Project description:Diagnosis is crucial in decision-making when treating a patient with shoulder pain. Ultrasound is also very important in the diagnostic and therapeutic pathway, especially when surgery is being considered. This article outlines the diagnostic pathway using the patient's history, physical examination and ultrasound examination. It is important to correlate the clinical assessment with the imaging signs. It is also important to treat the patient and not the images as there may be abnormalities detected on imaging that are not symptomatic. The article covers the important diagnosis of subdeltoid subacromial bursitis, glenohumeral joint capsulitis, calcific tendinosis, acromioclavicular joint osteoarthritis and long head of biceps tendinosis. It will guide the reader in how to use the findings to treat, using ultrasound-guided injection and other techniques, including steroid injections, hydrodilatation, barbotage and extracorporeal shockwave treatment. These are discussed with the knowledge from over 30 years of experience with a literature review evidential support. I have included tips to make these procedures more effective in treatment and final outcome. There is discussion regarding the use of steroid injections in the presence of a rotator cuff tear and how to proceed if the patient has more than one disease process. The sensible use of steroids and local anesthetics are included, bearing in mind that lidocaine and high concentrations of long-acting local anesthetics are chondrotoxic and should not be injected into joints.
Project description:BackgroundSubacromial disorders are considered to be one of the most common pathologies affecting the shoulder. Optimal therapy for shoulder pain (SP) in primary care is yet unknown, since clinical history and physical examination do not provide decisive evidence as to the patho-anatomical origin of the symptoms. Optimal decision strategies can be furthered by applying ultrasound imaging (US), an accurate method in diagnosing SP, demonstrating a clear relationship between diagnosis and available therapies. Yet, the clinical cost-effectiveness of applying US in the management of SP in primary care has not been studied. The aim of this paper is to describe the design and methods of a trial assessing the cost-effectiveness of ultrasound imaging as a diagnostic triage tool to improve management of primary care patients with non-chronic shoulder pain.Methods/designThis randomised controlled trial (RCT) will involve 226 adult patients with suspected subacromial disorders recruited by general practitioners. During a Qualification period of two weeks, patients receive care as usual as advised by the Dutch College of General Practitioners, and patients are referred for US. Patients with insufficient improvement qualify for the RCT. These patients are then randomly assigned to the intervention or the control group. The therapies used in both groups are the same (corticosteroid injections, referral to a physiotherapist or orthopedic surgeon) except that therapies used in the intervention group will be tailored based on the US results. Ultrasound diagnosed disorders include tendinopathy, calcific tendinitis, partial and full thickness tears, and subacromial bursitis. The primary outcome is patient-perceived recovery at 52 weeks, using the Global Perceived Effect questionnaire. Secondary outcomes are disease specific and generic quality of life, cost-effectiveness, and the adherence to the initial applied treatment. Outcome measures will be assessed at baseline, 13, 26, 39 and 52 weeks after inclusion. An economic evaluation will be performed from both a health care and societal perspective with a time horizon of 52 weeks.DiscussionThe results of this trial will give unique evidence regarding the cost-effectiveness of US as a diagnostic triage tool in the management of SP in primary care.
Project description:BackgroundShoulder pain is a very common presentation in primary care. Evidence of benefit for subacromial corticosteroid injection is inconclusive and confined largely to studies with short follow-up. We plan a large, definitive, primary-care-based trial to determine efficacy and safety in patients with rotator cuff tendinopathy, and conducted a pilot trial to explore feasibility.MethodsSix general practitioners (GPs) from Oxfordshire, UK underwent update training in assessing painful shoulders and injecting the subacromial space. Each then recruited patients aged 35 to 74 years from primary care complaining of shoulder pain lasting no more than 6 months. Eligible participants were randomized to receive either methylprednisolone acetate 40 mg with lidocaine 1% (total volume 1 ml), or lidocaine 1% alone (total volume 1 ml), injected into the subacromial space. The participants were blinded to treatment allocation. Feasibility outcomes were rates of recruitment, withdrawal, adherence to the protocol, completeness of follow-up, and success of patient masking. Clinical outcomes were the Oxford Shoulder Score (OSS) at baseline and at 4 and 12 weeks, and responses to three satisfaction questions at 2, 4 and 12 weeks. Outcome data were collected by postal questionnaires.ResultsA total of 40 participants were randomized (80% of the target 50 participants) over 26 weeks giving an overall recruitment rate of 1.5 participants per week. Rates of follow-up were maintained to a high level for the full 12 weeks. Four participants requested a 'rescue' corticosteroid injection but no patients withdrew. The trial GPs gave high scores for their confidence that the patient had remained blinded to treatment allocation during the procedure. The OSS at 4 and 12 weeks and the responses to the satisfaction questions are reported.ConclusionsIt is feasible to recruit participants with shoulder pain in the primary care setting for a blinded, randomized trial of corticosteroid injection. Online randomization of participants from the practice is also feasible, and postal questionnaires provide an effective means of gathering outcome data in this area of study. The lessons learned from this pilot will usefully inform the design of a large, definitive efficacy trial in primary care.Trial registrationCurrent Clinical Trials ISRCTN82357435.
