ArticleCureus2025
Effectiveness of Hydrodilatation for Adhesive Capsulitis in Patients With Pre-existing Rotator Cuff Tears.
Article in Cureus, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Adhesive capsulitis (AC) is a chronic, debilitating condition characterized by pain and progressive stiffness of the shoulder joint. Hydrodilatation (HD) is a commonly used method of non-surgical management. However, its effectiveness in patients with rotator cuff pathology remains unclear. Objective The study aimed to evaluate and compare the clinical effectiveness of HD in patients with AC, with and without rotator cuff tears. A secondary objective was to assess clinical outcomes in patients with concurrent type 2 diabetes mellitus. Methods This retrospective cohort comprised 78 patients (six excluded due to loss to follow-up and two excluded due to incomplete data) who underwent HD between 2021 and 2024. Patients were stratified by rotator cuff integrity (intact n=60, partial-thickness tear n=10, full-thickness tear n=8). Pain (Visual Analog Scale (VAS)) and range of motion (ROM: abduction, flexion, and external rotation) were recorded at baseline, six weeks, three months, and six months. Change scores were analyzed using the Wilcoxon signed-rank and Kruskal-Wallis tests with Benjamini-Hochberg false discovery rate (FDR) correction. The primary endpoint was the change in abduction at three months. Results All groups demonstrated significant within-group improvements in pain and ROM (all p-values adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Benjamini-Hochberg FDR (p(FDR < 0.05), except flexion at six months in the full-thickness tear group (p(FDR) = 0.271). At three months, median abduction improvement was 80° (60-90) in the intact group vs 40° (20-75) in partial-thickness and 35° (17.5-70) in full-thickness tears (H=13.21, p(FDR)=0.005). External rotation gains were also greater in the intact group, most notably at three months (Z=3.91, p(FDR) = 0.002 vs partial-thickness). Pain reduction was observed in all groups, but reductions were greater in the intact versus full-thickness subgroup (three months: Z=-3.08, p(FDR)=0.014). Patients with diabetes demonstrated attenuated ROM recovery but similar pain improvement compared with non-diabetic patients. Conclusions HD provided meaningful pain relief across all patient subgroups in this retrospective cohort. However, rotator cuff integrity substantially influenced ROM recovery, with reduced gains in patients with partial- and full-thickness tears. Diabetic patients appeared to achieve less ROM improvement, although this subgroup was small, and findings should be interpreted cautiously. Pre-procedure imaging and individualised counselling are recommended.
Indexed as
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.