Adhesive Capsulitis in Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation

Adhesive Capsulitis in Physical Medicine and
Rehabilitation
Author: Andr Roy, MD, FRCPC; Chief Editor: Rene Cailliet, MD more...

Background
Adhesive capsulitis, most commonly referred to as frozen shoulder (FS), is an idiopathic
disease with 2 principal characteristics: pain and contracture.
Pain
Shoulder pain associated with FS is progressive and initially felt mostly at night or when the
shoulder is moved close to the end of its range of motion (ROM). It can be caused by certain
combined movements of the shoulder, such as abduction and external rotation (eg, grooming
one's hair, reaching for a seatbelt overhead) or extension and internal rotation (eg, reaching for
a back pocket or bra strap). The pain usually progresses to constant pain at rest that is
aggravated by all movements of the shoulder and that may be worsened by repetitive
movements of the involved upper extremity, psychological stress, exposure to cold or vibration,
and changes in the weather. In approximately 90% of patients with FS, this pain usually lasts 1-
2 years before subsiding.
[1]

Contracture
The second principal characteristic of FS is progressive loss of passive ROM (PROM) and
active ROM (AROM) of the glenohumeral joint in a capsular pattern. That is, the movements are
usually restricted to a characteristic pattern, with proportionally greater passive loss of external
rotation than of abduction and internal rotation.
In 1934, Codman stated, "This entity [FS] is difficult to define, difficult to treat, and difficult to
explain from the point of view of pathology." Codman's statement continues to hold true today.
In 1992, the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Society agreed on the following definition
of FS by consensus: a condition of uncertain etiology that is characterized by clinically
significant restriction of active and passive shoulder motion that occurs in the absence of a
known intrinsic shoulder disorder.
Pathophysiology
Neurologic, surgical, and histologic findings
The pathophysiology of FS continues to be largely mysterious. However, certain consistent
neurologic, surgical, and histologic findings in soft-tissue specimens of patients with FS have
been identified and appear to be specific to the pathology of FS.
Evaluation of anatomic, histologic, and surgical specimens from subjects affected by idiopathic
FS demonstrates that the glenohumeral joint synovial capsule is often involved in this disease
process. However, most of the notable loss of ROM is caused by disease in structures outside
the synovial capsule glenohumeral joint, such as the coracohumeral ligament, soft tissues in the
rotator interval, the subscapularis muscle, and the subacromial bursae.
Most authors do not describe clinically significant capsular adhesions as a predominant finding
in the chronic phase of this condition. Instead, pathologic data confirm an active process of
hyperplastic fibroplasia and excessive type III collagen secretion that lead to soft-tissue
contractures of the aforementioned structures (ie, the coracohumeral ligament, soft tissues of
rotator interval, the subscapularis muscle, the subacromial bursae). However, these findings
were observed in surgical patients who had severe and late-phase disease and cannot be
applied to early phases of the disease.
From the chromosomal, cytochemical, and histologic points of view, the soft-tissue contractures
are identical to those seen in a Dupuytren contracture of the hand. These contractures result in
the classic progressive loss of ROM of the glenohumeral joint, which affects external rotation
and abduction, then flexion, adduction, and extension (in descending order of severity). Despite
these histopathologic similarities, the favorable and regressive outcome of adhesive capsulitis
differs from the unfavorable and progressive outcome of Dupuytren disease.
Genetic abnormalities
Specific genetic abnormalities have been identified with this condition. In particular, frequent
trisomy 7 and trisomy 8 in the fibroblasts were confirmed in cultures of tissue samples obtained
from glenohumeral joint capsules resected at the time of surgery for FS. These pathologic
findings were observed in studies of tissue specimens that usually were obtained from subjects
with chronic FS that did not respond to typical conservative modalities. Little is known about the
tissue characteristics of the acute phase of this condition.
Pathophysiologic model and complex regional pain syndrome type 1 versus FS
To date, no robust pathophysiologic model explains the relationship between the principal
characteristics of this disease (ie, pain, contracture). Neurologic factors seem to be the principle
mediators of the pain, whereas a process resembling fibromatosis causes the contracture, as
described in the above text. Why the pain precedes the contracture and why it resolves before
the contracture does in most subjects remain unclear. The fact that the pain of FS often
precedes stiffening of the joint tends to support the notion that the initial pain probably does not
stem from altered mechanics of the glenohumeral joint.
Clinical research suggests the presence of autonomic sympathetic dysfunction in the upper
extremities in many patients with isolated idiopathic FS. This dysfunction is not detectable
during usual clinical examination. However, various examination techniques, such as 3-phase
nuclear technetium-99m (
99m
Tc) bone thermography, laser Doppler flowmetry, and
transcutaneous measurement of oxygen tension, have been used to detect the anomalies found
in more than 80% of subjects examined in various studies. The subjects did not have any of the
dramatic manifestations of full-blown complex regional pain syndrome type 1 (CRPS1). Studies
have shown similar histologic findings in joints affected by CRPS1 and FS.
A broad look at the similarities between FS and CRPS1 with regard to risk factors and the usual
clinical course of the disease shows many parallels between the conditions. For example, risk
factors common to both conditions are trauma, diabetes, thyroid disease, and dyslipidemia.
The initial, painful phase, without any inflammatory, exudative cellular joint process, lasts for
several weeks or months. This phase usually progresses to include the gradual development of
connective-tissue contracture. In most patients, the pain and contracture gradually resolve,
although in a few individuals, 1 or both persist.
Neurologic mechanisms contributing to the generation and perpetuation of pain in CRPS1
probably also play a role in the pain and disability associated with FS. These mechanisms
include peripheral alpha-adrenoreceptor hyperresponsiveness, dorsal-root reflexes (DRRs),
central nervous system (CNS) factors, myxoid globular degeneration, and sympathetic
autonomic hyperactivity.
Sympathetic dysfunction in patients with FS is believed to mediate hyperresponsiveness of
peripheral alpha adrenoreceptors in the nerve endings of somatosensory neurons, including
various joint nociceptive and proprioceptive fibers of the shoulder. This hyperresponsiveness
probably contributes to the pain (allodynia) produced with gentle, passive mobilization of the
shoulders observed in patients with FS.
DRRs, involved in previously unknown efferent neuronal activity in the somatic sensory nerves,
are said to contribute to the pain of certain neurologically mediated painful conditions. These
conditions are related to the release of substance P and of other local-tissue pain-and-
inflammation causing neurotransmitters into the regional tissues.
CNS factors, such as sensitization of wide-dynamic-range interneurons (WDRIs) in the dorsal
horn of the spinal cord, may contribute to the allodynia affecting patients with FS.
In healthy subjects, myxoid globular degeneration of the terminal sensory nerve fibers of the
glenohumeral joint capsule was particularly important in the fifth and sixth decades of life (when
as many as 40% of terminal sensory nerve fibers of the shoulder are in a degenerated state).
The importance of this phenomenon in the genesis and perpetuation of FS remains unknown.
However, of note, FS is most common in the fifth and sixth decades of life, when such
degenerative changes in the terminal nerve fibers of the shoulder joint become prevalent.
Destruction of terminal sensory nerve fibers as a result of myxoid globular degeneration may
play a role in the apparent dysfunction of the nervous system in FS.
Wohlgethan implicated sympathetic autonomic hyperactivity in the genesis and perpetuation of
painful FS in patients with hyperthyroidism.
[2]
Several authors reported an apparently dramatic
improvement in the pain and disability of FS in patients whose hyperthyroidism was adequately
treated.
Despite the aforementioned similarities, FS should not be considered CRPS1. First, idiopathic
FS does not fit the diagnostic criteria for CRPS1 that the International Association for the Study
of Pain (IASP) proposed in 1996. Second, the diagnosis of CRPS1 is relatively nonspecific
because of the heterogeneous pathologies it encompasses. Further expansion of the diagnosis
of CRPS1 to include FS dilutes its meaning and falsely implies that any painful condition
associated with anomalies of the autonomic nervous system must be categorized as CRPS. A
preferable option is to include neuromodulatory concepts from CRPS research in a
pathoetiologic model in which FS is a distinct clinical entity.
Inclusion of the aforementioned neuromodulatory concepts of joint pain into the authors'
proposed pathoetiologic model of FS leaves room for the exploration of therapeutic modalities,
such as bupivacaine suprascapular nerve blocks, stellate-ganglion blocks, and intra-articular
morphine injections, to treat the pain associated with FS.
Ischemia of the soft tissues may link the apparently distinct and separate pathophysiologic
entities observed in FS, namely, neurologically mediated pain and fibromatosis-like contracture.
The histologic and cytochemical profiles of connective-tissue specimens in patients with FS are
identical to those of patients with Dupuytren contracture, a condition whose pathoetiology has
been linked to microangiopathy and local tissue ischemia. Pre-existing microvascular disease,
often related to hypertriglyceridemia or diabetes in patients with FS, may predispose them to
ischemia of the connective tissues of the glenohumeral joint capsule, which itself is subject to
the ischemic stresses because of mechanical stress and tension. Furthermore,
hypersensitization of peripheral vasomotor alpha-adrenergic receptors and a pain-induced
increase in local vasomotor tone also can contribute to ischemia of the local connective tissues
of the shoulder.
Resultant regional ischemia of the soft tissues of the shoulder can lead to the local release of
free radicals and a platelet-derived growth factor that can initiate a cycle of fibroblastic
hyperplasia and excessive deposition of collagen and glycosaminoglycans. The whole process
ends with the active development of a tough, thick, fibrous contracture of the connective tissues
of the shoulder. In his 1990 review on FS, Hazelman noted that microvascular disease might be
the common thread linking FS to diabetes and dyslipidemias.
[3]

