Jump to: Page Content, Site Navigation, Site Search,
You are seeing this message because your web browser does not support basic web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.
D A W M van der Windt a Institute for Research in Extramural
Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Vrije Universiteit, Van der
Boechorststraat 7, 1081 BT Amsterdam, Netherlands, b Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics,
Faculty of Medicine, Vrije Universiteit, c Department of General Practice,
Nursing Home Medicine and Social Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Vrije
Universiteit, d Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Academic
Medical Centre, University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, 1105 AZ
Amsterdam
Correspondence to: Dr van der Windt
dawm.van_der_windt.emgo{at}med.vu.nl
| |
Abstract |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Objective:
To compare the effectiveness of
corticosteroid injections with physiotherapy for the treatment of
painful stiff shoulder.
Design:
Randomised trial.
Setting:
40 general practices.
Subjects:
109 patients consulting general
practitioners for shoulder pain were enrolled in the trial.
Interventions:
Patients were randomly allocated to 6 weeks of treatment either with corticosteroid injections (53) or
physiotherapy (56).
Main outcome measures:
Outcome assessments were
carried out 3, 7, 13, 26, and 52 weeks after randomisation; some of the
assessments were done by an observer blind to treatment allocation.
Primary outcome measures were the success of treatment as measured by scores on scales measuring improvement in the main complaint and pain,
and improvement in scores on a scale measuring shoulder disability.
Results:
At 7 weeks 40 (77%) out of 52 patients
treated with injections were considered to be treatment successes
compared with 26 (46%) out of 56 treated with physiotherapy
(difference between groups 31%, 95% confidence interval 14% to
48%). The difference in improvement favoured those treated with
corticosteroids in nearly all outcome measures; these differences were
statistically significant. At 26 and 52 weeks differences between the
groups were comparatively small. Adverse reactions were generally mild. However, among women receiving treatment with corticosteroids adverse
reactions were more troublesome: facial flushing was reported by 9 women and irregular menstrual bleeding by 6, 2 of whom were
postmenopausal.
Conclusions:
The beneficial effects of corticosteroid
injections administered by general practitioners for treatment of
painful stiff shoulder are superior to those of physiotherapy. The
differences between the intervention groups were mainly the result of
the comparatively faster relief of symptoms that occurred in patients treated with injections. Adverse reactions were generally mild but
doctors should be aware of the potential side effects of injections of
triamcinolone, particularly in women.
|
Key messages
|
| |
Introduction |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Shoulder pain is a common complaint in primary care; estimates of the annual incidence in general practice vary from 6.6 to 25 cases per 1000 patients.1-3 Shoulder conditions that are characterised by a painful restriction of the passive range of motion, particularly of lateral rotation and abduction, are usually referred to as painful stiff shoulder or capsular syndrome. 3 4 Despite the fact that in many cases symptoms persist 5 6 few patients are referred to a specialist. 2 5 In primary care, diagnosis is usually based only on history and physical examination.
Treatment often consists of physiotherapy or local infiltration of a
corticosteroid.3 Systematic reviews have shown that the
effectiveness of these interventions remains
questionable.7-9 Our objective was to compare the
effectiveness of corticosteroid injections with physiotherapy on the
treatment of painful stiff shoulder in a primary care setting.
| |
Subjects and methods |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Subjects
Consecutive patients who consulted one of 60 participating
general practitioners were considered for participation. The main
inclusion criteria were that patients had a painful restriction of
glenohumeral mobility, were age 18 years or older, and gave informed
consent. Patients were excluded if they had bilateral symptoms; if they
had had treatment with corticosteroid injections or physiotherapy
during the preceding six months; if they had contraindications to
treatment; if they had had surgery, dislocation, or fractures in the
shoulder area; if they had insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus,
systemic disorders of the musculoskeletal system, or neurological
disorders. Patients who met the selection criteria were referred to the
research centre by their general practitioner. The study protocol was
approved by the Ethics Committee of the University Hospital of the
Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.
that is,
passive glenohumeral mobility must be painful and limited, lateral
rotation must be relatively more restricted than abduction and medial
rotation, and there must be no clear signs (painful arc, positive
resistance tests, loss of power) that the shoulder pain was caused by
another condition. After enrollment prognostic indicators and baseline
values of outcome measures were assessed.
