Posterior Arthroscopic Capsular Release in Frozen Shoulder

Purpose The aims of our study were to assess the overall effectiveness of arthroscopic capsular release and to determine if the addition of a posterior capsular release had any benefit, particularly in relation to internal rotation. Methods Forty-eight consecutive patients with primary or secondary frozen shoulder in whom conservative physiotherapy had failed were included in the study. Arthroscopic capsular release was performed in all cases. Group 1 had an anterior and inferior release only; group 2 included a posterior release. All data were collected prospectively. Constant–Murley functional scores were used to assess outcome. Overall satisfaction and patient reported outcomes were also measured. Results The mean patient age was 51 years (range, 28 to 65 years), with no difference between the 2 groups. There were 27 patients in group 1 and 21 patients in group 2. The mean follow-up was 5 months. Etiology of the frozen shoulder was primary (22), diabetic (7), post-traumatic (7), and postoperative (11). Overall across both groups, there was a highly significant improvement in Constant score (P < .001) postoperatively. A similar pattern was noted in the range of motion (P < .001). The mean satisfaction score was 7 of 10 postoperatively. The patients reported overall outcome as much better (24), better (15), the same (1), and worse (4). There was no significant difference in Constant score between the 2 groups, and no significant difference in the improvement of the range of motion, in particular internal rotation. Conclusions We have shown an overall rapid significant improvement following arthroscopic capsular release for primary and secondary frozen shoulder. There was no significant difference in the overall outcome with the addition of a posterior release. Level of Evidence Level III, therapeutic, retrospective comparative study. The aims of our study were to assess the overall effectiveness of arthroscopic capsular release and to determine if the addition of a posterior capsular release had any benefit, particularly in relation to internal rotation. Forty-eight consecutive patients with primary or secondary frozen shoulder in whom conservative physiotherapy had failed were included in the study. Arthroscopic capsular release was performed in all cases. Group 1 had an anterior and inferior release only; group 2 included a posterior release. All data were collected prospectively. Constant–Murley functional scores were used to assess outcome. Overall satisfaction and patient reported outcomes were also measured. The mean patient age was 51 years (range, 28 to 65 years), with no difference between the 2 groups. There were 27 patients in group 1 and 21 patients in group 2. The mean follow-up was 5 months. Etiology of the frozen shoulder was primary (22), diabetic (7), post-traumatic (7), and postoperative (11). Overall across both groups, there was a highly significant improvement in Constant score (P < .001) postoperatively. A similar pattern was noted in the range of motion (P < .001). The mean satisfaction score was 7 of 10 postoperatively. The patients reported overall outcome as much better (24), better (15), the same (1), and worse (4). There was no significant difference in Constant score between the 2 groups, and no significant difference in the improvement of the range of motion, in particular internal rotation. We have shown an overall rapid significant improvement following arthroscopic capsular release for primary and secondary frozen shoulder. There was no significant difference in the overall outcome with the addition of a posterior release.