In cases of FS occurring after fractures of the humeral head or following rotator cuff tears, the
capsular, ligamentous, and tendinous circulation of the local soft tissue may be compromised.
This effect may contribute to the aforementioned ischemic mechanisms leading to FS.
Care should be taken to avoid overusing the term FS secondary to shoulder tendonitis. In 1934,
Codman described signs of inflammation of the tendon of the long portion of the biceps in
cadaveric specimens of FS, giving rise to the still-popular theory that FS is a consequence of an
inflammatory process of the tendons of the shoulder. Data from subsequent studies have largely
refuted this as a pathophysiologic mechanism for FS, but the idea remains difficult to erase from
the minds of clinical practitioners. Inflammation seen in the tendon of the long portion of the
biceps in Codman's cadaveric specimens was most likely a late sequela of FS itself, which
causes narrowing of the bicipital groove secondary to a retraction of the overlying soft tissues.
Epidemiology
Frequency
United States
Shoulder pain is the third most common cause of musculoskeletal disability after low back pain
(LBP) and neck pain. The prevalence of FS in the general population is reported to be 2%, with
an 11% prevalence in unselected individuals with diabetes. For patients with type I diabetes, the
risk of developing FS in their lifetime is approximately 40%.
FS may affect both shoulders, either simultaneously or sequentially, in as many as 16% of
patients. The frequency of bilateral FS is higher in subjects with diabetes than in those without
diabetes. In 14% of patients, while FS still is active in the initial shoulder, the contralateral
shoulder also becomes affected. Contralateral FS usually occurs within 5 years of disease
onset. A relapse of FS in the same shoulder is unusual.
FS most frequently occurs in subjects with hyperthyroidism and hypertriglyceridemia. Although
various authors report that heart disease, tuberculosis, and many other medical conditions are
associated with FS, these associations are largely anecdotal and are not supported in proper,
case-controlled studies.
Most survivors of cerebral vascular accidents (CVAs) that cause hemiplegia develop painful
stiffening of their shoulders. However, the painful hemiplegic shoulder has distinct
characteristics, which are not discussed in this article.
FS will undoubtedly become increasingly common as the baby-boom generation ages, because
this condition most frequently occurs in the fifth and sixth decades of life. Patients who present
with an idiopathic FS when they are younger than 40 years should definitely be examined to rule
out occult diabetes, hyperthyroidism, hypertriglyceridemia, or concomitant neurologic or
systemic rheumatologic disorder affecting the upper extremity.
International
The data reported above are derived from the international literature. No regional variations are
recognized in the frequency of occurrence of FS.
Mortality/Morbidity
Shoulder pain is the third most common cause of musculoskeletal disability in the workplace
after LBP and neck pain. For more information, see the Musculoskeletal Disorders and
Workplace Factors, published by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, on
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Web site.
The degree of pain and disability caused by idiopathic FS is highly variable and depends on the
stage of the disease. Retrospective data tend to show that patients cope well with a painless
glenohumeral contracture. Therefore, most disabilities occur during the initial, painful phase and
the subsequent, freezing phase.
See also Patient Education.
Race
No racial variation is described in the literature.
Sex
FS affects women more frequently than men, with a female-to-male ratio of about 1.4:1.
Menopause is often reported as a cause of FS in women, although Lundberg seems to have
ruled out this hypothesis by demonstrating that age is the principal predictor.
[4]
He specifically
demonstrated that women with early menopause did not have FS any earlier than their
counterparts who undergo late menopause.
Age
To date, the best data available seem to show that FS affects women somewhat earlier
than it does men. The mean ages of onset are 52 years for women and 55 years for men,
with a standard deviation of 7. History
Clinical phases
The following 3 clinical phases typically characterize FS:
Phase 1 - The painful phase; the patient describes an insidious onset of predominantly
nocturnal pain, usually without a precipitating factor. The pain is not related to activity,
although the farthest ROM can increase the pain. As the disease progresses, patients
have pain at rest. In this phase, which lasts 2-9 months, ROM is not restricted, and the
diagnosis may remain unclear.
[5, 6]

Phase 2 - The frozen, or adhesive, phase; the pain from phase 1 can persist, although it
may decrease. Progressive limitation in ROM occurs in a capsular pattern (that is, in all
directions). Normal daily activities can be severely affected. Hallmarks of this phase are
an inability to move at great amplitude and an inability to move on the affected side.
Diagnosis is easier in this phase than in phase 1. Although phase 2 is reported to last 3-
9 months, it can persist longer than this.
[7]

Phase 3 - The thawing, or regressive, phase; pain progressively decreases, and
limitations in ROM progressively increase over 12-24 months. Although approximately
40% of patients have slight, persistent limitations in ROM, only 10% have clinically
significant long-term functional limitations.
[8]

Trauma
FS can result from clinically significant trauma to the shoulder, cervical radiculopathy, pathology
of the brachial plexus, any neurologic insult affecting shoulder function or innervation, or an
episode of rotator cuff tendonitis. However, FS usually occurs without any clear precipitating
factors. Most patients with FS have no notable history of trauma. Hence, the clinician must
remember that this is an idiopathic disease in which the loss of ROM results from a dystrophic
pain syndrome combined with contracture caused by an active process resembling fibromatosis.
Although patients often try to recall minor trauma associated with the onset of their shoulder
symptoms, careful history taking on the part of the examiner often reveals subtle symptoms,
such as night pain or pain and stiffness at the end of ROM, that predated the episode of minor
trauma. In most cases, the minor trauma simply makes the patient conscious of the insidious,
underlying disease process.
Pain
Patients with FS typically describe a progressive onset of pain over several weeks. Patients
usually report that the initial pain was night pain or pain associated with involved movements of
the shoulder (eg, combing one's hair, reaching overhead for a seat belt, reaching for one's back
pocket). Combing one's hair and reaching overhead for a seat belt require a combined motion of
abduction and external rotation, and reaching for one's back pocket requires extension and
internal rotation of the shoulder. These combined movements tend to stretch the anterior and
posterior glenohumeral capsule, respectively.
The pain of FS then progresses to a constant pain at rest that is often aggravated by any
movement of the shoulder, psychological stress, exposure to cold or vibration, and changes in
the weather. Patients report worsening of the pain after they engage in activities that require
repetitive movements of the affected shoulder.
In about 90% of patients, the pain associated with this condition usually lasts 1-2 years before
subsiding. The pain is a prominent feature of the initial phase and of the second (frozen) phase
of the disease. During the thawing phase, the pain usually is less intense than it is in the other
phases. It is usually felt only if the patient is moving at the end of his/her ROM (particularly in
positions of subacromial impingement), if the patient performs repetitive movements of the
shoulder, or if the patient is exposed to other important ergonomic stresses of the shoulder.
Physical
In the early phase of FS, the only physical finding may be pain produced at the end of ROMs in
the glenohumeral joint, particularly those that stretch the capsule, such as combined abduction
and external rotation (such as combing one's hair) or combined extension and internal rotation
(such as reaching to scratch one's midback). During the initial, painful stage, FS may not be
distinguishable from an inflammatory synovitis affecting the glenohumeral joint or from a painful
episode of rotator cuff tendinopathy. In the second, or freezing, stage of the disease,
contracture of the glenohumeral joint becomes readily apparent. This stage may occur only
several months after the onset of symptoms.
As the condition progresses, the clinician should observe progressive limitation of the PROM,
characterized by a painful capsular end-feel. The motion affected first and most severely is
external rotation, followed by abduction, internal rotation, and flexion. Extension and horizontal
adduction tend to be least affected. PROM of the glenohumeral joint progressively worsens over
several months and may result in a loss of up to 80% of the normal movement of glenohumeral
joint.
In severe cases, evaluation of AROM may show an inverted scapulothoracic motion (that is,
motion of the scapula on the thorax). For example, the scapulothoracic joint initiates abduction
(followed by the glenohumeral joint) to compensate for the loss of ROM in the glenohumeral
joint.
On occasion, a sizable calcification of the rotator cuff in its resorptive phase may cause an
acute tendinobursitis that may mimic FS. This type of acute tendinobursitis may be extremely
painful, and it may result in an antalgic phenomenon, causing a loss of PROM. The acute and
rapidly progressive onset of tendinobursitis over a few hours or days differentiates it from the
relatively progressive onset of FS, which occurs over weeks. Another mimic of FS is severe
synovitis or arthritis of the glenohumeral joint caused by an underlying primary rheumatologic
inflammatory, degenerative, septic, or metastatic process.
Most patients with a painful FS have pain during resisted contraction of all of the rotator cuff
tendons, during specific maneuvers designed to detect subacromial impingement (for example,
the Hawkins, Neer, and Yocum maneuvers), and during maneuvers designed to detect
tendinopathy of the long portion of the biceps (such as the Yergason and Speeds maneuvers).
This phenomenon results because the pain generators in FS may include all of the extra-
articular and intra-articular soft tissues of the glenohumeral joint and humeroscapular-motion
interface (eg, subacromial bursa, rotator cuff, biceps tendon). (See Mechanics of Glenohumeral
Arthritis, on the University of Washington School of Medicine Web site.)
In the presence of a clinically significant loss of PROM of the glenohumeral joint in the
previously described capsular pattern, the clinician should probably be content with retaining the
diagnosis of FS while de-emphasizing the aforementioned maneuvers designed to diagnose
other specific, painful soft-tissue disorders affecting the shoulder.
The difficulty of accurately and reliably establishing a specific diagnosis for a painful shoulder
condition based on a physician's clinical assessment should not be underestimated, as
demonstrated by data from the Netherlands. The rate of interobserver agreement with regard to
a diagnostic classification of shoulder disorders based on history taking and physical
examination was surprisingly poor. Only moderate agreement was observed overall. The
percentage of agreement was 60%, with a Cohen coefficient of 0.45 and a 95% confidence
interval (CI) of 0.37-0.54. Agreement was higher than this for patients classified as having a
capsular syndrome, with a Cohen coefficient of 0.63 and a 95% CI of 0.50-0.76. Disagreement
was most pronounced concerning patients with severe pain, chronic complaints, and bilateral
involvement.
Despite the aforementioned limitations, the diagnosis of idiopathic FS syndrome is clinically
based on the patient's history and physical findings because of the poor sensitivity and/or
specificity of most diagnostic tests used to confirm this condition. However, the literature offers
no consensus regarding the clinical diagnostic criteria for FS. The minimal loss of ROM needed
to diagnose FS varies among authors. Some suggest a loss of 2 ROMs, whereas others
stipulate that the limited range must be present in all motions.
[4, 5, 8, 9]