Randomisation
Patients were randomly allocated six weeks of either
treatment with injections or physiotherapy (figure). The use of
permuted blocks of four patients guaranteed nearly equal distribution
of patients between the interventions. The random sequence of the
blocks was generated using random number tables. Numbered, opaque,
sealed envelopes containing the treatment allocation were prepared
before the trial. After selection and baseline assessment an
administrative assistant opened the next envelope in the appropriate
stratum.
Interventions
Intra-articular injections of 40 mg triamcinolone acetonide were given by the general practitioners using the posterior route.10 Nearly all of the general practitioners had
attended training in this technique before the study, although most had had previous experience with the technique. No more than three injections were given during the six weeks.
|
Outcome assessment
The outcome of the intervention was assessed at 3 and 7 weeks. Additional follow up assessments were scheduled for 13, 26, and
52 weeks. The assessments at 13 and 52 weeks were by postal
questionnaire only but contained all primary outcome measures.
Primary outcome measures
Patients were asked to score their improvement on a six
point Likert scale. For the analysis of success rates for each
treatment patients who rated themselves as having made a complete
recovery or as having much improvement were counted as successes.
Patients were asked to score the pain associated with their main
complaint and the severity of their pain during the day and at night on
a 100 mm visual analog scale; the score of 100 indicates very severe
pain.11 Functional disability was evaluated with the
shoulder disability questionnaire, a 16 item scale consisting of common
situations that might cause shoulder pain.
12 13
Scores on
the questionnaire range from 0 to 100; 100 indicates severe disability.
Secondary outcome measures
After a standardised physical examination the
independent observer scored the overall clinical severity of the
disorder on a visual analog scale. Using the healthy shoulder as a
reference, the observer measured the restriction of mobility during
passive lateral rotation and glenohumeral abduction with a digital
inclinometer (EDI-320, Cybex, Ronkonkoma, New York).14
Blinding
The independent observer did not know to which intervention
a patient had been allocated. To optimise blinding the patient was
instructed by the administrative assistant not to reveal any
information about their treatment. In all patients the actual or
potential injection site was covered with gauze. Immediately after each
examination the observer was asked to guess to which intervention the
patient had been assigned.
Statistical analysis
The changes in scores of symptoms over time were calculated for
each patient by subtracting the results at baseline from those at
follow up. The differences in the changes in symptom scores between the
two groups were computed with 95% confidence intervals. The principal
analysis was performed on an intention to treat basis. In an
alternative analysis all patients who had not been treated according to
protocol during the intervention period were excluded; these were cases
of non-compliance with treatment and violation of protocols.
Statistical analysis of the differences in improvement between the
groups over time was done using a multivariate analysis of variance
(repeated measurements design); this analysis included the results of
outcome assessments at each follow up (at baseline, 3, 7, 13, 26, and
52 weeks).15
|
|
=0.05,
=0.20).
| |
Results |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Patient flow and follow up
A total of 109 out of 203 patients referred by their
general practitioners were enrolled in the trial. Most of the
exclusions (73/94) were made because the independent observer could not
confirm capsular syndrome as the main cause of shoulder pain. Other
probable causes of pain were diagnosed as rotator cuff tendinitis,
subacromial bursitis, and dysfunction of the cervical spine. Twenty one
patients were excluded for other reasons (figure).
Characteristics of patients
Fifty three patients were allocated to treatment with
injections and 56 patients to physiotherapy. Despite randomisation there were some differences between the intervention groups in regard
to sex, the onset of pain, involvement of the dominant side,
concomitant neck pain, previous episodes of shoulder pain, baseline
severity of the main complaint, and rating of the pain at night (table
1).
Interventions
Twenty five patients (48%) allocated to receive injections
had three injections. The mean number of injections was 2.2 (SD 0.8).
All patients allocated to physiotherapy received passive joint
mobilisation and exercise treatment. Additional electrotherapy was used
in 41 patients and ice or hot packs in 33.
