Objectives
To assess the benefit offered by capsular hydrodilatation in addition to intra-articular steroid injections in cases of adhesive capsulitis, assess outcomes in diabetic patients with capsular hydrodilatation as compared to non-diabetics and correlate duration of symptoms with outcome based on the type of intervention given.
Materials and methods
This prospective double-blinded randomized control trial included patients presenting with clinical features of adhesive capsulitis with no evidence of rotator cuff pathology and randomized them into two groups—intra-articular steroid with hydrodilatation (distension group) and only intra-articular steroid (non-distension group) with intervention being performed as per the group allotted. Primary outcome measure was Shoulder Pain and Disability Index (SPADI) scores which were taken pre-intervention, at 1.5, 3 and 6 months post-intervention, which were assessed by generalized linear model statistics and Pearson correlation.
Results
Although there was statistically significant drop in SPADI in both groups over time [F(1.9, 137.6) = 112.2; p < 0.001], mean difference in SPADI between the 2 groups was not statistically significant (1.53; CI:-3.7 to 6.8; p = 0.56). There was no significant difference between both groups among diabetics [F(1,38) = 0.04; p = 0.95] and no significant difference between diabetic and non-diabetic patients who received hydrodilatation [F(1.8, 60) = 2.26; p = 0.12]. There was no significant correlation between the reduction in SPADI scores and duration of symptoms in any subset of the study population.
Conclusion
Shoulder joint hydrodilatation offered no additional benefit compared to intra-articular steroid injections for shoulder adhesive capsulitis. Outcome for diabetics and non-diabetics were similar and there was no correlation between duration of symptoms and outcome.