Concomitant conditions
Careful neurologic examination should be conducted in all patients presenting with signs and
symptoms associated with FS. Patients who have a history of smoking should undergo chest
radiography with apical views to rule out a Pancoast tumor irritating the brachial plexus, which
can cause FS. All patients should receive a thorough neurologic examination of the upper
extremities and neck to rule out cervical radiculopathy and brachial plexopathy. Care also
should be taken to look for signs of Parkinson disease, because the prevalence of shoulder pain
in patients with this treatable condition is 4-5 times that of the healthy population. Furthermore,
shoulder pain often is an early manifestation of Parkinson disease, and it sometimes precedes
the tremor by many years.
[10]

Proper and complete musculoskeletal and integumentary examination should be performed to
rule out concomitant systemic rheumatologic, inflammatory, metastatic, or infectious disorders.
Clinicians should also take the time to properly examine the thyroid gland to rule out
concomitant hyperthyroidism. Physicians should remain alert to signs of unsuspected diabetes,
which may be present in approximately 25% of subjects presenting with FS.
Causes
Early authors pointed to chronic inflammation as the cause of the fibrosis in FS, but objective
findings have not supported this suggestion. The absence of crystals, synovial effusion,
systemic symptoms, prodromal illness, and serologic markers of autoimmune or reactive
arthropathic disease has limited possible theories of an inflammatory process secondary to
crystalline, inflammatory, viral, or autoimmune disease.
FS remains a largely idiopathic disorder. The conditions most commonly associated with
idiopathic FS are diabetes, hyperthyroidism, hypertriglyceridemia, CVA with upper-extremity
paresis, brachial plexus injury, cervical spinal cord injury, and Parkinson disease. The
performance of repetitive movements of the upper extremities also is associated with FS.
Anecdotal reports of patients developing FS after a coronary event or following open heart
surgery are frequently found in the literature. However, the authors know of no prospective
case-control study that has been conducted to confirm this supposition.
Patients who have active glenohumeral synovitis in relation to a systemic inflammatory
rheumatologic disorder may develop FS as a complication of this condition. Patients who have
undergone surgery to the shoulder area, with postoperative immobilization or with clinically
significant pain that causes them to immobilize their shoulder, also are predisposed to develop
FS.
Differential Diagnoses
Biceps Rupture
Biceps Tendinopathy
Brachial Neuritis
Cervical Disc Disease
Cervical Myofascial Pain
Cervical Spondylosis
Cervical Sprain and Strain
Complex Regional Pain Syndromes
Heterotopic Ossification
Myelomeningocele
Neoplastic Brachial Plexopathy
Parkinson Disease
Psoriatic Arthritis
Rheumatoid Arthritis
Rotator Cuff Disease
Shoulder and Hemiplegia
Thoracic Outlet Syndrome
Traumatic Brachial Plexopathy
Laboratory Studies
Whether laboratory investigations should be mandatory in patients presenting with the
classic syndrome of idiopathic FS but without symptoms of concomitant systemic
rheumatologic, inflammatory, peptic, or metastatic disorders remains unclear.
The scientific literature shows an elevated incidence of diabetes, hyperthyroidism, and
hypertriglyceridemia in patients with FS.
o Lequesne and colleagues found that 28% of 60 new patients who presented with
idiopathic FS had unsuspected diabetes.
[11]

o This association should prompt possible testing of thyroid-stimulating hormone
(TSH), serum triglyceride, and fasting blood sugar levels in most patients,
particularly those presenting with bilateral disease and patients presenting with
FS who are younger than 45 years.
Imaging Studies
Radiologic studies
o In general, idiopathic FS is considered a clinical diagnosis that does not require
confirmation with radiologic imaging.
o Current radiologic studies do not seem to confer any useful information,
prognostic or otherwise, that changes the way the patient is treated.
o For the moment, the principal utility of these tests is in ruling out concomitant
conditions that may influence the treatment of an individual patient.
Plain radiography
o All patients presenting with FS should undergo plain radiography of the shoulder,
with the acquisition of soft-tissue views of the rotator cuff to rule out a septic or
metastatic process.
o A plain radiograph may also show evidence of a large calcification of the rotator
cuff in the painful resorptive phase, an avascular necrosis of the humeral head
(that is, Milwaukee shoulder), or a Charcot joint.
Gallium nuclear scanning - Patients who are immunocompromised, as well as those who
abuse intravenous (IV) drugs, should undergo gallium nuclear scanning to rule out a
septic joint.
Arthrography of the glenohumeral joint
o Binder and colleagues examined the arthrographic and scintigraphic features of
36 patients who presented with clinically diagnosed FS.
[12]
They reported no
association between uptake on bone scans and arthrographic features
(glenohumeral contrast enhancement), and neither finding was useful in
predicting the rate or extent of recovery. FS of traumatic onset behaved no
differently than did spontaneously arising FS. The authors concluded that
arthrography or
99m
Tc diphosphonate scanning performed at presentation did not
contribute to the assessment of a painful, stiff shoulder.
o The present authors share the opinions of Binder and coauthors on this matter.
o Of 36 subjects who met strict clinical criteria for FS in the study by Binder and
colleagues (ie, loss of 50% of glenohumeral PROM in abduction and external
rotation), only 50% had a positive arthrogram. Either arthrography had low
sensitivity in diagnosing FS, or the expert physicians tended to overdiagnose FS.
The fact that a positive arthrogram had no affect on the clinical outcome in this 4-
year prospective study suggests that arthrography of the glenohumeral joint is a
poorly sensitive test for diagnosing FS, although a positive glenohumeral
arthrogram showing the classic signs of FS confirms the diagnosis beyond any
doubt.
o A study by Mao and coauthors showed a poor correlation between ROM of the
glenohumeral joint and its arthrographic appearance in patients with shoulder
pain for 2 months or longer.
[13]
This result once again showed the limited
prognostic usefulness of arthrography of the glenohumeral joint.
o To date, arthrography is used mostly to treat FS, rather than to diagnose the
condition.
o The injection of contrast medium into the glenohumeral joint helps to determine
its volume and configuration. The normal volume of the joint is 13 mL. In FS, the
volume can be reduced to 5-8 mL.