Outcome
The mean improvement in outcome measures at each point of
follow up is shown in table 3. Using the intention to treat
analysis we found a statistically significant difference between the
groups which favoured treatment with corticosteroid injections. In a
multivariate analysis differences in prognosis at baseline had
little influence on the outcome of the study (data not
shown).
|
Adverse reactions
Mild adverse reactions, mainly increased pain after
treatment, were reported by more than 50% (62/108) of all patients
(table 4). Few adverse reactions occurred after physiotherapy. Adverse
reactions to corticosteroids were particularly frequent in women;
facial flushing was reported by nine and irregular menstrual bleeding
by six women, two of whom were postmenopausal.
|
| |
Discussion |
|---|
|
|
|---|
This paper describes a randomised trial in a primary care setting that compared two common interventions, corticosteroid injections and physiotherapy, for treatment of painful stiff shoulder. The analysis done on an intention to treat basis and an alternative analysis that excluded patients whose treatment deviated from the protocol showed that corticosteroid injections were superior to physiotherapy in terms of the success of treatment; improvement in degree of lateral rotation; improvement in clinical severity; and in relief of the main complaint, pain, and disability. We decided against performing an analysis of the long term results by treatment actually received as this would have produced a biased outcome. The reasons for concluding or modifying treatment were, after all, strongly related to the results of the allocated intervention.16
Four earlier trials compared the effectiveness of corticosteroid injections with physiotherapy for shoulder pain.17-20 Three trials with relatively small study populations (fewer than 25 patients per intervention group) were unable to show significant differences between the treatments. These studies used a single injection 17 19 or a different type of corticosteroid. 18 19 Only one trial was conducted in a primary care setting and this trial reported significant differences between the treatments.20 In that study treatment was considered successful after five weeks for 35 (75%) out of 47 patients treated with injections and for seven (20%) out of 35 treated with physiotherapy. Corticosteroid treatment consisted of multiple injections. Passive mobilisation was not permitted for patients allocated to physiotherapy, a practice that is not compatible with everyday practice. To enhance the external validity of our trial and to facilitate implementation of the findings in clinical practice we tried to ensure that the interventions used resembled those carried out in primary care.
In this study injections were administered by general practitioners. Inaccurate placement of intra-articular injections is reported to occur often, even among trained rheumatologists. 21 22 Recent studies report a better response to treatment after accurately placed injections. 22 23 Despite the inevitable uncertainty about placement in our study, many of our patients had a good response to the corticosteroid injections administered by their general practitioner.
Adverse reactions were generally mild but were sometimes troublesome, particularly in women receiving corticosteroid injections. Surprisingly, published reports of irregular menstrual bleeding after corticosteroid injection are scarce. One letter that we identified described this side effect as a frequent occurrence, especially in women not taking oral contraceptives.24 These observations should be investigated further. Doctors and patients should be aware of the possibility of irregular menstrual bleeding after corticosteroid injection so that women are not needlessly made anxious or subjected to diagnostic procedures; however, women and their doctors should be aware that postmenopausal bleeding may be a sign of cancer of the endometrium or cervix.
This randomised trial showed that corticosteroid injections
administered by general practitioners for treatment of painful stiff
shoulder are superior to physiotherapy. Differences between the
intervention groups were mainly due to the comparatively quick relief
of symptoms occurring in patients treated with injections. Injections
may be preferable to physiotherapy in the initial treatment of
painful stiff shoulder.
| |
Acknowledgments |
|---|
We thank Marianne Ellermeijer, Monique Heemskerk, and Michel van Aarst for their work during data collection; and all participating general practitioners and physiotherapists.
Contributors: DAWMW contributed to the design of the study, planned and coordinated data collection, analysed the data, and wrote the paper. All other authors contributed important suggestions to the writing of the paper. BWK contributed to designing the study and supervised the planning, coordination, and collection of data. WD provided statistical advice, and assisted with the analysis and interpretation of the data. AJPB contributed to designing the study, provided advice on planning and coordination, and participated in data collection. BAJ had the original idea for the study, contributed to designing the study, and participated in planning and organising the study. LMB contributed to designing the study, discussed core ideas, and chaired the trial supervising committee.
Funding: Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research and the Fund for Investigative Medicine of the Health Insurance Council.
Conflict of interest: None.
| |
References |
|---|
|
|
|---|
(Accepted 14 August 1998)
Read all Rapid Responses