Project description:BackgroundDespite numerous methodological flaws in previous study designs and the lack of validation in primary care populations, clinical tests for identifying acromioclavicular joint (ACJ) pain are widely utilised without concern for such issues. The aim of this study was to estimate the diagnostic accuracy of traditional ACJ tests and to compare their accuracy with other clinical examination features for identifying a predominant ACJ pain source in a primary care cohort.MethodsConsecutive patients with shoulder pain were recruited prospectively from primary health care clinics. Following a standardised clinical examination and diagnostic injection into the subacromial bursa, all participants received a fluoroscopically guided diagnostic block of 1% lidocaine hydrochloride (XylocaineTM) into the ACJ. Diagnostic accuracy statistics including sensitivity, specificity, predictive values, positive and negative likelihood ratios (LR+ and LR-) were calculated for traditional ACJ tests (Active Compression/O'Brien's test, cross-body adduction, localised ACJ tenderness and Hawkins-Kennedy test), and for individual and combinations of clinical examination variables that were associated with a positive anaesthetic response (PAR) (P≤0.05) defined as 80% or more reduction in post-injection pain intensity during provocative clinical tests.ResultsTwenty two of 153 participants (14%) reported an 80% PAR. None of the traditional ACJ tests were associated with an 80% PAR (P<0.05) and combinations of traditional tests were not able to discriminate between a PAR and a negative anaesthetic response (AUC 0.507; 95% CI: 0.366, 0.647; P>0.05). Five clinical examination variables (repetitive mechanism of pain onset, no referred pain below the elbow, thickened or swollen ACJ, no symptom provocation during passive glenohumeral abduction and external rotation) were associated with an 80% PAR (P<0.05) and demonstrated an ability to accurately discriminate between an PAR and NAR (AUC 0.791; 95% CI 0.702, 0.880; P<0.001). Less than two positive clinical features resulted in 96% sensitivity (95% CI 0.78, 0.99) and a LR- 0.09 (95% CI 0.02, 0.41) and four positive clinical features resulted in 95% specificity (95% CI 0.90, 0.98) and a LR+ of 4.98 (95% CI 1.69, 13.84).ConclusionsIn this cohort of primary care patients with predominantly subacute or chronic ACJ pain of non-traumatic onset, traditional ACJ tests were of limited diagnostic value. Combinations of other history and physical examination findings were able to more accurately identify injection-confirmed ACJ pain in this cohort.
Project description:Arthroscopy following shoulder arthroplasty has primarily been described as a diagnostic tool in the setting of unexplained pain. However, this tool also can be used to potentially manage postoperative stiffness and pain following reverse shoulder arthroplasty. This Technical Note provides a stepwise approach to assessing and addressing limitations in range of motion as well as causes of postoperative impingement following reverse shoulder arthroplasty. Technique Video Video 1 Shown is a comprehensive approach to arthroscopy for stiffness and anterior shoulder pain following reverse shoulder arthroplasty.
