ArticleSouth African journal of sports medicine2026
Manipulation under anaesthesia versus arthroscopic capsular release in stiff shoulder: A prospective multicentre study.
Article in South African journal of sports medicine, 2026. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Manipulation under anaesthesia (MUA) and arthroscopic capsular release (ACR) are common modalities of management in shoulder stiffness, yet no robust clinical evidence demonstrates the superiority of one over the other. Objectives: Comparing functional results, complications, and operative time between MUA and ACR. Methods: In this prospective multicentre cohort study, 62 patients with primary shoulder stiffness of at least 6 months' duration, forward elevation less than 100°, and external rotation limited by more than 50% compared with the contralateral side, despite conservative management, were included. Exclusion criteria were glenohumeral osteoarthritis, periarticular fractures, mechanical block, and skeletal immaturity. Patients treated in centre 1 underwent MUA (group A: n=31) and those in centre 2 underwent ACR (group B: n=31), with standardised anaesthesia, rehabilitation, and follow-up at 4 and 6 months. Results: Baseline demographics were comparable between groups. Both MUA and ACR produced significant improvements in Constant score, VAS, and ROM across all planes at 4 and 6 months, with no significant between-group differences. No major intra-operative or post-operative complications were observed in either cohort during the 6-month follow-up period. The operative time was significantly lower in the MUA group. Conclusion: MUA and ACR are both effective in improving pain and shoulder function in refractory shoulder stiffness, but MUA offers a shorter operative time. In the management of shoulder stiffness, MUA has comparable functional outcomes with ACR but with shorter operative duration.
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.