Atoun Ehud, Funk Lennard, Copland Stephen A, Even Tirtza, Levy Ofer, Rath Ehud
Royal Berkshire Hospital, Reading, Berkshire, United Kingdom.
Acta Orthop Belg. 2013 Jun;79(3):255-9.
The use of shoulder manipulation in the treatment of frozen shoulder remains controversial. Humeral fractures and neurological damage are the risks associated with the procedure. A concern of causing a rotator cuff tear exists but the incidence of iatrogenic rotator cuff tears is not reported. The purpose of this study was to assess the effect of shoulder manipulation for frozen shoulder on the integrity of the rotator cuff. In a prospective study, 32 consecutive patients (33 shoulders) with the diagnosis of frozen shoulder underwent manipulation of the shoulder under anaesthesia (MUA), 18 female and 15 males with mean age at manipulation of 503 years (range: 42-63). The average duration of symptoms before treatment was 6.2 months (range: 2-18 months). The patients were examined prior to the manipulation and at follow-up for combined shoulder range of motion, external and internal rotation and strength. All patients had an ultrasound assessment of the rotator cuff before and at 3 weeks after manipulation of the shoulder. Mean time between manipulation and last follow-up was 133 weeks. None of the patients had ultrasound findings of a rotator cuff tear, prior to the manipulation. In all patients the rotator cuff remained undamaged on ultrasound examination at 3 weeks after the procedure. The mean improvement in motion was 81.2 degrees (from 933 degrees pre-op to 174.5 degrees at last follow-up) for forward flexion; 102.6 degrees (from 68.8 degrees pre-op to 171.4 degrees at last follow-up) for abduction, 49.4 degrees (from 8.8 degrees pre-op to 58.2 degrees at last follow-up) for external rotation and 3.5 levels of internal rotation (range: 2 to 5 levels). These gains in motion were all highly significant (p < 0.0001). No fractures, dislocations or nerve palsies were observed. In this study, manipulation of the shoulder has not been associated with rotator cuff tears. If done properly the procedure appeared to be safe and to result in a marked improvement of range of movement and function.
在肩周炎治疗中使用肩部手法治疗仍存在争议。肱骨骨折和神经损伤是该手术相关的风险。存在导致肩袖撕裂的担忧,但医源性肩袖撕裂的发生率未见报道。本研究的目的是评估肩周炎肩部手法治疗对肩袖完整性的影响。在一项前瞻性研究中,32例连续诊断为肩周炎的患者(33个肩部)接受了麻醉下肩部手法治疗(MUA),其中女性18例,男性15例,手法治疗时的平均年龄为50.3岁(范围:42 - 63岁)。治疗前症状的平均持续时间为6.2个月(范围:2 - 18个月)。在手法治疗前及随访时对患者进行肩部综合活动范围、外旋和内旋以及力量的检查。所有患者在肩部手法治疗前及治疗后3周进行肩袖的超声评估。手法治疗至最后随访的平均时间为13.3周。在手法治疗前,没有患者有肩袖撕裂的超声表现。在所有患者中,术后3周超声检查肩袖均未受损。前屈活动度的平均改善为81.2度(从术前93.3度至最后随访时174.5度);外展为102.6度(从术前68.8度至最后随访时171.4度),外旋为49.4度(从术前8.8度至最后随访时58.2度),内旋为3.5级(范围:2至5级)。这些活动度的改善均具有高度显著性(p < 0.0001)。未观察到骨折、脱位或神经麻痹。在本研究中,肩部手法治疗与肩袖撕裂无关。如果操作得当,该手术似乎是安全的,并能显著改善活动范围和功能。