Hydrodilatation: a comparison between diabetics and non-diabetics with adhesive capsulitis.

PURPOSE

The primary aim of this retrospective study is to compare the short and medium-term outcomes for shoulder hydrodilatation for treatment of shoulder AC between diabetic and non-diabetic patients, to evaluate if there were better outcomes amongst non-diabetic patients.

METHODS

Patients with clinical or radiological diagnosis of AC and who underwent fluoroscopic guided shoulder hydrodilatation in our local institution from January 2021 to June 2022 were included in this study. Clinical outcomes were measured with visual analog scale (VAS) for pain and passive range of motion consisting of forward flexion (FF) and external rotation (ER) at pre-hydrodilatation, one month and six months post hydrodilatation.

RESULTS

A total of 163 shoulders were included, corresponding to 156 patients consisting of 47 diabetics, 109 non-diabetics and seven bilateral shoulders (3 diabetics and 4 non-diabetics). At the time of presentation, there was no significant difference in VAS, FF or ER between diabetics and non-diabetics. From pre-hydrodilatation to 1-month post-hydrodilatation and one month to six months post-hydrodilatation, there was significant improvement in VAS, FF and ER for both groups. Comparing diabetics vs. non-diabetics, the non-diabetic group had significantly better FF (p < 0.01) at one month post hydrodilatation. At 6 months post-hydrodilatation, non-diabetic group also had significantly better outcomes including VAS score (p = 0.02), FF (p < 0.01) and ER (p = 0.02).

CONCLUSION

Hydrodilatation is an effective treatment option in the short and medium term in both diabetics and non-diabetics with adhesive capsulitis, with good relief of pain and improvement in shoulder range of motion. Diabetic patients have significantly less improvement in range of motion and pain compared to non-diabetics at six months post hydrodilatation.