99m
Tc methylene diphosphonate (MDP) bone scanning
o Binder and colleagues also examined the utility of nuclear bone scanning in the
diagnosis and treatment of patients with FS. They again found that these studies
had little prognostic value, although they were considerably more sensitive, with
92% of the study subjects having a positive scan.
o In general, the problem with bone scans in the practice of musculoskeletal
medicine is that they are highly sensitive but not specific. The pilot work by
Clunie and colleagues showed that abnormalities on posterior
99m
Tc MDP
shoulder studies of patients with shoulder pain did tend to be specific for FS.
[14]
However, this work must be reproduced on a large scale to be considered
conclusive.
Other studies - Computed tomography (CT) scanning, CT arthrography,
ultrasonography, and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) are sensitive imaging
modalities that depict specific signs for FS. However, use of these modalities is rarely
indicated.
Histologic Findings
See Pathophysiology.
Rehabilitation Program
Physical Therapy
Although studies have shown the efficacy of physical therapy, no current evidence has
suggested that physical therapy alone improves function in the treatment of FS.
[15, 16, 17, 18]
However, physical therapy associated with an intra-articular injection of corticosteroid improves
function and ROM more rapidly than does intra-articular corticosteroid injection alone.
[15, 19]

Therapeutic exercises
Although many therapeutic exercises are described, few have been evaluated in the treatment
of FS. Therapeutic exercises that have been studied include articular stretching and pulley
therapy.
[20, 21, 22]
Passive articular stretching exercises improve ROM. The superiority of
supervised versus home exercise programs has yet to be demonstrated.
[23]

Manual therapy
Data from 2 studies support the use of manual therapy to improve ROM in the short term. One
study showed that passive mobilization in the end-range position of the glenohumeral joint was
more effective for improving ROM and function than was passive mobilization in the pain-free
zone.
[24]
However, the overall difference between the interventions was small. In addition,
patients appeared to achieve greatest improvement in ROM when treatment was administered
early.
[25]

In summary, the findings indicated that patients with FS improve with physical therapy
regardless of when it is administered after the onset of FS but that they achieve the greatest
improvement in their ROM when treatment is administered early.
Physical modalities
Many electroanalgesic and thermoanalgesic modalities are often used in physical therapy.
Prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trials have demonstrated the inefficacy of
bipolar interferential electrotherapy, TENS (transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation) pulsed
ultrasound therapy, laser therapy, and magnetotherapy with electromagnetic fields in the
treatment of painful shoulder disorders. Indeed, a systematic review of randomized clinical trials
has demonstrated that little evidence supports the use of common physiotherapeutic modalities
to treat shoulder pain. (Nonetheless, clinical observations suggest that electroanalgesia and
heat can provide some temporary relief to patients with severe shoulder pain and that they can
do so without side effects.)
In summary, physical therapy alone has not been shown to improve function. However, when
associated with an intra-articular corticosteroid injection, physical therapy improves ROM and
function more rapidly than does intra-articular corticosteroid injection alone. The effectiveness of
physical modalities has not been demonstrated. However, therapeutic exercises and manual
therapy do improve ROM (see above).
Given the paucity of evidence supporting the effectiveness of physical therapy, the present
authors believe that clinicians should be most conservative in designing a physical therapy
program for patients with FS. An intermittently supervised, home-based articular stretching and
strength-maintenance program can be combined with manual therapy, the appropriate
analgesic medications, and the judicious use of electroanalgesia and warm packs. This
approach generally suffices to provide adequate pain relief in most patients while the disease
runs its usual, favorable course. (For additional information, see Home Exercises for the Stiff
Shoulder, on the University of Washington School of Medicine Web site.
Occupational Therapy
Patients with severe FS may benefit from a referral to an occupational therapist for assistance
and instruction in performing activities of daily living (ADLs). The occupational therapist helps
the patient learn how to use adaptive equipment and suggest home and workplace
modifications that may be necessary and beneficial for completing professional activities and
routine daily tasks (eg, dressing, bathing, grooming). (See also Patient Education.) However,
the effectiveness of these interventions has yet to be demonstrated. Researchers who
performed a systematic review concluded that evidence supporting the effectiveness of
rehabilitation in the workplace is lacking.
[26]

Medical Issues/Complications
Certain authors, including the present authors, believe that idiopathic FS should be considered
a distinct clinical entity. The prognosis and therapeutic approach for idiopathic FS differ from
those of posttraumatic shoulder stiffening resulting from a fracture or a surgical insult to the
glenohumeral joint.
Surgical Intervention
Duplay, the first person to describe the syndrome of FS, in 1872, proposed treating this
condition with manipulation of the glenohumeral joint, with the patient under general anesthesia.
Although some orthopedic surgeons continue to practice this technique, the benefits of this
approach have not been demonstrated in controlled clinical trials.
In 1972, Hazelman noted that, in the context of a prospective controlled clinical trial, patients
who had been treated with manipulation of the glenohumeral joint fared no better than did
patients who received only a series of steroid injections and physical therapy.
[27]
Data from a
long-term prospective study by Binder and colleagues seemed to support the notion that
subjects who are treated with vigorous shoulder manipulation fare worse than do those who are
not treated at all.
[8]

A 2009 study by Jacobs et al also found no evidence that manipulation provides a better
treatment outcome in FS.
[28]
The investigators divided 53 patients suffering from idiopathic FS
into 2 groups, with one undergoing shoulder manipulation under anesthetic and the other being
treated with intra-articular steroid injections and distension (see Other Treatment). After 2 years
of follow-up, the investigators found no statistical difference between outcome measures in the
2 groups.
Various improvements in surgical techniques, such as the advent of controlled capsular release
by using arthroscopic access to the anterior glenohumeral joint capsule and the coracohumeral
ligament, appear to offer promising treatments. However, the effectiveness of these surgical
techniques has yet to be demonstrated in controlled clinical trials.
Considering the favorable prognosis for patients with idiopathic FS, surgical intervention should
probably be reserved for rare patients whose condition does not respond to maximal
conservative modalities implemented over a sufficient period of time.
[29]

Some authors propose early surgical intervention in patients with FS because of the patients'
high risk of permanent contracture of the glenohumeral joint. However, this approach remains
controversial because patients with diabetes often have recurring pain and contracture in the
postoperative rehabilitation phase and because their rate of preoperative complications is
generally increased.
Other Treatment
Studies of intra-articular and intrabursal injections, glenohumeral distension arthrography, and
nerve blocks have been conducted, as described in the following text.
Intra-articular and intrabursal injections
Intra-articular corticosteroid injections
Intra-articular injections of steroid derivatives are the second most common medical intervention
for treating painful joint conditions. (The most common intervention is the administration of
nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs [NSAIDs]). The rationale for injection of an intra-articular
steroid derivative is to allow direct delivery of a modest dose of concentrated drug with
analgesic and anti-inflammatory properties to the targeted site of pathology.
[30]
Researchers at
the Manchester Rheumatology Service investigated the accuracy of a variety of joint injections
that were administered by using anatomic landmarks to the upper and lower extremities. Their
study demonstrated inaccurate placement of the drug in 65% of 108 joints injected.
A study by Eustace and colleagues showed results similar to those above, demonstrating that
68% of shoulder injections performed by expert specialist physicians without radiologic
guidance failed to hit their target.
[31]
Overall, when radiologic guidance is not used, the accuracy
of these injections is poor. When anatomic landmarks are used, the rate of misplacement is as
high as 58% in the glenohumeral joint and as high as 69% in the subacromiodeltoidian bursae.
Accuracy of the injection is associated with improved clinical results.
[31, 32, 33]

If the rationale for using an intra-articular injection of steroid derivative is to deliver targeted
therapy, the target in FS is the glenohumeral joint. The work by Eustace and coauthors
suggests that targeted therapy that does not hit its target is not ineffective.
[31]
In general,
however, physicians who are less experienced in joint injection than the expert rheumatologists
in that study should avoid injecting shoulders without radiologic guidance. The results of their
study are impressive, even for physicians who are experienced in the field of joint injections.
Eustace's study also puts an interesting twist on the interpretation of data from placebo-
controlled clinical trials that failed to demonstrate favorable results with the steroid injection into
the shoulder to treat FS. Some investigators did use radiologic guidance, but most employed
anatomic landmarks.
[15, 34, 35, 36, 37]
Because some studies involved radiologic confirmation of
location of the injectate, most of the injections may have missed their target. The present
authors believe that no conclusions can be drawn from studies using anatomic landmarks, given
the inaccuracy of the intervention.
From the current literature, we know that intra-articular corticosteroid injections or distension
arthrography with corticosteroids or sodium chloride solution (discussed below) considerably
improve FS in the short term. However, in the long term, they are not superior to placebo but
they are superior to supervised physical therapy.
[15, 38]
Whether their effectiveness is the result of
distension arthrography, the intra-articular corticosteroid, or their combination is unclear
because most studies used corticosteroids.
Intrabursal corticosteroid injections
Many authors have shown that the pathology of FS is in the extra-articular structures, such as
the coracohumeral ligament, the interval of the rotator cuff, the subacromial space, and the
articular capsule.
[39, 40, 41]
From a pathophysiologic point of view, a rationale supports the use of
corticosteroid injection in the subacromiodeltoidian bursa to treat FS.
A comparison of intra-articular and intrabursal injections with lidocaine alone or with lidocaine
and a corticosteroid showed similar decreases in pain and increases in ROM in all groups.
[22]
However, a significant short-term decrease in pain was observed in the lidocaine-plus-
corticosteroid group compared with the lidocaine-only group. Data from another study supported
these findings, showing that patients whose condition did not improve with distension
arthrography benefited from an intra-articular bursal injection of corticosteroid.
[42]

