Is Pancapsular Release More Effective than Selective Capsular Release for the Treatment of Adhesive Capsulitis?

BACKGROUND: We assessed the effectiveness of arthroscopic capsular release for the treatment of adhesive capsulitis. Further, we tried to ascertain the clinical benefits, if any, of pancapsular release over selective capsular release, where the two differ by performing or not performing a posterior capsular release, respectively. METHODS: Thirty-five consecutive patients with either primary or secondary adhesive capsulitis who failed conservative treatment for more than 6 months were enrolled in the study. A total of 16 patients allocated in group 1 received a pancapsular release that comprises the release of the rotator interval, anteroinferior capsular, and the posterior capsular release, whereas 19 patients in group 2 received a selective capsular release that comprises only the release of the rotator interval release and anteroinferior capsular release. The clinical outcomes, visual analogue scale (VAS) score, Constant score, and range of motion, were assessed preoperative and postoperatively. RESULTS: In both groups, the preoperative VAS score, Constant score, and ROM showed a significant improvement by the 6-month follow-up. We found that the immediate postoperative internal rotation was significantly higher in group 1 than group 2. Despite significant differences seen between the two groups at the initial postoperative period, there were no significant differences in Constant score, VAS score, and the ROM at all the subsequent follow-ups between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Arthroscopic capsular release for the treatment of adhesive capsulitis is very effective. However, pancapsular release did not show any advantage over selective capsular release in terms of overall clinical outcome.

Is Pancapsular Release More Effective than Selective Capsular Release for the Treatment of Adhesive Capsulitis?

BACKGROUND: We assessed the effectiveness of arthroscopic capsular release for the treatment of adhesive capsulitis. Further, we tried to ascertain the clinical benefits, if any, of pancapsular release over selective capsular release, where the two differ by performing or not performing a posterior capsular release, respectively. METHODS: Thirty-five consecutive patients with either primary or secondary adhesive capsulitis who failed conservative treatment for more than 6 months were enrolled in the study. A total of 16 patients allocated in group 1 received a pancapsular release that comprises the release of the rotator interval, anteroinferior capsular, and the posterior capsular release, whereas 19 patients in group 2 received a selective capsular release that comprises only the release of the rotator interval release and anteroinferior capsular release. The clinical outcomes, visual analogue scale (VAS) score, Constant score, and range of motion, were assessed preoperative and postoperatively. RESULTS: In both groups, the preoperative VAS score, Constant score, and ROM showed a significant improvement by the 6-month follow-up. We found that the immediate postoperative internal rotation was significantly higher in group 1 than group 2. Despite significant differences seen between the two groups at the initial postoperative period, there were no significant differences in Constant score, VAS score, and the ROM at all the subsequent follow-ups between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Arthroscopic capsular release for the treatment of adhesive capsulitis is very effective. However, pancapsular release did not show any advantage over selective capsular release in terms of overall clinical outcome.