrodistension procedures from six NHS trusts were included for statistical analysis. Minimum follow-up was 18 months. The primary outcome was the reintervention rate. Reintervention was defined as a subsequent steroid injection, arthroscopic capsular release, or repeat hydrodistension. The secondary outcome was to determine predictors of reintervention. Patient demographic characteristics, duration of symptoms, previous treatment, diabetic status, insulin usage, and glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) were recorded. Logistic regression models were run for the primary and secondary outcomes. Results: In total, 176/712 patients (24.7%) required further treatment. We found the following factors to be predictors of repeat intervention: female sex (p = 0.036), diabetics (p = 0.003), patients with a HbA1c ≥ 48 mmol/mol (p = 0.011), and patients who had received previous steroid injections (p = 0.002). Age and duration of symptoms did not correlate with increased risk of reintervention. Conclusion: Hydrodistension may be considered an effective treatment for adhesive capsulitis, with the majority of patients in our cohort not requiring further intervention. We identified predictors of reintervention, which may assist in patient counselling and treatment planning. Although the optimal first-line management for adhesive capsulitis remains uncertain, hydrodistension represents a cost-effective, widely accessible, and minimally invasive option. Further comparative studies are warranted to establish its place in the treatment algorithm.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.