Management of adults with primary frozen shoulder in secondary care (UK FROST): a multicentre, pragmatic, three-arm, superiority randomised clinical trial.


Journal

Lancet (London, England)
ISSN: 1474-547X
Titre abrégé: Lancet
Pays: England
ID NLM: 2985213R

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
03 10 2020
Historique:
received: 06 04 2020
revised: 26 06 2020
accepted: 08 07 2020
entrez: 4 10 2020
pubmed: 5 10 2020
medline: 21 10 2020
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

Manipulation under anaesthesia and arthroscopic capsular release are costly and invasive treatments for frozen shoulder, but their effectiveness remains uncertain. We compared these two surgical interventions with early structured physiotherapy plus steroid injection. In this multicentre, pragmatic, three-arm, superiority randomised trial, patients referred to secondary care for treatment of primary frozen shoulder were recruited from 35 hospital sites in the UK. Participants were adults (≥18 years) with unilateral frozen shoulder, characterised by restriction of passive external rotation (≥50%) in the affected shoulder. Participants were randomly assigned (2:2:1) to receive manipulation under anaesthesia, arthroscopic capsular release, or early structured physiotherapy. In manipulation under anaesthesia, the surgeon manipulated the affected shoulder to stretch and tear the tight capsule while the participant was under general anaesthesia, supplemented by a steroid injection. Arthroscopic capsular release, also done under general anaesthesia, involved surgically dividing the contracted anterior capsule in the rotator interval, followed by manipulation, with optional steroid injection. Both forms of surgery were followed by postprocedural physiotherapy. Early structured physiotherapy involved mobilisation techniques and a graduated home exercise programme supplemented by a steroid injection. Both early structured physiotherapy and postprocedural physiotherapy involved 12 sessions during up to 12 weeks. The primary outcome was the Oxford Shoulder Score (OSS; 0-48) at 12 months after randomisation, analysed by initial randomisation group. We sought a target difference of 5 OSS points between physiotherapy and either form of surgery, or 4 points between manipulation and capsular release. The trial registration is ISRCTN48804508. Between April 1, 2015, and Dec 31, 2017, we screened 914 patients, of whom 503 (55%) were randomly assigned. At 12 months, OSS data were available for 189 (94%) of 201 participants assigned to manipulation (mean estimate 38·3 points, 95% CI 36·9 to 39·7), 191 (94%) of 203 participants assigned to capsular release (40·3 points, 38·9 to 41·7), and 93 (94%) of 99 participants assigned to physiotherapy (37·2 points, 35·3 to 39·2). The mean group differences were 2·01 points (0·10 to 3·91) between the capsular release and manipulation groups, 3·06 points (0·71 to 5·41) between capsular release and physiotherapy, and 1·05 points (-1·28 to 3·39) between manipulation and physiotherapy. Eight serious adverse events were reported with capsular release and two with manipulation. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of £20 000 per quality-adjusted life-year, manipulation under anaesthesia had the highest probability of being cost-effective (0·8632, compared with 0·1366 for physiotherapy and 0·0002 for capsular release). All mean differences on the assessment of shoulder pain and function (OSS) at the primary endpoint of 12 months were less than the target differences. Therefore, none of the three interventions were clinically superior. Arthoscopic capsular release carried higher risks, and manipulation under anaesthesia was the most cost-effective. The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND
Manipulation under anaesthesia and arthroscopic capsular release are costly and invasive treatments for frozen shoulder, but their effectiveness remains uncertain. We compared these two surgical interventions with early structured physiotherapy plus steroid injection.
METHODS
In this multicentre, pragmatic, three-arm, superiority randomised trial, patients referred to secondary care for treatment of primary frozen shoulder were recruited from 35 hospital sites in the UK. Participants were adults (≥18 years) with unilateral frozen shoulder, characterised by restriction of passive external rotation (≥50%) in the affected shoulder. Participants were randomly assigned (2:2:1) to receive manipulation under anaesthesia, arthroscopic capsular release, or early structured physiotherapy. In manipulation under anaesthesia, the surgeon manipulated the affected shoulder to stretch and tear the tight capsule while the participant was under general anaesthesia, supplemented by a steroid injection. Arthroscopic capsular release, also done under general anaesthesia, involved surgically dividing the contracted anterior capsule in the rotator interval, followed by manipulation, with optional steroid injection. Both forms of surgery were followed by postprocedural physiotherapy. Early structured physiotherapy involved mobilisation techniques and a graduated home exercise programme supplemented by a steroid injection. Both early structured physiotherapy and postprocedural physiotherapy involved 12 sessions during up to 12 weeks. The primary outcome was the Oxford Shoulder Score (OSS; 0-48) at 12 months after randomisation, analysed by initial randomisation group. We sought a target difference of 5 OSS points between physiotherapy and either form of surgery, or 4 points between manipulation and capsular release. The trial registration is ISRCTN48804508.
FINDINGS
Between April 1, 2015, and Dec 31, 2017, we screened 914 patients, of whom 503 (55%) were randomly assigned. At 12 months, OSS data were available for 189 (94%) of 201 participants assigned to manipulation (mean estimate 38·3 points, 95% CI 36·9 to 39·7), 191 (94%) of 203 participants assigned to capsular release (40·3 points, 38·9 to 41·7), and 93 (94%) of 99 participants assigned to physiotherapy (37·2 points, 35·3 to 39·2). The mean group differences were 2·01 points (0·10 to 3·91) between the capsular release and manipulation groups, 3·06 points (0·71 to 5·41) between capsular release and physiotherapy, and 1·05 points (-1·28 to 3·39) between manipulation and physiotherapy. Eight serious adverse events were reported with capsular release and two with manipulation. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of £20 000 per quality-adjusted life-year, manipulation under anaesthesia had the highest probability of being cost-effective (0·8632, compared with 0·1366 for physiotherapy and 0·0002 for capsular release).
INTERPRETATION
All mean differences on the assessment of shoulder pain and function (OSS) at the primary endpoint of 12 months were less than the target differences. Therefore, none of the three interventions were clinically superior. Arthoscopic capsular release carried higher risks, and manipulation under anaesthesia was the most cost-effective.
FUNDING
The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Identifiants

