Background: Frozen shoulder causes pain and stiffness. It affects around 10% of people in their fifties and is slightly more common in women. Costly and invasive surgical interventions are used, without high-quality evidence that these are effective.Objectives: To compare the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of three treatments in secondary care for adults with frozen shoulder; to qualitatively explore the acceptability of these treatments to patients and health-care professionals; and to update a systematic review to explore the trial findings in the context of existing evidence for the three treatments.Design: This was a pragmatic, parallel-group, multicentre, open-label, three-arm, randomised superiority trial with unequal allocation (2 : 2 : 1). An economic evaluation and a nested qualitative study were also carried out.Setting: The orthopaedic departments of 35 hospitals across the UK were recruited from April 2015, with final follow-up in December 2018.Participants: Participants were adults (aged ≥ 18 years) with unilateral frozen shoulder, characterised by restriction of passive external rotation in the affected shoulder to < 50% of the opposite shoulder, and with plain radiographs excluding other pathology.Interventions: The inventions were early structured physiotherapy with a steroid injection, manipulation under anaesthesia with a steroid injection and arthroscopic capsular release followed by manipulation. Both of the surgical interventions were followed with post-procedural physiotherapy.Main outcome measures: The primary outcome and end point was the Oxford Shoulder Score at 12 months post randomisation. A difference of 5 points between early structured physiotherapy and manipulation under anaesthesia or arthroscopic capsular release or of 4 points between manipulation under anaesthesia and arthroscopic capsular release was judged clinically important.Results: The mean age of the 503 participants was 54 years; 319 were female (63%) and 150 had diabetes (30%). The primary analyses comprised 473 participants (94%). At the primary end point of 12 months, participants randomised to arthroscopic capsular release had, on average, a statistically significantly higher (better) Oxford Shoulder Score than those randomised to manipulation under anaesthesia (2.01 points, 95% confidence interval 0.10 to 3.91 points;p = 0.04) or early structured physiotherapy (3.06 points, 95% confidence interval 0.71 to 5.41 points;p = 0.01). Manipulation under anaesthesia did not result in statistically significantly better Oxford Shoulder Score than early structured physiotherapy (1.05 points, 95% confidence interval –1.28 to 3.39 points;p = 0.38). No differences were deemed of clinical importance. Serious adverse events were rare but occurred in participants randomised to surgery (arthroscopic capsular release,n = 8; manipulation under anaesthesia,n = 2). There was, however, one serious adverse event in a participant who received non-trial physiotherapy. The base-case economic analysis showed that manipulation under anaesthesia was more expensive than early structured physiotherapy, with slightly better utilities. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for manipulation under anaesthesia was £6984 per additional quality-adjusted life-year, and this intervention was probably 86% cost-effective at the threshold of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year. Arthroscopic capsular release was more costly than early structured physiotherapy and manipulation under anaesthesia, with no statistically significant benefit in utilities. Participants in the qualitative study wanted early medical help and a quicker pathway to resolve their shoulder problem. Nine studies were identified from the updated systematic review, including UK FROST, of which only two could be pooled, and found that arthroscopic capsular release was more effective than physiotherapy in the long-term shoulder functioning of patients, but not to the clinically important magnitude used in UK FROST.Limitations: Implementing physiotherapy to the trial standard in clinical practice might prove challenging but could avoid theatre use and post-procedural physiotherapy. There are potential confounding effects of waiting times in the trial.Conclusions: None of the three interventions was clearly superior. Early structured physiotherapy with a steroid injection is an accessible and low-cost option. Manipulation under anaesthesia is the most cost-effective option. Arthroscopic capsular release carries higher risks and higher costs.Future work: Evaluation in a randomised controlled trial is recommended to address the increasing popularity of hydrodilatation despite the paucity of high-quality evidence.Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN48804508.Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full inHealth Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 71. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Aims: This systematic review places a recently completed multicentre randomized controlled trial (RCT), UK FROST, in the context of existing randomized evidence for the management of primary frozen shoulder. UK FROST compared the effectiveness of pre-specified physiotherapy techniques with a steroid injection (PTSI), manipulation under anaesthesia (MUA) with a steroid injection, and arthroscopic capsular release (ACR). This review updates a 2012 review focusing on the effectiveness of MUA, ACR, hydrodilatation, and PTSI. Methods: MEDLINE, Embase, PEDro, Science Citation Index, Clinicaltrials.gov, CENTRAL, and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry were searched up to December 2018. Reference lists of included studies were screened. No language restrictions applied. Eligible studies were RCTs comparing the effectiveness of MUA, ACR, PTSI, and hydrodilatation against each other, or supportive care or no treatment, for the management of primary frozen shoulder. Results: Nine RCTs were included. The primary outcome of patient-reported shoulder function at long-term follow-up (> 6 months and ≤ 12 months) was reported for five treatment comparisons across four studies. Standardized mean differences (SMD) were: ACR versus MUA: 0.21 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.00 to 0.42), ACR versus supportive care: -0.13 (95% CI -1.10 to 0.83), and ACR versus PTSI: 0.33 (95% CI 0.07 to 0.59) and 0.25 (95% CI -0.34 to 0.85), all favouring ACR; MUA versus supportive care: 0 (95% CI -0.44 to 0.44) not favouring either; and MUA versus PTSI: 0.12 (95% CI -0.14 to 0.37) favouring MUA. None of these differences met the threshold of clinical significance agreed for the UK FROST and most confidence intervals included zero. Conclusion: The findings from a recent multicentre RCT provided the strongest evidence that, when compared with each other, neither PTSI, MUA, nor ACR are clinically superior. Evidence from smaller RCTs did not change this conclusion. The effectiveness of hydrodilatation based on four RCTs was inconclusive and there remains an evidence gap. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(9):773–784.

Joint hypermobility affects approximately 30% of the United Kingdom (UK) population, characterised by the ability to move joints beyond the physiological limits. Associated conditions include Ehlers-Danlos syndrome and hypermobility spectrum disorders, affecting individuals across physical, psychological and social levels detrimentally impacting their health and wellbeing. The scoping review aims to describe the known biopsychosocial impact of joint hypermobility conditions in adults over the last decade. Additional objectives include to (1) identify the types of studies that address these factors, (2) to understand how the impact of the condition is measured and managed and (3) what healthcare professionals (HCPs) are involved. The scoping review was conducted using the five-stage framework by Arksey and O’Malley. The search strategy related to two main keywords, “hypermobility” and, “biopsychosocial” across a number of electronic databases. A pilot search was conducted to determine the suitability of the databases and terms. Following the search, the data was extracted and charted, summarised and narratively reported. 32 studies met the inclusion criteria. The majority were conducted in either the UK or United States of America and case–control in design. The biopsychosocial impact was wide-ranging including, but not limited to, musculoskeletal system and dermatology, gastroenterology, mood and anxiety disorders, education and employments. This review is the first of its kind to summarise all reported symptoms and impact of joint hypermobility conditions in adults, highlighting a clear need to promote a multidisciplinary and holistic approach in raising awareness of these conditions and improving their management.

Background: Proximal humerus fractures (PHF) are common and painful injuries, with the majority resulting from falls from a standing height. As with other fragility fractures, its age-specific incidence is increasing. Surgical treatment with hemiarthroplasty (HA) and reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) have been increasingly used for displaced 3- and 4-part fractures despite a lack of good quality evidence as to whether one type of arthroplasty is superior to the other, and whether surgery is better than non-surgical management. The PROFHER-2 trial has been designed as a pragmatic, multicentre randomised trial to compare the clinical and cost-effectiveness of RSA vs HA vs Non-Surgical (NS) treatment in patients with 3- and 4-part PHF. Methods: Adults over 65 years of age presenting with acute radiographically confirmed 3- or 4-part fractures, with or without associated glenohumeral joint dislocation, who consent for trial participation will be recruited from around 40 National Health Service (NHS) Hospitals in the UK. Patients with polytrauma, open fractures, presence of axillary nerve palsy, pathological (other than osteoporotic) fractures, and those who are unable to adhere to trial procedures will be excluded. We will aim to recruit 380 participants (152 RSA, 152 HA, 76 NS) using 2:2:1 (HA:RSA:NS) randomisation for 3- or 4-part fractures without joint dislocation, and 1:1 (HA:RSA) randomisation for 3- or 4-part fracture dislocations. The primary outcome is the Oxford Shoulder Score at 24 months. Secondary outcomes include quality of life (EQ-5D-5L), pain, range of shoulder motion, fracture healing and implant position on X-rays, further procedures, and complications. Independent Trial Steering Committee and Data Monitoring Committee will oversee the trial conduct, including the reporting of adverse events and harms. Discussion: The PROFHER-2 trial is designed to provide a robust answer to guide the treatment of patients aged 65 years or over who sustain 3- and 4-part proximal humeral fractures. The pragmatic design and recruitment from around 40 UK NHS hospitals will ensure immediate applicability and generalisability of the trial findings. The full trial results will be made available in a relevant open-access peer-reviewed journal. Trial registration: ISRCTN76296703. Prospectively registered on 5th April 2018

Hypermobility spectrum disorders (HSD) affect individuals across physical, psychological and social domains, making assessment and management difficult. Management for this condition primarily focuses on addressing the musculoskeletal complaints using physiotherapy rather than the additional manifestations such as fatigue, anxiety and depression. This systematic review aims to identify psychological interventions and assess whether they improve the lived experiences of individuals with HSD. It also aims to assess which psychological interventions were most effective, which symptoms were most effectively managed by a psychological intervention, and whether there were differences between children and adults. Studies were included if they were a randomised controlled trial or pre/post-test design, a sample of any age and clinical diagnosis of HSD (including Ehlers-Danlos syndrome), used a psychological intervention and assessed the effect of the intervention on lived experiences using appropriate outcome measures. Risk of bias was assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. The results were narratively synthesised. Six studies were included in the review, one isolated psychological intervention and five incorporated a psychological intervention within a multidisciplinary programme. The interventions predominantly aimed to reduce pain including intensity, interference, pain-related fear and catastrophising, with anxiety and depression, affect, daily living, fatigue also being evaluated. The most beneficial psychological interventions were those delivered alongside physiotherapy in an outpatient or community setting, improving both the physical and psychological aspects of pain, subsequently improving quality of life. However, there lacks randomised controlled trials with larger samples to definitively confirm the significant findings discussed in this review.

Background: A rotator cuff tear is a common, disabling shoulder problem. Symptoms may include pain, weakness, lack of shoulder mobility and sleep disturbance. Many patients require surgery to repair the tear; however, there is a high failure rate. There is a need to improve the outcome of rotator cuff surgery, and the use of patch augmentation (on-lay or bridging) to provide support to the healing process and improve patient outcomes holds promise. Patches have been made using different materials (e.g. human/animal skin or tissue and synthetic materials) and processes (e.g. woven or mesh). Objectives: The aim of the Patch Augmented Rotator Cuff Surgery (PARCS) feasibility study was to determine the design of a definitive randomised controlled trial assessing the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a patch to augment surgical repair of the rotator cuff that is both acceptable to stakeholders and feasible. Design: A mixed-methods feasibility study of a randomised controlled trial. Data sources: MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library databases were searched between April 2006 and August 2018. Methods: The project involved six stages: a systematic review of clinical evidence, a survey of the British Elbow and Shoulder Society’s surgical membership, a survey of surgeon triallists, focus groups and interviews with stakeholders, a two-round Delphi study administered via online questionnaires and a 2-day consensus meeting. The various stakeholders (including patients, surgeons and industry representatives) were involved in stages 2–6. Results: The systematic review comprised 52 studies; only 15 were comparative and, of these, 11 were observational (search conducted in August 2018). These studies were typically small (median number of participants 26, range 5–152 participants). There was some evidence to support the use of patches, although most comparative studies were at a serious risk of bias. Little to no published clinical evidence was available for a number of patches in clinical use. The membership survey of British Elbow and Shoulder surgeons [105 (21%) responses received] identified a variety of patches in use. Twenty-four surgeons (77%) completed the triallist survey relating to trial design. Four focus groups were conducted, involving 24 stakeholders. Differing views were held on a number of aspects of trial design, including the appropriate patient population (e.g. patient age) to participate. Agreement on the key research questions and the outline of two potential randomised controlled trials were achieved through the Delphi study [29 (67%)] and the consensus meeting that 22 participants attended. Limitations: The main limitation was that the findings were influenced by the participants, who are not necessarily representative of the views of the relevant stakeholder groups. Conclusion: The need for further clinical studies was clear, particularly given the range and number of different patches available. Future work: Randomised comparisons of on-lay patch use for completed rotator cuff repairs and bridging patch use for partial rotator cuff repairs were identified as areas for further research. The value of an observational study to assess safety concerns of patch use was also highlighted. These elements are included in the trial designs proposed in this study. Study registration: The systematic review is registered as PROSPERO CRD42017057908. Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 13. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.