Comparison of mid-term clinical outcomes between traumatic stiff shoulder and frozen shoulder after arthroscopic capsule release combined with subacromial space recovery
10.3760/cma.j.cn115530-20210615-00279
- VernacularTitle:关节镜下肩关节囊松解合并肩峰下间隙恢复治疗创伤性肩关节功能障碍与冻结肩的中期疗效比较
- Author:
Lin MA
1
;
Baoyong JIN
;
Xiaolong ZHENG
;
Aining YANG
;
Binghua ZHOU
;
Kanglai TANG
Author Information
1. 陆军军医大学第一附属医院运动医学中心，重庆 400038
- Keywords:
Shoulder joint;
Arthroscopy;
Joint capsule release;
Dysfunction;
Clinical effects
- From:
Chinese Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma
2021;23(11):924-930
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective:To compare the mid-term clinical outcomes between traumatic stiff shoulder and frozen shoulder after arthroscopic capsule release combined with subacromial space recovery.Methods:From January 2014 to December 2019, 55 patients were treated at Sports Medicine Center, The First Affiliated Hospital, Army Medical University for limited range of shoulder motion. Of them, 22 suffered from traumatic stiff shoulder (7 males and 15 females) (group A) and 33 from frozen shoulder (10 males and 23 females) (group B). All patients were treated with arthroscopic 270° capsule release combined with subacromial space recovery. Shoulder pain was evaluated by visual analogue scale (VAS) and shoulder function by Constant score before operation and at the final follow-up. The 2 groups were compared in improvements in flexion, abduction, external rotation and internal rotation of the shoulder.Results:No significant difference was observed between the 2 groups in gender, age, course of disease, preoperative internal rotation or external rotation of the shoulder ( P>0.05). Preoperative VAS score [2.5(2.0, 3.3) points] and Constant score [(33.7±9.6) points] in group A were significantly lower than those in group B [4.0(3.0,5.5) points and (45.8±12.3) points] ( P<0.05). No complication like infection or nerve injury was found during follow-ups. All the incisions healed at the first stage. The follow-up time averaged 37.0 months (from 20 to 79 months). At the last follow-up, VAS scores [1.0(1.0, 1.0) points and 1.0(1.0, 1.0) points] and Constant scores [(87.0±3.2) points and (85.7±4.3) points] for both groups were significantly improved compared with their preoperative values [2.5(2.0,3.3)分points and 4.0(3.0,5.5) points for VAS; (33.7±9.6) points and (45.8±12.3) points for Constant score] ( P<0.05). Compared with preoperation, the improvements at the last follow-up were 99.3°±19.9° and 83.3°±27.7° in shoulder anteflexion and 102.0°±21.5° and 83.9°±32.8° in abduction for groups A and B, with greater improvements in group A; the improvements in VAS score for groups A and B were 1.0(1.0, 2.3) points and 3.0(2.0, 4.5) points, with greater improvements in group B; the improvements in Constant score were (53.3±9.5) points and (39.8±12.9) points for groups A and B, with greater improvements in group A. The above comparisons all showed a significant difference between the 2 groups ( P<0.05). Conclusions:Arthroscopic 270° capsule release combined with subacromial space recovery can lead to good mid-term clinical outcomes similar for both traumatic stiff shoulder and frozen shoulder. However, the improvements in flexion, abduction and Constant score may be greater for traumatic stiff shoulder than for frozen shoulder.