Because of the inaccuracy of injections given by using anatomic landmarks, the present authors
recommend that intra-articular and intrabursal injections should be administered by using
fluoroscopic guidance. When the needle is accurately positioned, intra-articular corticosteroid
injection and distension arthrography are effective in the short them. However, in the long term,
they are not superior to placebo. This observation is not surprising given the favorable evolution
of this disease. An intrabursal injection of corticosteroid can be used as a complementary
treatment to intra-articular injection and distension arthrography or as treatment in patients
whose condition does not improve with an intra-articular corticosteroid injection or with
distension arthrography.
Many issues remain unclear. Factors to be resolved are whether distension is necessary,
whether an intra-articular corticosteroid injection without distension (or vice versa) is enough,
how many injections are needed, the stage of disease at which injections should be
administered, the most effective corticosteroid, and the most effective dosage.
Intra-articular injection of sodium hyaluronate
Sodium hyaluronate has a metabolic effect on the articular cartilage, synovial tissues, and liquid.
Few studies on the effect of sodium hyaluronate have been reported.
[43, 44, 45]
The present
authors are aware of only 1 controlled study of the effectiveness of sodium hyaluronate as a
sole treatment of FS. At 3 months, sodium hyaluronate was as effective as an intra-articular
corticosteroid injection or physical therapy in improving function, but it was less effective than
the comparators in improving ROM.
[43]
Although additional studies are needed before
conclusions about efficacy can be drawn, intra-articular injections of sodium hyaluronate may be
an alternative treatment for FS, mainly in patients in whom corticosteroid injections are
contraindicated.
Glenohumeral distension arthrography
One controlled study showed no benefit to distension arthrography over intra-articular
corticosteroid injection without distension.
[46]
Another controlled study showed a significant
increase in ROM and a significant decrease in the use of analgesics after distension
arthrography, compared with the use of intra-articular corticosteroid injection alone.
[47]

The benefit of performing distension arthrography until the capsule ruptures must be
demonstrated.
[22, 48]

One uncontrolled study that was designed to examine the optimal number of distension
arthrography procedures that should be performed showed that 2 procedures administered
within 3 weeks, when combined with home exercises, significantly improved function. However,
a third procedure offered no benefit.
[49]

Another unknown factor is the stage at which infiltration should be performed. To the authors'
knowledge, only 1 uncontrolled study on this question has been completed.
[35]
The researchers
concluded that distension arthrography should be done in the second stage of disease that is
not progressing, despite the patient's participation in physical therapy.
Nerve blocks
Suprascapular nerve block
The suprascapular nerve block is a simple procedure but is not well known by most clinicians.
Dangoisse's technique for suprascapular nerve block was modified to render it steroid free and
accessible to most physicians who practice musculoskeletal medicine in ambulatory-care
facilities and private offices. A 3.75-cm, 25-gauge needle is directed in the plane of the scapula
toward the center of the floor of the supraspinous fossa. The needle-insertion point is 2 cm
above the bisection point of the upper border of the spine of the scapula. After aspiration is
performed to rule out intravascular needle placement, 10 mL of bupivacaine 0.5 is slowly
injected into the floor of the supraspinous fossa to fill the fascial contents of this fossa and to
produce an indirect suprascapular nerve block. The highly concentrated bupivacaine bathes the
suprascapular nerve as it enters the fossa through the suprascapular notch.
Since 1996, thousands of bupivacaine suprascapular nerve blocks have been performed by
using the above-described technique. No notable complications, other than vasovagal episodes
and tenderness at the site of injection, have occurred. Most specialists in musculoskeletal
medicine who treat shoulder pain in an outpatient context can safely and inexpensively perform
modified indirect suprascapular nerve blocks without radiologic guidance if they are adequately
trained.
A randomized controlled trial was performed to compare the effectiveness of a single
suprascapular nerve block with that of series of intra-articular corticosteroid injections given by
using anatomic landmarks without fluoroscopic guidance.
[50]
Pain decreased and ROM
increased more rapidly and more completely with the nerve block than they did with the intra-
articular injections.
A double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized trial showed the superiority of 3 bupivacaine
suprascapular nerve blocks.
[51]
At 1 month, a 64% decrease in pain was reported in the
bupivacaine group compared with 13% in the placebo group. Although functional improvement
was superior with bupivacaine, the difference was not statistically significant. The same authors
preformed a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized trial larger than the previous study by
using the same protocol (unpublished data). They observed no statistically significant difference
between bupivacaine and placebo in terms of pain and function.
Some studies have shown the effectiveness of bupivacaine suprascapular nerve blocks to treat
chronic tendinopathy of the rotator cuff, as well as to treat painful shoulders in patients with
rheumatoid arthritis.
[52, 53, 54]
However, studies are scant, and the results are contradictory
regarding the effectiveness of bupivacaine suprascapular nerve blocks in managing FS.
Additional studies are needed before conclusions can be drawn.
Stellate block
An uncontrolled study of the combined effect of electropuncture, stellate block, and
suprascapular nerve block showed that the combination improved pain control and increased
ROM more than electropuncture or nerve block alone.
[55]

Medication Summary
The goal of pharmacologic intervention in FS is uniquely the control of pain in the 2 first stages
of the disease because no drug affects the underlying disease process. Medication does not
affect the duration of disease or the severity or duration of glenohumeral joint contracture. Most
of the time, patients with FS can manage their pain with analgesics, such as acetaminophen, as
needed. However, during the most painful months of the condition, when rest pain and night
pain are most bothersome, appropriate use of narcotic agents is warranted.
Pain control should be aimed at relieving pain in the following order of priority:
1. Rest pain and night pain: The preferred agent should be a long-acting, centrally acting
agent (eg, calcitonin) or a sustained-release narcotic preparation (eg, low-dose
oxycodone HCl [OxyContin]).
2. Activity-related pain: Some physicians advocate the use of short-acting analgesic
agents, such as oxycodone, before sessions of physical therapy to improve shoulder
mobilization. The authors' opinion is that this regimen should be used with care because
of the risk of causing a flare-up after physiotherapeutic mobilization due to an
excessively vigorous mobilization session.
Attaining the favorable prognosis requires patience on the part of the physician and the patient.
Endocrine metabolic agents
Class Summary
Agents in this class may have analgesic effects.
View full drug information
Calcitonin (Miacalcin, Osteocalcin)

Can relieve some back pain associated with adhesive capsulitis. A prospective, randomized
study was conducted to compare calcitonin SC for 3 wk with manual therapy and physical
therapy with physical therapy alone. Pain decreased more in patients with posttraumatic
capsulitis who were receiving calcitonin, manual therapy, and physical therapy than it did in
others. The speed of recovery was comparable in both groups.
NSAIDs
Class Summary
Given the absence of histopathologic evidence of capsular inflammation, NSAIDs must be used
for their analgesic effects. To our knowledge, no researchers have compared the efficacy of
NSAIDs with that of placebo in adhesive capsulitis. Comparisons of the efficacy of different
NSAIDs in the treatment of adhesive capsulitis show a positive effect regardless of the NSAID
used.
NSAIDs have analgesic, anti-inflammatory, and antipyretic activities. Their mechanism of action
is not known, but they may inhibit cyclooxygenase (COX) activity and prostaglandin synthesis.
Other mechanisms may exist as well; examples are inhibition of leukotriene synthesis,
lysosomal enzyme release, lipoxygenase activity, neutrophil aggregation, and various cell-
membrane functions.
COX-2 selective NSAIDs are recommended in cases of FS. Although increased cost can be a
negative factor, the incidence of costly and potentially fatal GI bleeds is clearly less with COX-2
inhibitors than it is with traditional NSAIDs. Ongoing analysis of the cost of preventing GI bleeds
will help in further defining the patient populations who are most likely to benefit from COX-2
inhibitors.
Two randomized, controlled studies were conducted to compare oral (PO) corticosteroids with
placebo. One study showed an improvement only of night pain at 4 weeks. The other study
showed an improvement of pain and function at 3 weeks. Therapeutic effects of PO
corticosteroids after these periods have not been demonstrated.
PO corticosteroid therapy is significantly less effective than intra-articular corticosteroid injection
in the short term.
Given the systemic adverse effects, one should question the indication for PO corticosteroids in
the treatment of FS. Other drugs with fewer adverse effects are available; alternatively,
corticosteroids can be administered intra-articularly with fewer adverse effects.
Celecoxib (Celebrex)

Inhibits primarily COX-2, an isoenzyme induced during pain and by inflammatory stimuli.
Inhibition of COX-1 may contribute to NSAID GI toxicity. At therapeutic concentrations, COX-1
isoenzyme is not inhibited; therefore, GI toxicity may be decreased. Seek the lowest dose for
each patient.
Analgesic agents
Class Summary
In rare cases, narcotic analgesia may be needed for adequate pain control if the patient's
condition is refractory to the judicious use of bupivacaine or bupivacaine suprascapular nerve
blocks or in situations in which these nerve-block procedures and/or steroid injections (which
are most often performed with fluoroscopic guidance) are not readily available. When combined
with anti-inflammatory agents and physical modalities, analgesics should result in good pain
control.
In the occasional patient whose condition does not respond to the aforementioned therapies,
the use of a long-acting narcotic agent, such as codeine, morphine sulfate (MS Contin),
oxycodone HCl (OxyContin), or hydromorphone, should be considered, along with rescue doses
of short-acting drugs every 4-6 hours.
Acetaminophen (Tylenol, Feverall, Tempra, Aspirin Free Anacin)

Should be first-line drug of choice. In most patients, 3 g/d suffices to control the pain of FS
during all but the most painful months. Narcotics and NSAIDs should be used only if the regular
use of acetaminophen 1 g tid fails to adequately control pain. The authors prefer to be
conservative and limit the prescription to 75% of the maximal daily dosage because patients
may be prone to liver toxicity if they take the maximal dosage for many consecutive months.
Oxycodone (OxyContin, OxyIR, Roxicodone)

