EDP Sciences logo
Submit your paper
Search
Menu
All issues Volume 8 (2022) SICOT-J, 8 (2022) 35 Full HTML
Open Access
Issue
SICOT-J
Volume 8, 2022
Article Number 35
Number of page(s) 6
Section Shoulder
DOI https://doi.org/10.1051/sicotj/2022036
Published online 19 August 2022

© The Authors, published by EDP Sciences, 2022

Licence Creative CommonsThis is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Introduction

Frozen shoulder (FS), initially defined by Codman in 1934, is the third most common cause of musculoskeletal pain [1–3]. It is classically presented by pain and limitation of active and passive shoulder movement [4–6]. The common age affected is between 40 and 60 years [2, 3, 7]. The non-dominant side is more often affected [6], 6–17% of patients have bilateral involvement, and the incidence is slightly higher in females by a ratio of 1.4:1 [8].

Lundberg classified frozen shoulder into two types; idiopathic (primary) and secondary. The pathology of the idiopathic type remains unclear. Secondary frozen shoulder is described when the condition is associated with known comorbidities such as diabetes mellitus, the most common cause of trauma, cervical disease, and ischemic heart disease [3, 9].

A relation between diabetes and frozen shoulder has been confirmed [10, 11]. Its prevalence increases up to 20% in diabetic patients while it is about 2–5% in all population [2, 6], the incidence is slightly higher in Type 2 diabetes (about 29%) compared to Type 1 (about 10%) [10, 11].

The underlying pathology of frozen shoulder is still uncertain, but the contracture of the rotator interval (RI) and coracohumeral ligament (CHL) appears to be the main factor [12].

The main goal of treatment of frozen shoulder is to improve range of movement (ROM). Several options, including non-steroidal anti-inflammatory, corticosteroids, corticosteroid local injection, capsular hydrodistension, physiotherapy, mobilization under anesthesia, and arthroscopic or open surgery, were described with variable results [13, 14].

With the development of arthroscopic techniques, arthroscopic release is the treatment of choice in patients with frozen shoulders resistant to conservative treatment. It provides great improvement in the range of movement with a low complication rate [3–5].

The optimal technique of arthroscopic release remains a controversial issue. Some surgeons recommend subscapularis release with the standard anteroinferior release, while others also added posterior capsular release to improve internal rotation [15, 16].

Although the rotator interval is not the only part involved in the shoulder capsule, some authors have adopted that the rotator interval and CHL have a great effect on the pathogenesis of the frozen shoulder [5, 17, 18].

Several studies were conducted to evaluate and compare the results of arthroscopic capsular release (360° release) in diabetic and non-diabetic patients [19–23]. In this study, we released only RI and CHL, which we believe that contracture is the main pathology in frozen shoulder. To our knowledge, there are no previous studies used this technique before.

This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of arthroscopic rotator interval and coracohumeral ligament release for frozen shoulder and compare the results between diabetic and non-diabetic patients.

Materials and methods

It is a prospective study that included 32 patients who suffered from FS. This was diagnosed clinically as chronic shoulder pain with a limitation of both active and passive ROM. The patients were categorized into two groups; the diabetic group contained 19 patients (2 males and 17 females) with an average age of 47.47 years (37–61), and a non-diabetic group contained 13 patients (4 males and 9 females) with average age 50.15 years (39–60). Patients’ demographics of both groups are presented in Table 1.

Table 1

Demographic data of the patients.

Inclusion criteria were; symptomatic frozen shoulder affecting patient’s daily activities and failed to respond to conservative therapy including NSAIDs, physiotherapy, and local steroids injection for at least 3 months.

We excluded from this study; patients with glenohumeral osteoarthritis, rotator cuff tears, history of fracture of the proximal humerus, history of operative intervention in the affected shoulder, bilateral FS, and patients who underwent mobilization under anesthesia or hydrodistention.

All patients were subjected to careful evaluation regarding history, clinical examination, and radiographic evaluation using standard plain radiographs and MRI to confirm the diagnosis and rule out any intra-articular pathology. The study was approved by the ethical committee of our institution, and informed consent was taken from all patients.

All patients underwent arthroscopic rotator interval and coracohumeral release by the same surgical team. Clinical evaluation was done by Visual Analog Scale (VAS) and UCLA (University of California Los Angeles) score. The assessment was done pre-operatively and post-operatively after one, three, and twelve months.

Surgical technique

The procedure was done under general anesthesia in a beach chair position. The patient was reexamined under anesthesia to check ROM.

The posterior portal was determined to be approximately 2 cm medial and inferior to the posterolateral angle of the acromion. The shoulder joint was distended with about 20–30 cc of saline then the arthroscopy was introduced through the posterior portal. An anterior portal was established under arthroscopic visualization between the biceps tendon superiorly and subscapularis tendon inferiorly. Synovectomy was done using an arthroscopic shaver.

RI release with CHL release was performed using a radiofrequency ablation device up to the base of the coracoid (Figure 1). The range of motion was checked again after the procedure was completed.

thumbnail Figure. 1

Intraoperative Arthroscopic picture of left shoulder (viewed from posterior portal) showing the rotator interval between long head of biceps (LHD) superiorly and subscapularis tendon (SSC) inferiorly. A. A radiofrequency ablator introduced via the anterior portal and releases all the layers of RI. B. A probe is used to check completion of release.

Post-operative Protocol

A supervised physiotherapy program was applied to all patients immediately post-operative. An arm sling was applied for one week. During which scapular and pendular exercises were started. After one week, the sling was removed, and passive movement and capsular stretching exercises were introduced. Active-assisted and Active movement exercises were initiated after two weeks. Strengthening exercises were started by the end of the 4th week.

Statistical analysis

At first, the data were tested for homogeneity variances and normality by the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test. Categorical variables were presented by number and percent (N, %), while continuous variables were presented by mean and standard deviation (Mean, SD). For comparing both groups, we used the fisher exact test and Chi-square test to compare categorical variables, while comparison between continuous variables was carried out by the Mann–Whitney test for non-parametric data (VAS and UCLA) and independent samples T-test for parametric data. Wilcoxon test was used to compare VAS and UCLA scores between pre-operative and post after one month, after three months, and after 12 months within the same group. P value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. IBM SPSS 28.0 software was used for analysis.

Results

There was no statistically significant difference between both groups as regards patients’ age (p = 0.224), sex (p = 0.150), the side affected (p = 0.515), and dominant hand (p = 0.266).

Both groups achieved significant improvement in VAS during follow-up intervals (p < 0.01), while there were no statistically significant differences in VAS between the two study groups during follow-up times (p-values > 0.05) (Table 2) (Figure 2).

thumbnail Figure 2

An illustrative diagram showing post-operative improvement of VAS in diabetic and non-diabetic patients after RI release (at 1, 3 and 12 months follow-up). No difference was found in VAS between both groups.

Table 2

VAS score results of both groups.

Both groups achieved significant improvement in UCLA scores during follow-up intervals (p < 0.01), and by comparing both groups, there were no statistically significant differences in UCLA scores during follow-up times (p-values > 0.05) (Table 3) (Figure 3). The mean operative time was 36.5 min, with no complications recorded.

thumbnail Figure 3

An illustrative diagram showing post-operative improvement of UCLA score in diabetic and non-diabetic patients after RI release (at 1, 3, and 12 months follow-up). No difference was found in UCLA score between both groups.

Table 3

UCLA score results of both groups.

Discussion

Arthroscopic release in the frozen shoulder can produce significant and sustained relief when conservative treatment has failed [17, 24]. Some authors reported lower results in diabetic patients than non-diabetics [25], however, others indicated no difference between both groups [26]. In this study, we found a significant improvement in all patients, diabetics, and non-diabetics, after arthroscopic rotator interval release, and both groups showed similar satisfactory outcomes. Both diabetic and non-diabetic patients had a significantly lower VAS and higher UCLA score one month, three months, and one year post-operatively than pre-operative.

We have a few limitations in our study; the first is a small study population. The second is its non-randomized design. However, we have some points of strength, including that we prospectively selected the patients with strict inclusion criteria, all patients operated by the same team using the same technique, and both groups were comparable in demographic variables, despite the presence or absence of diabetes.

Frozen shoulder is one of the most common musculoskeletal disorders [2, 3]. It is diagnosed clinically as chronic shoulder pain and limitation of active and passive shoulder movement, especially internal rotation [4–6]. Usually, there are no specific radiological findings, but sometimes MRI shows thickening of the rotator interval in axial images and thickening of the axillary pouch in coronal images [5, 6].

Patients with diabetes may have worse outcomes from frozen shoulder; clinicians should monitor those patients and recommend further treatment if symptoms persist for a long time [10]. Diabetic patients also may have slower post-operative functional recovery after arthroscopic release, so they should be counseled clearly about the results of the procedure [20, 22].

Our results are similar to previous studies (Table 4) that compared the results of arthroscopic capsular release in diabetic and non-diabetic patients. Lyhne et al. [19], although they performed anterior and posterior capsular release. They concluded that all patients, whether diabetic or non-diabetic, equally improved after arthroscopic capsular release when operated on regardless of diabetic status.

Table 4

Review of literature of relevant studies that compared the results of arthroscopic release in diabetic and non-diabetic frozen shoulder patients.

Cho et al. [20] reported similar results to our study, where both diabetic and non-diabetic patients significantly improved in ROM and clinical scores. No significant differences between both groups in VAS and UCLA scores, while the mean American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score in the diabetic group was significantly lower than the non-diabetic group 12 months post-operatively. The ASES score is a subjective questionnaire. It does not include objective parameters like the UCLA score we used, which contain both subjective and objective measurements.

Cinar et al. [21] reported that non-diabetic patients achieved significantly higher Constant scores after arthroscopic release than the diabetic group. They concluded that in frozen shoulder, arthroscopic capsular release in diabetic patients had lower results as regards Constant score and ROM. Both groups did not show a significant difference regarding the duration needed for pain relief and restoring ROM.

Mehta et al. [22] reported improvement in diabetics and non-diabetics in the modified constant score. However, the scores in non-diabetics were significantly higher than diabetics after six months of follow-up, although both groups significantly improved from the pre-operative scores. However, diabetic patients suffered more from persistent movement limitation for two years post-operatively.

Our results demonstrated significant success in clinical outcomes with arthroscopic RI release; it is a simple technique, less time-consuming, and safer compared to other capsular release techniques.

In Conclusion, arthroscopic RI release provides good clinical outcomes in the treatment of frozen shoulder and can be used effectively in diabetic and non-diabetic patients with no difference in results.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Funding

No funding was received.

Ethical approval

The study was approved by the Ethical committee of our institution.

Informed consent

Informed consent was provided by all patients.

Authors contributions

Wessam Tawfeek: Wrote the article, follow up cases; Ahmad Addosooki: Providing the concept, supervising; Moustafa Elsayed: Revising and editing.

Acknowledgments

Thanks to Prof. Anis Shiha, the former head of our department.