pubmed: 33010843
pii: S0140-6736(20)31965-6
doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)31965-6
pii:
doi:

Substances chimiques

Glucocorticoids 0

Types de publication

Journal Article Multicenter Study Pragmatic Clinical Trial Randomized Controlled Trial Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

977-989

Investigateurs

Philip Ahrens (P)
Cheryl Baldwick (C)
Amit Bidwai (A)
Asim Butt (A)
Jamie Candal-Couto (J)
Charalambos Charalambous (C)
Mark Crowther (M)
Steve Drew (S)
Sunil Garg (S)
Richard Hawken (R)
Cormac Kelly (C)
Matthew Kent (M)
Kapil Kumar (K)
Tom Lawrence (T)
Christopher Little (C)
Iain Macleod (I)
Jodi George Malal (JG)
Tim Matthews (T)
Damian McClelland (D)
Neal Millar (N)
Prabhakar Motkur (P)
Rajesh Nanda (R)
Chris Peach Peach (CP)
Tim Peckham (T)
Jayanti Rai (J)
Ravi Ray (R)
Douglas Robinson (D)
Philip Rosell (P)
Adam Ruman (A)
Adnan Saithna (A)
Colin Senior (C)
Harish Shanker (H)
Barnaby Sheridan (B)
Kanthan Theivendran (K)
Simon Thomas (S)
Balachandran Venateswaran (B)

Commentaires et corrections

Type : ErratumIn
Type : CommentIn

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2020 The Author(s). Publishedx by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.

Auteurs

Amar Rangan (A)

York Trials Unit, Department of Health Sciences, University of York, York, UK; Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, Botnar Research Centre, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK; The James Cook University Hospital, South Tees Hospitals National Health Service (NHS) Foundation Trust, Middlesbrough, UK. Electronic address: amar.rangan@york.ac.uk.

Stephen D Brealey (SD)

York Trials Unit, Department of Health Sciences, University of York, York, UK.

Ada Keding (A)

York Trials Unit, Department of Health Sciences, University of York, York, UK.

Belen Corbacho (B)

York Trials Unit, Department of Health Sciences, University of York, York, UK.

Matthew Northgraves (M)

York Trials Unit, Department of Health Sciences, University of York, York, UK.

Lucksy Kottam (L)

The James Cook University Hospital, South Tees Hospitals National Health Service (NHS) Foundation Trust, Middlesbrough, UK.

Lorna Goodchild (L)

The James Cook University Hospital, South Tees Hospitals National Health Service (NHS) Foundation Trust, Middlesbrough, UK.

Cynthia Srikesavan (C)

Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, Botnar Research Centre, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.

Saleema Rex (S)

York Trials Unit, Department of Health Sciences, University of York, York, UK.

Charalambos P Charalambous (CP)

Department of Orthopaedics, Blackpool Victoria Hospital, Blackpool, UK; School of Medicine, University of Central Lancashire, Preston, UK.

Nigel Hanchard (N)

School of Health and Social Care, Teesside University, Middlesbrough, UK.

Alison Armstrong (A)

University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust, Leicester, UK.

Andrew Brooksbank (A)

Glasgow Royal Infirmary, Glasgow, UK.

Andrew Carr (A)

Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, Botnar Research Centre, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.

Cushla Cooper (C)

Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, Botnar Research Centre, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.

Joseph J Dias (JJ)

University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust, Leicester, UK.

Iona Donnelly (I)

Glasgow Royal Infirmary, Glasgow, UK.

Catherine Hewitt (C)

York Trials Unit, Department of Health Sciences, University of York, York, UK.

Sarah E Lamb (SE)

Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, Botnar Research Centre, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.

Catriona McDaid (C)

York Trials Unit, Department of Health Sciences, University of York, York, UK.

Gerry Richardson (G)

Centre for Health Economics, University of York, York, UK.

Sara Rodgers (S)

York Trials Unit, Department of Health Sciences, University of York, York, UK.

Emma Sharp (E)

Glasgow Royal Infirmary, Glasgow, UK.

Sally Spencer (S)

Postgraduate Medical Institute, Edge Hill University, Ormskirk, UK.

David Torgerson (D)

York Trials Unit, Department of Health Sciences, University of York, York, UK.

Francine Toye (F)

Physiotherapy Research Unit, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, UK.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH