Search

Purpose: Shoulder stiffness (SS) is a condition characterised by active and passive restricted glenohumeral range of motion, which can occur spontaneously in an idiopathic manner or be associated with a known underlying aetiology. Several treatment options are available and currently no consensus has been obtained on which treatment algorithm represents the best choice for the patient. Herein we present the results of a national consensus on the treatment of primary SS., Methods: The project followed the modified Delphi consensus process, involving a steering, a rating and a peer-review group. Sixteen questions were generated and subsequently answered by the steering group after a thorough literature search. A rating group composed by professionals specialised in the diagnosis and treatment of shoulder pathologies rated the question-answer sets according to the scientific evidence and their clinical experience., Results: Recommendations were rated with an average of 8.4 points out of maximum 9 points. None of the 16 answers received a rating of less than 8 and all the answers were considered as appropriate. The majority of responses were assessed as Grade A, signifying a substantial availability of scientific evidence to guide treatment and support recommendations encompassing diagnostics, physiotherapy, electrophysical agents, oral and injective medical therapies, as well as surgical interventions for primary SS., Conclusions: A consensus regarding the conservative and surgical treatment of primary SS could be achieved at a national level. This consensus sets basis for evidence-based clinical practice in the management of primary SS and can serve as a model for similar initiatives and adaptable guidelines in other European countries and potentially on a global scale., Level of Evidence: Level I., (© 2024 The Authors. Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Society of Sports Traumatology, Knee Surgery and Arthroscopy.)

Abstract Background The superiority of tenotomy vs. tenodesis for surgery on lesions of the long head of the biceps brachii tendon is still under debate. Indeed, high-quality evidence is lacking, mainly because of methodological problems, such as retrospective design, population sample size or lack of patient randomization. Methods/Design The study will be a two-center, double-blind, randomized, controlled trial to compare patients treated with biceps tenotomy or tenodesis for lesions of the long head of the biceps brachii tendon over a 2-year follow-up period. The study participants will be 128 adults with biceps brachii tendinopathy and supraspinatus tendon tears. The primary end point will be the postoperative difference in the Constant-Murley score (CMS) between the 2 groups at the two-year follow-up. A comparison of the mean improvement with standard age- and gender-related CMS will be performed. The secondary end point will be evaluation of the postoperative general health of patients, as evaluated with Short Form 36 (SF-36) scores. The number and severity of complications associated with use of the different surgical techniques will be assessed. Discussion This study will be the first randomized and appropriately powered clinical trial to directly compare tenotomy and biceps tenodesis. The results of this study will help to establish clinical practice guidelines for patients suffering from lesions of the long head of the biceps brachii tendon, providing important information to patients and health care providers about the possible complications, outcome predictors and effectiveness of the targeted interventions. Trial Registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN38839558