Indicated for relief of moderate to severe pain.
Further Inpatient Care
In general, treatment and follow-up care for individuals with FS is performed on an
outpatient basis; however, for patients who require more aggressive treatment, a short
hospitalization may be required.
Pain control and maintenance of ROM are common goals after surgical procedures or
glenohumeral manipulations that are performed with the patient under anesthesia.
Further Outpatient Care
The physician and patient together should decide on the most appropriate treatment
plan based on the patient's current status and functional goals.
Most patients with FS achieve successful outcomes with conservative care.
Outpatient follow-up visits should occur on a regular basis (for example, monthly) so that
the physician can properly monitor the patient's progress and adjust the treatment plan
as needed.
See the Treatment section for a discussion of outpatient treatment suggestions.
Deterrence
The best treatment for FS is prevention.
Early mobilization of the shoulder is crucial in the early stages of FS syndrome.
Individuals who do repetitive activities with their upper extremities at work need to pay
special attention to their posture and to the ergonomics of their workstation in order to
prevent FS.
Complications
Complications of FS include constant pain, loss of functional use of the upper extremity,
recurrence, and permanent disability of the shoulder.
When patients receive aggressive treatment involving manipulation or surgical
intervention, complications may include increased pain, humeral fracture, or
neurovascular injury.
Prognosis
The prognosis for patients with FS is generally favorable.
Patient Education
Throughout all stages of the disease process, patient education is an important aspect of
treatment for individuals with FS.
o Patients with FS need to take an active part in their treatment programs to
achieve the most successful results.
o Physical and occupational therapists are valuable members of the treatment
team and generally provide a great deal of patient education as part of therapy.
o Patients should be instructed in a home exercise program to continue working on
their ROM and functional abilities.
o Patients at risk or in the early stages of the disease process must be educated
about the disease, especially about prevention strategies.
Patients should be advised about the effects of FS and its treatment on their ability to
return to work or to resume ADLs.
o For a manual laborer, an episode of unilateral FS may mean prolonged absence
from work, usually for at least 1-3 years. A sedentary office worker may be able
to continue working throughout the disease process if given adequate tools to
cope with the pain of the illness. These tools may include analgesic medication,
the judicious use of injections, use of a TENS unit, and appropriate ergonomic
adjustments to his/her workstation.
o Patients with severe bilateral FS may find that even basic ADLs are a challenge.
The loss of ROM during combined extension and internal rotation may make it
difficult or impossible for patients with FS to perform many basic daily tasks (eg,
toileting, hygiene, dressing, driving, fastening a seat belt). The loss of the
combined movements of abduction and external rotation may render it
impossible for patients with FS to groom their hair or reach for their seat belt.
o Patients need to be reminded that improvements in pain and disability after the
treatment of FS usually occur over measured months and not over days or
weeks. Because 60% of individuals with FS have some permanent residual
contracture at the end of the disease process, workers whose tasks require them
to move their shoulder to the end of their ROM or to a position of subacromial
impingement may have long-term difficulties in resuming their previous job.
These individuals may need to adapt their workstations or to change jobs in order
to rejoin the workforce. Employees whose job requires repetitive movement of
their shoulders or who operate heavy machinery that vibrates may encounter
similar difficulties.
For excellent patient education resources, visit eMedicine's Back, Ribs, Neck, and Head
Center and Osteoporosis and Bone Health Center. Also, see eMedicine's patient
education article Shoulder and Neck Pain.