References

  1. Codman EA (1934) Tendinitis of the short rotators. Ruptures of the supraspinatus tendon and other lesions in or about the subacromial bursa. Thomas Todd: Boston. p. 216–224. [Google Scholar]
  2. James PT, David WE (2007) Adhesive capsulitis. Sports Med Arthrosc Rev 15, 216–221. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. O’Donnell EA (2021) In primary frozen shoulder, arthroscopic capsular release improved function and reduced pain compared with manipulation under anesthesia or early physiotherapy with steroid injection at 1 year, but changes were not clinically important. J Bone Joint Surg Am 103(16), 1555. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Umesh J, Dhaval G (2017) Arthroscopic 360 degrees capsular release for treatment of adhesive capsulitis – a study of 40 cases. Int J of Orthop Sci 3, 649–654. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  5. Kyung CK, Kwang JR, Hyun DS (2009) Adhesive capsulitis of the shoulder: Dimensions of the rotator interval measured with magnetic resonance arthrography. J Soulder Elbow Surg 18, 437–442. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  6. Manske RC, Prohaska D (2008) Diagnosis and management of adhesive capsulitis. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med 1, 180–189. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Snow M, Boutros I, Funk L (2009) Posterior arthroscopic capsular release in frozen shoulder. Arthroscopy 25, 19–23. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Lorbach O, Kieb M, Scherf C, Seil R, Kohn D, Pape D (2010) Good results after fluoroscopic-guided intra-articular injections in the treatment of adhesive capsulitis of the shoulder. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 18, 1435–1441. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Holloway GB, Schenk T, Williams GR, Ramsey ML, Iannotti JP (2001) Arthroscopic capsular release for the treatment of refractory postoperative or post-fracture shoulder stiffness. J Bone Joint Surg Am 83, 1682–1687. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Dyer BP, Burton C, Rathod-Mistry T, Blagojevic-Bucknall M, van der Windt DA (2021) Diabetes as a prognostic factor in frozen shoulder: a systematic review. Arch Rehabil Res Clin Transl, 3(3), 100141. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Jump CM, Duke K, Malik RA, Charalambos CP. 2021. Frozen shoulder: a systematic review of cellular, molecular, and metabolic findings. JBJS Rev 9(1), e19. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Brue S, Valentin A, Forssblad M, Werner S, Mikkelsen C, Cerulli G (2007) Idiopathic adhesive capsulitis of the shoulder: a review. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 15, 1048–1054. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Jerosch J (2001) 360 degrees arthroscopic capsular release in patients with adhesive capsulitis of the glenohumeral joint indication, surgical technique, results. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 9, 178–186. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Albana R, Prasetia R, Primadhi A, et al (2022) The role of suprascapular nerve block in hydrodilatation for frozen shoulder. SICOT-J 8, 25. [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Sivasubramanian H, Chua CXK, Lim SY, Manohara R, Dennis Ng ZW, Kumar VP, Poh KS (2021) Arthroscopic capsular release to treat idiopathic frozen shoulder: How much release is needed? Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 107(1), 102766. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Ide J, Takagi K (2004) Early and long-term results of arthroscopic treatment for shoulder stiffness. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 13, 174–179. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Nicholson GP (2003) Arthroscopic capsular release for stiff shoulders: effect of etiology on outcomes. Arthroscopy 19, 40–49. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Fitzpatrick MJ, Powell SE, Tibone JE, Warren RF (2003) The anatomy, pathology, and definitive treatment of rotator interval lesions: current concepts. Arthroscopy 19, 70–79. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Lyhne JM, Jacobsen JR, Hansen SJ, Jensen CM, Deutch SR (2019) Diabetic and non-diabetic patients report equal symptom relief after arthroscopic capsular release of frozen shoulder. J Clin Orthop Trauma 10, 261–264. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Cho CH, Kim DH, Lee YK (2016) Serial comparison of clinical outcomes after arthroscopic capsular release for refractory frozen shoulder with and without diabetes. Arthroscopy 32, 1515–1520. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Cinar M, Akpinar S, Derincek A, Circi E, Uysal M (2010) Comparison of arthroscopic capsular release in diabetic and idiopathic frozen shoulder patients. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 130, 401–406. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Mehta SS, Singh HP, Pandey R (2014) Comparative outcome of arthroscopic release for frozen shoulder in patients with and without diabetes. Bone Joint J 96-B, 1355–1358. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Lei GY, Mak WK, Lie DDT (2019) Do diabetic patients have different outcomes after arthroscopic capsular release for frozen shoulder? J Orthop 16, 211–215. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Le Lievre HM, Murrell GA (2012) Long-term outcomes after arthroscopic capsular release for idiopathic adhesive capsulitis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 94, 1208–1216. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Pollock RG, Duralde XA, Flatow EL, Bigliani LU (1994) The use of arthroscopy in the treatment of resistant frozen shoulder. Clin Orthop Relat Res 304, 30–36. [Google Scholar]
  26. Rill BK, Fleckenstein CM, Levy MS, Nagesh V, Hasan SS (2011) Predictors of outcome after nonoperative and operative treatment of adhesive capsulitis. Am J Sports Med 39, 567–574. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Cite this article as: Tawfeek W, Addosooki A & Elsayed M (2022) Arthroscopic rotator interval release for frozen shoulder, comparative study between diabetic and non-diabetic patients. SICOT-J 8, 35

All Tables

Table 1

Demographic data of the patients.

In the text
Table 2

VAS score results of both groups.

In the text
Table 3

UCLA score results of both groups.

In the text
Table 4

Review of literature of relevant studies that compared the results of arthroscopic release in diabetic and non-diabetic frozen shoulder patients.

In the text

All Figures

thumbnail Figure. 1

Intraoperative Arthroscopic picture of left shoulder (viewed from posterior portal) showing the rotator interval between long head of biceps (LHD) superiorly and subscapularis tendon (SSC) inferiorly. A. A radiofrequency ablator introduced via the anterior portal and releases all the layers of RI. B. A probe is used to check completion of release.
In the text
thumbnail Figure 2

An illustrative diagram showing post-operative improvement of VAS in diabetic and non-diabetic patients after RI release (at 1, 3 and 12 months follow-up). No difference was found in VAS between both groups.
In the text
thumbnail Figure 3

An illustrative diagram showing post-operative improvement of UCLA score in diabetic and non-diabetic patients after RI release (at 1, 3, and 12 months follow-up). No difference was found in UCLA score between both groups.
In the text

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.