Project description:BackgroundClinical care pathways may be useful tools to improve the quality of healthcare by facilitating the translation of evidence into practice. Our study is situated within a larger project, whereby end-users co-developed a care pathway for the management of shoulder pain. In this study, we explored end-user perceptions of the usefulness and practicality of implementing a care pathway to manage shoulder pain. We also solicited feedback for the pathway's improvement.MethodsWe conducted a qualitative study using a transcendental phenomenological approach seen through a constructivist lens. Clinicians recorded themselves interacting with the care pathway while working through a clinical case. Clinicians described their thoughts and movements aloud as they completed the activity. Second, we conducted individual semi-structured interviews to discuss the usefulness and practicality of pathway implementation. Interview transcripts were coded independently by reviewers. Transcript codes and associated quotes were grouped into themes. Themes were sequenced and linked creating a 'web' of thematic connections. Summary statements were developed to synthesize the overall essence of the phenomena.ResultsNine clinicians participated. Participants included eight chiropractors and one medical physician. We found that clinicians believed the care pathway could be useful at various levels, including education (students, interns), for early career clinicians, for engaging patients, facilitating interprofessional communication, and as a reminder of information for certain, less familiar conditions. When discussing the practicality of implementing the care pathway into practice settings, clinicians expressed that agreement with the care pathway and its recommendations may influence its acceptability among clinicians. Additionally, integrating recommendations into practice may be a skill requirement included into clinical training. Clinicians described the importance of opinion leaders in the acceptability of new evidence. Various difficulties with the replicability of interventions into clinical care was also discussed. In general, clinicians suggested the layout of the care pathway was manageable, and there was sufficient information for clinical decision-making. Clinicians also made several recommendations for improvement.ConclusionsEnd-user involvement and collaboration provides tangible instruction to improve care pathways themselves, their implementation strategies and helps to support and strengthen future research for overcoming individual, systemic and contextual barriers.
Project description:BackgroundDevelopment of valid and feasible quality indicators (QIs) is needed to track quality initiatives for osteoarthritis pain management in primary care settings.MethodsLiterature search identified published guidelines that were reviewed for QI extraction. A panel of 14 experts was assembled, including primary care physicians, rheumatologists, orthopedic surgeons, pain specialists, and outcomes research pharmacists. A screening survey excluded QIs that cannot be reliably extracted from the electronic health record or that are irrelevant for osteoarthritis in primary care settings. A validity screening survey used a 9-point Likert scale to rate the validity of each QI based on predefined criteria. During expert panel discussions, stakeholders revised QI wording, added new QIs, and voted to include or exclude each QI. A priority survey used a 9-point Likert scale to prioritize the included QIs.ResultsLiterature search identified 520 references published from January 2015 to March 2021 and 4 additional guidelines from professional/governmental websites. The study included 41 guidelines. Extraction of 741 recommendations yielded 115 candidate QIs. Feasibility screening excluded 28 QIs. Validity screening and expert panel discussion excluded 73 QIs and added 1 QI. The final set of 15 prioritized QIs focused on pain management safety, education, weight-management, psychological wellbeing, optimizing first-line medications, referral, and imaging.ConclusionThis multi-disciplinary expert panel established consensus on QIs for osteoarthritis pain management in primary care settings by combining scientific evidence with expert opinion. The resulting list of 15 prioritized, valid, and feasible QIs can be used to track quality initiatives for osteoarthritis pain management.
Project description:OBJECTIVE:To describe general practitioner's (GP's) current management of rotator cuff related shoulder pain (RCRP) in Australia and identify if this is consistent with recommended care and best available evidence. The secondary aim was to determine if GP management of RCRP changed over time. METHODS:Data about management of RCRP by Australian GPs was extracted from the Bettering the Evaluation of Care of Health program database over its final five years (April 2011-March 2016). Patient and GP characteristics and encounter management data were extracted. Results are reported using descriptive statistics with point estimates and 95% confidence intervals. A secondary analysis over a 16 year period (2000-2016) examined management data for RCRP in four year periods. RESULTS:RCRP was the most common shoulder condition managed by GPs at 5.12 per 1,000 encounters; and at an estimated 732,000 times nationally in 2015-2016. Management rate was higher among male patients (5.5 per 1000 encounters c.f. 4.8 for female patients) and was highest in the 45-64 year old age group (8.6 per 1000). RCRP was most frequently managed with medications (54.7%), steroid injection (19.5%) followed by non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) (19.1%). Imaging was ordered for 43.4% (ultrasound 41.2% and x-ray 11.6%) of all RCRP presentations (new and returning). Over half (53.0%) of new RCRP presentations were referred for ultrasound imaging. In the 16 year period 2000-16 ultrasound imaging more than doubled from 19.1% to 41.9% of management occasions. In parallel, prescribed steroid injection increased from 9.8% to 19.7%. CONCLUSION:The usual care provided by GPs for RCRP relies on the use of ultrasound and steroid injection. This is not consistent with recommended care and clinical guidelines that recommend these are delayed until after 6-12 weeks of NSAID medication, exercise and activity modification. There has been a significant increase in the rate of steroid injection and ultrasound imaging, which may be due in part to policy change.