Proceed to Clinical Presentation

Contributor Information and Disclosures
Author
Andr Roy, MD, FRCPC Consulting Staff, Department of Physiatry, Montreal University
Hospital Center and Montreal Rehabilitation Institute
Andr Roy, MD, FRCPC is a member of the following medical societies: American Academy of
Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.
Coauthor(s)
Thierry HM Dahan, MD, LMCC, CCFP, FRCPC, FABPMR Head, Pain Rehabilitation
Center, Haim Sheba Medical Center, Tel Hashomer, Israel
Thierry HM Dahan, MD, LMCC, CCFP, FRCPC, FABPMR is a member of the following
medical societies: Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada
Specialty Editor Board
Curtis W Slipman, MD Director, University of Pennsylvania Spine Center; Associate
Professor, Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, University of Pennsylvania
Medical Center
Curtis W Slipman, MD is a member of the following medical societies: American Academy of
Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Association of Academic Physiatrists, International
Association for the Study of Pain, and North American Spine Society
Francisco Talavera, PharmD, PhD Adjunct Assistant Professor, University of Nebraska
Medical Center College of Pharmacy; Editor-in-Chief, Medscape Drug Reference
Disclosure: Medscape Salary Employment
Patrick M Foye, MD Associate Professor of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Co-Director
of Musculoskeletal Fellowship, Co-Director of Back Pain Clinic, Director of Coccyx Pain
Service (Tailbone Pain Service: www.TailboneDoctor.com), University of Medicine and
Dentistry of New Jersey, New Jersey Medical School
Patrick M Foye, MD is a member of the following medical societies: American Academy of
Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, American Association of Neuromuscular and
Electrodiagnostic Medicine, Association of Academic Physiatrists, and International Spine
Intervention Society
Kelly L Allen, MD Medical Director, Medevals
Chief Editor
Rene Cailliet, MD Professor-Chairman Emeritus, Department of Rehabilitation Medicine,
University of Southern California School of Medicine; Former Director, Department of
Rehabilitation Medicine, Santa Monica Hospital Medical Center
Rene Cailliet, MD is a member of the following medical societies: American Academy of Pain
Medicine, American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, American Pain Society,
Association of American Medical Colleges, International Association for the Study of Pain, and
Pan American Medical Association
Additional Contributors
The editors wish to thank Luc Fortin, MD, for his previous contributions to this article.
References
1. Staples MP, Forbes A, Green S, et al. Shoulder-specific disability measures showed
acceptable construct validity and responsiveness. J Clin Epidemiol. Aug 13
2009;[Medline].
2. Wohlgethan JR. Frozen shoulder in hyperthyroidism. Arthritis Rheum. Aug
1987;30(8):936-9. [Medline].
3. Hazleman B. Why is a frozen shoulder frozen?. Br J Rheumatol. Apr 1990;29(2):130.
[Medline].
4. Lundberg BJ. The frozen shoulder. Clinical and radiographical observations. The effect
of manipulation under general anesthesia. Structure and glycosaminoglycan content of
the joint capsule. Local bone metabolism. Acta Orthop Scand Suppl. 1969;119:1-59.
[Medline].
5. Reeves B. The natural history of the frozen shoulder syndrome. Scand J Rheumatol.
1975;4(4):193-6. [Medline].
6. Walmsley S, Rivett DA, Osmotherly PG. Adhesive capsulitis: establishing consensus on
clinical identifiers for stage 1 using the DELPHI technique. Phys Ther. Sep
2009;89(9):906-17. [Medline].
7. Ogilvie-Harris DJ, Biggs DJ, Fitsialos DP, et al. The resistant frozen shoulder.
Manipulation versus arthroscopic release. Clin Orthop Relat Res. Oct 1995;238-48.
[Medline].
8. Binder AI, Bulgen DY, Hazleman BL, Roberts S. Frozen shoulder: a long-term
prospective study. Ann Rheum Dis. Jun 1984;43(3):361-4. [Medline]. [Full Text].
9. Rizk TE, Pinals RS. Frozen shoulder. Semin Arthritis Rheum. May 1982;11(4):440-52.
[Medline].
10. Sano H, Hatori M, Mineta M, et al. Tumors masked as frozen shoulders: A retrospective
analysis. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. Jun 30 2009;[Medline].
11. Lequesne M, Dang N, Bensasson M, et al. Increased association of diabetes mellitus with
capsulitis of the shoulder and shoulder-hand syndrome. Scand J Rheumatol.
1977;6(1):53-6. [Medline].
12. Binder AI, Bulgen DY, Hazleman BL, Tudor J, Wraight P. Frozen shoulder: an
arthrographic and radionuclear scan assessment. Ann Rheum Dis. Jun 1984;43(3):365-9.
[Medline]. [Full Text].
13. Mao CY, Jaw WC, Cheng HC. Frozen shoulder: correlation between the response to
physical therapy and follow-up shoulder arthrography. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. Aug
1997;78(8):857-9. [Medline].
14. Clunie G, Bomanji J, Ell PJ. Technetium-99m-MDP patterns in patients with painful
shoulder lesions. J Nucl Med. Sep 1997;38(9):1491-5. [Medline]. [Full Text].
15. Carette S, Moffet H, Tardif J, et al. Intraarticular corticosteroids, supervised
physiotherapy, or a combination of the two in the treatment of adhesive capsulitis of the
shoulder: a placebo-controlled trial. Arthritis Rheum. Mar 2003;48(3):829-38. [Medline].
[Full Text].
16. Green S. Physiotherapy and injection better than injection alone or physiotherapy alone
for improving range of motion in adhesive capsulitis. Aust J Physiother. 2003;49(2):145.
[Medline].
17. Jrgel J, Rannama L, Gapeyeva H, et al. Shoulder function in patients with frozen
shoulder before and after 4-week rehabilitation. Medicina (Kaunas). 2005;41(1):30-8.
18. Pajareya K, Chadchavalpanichaya N, Painmanakit S, et al. Effectiveness of physical
therapy for patients with adhesive capsulitis: a randomized controlled trial. J Med Assoc
Thai. May 2004;87(5):473-80. [Medline].
19. Ulusoy H, Sarica N, Arslan S, Olcay C, Erkorkmaz U. The efficacy of supervised
physiotherapy for the treatment of adhesive capsulitis. Bratisl Lek Listy.
2011;112(4):204-7. [Medline].
20. Griggs SM, Ahn A, Green A. Idiopathic adhesive capsulitis. A prospective functional
outcome study of nonoperative treatment. J Bone Joint Surg Am. Oct 2000;82-
A(10):1398-407. [Medline].
21. Rizk TE, Christopher RP, Pinals RS, et al. Adhesive capsulitis (frozen shoulder): a new
approach to its management. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. Jan 1983;64(1):29-33. [Medline].
22. Rizk TE, Gavant ML, Pinals RS. Treatment of adhesive capsulitis (frozen shoulder) with
arthrographic capsular distension and rupture. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. Jul
1994;75(7):803-7. [Medline].
23. Michlovitz SL, Harris BA, Watkins MP. Therapy interventions for improving joint range
of motion: A systematic review. J Hand Ther. Apr-Jun 2004;17(2):118-31. [Medline].
24. Vermeulen HM, Obermann WR, Burger BJ, et al. End-range mobilization techniques in
adhesive capsulitis of the shoulder joint: A multiple-subject case report. Phys Ther. Dec
2000;80(12):1204-13. [Medline].
25. Liaw SC. The effect and timing of physiotherapy on change in range of motion and
function in frozen shoulder. Physiother Singapore. Sep 2000;3(3):82-6.
26. Williams RM, Westmorland MG, Schmuck G, et al. Effectiveness of workplace
rehabilitation interventions in the treatment of work-related upper extremity disorders: a
systematic review. J Hand Ther. Apr-Jun 2004;17(2):267-73. [Medline].
27. Hazleman BL. The painful stiff shoulder. Rheumatol Phys Med. Nov 1972;11(8):413-21.
[Medline].
28. Jacobs LG, Smith MG, Khan SA, et al. Manipulation or intra-articular steroids in the
management of adhesive capsulitis of the shoulder? A prospective randomized trial. J
Shoulder Elbow Surg. May-Jun 2009;18(3):348-53. [Medline].
29. Favejee MM, Huisstede BM, Koes BW. Frozen shoulder: the effectiveness of
conservative and surgical interventions--systematic review. Br J Sports Med. Jan
2011;45(1):49-56. [Medline].
30. Lorbach O, Anagnostakos K, Scherf C, et al. Nonoperative management of adhesive
capsulitis of the shoulder: oral cortisone application versus intra-articular cortisone
injections. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. Sep 30 2009;[Medline].
31. Eustace JA, Brophy DP, Gibney RP, Bresnihan B, FitzGerald O. Comparison of the
accuracy of steroid placement with clinical outcome in patients with shoulder symptoms.
Ann Rheum Dis. Jan 1997;56(1):59-63. [Medline]. [Full Text].
32. Esenyel CZ, Esenyel M, Yesiltepe R, et al. [The correlation between the accuracy of
steroid injections and subsequent shoulder pain and function in subacromial impingement
syndrome]. Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc. 2003;37(1):41-5. [Medline].
33. Naredo E, Cabero F, Beneyto P, et al. A randomized comparative study of short term
response to blind injection versus sonographic-guided injection of local corticosteroids in
patients with painful shoulder. J Rheumatol. Feb 2004;31(2):308-14. [Medline].
34. Ryans I, Montgomery A, Galway R, et al. A randomized controlled trial of intra-articular
triamcinolone and/or physiotherapy in shoulder capsulitis. Rheumatology (Oxford). Apr
2005;44(4):529-35. [Medline]. [Full Text].
35. Vad VB, Sakalkale D, Warren RF. The role of capsular distention in adhesive capsulitis.
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. Sep 2003;84(9):1290-2. [Medline].
36. de Jong BA, Dahmen R, Hogeweg JA, et al. Intra-articular triamcinolone acetonide
injection in patients with capsulitis of the shoulder: a comparative study of two dose
regimens. Clin Rehabil. Jun 1998;12(3):211-5. [Medline].
37. van der Windt DA, Koes BW, Devill W, Boeke AJ, de Jong BA, Bouter LM.
Effectiveness of corticosteroid injections versus physiotherapy for treatment of painful
stiff shoulder in primary care: randomised trial. BMJ. Nov 7 1998;317(7168):1292-6.
38. Buchbinder R, Green S, Forbes A, Hall S, Lawler G. Arthrographic joint distension with
saline and steroid improves function and reduces pain in patients with painful stiff
shoulder: results of a randomised, double blind, placebo controlled trial. Ann Rheum Dis.
Mar 2004;63(3):302-9. [Medline]. [Full Text].
39. Bunker TD, Anthony PP. The pathology of frozen shoulder. A Dupuytren-like disease. J
Bone Joint Surg Br. 1995;77(5):677-83.
40. Neer CS 2nd, Satterlee CC, Dalsey RM, et al. The anatomy and potential effects of
contracture of the coracohumeral ligament. Clin Orthop. Jul 1992;(280):182-5.
[Medline].
41. Ozaki J, Nakagawa Y, Sakurai G, et al. Recalcitrant chronic adhesive capsulitis of the
shoulder. Role of contracture of the coracohumeral ligament and rotator interval in
pathogenesis and treatment. J Bone Joint Surg Am. Dec 1989;71(10):1511-5. [Medline].
42. Andrieu V, Dromer C, Fourcade D, et al. Adhesive capsulitis of the shoulder: therapeutic
contribution of subacromial bursography. Rev Rhum Engl Ed. Dec 1998;65(12):771-7.
[Medline].
43. Calis M, Demir H, Ulker S, et al. Is intraarticular sodium hyaluronate injection an
alternative treatment in patients with adhesive capsulitis?. Rheumatol Int. Apr
2006;26(6):536-40. [Medline].
44. Itokazu M, Matsunaga T. Clinical evaluation of high-molecular-weight sodium
hyaluronate for the treatment of patients with periarthritis of the shoulder. Clin Ther. Sep-
Oct 1995;17(5):946-55. [Medline].
45. Rovetta G, Monteforte P. Intraarticular injection of sodium hyaluronate plus steroid
versus steroid in adhesive capsulitis of the shoulder. Int J Tissue React. 1998;20(4):125-
30. [Medline].
46. Corbeil V, Dussault RG, Leduc BE, et al. [Adhesive capsulitis of the shoulder: a
comparative study of arthrography with intra-articular corticotherapy and with or without
capsular distension]. Can Assoc Radiol J. Apr 1992;43(2):127-30. [Medline].
47. Gam AN, Schydlowsky P, Rossel I, et al. Treatment of "frozen shoulder" with distension
and glucorticoid compared with glucorticoid alone. A randomised controlled trial. Scand
J Rheumatol. 1998;27(6):425-30. [Medline].
48. Bell S, Coghlan J, Richardson M. Hydrodilatation in the management of shoulder
capsulitis. Australas Radiol. Sep 2003;47(3):247-51. [Medline].
49. Piotte F, Gravel D, Moffet H, et al. Effects of repeated distension arthrographies
combined with a home exercise program among adults with idiopathic adhesive capsulitis
of the shoulder. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2004;83(7):537-46; quiz 547-9.
50. Jones DS, Chattopadhyay C. Suprascapular nerve block for the treatment of frozen
shoulder in primary care: a randomized trial. Br J Gen Pract. Jan 1999;49(438):39-41.
51. Dahan TH, Fortin L, Pelletier M, et al. Double blind randomized clinical trial examining
the efficacy of bupivacaine suprascapular nerve blocks in frozen shoulder. J Rheumatol.
Jun 2000;27(6):1464-9. [Medline].
52. Emery P, Bowman S, Wedderburn L, Grahame R. Suprascapular nerve block for chronic
shoulder pain in rheumatoid arthritis. BMJ. Oct 28 1989;299(6707):1079-80. [Medline].
[Full Text].
53. Gado K, Emery P. Modified suprascapular nerve block with bupivacaine alone
effectively controls chronic shoulder pain in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Ann
Rheum Dis. Mar 1993;52(3):215-8. [Medline]. [Full Text].
54. Shanahan EM, Ahern M, Smith M, Wetherall M, Bresnihan B, FitzGerald O.
Suprascapular nerve block (using bupivacaine and methylprednisolone acetate) in chronic
shoulder pain. Ann Rheum Dis. May 2003;62(5):400-6. [Medline]. [Full Text].
55. Lin ML, Huang CT, Lin JG, et al. [A comparison between the pain relief effect of
electroacupuncture, regional never block and electroacupuncture plus regional never
block in frozen shoulder]. Acta Anaesthesiol Sin. Dec 1994;32(4):237-42. [Medline].
56. Acquaviva P, Schiano A, Harnden P, et al. Algodystrophy: predisposition and pathogenic
factors. Results of a multicentric survey concerning 765 cases [in French]. Rev Rhum Mal
Osteoartic. Nov 1982;49(11):761-6. [Medline].
57. Vadeboncoeur. In: Dupuis M, Leclaire R, eds. Algodystrophie: Pathologie Medicale de
l'Appareil Locomoteur. Medisem; 1986:562-87.
58. Amor B, Tallet F, Raichvarg D, et al. [Algodystrophy and metabolic anomalies]. Rev
Rhum Mal Osteoartic. Nov 1982;49(11):827-33. [Medline].
59. Arnold JM, Teasell RW, MacLeod AP, et al. Increased venous alpha-adrenoceptor
responsiveness in patients with reflex sympathetic dystrophy. Ann Intern Med. Apr 15
60. Binder A, Hazleman BL, Parr G, et al. A controlled study of oral prednisolone in frozen
shoulder. Br J Rheumatol. Aug 1986;25(3):288-92. [Medline].
61. Bridgman JF. Periarthritis of the shoulder and diabetes mellitus. Ann Rheum Dis. Jan
62. Buchbinder R, Hoving JL, Green S, et al. Short course prednisolone for adhesive
capsulitis (frozen shoulder or stiff painful shoulder): a randomised, double blind, placebo
controlled trial. Ann Rheum Dis. Nov 2004;63(11):1460-9. [Medline].
63. Bunker TD. Frozen shoulder: unravelling the enigma. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. May
1997;79(3):210-3. [Medline].
64. Carrillon Y, Noel E, Fantino O, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging findings in idiopathic
adhesive capsulitis of the shoulder. Rev Rhum Engl Ed. Apr 1999;66(4):201-6. [Medline].
65. Chapman EM, Maloof F. Bizarre clinical manifestations of hyperthyroidism. N Engl J
Med. Jan 5 1956;254(1):1-5. [Medline].
66. Clarke GR, Willis LA, Fish WW, et al. Preliminary studies in measuring range of motion
in normal and painful stiff shoulders. Rheumatol Rehabil. Feb 1975;14(1):39-46.
[Medline].
67. de Winter AF, Jans MP, Scholten RJ, Devill W, van Schaardenburg D, Bouter LM.
Diagnostic classification of shoulder disorders: interobserver agreement and determinants
of disagreement. Ann Rheum Dis. May 1999;58(5):272-7. [Medline]. [Full Text].
68. Doury P, Dirheimer Y, Pattin S. Algodystrophy. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag;
1984:87-95.
69. Doury P, Pattin S, Eulry F, et al. [Algodystrophy of the knee and scanography]. Rev
Rhum Mal Osteoartic. Nov 1987;54(11):725-9. [Medline].
70. Green S, Buchbinder R, Glazier R, et al. Systematic review of randomised controlled
trials of interventions for painful shoulder: selection criteria, outcome assessment, and
efficacy. BMJ. Jan 31 1998;316(7128):354-60. [Medline]. [Full Text].
71. Hashimoto T, Hamada T, Nakamura T, et al. Myxoid and globular degeneration of nerves
in the shoulder joint. Clin Orthop. Nov 1995;(320):55-64. [Medline].
72. Janig W. The puzzle of reflex sympathetic dystrophy: mechanisms, hypotheses, open
questions. In: Janig W, Stanton-Hicks M, eds. Reflex Sympathetic Dystrophy: A
Reappraisal, Progress in Pain Research and Management. vol 6. Seattle, Wash: Int
Assoc for the Study of Pain; 1996.
73. Jeracitano D, Cooper RG, Lyon LJ, et al. Abnormal temperature control suggesting
sympathetic dysfunction in the shoulder skin of patients with frozen shoulder. Br J
Rheumatol. Aug 1992;31(8):539-42. [Medline].
74. Jones A, Regan M, Ledingham J, Pattrick M, Manhire A, Doherty M. Importance of
placement of intra-articular steroid injections. BMJ. Nov 20 1993;307(6915):1329-30.
75. Joshi GP, McCarroll SM. Intra-articular morphine for the management of frozen
shoulder. Anaesthesia. Jul 1992;47(7):627. [Medline].
76. Koltzenburg M. Afferent mechanisms mediating pain and hyperalgesias in neuralgia. In:
Janig W, Stanton-Hicks M, eds. Reflex Sympathetic Dystrophy: A Reappraisal, Progress
in Pain Research and Management. vol 6. Seattle, Wash: Int Assoc for the Study of Pain;
1996.
77. Leclaire R, Bourgouin J. Electromagnetic treatment of shoulder periarthritis: a
randomized controlled trial of the efficiency and tolerance of magnetotherapy. Arch Phys
Med Rehabil. Apr 1991;72(5):284-7. [Medline].
78. Mani R, Cooper C, Kidd BL, Cole JD, Cawley MI. Use of laser Doppler flowmetry and
transcutaneous oxygen tension electrodes to assess local autonomic dysfunction in
patients with frozen shoulder. J R Soc Med. Sep 1989;82(9):536-8. [Medline]. [Full
Text].
79. Manton GL, Schweitzer ME, Weishaupt D, et al. Utility of MR arthrography in the
diagnosis of adhesive capsulitis. Skeletal Radiol. Jun 2001;30(6):326-30. [Medline].
80. Mavrikakis ME, Sfikakis PP, Kontoyannis SA, et al. Clinical and laboratory parameters
in adult diabetics with and without calcific shoulder periarthritis. Calcif Tissue Int. Oct
1991;49(4):288-91. [Medline].
81. Mays KS, North WC, Schnapp M. Stellate ganglion blocks with morphine in sympathetic
type pain. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 1981;44:189.
82. Murrell GA. Scientific comment. Basic science of Dupuytren's disease. Ann Chir Main
Memb Super. 1992;11(5):355-61. [Medline].
83. Musculoskeletal Disorders and Workplace Factors. Cincinnati, OH: Natl Inst Occup
Safety and Health; Jul 1997. [Full Text].
84. Ochoa J, Serra J. Dorsal root reflexes: do they play a role in chronic neuropathic pain
patients?. Pain Forum. 4(3):155-7.
85. Ogilvie-Harris DJ, Myerthall S. The diabetic frozen shoulder: arthroscopic release.
Arthroscopy. Feb 1997;13(1):1-8. [Medline].
86. Oldham BE. Periarthritis of the shoulder associated with thyrotoxicosis. A report of five
cases. N Z Med J. Dec 1959;58:766-70. [Medline].
87. Rizk TE, Pinals RS, Talaiver AS. Corticosteroid injections in adhesive capsulitis:
investigation of their value and site. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. Jan 1991;72(1):20-2.
[Medline].
88. Rockwood C, Mattson F III. The stiff shoulder. In: The Shoulder. 2
nd
ed. Philadelphia,
Pa: WB Saunders; 1998:1065-7.
89. Ryu KN, Lee SW, Rhee YG, et al. Adhesive capsulitis of the shoulder joint: usefulness of
dynamic sonography. J Ultrasound Med. Aug 1993;12(8):445-9. [Medline].
90. Sluka KA, Willis WD, Westlund KN. The role of dorsal root reflexes in neurogenic
inflammation. Pain Forum. 1995;4(3):141-9.
91. Stenlund B, Goldie I, Hagberg M, et al. Shoulder tendinitis and its relation to heavy
manual work and exposure to vibration. Scand J Work Environ Health. Feb
1993;19(1):43-9. [Medline].
92. Subbarao J, Stillwell GK. Reflex sympathetic dystrophy syndrome of the upper
extremity: analysis of total outcome of management of 125 cases. Arch Phys Med
Rehabil. Nov 1981;62(11):549-54. [Medline].
93. University of Washington School of Medicine. Home Exercises for the Stiff Shoulder.
Available at
http://www.orthop.washington.edu/uw/tabID__3376/ItemID__208/mid__10313/Articles/
Default.aspx.
94. van der Heijden GJ, van der Windt DA, de Winter AF. Physiotherapy for patients with
soft tissue shoulder disorders: a systematic review of randomised clinical trials. BMJ. Jul
5 1997;315(7099):25-30. [Medline]. [Full Text].
95. Vecchio PC, Adebajo AO, Chard MD, et al. Thermography of frozen shoulder and
rotator cuff tendinitis. Clin Rheumatol. Sep 1992;11(3):382-4. [Medline].
96. Vermeulen HM, Rozing PM, Obermann WR, et al. Comparison of high-grade and low-
grade mobilization techniques in the management of adhesive capsulitis of the shoulder:
randomized controlled trial. Phys Ther. Mar 2006;86(3):355-68. [Medline].
97. Waldburger M, Meier JL, Gobelet C. The frozen shoulder: diagnosis and treatment.
Prospective study of 50 cases of adhesive capsulitis. Clin Rheumatol. Sep
1992;11(3):364-8. [Medline].
98. Widiastuti-Samekto M, Sianturi GP. Frozen shoulder syndrome: comparison of oral route
corticosteroid and intra-articular corticosteroid injection. Med J Malaysia. Aug
2004;59(3):312-6. [Medline].
99. Wilson PR, Phillip AL, Bedder MD, et al. Diagnostic algorithm for complex regional
pain symptoms. In: Janig W, Stanton-Hicks M, eds. Reflex Sympathetic Dystrophy: A
Reappraisal, Progress in Pain Research and Management. Int Assoc for the Study of
Pain; 1996:93-105.
100. Zanotti RM, Kuhn JE. Arthroscopic capsular release for the stiff shoulder.
Description of technique and anatomic considerations. Am J Sports Med. May-Jun
1997;25(3):294-8. [Medline].

Adhesive Capsulitis in Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Adhesive Capsulitis in Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Adhesive Capsulitis in Physical Medicine and

You might also like