肩胛上神经阻滞、后肩膜水扩张和肩关节间隙水扩张治疗肩膜粘连性肩膜炎的疗效比较。

IF 2.9 3区 医学 Q2 RHEUMATOLOGY
Ahmed Elsaman, Shrouk Abdelmageed, Osama Sayed Daifallah
{"title":"肩胛上神经阻滞、后肩膜水扩张和肩关节间隙水扩张治疗肩膜粘连性肩膜炎的疗效比较。","authors":"Ahmed Elsaman, Shrouk Abdelmageed, Osama Sayed Daifallah","doi":"10.1007/s10067-025-07534-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aim of work: </strong>This study aimed to compare the effects of supra-scapular nerve block, posterior intra-articular hydro-dilatation, and hydro-dilatation of the shoulder interval, in terms of improving pain, function, and range of motion in patients with adhesive capsulitis.</p><p><strong>Patients and methods: </strong>A total of 50 patients diagnosed with adhesive capsulitis were randomly divided into three groups. The first group received a suprascapular nerve block, the second group underwent posterior intra-articular hydro-dilatation, and the third group underwent shoulder interval hydro-dilatation. Patient assessment was conducted using visual analogue scale for pain, shoulder pain and disability index, and measurements of range of motion.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Group 1 experienced rapid and sustained pain reduction (p-value < 0.001 at both baseline vs. first follow-up and baseline vs. second follow-up), with non-significant improvement in internal rotation after 12 weeks (p value = 0.330). Group 2 showed delayed improvement in internal rotation (p-value = 0.068), but more sustained pain reduction (p-value < 0.001) and improved range of motion in all directions at the 12-week mark. Group 3 exhibited rapid pain reduction (p-value < 0.001) and improved range of motion, but non-significant improvements in internal (p-value = 0.131) and external rotation (p-value = 0.052) after 12 weeks.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Although no significant differences were observed among the three groups, we recommend posterior intra-articular hydro-dilatation as it yielded the most promising and sustainable outcomes as regard pain reduction and range of motion improvement. Suprascapular nerve block is recommended for patients with prominent pain symptoms. Rotator interval hydro-dilatation is the least recommended intervention, being the most challenging and painful technique, and as it demonstrated a less sustained effect on range of motion. Key Points • This study aimed to find the best treatment modality for adhesive capsulitis through comparing the effects of suprascapular nerve block, posterior intra-articular hydro-dilatation, and hydro-dilatation of the shoulder interval. • Although no significant differences were found among three modalities, posterior intra-articular hydro-dilatation showed the best long-term outcomes for pain and range of motion. Suprascapular nerve block is recommended for patients with severe pain, while hydro-dilatation of the shoulder interval had less lasting benefits.</p>","PeriodicalId":10482,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Rheumatology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparative efficacy of supra-scapular nerve block, posterior shoulder capsule hydro-dilatation, and shoulder interval hydro-dilatation in managing shoulder adhesive capsulitis.\",\"authors\":\"Ahmed Elsaman, Shrouk Abdelmageed, Osama Sayed Daifallah\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s10067-025-07534-5\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Aim of work: </strong>This study aimed to compare the effects of supra-scapular nerve block, posterior intra-articular hydro-dilatation, and hydro-dilatation of the shoulder interval, in terms of improving pain, function, and range of motion in patients with adhesive capsulitis.</p><p><strong>Patients and methods: </strong>A total of 50 patients diagnosed with adhesive capsulitis were randomly divided into three groups. The first group received a suprascapular nerve block, the second group underwent posterior intra-articular hydro-dilatation, and the third group underwent shoulder interval hydro-dilatation. Patient assessment was conducted using visual analogue scale for pain, shoulder pain and disability index, and measurements of range of motion.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Group 1 experienced rapid and sustained pain reduction (p-value < 0.001 at both baseline vs. first follow-up and baseline vs. second follow-up), with non-significant improvement in internal rotation after 12 weeks (p value = 0.330). Group 2 showed delayed improvement in internal rotation (p-value = 0.068), but more sustained pain reduction (p-value < 0.001) and improved range of motion in all directions at the 12-week mark. Group 3 exhibited rapid pain reduction (p-value < 0.001) and improved range of motion, but non-significant improvements in internal (p-value = 0.131) and external rotation (p-value = 0.052) after 12 weeks.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Although no significant differences were observed among the three groups, we recommend posterior intra-articular hydro-dilatation as it yielded the most promising and sustainable outcomes as regard pain reduction and range of motion improvement. Suprascapular nerve block is recommended for patients with prominent pain symptoms. Rotator interval hydro-dilatation is the least recommended intervention, being the most challenging and painful technique, and as it demonstrated a less sustained effect on range of motion. Key Points • This study aimed to find the best treatment modality for adhesive capsulitis through comparing the effects of suprascapular nerve block, posterior intra-articular hydro-dilatation, and hydro-dilatation of the shoulder interval. • Although no significant differences were found among three modalities, posterior intra-articular hydro-dilatation showed the best long-term outcomes for pain and range of motion. Suprascapular nerve block is recommended for patients with severe pain, while hydro-dilatation of the shoulder interval had less lasting benefits.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10482,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical Rheumatology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-06-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical Rheumatology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10067-025-07534-5\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"RHEUMATOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Rheumatology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10067-025-07534-5","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"RHEUMATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

工作目的:本研究旨在比较肩胛上神经阻滞、后关节内水扩张和肩关节间隙水扩张在改善粘连性囊炎患者疼痛、功能和活动范围方面的效果。患者与方法:将50例确诊为粘连性囊炎的患者随机分为3组。第一组行肩胛上神经阻滞,第二组行后关节内积水扩张术,第三组行肩关节间隙积水扩张术。采用视觉模拟量表对疼痛、肩痛和残疾指数以及活动度进行评估。结论:虽然在三组之间没有观察到显著差异,但我们推荐后路关节内水扩张术,因为它在减轻疼痛和改善活动范围方面产生了最有希望和可持续的结果。肩胛上神经阻滞适用于有明显疼痛症状的患者。旋转间隙水扩张是最不推荐的干预措施,是最具挑战性和痛苦的技术,因为它对活动范围的持续影响较小。•本研究旨在通过比较肩胛上神经阻滞、后关节内水扩张和肩关节间隙水扩张的效果,寻找粘连性囊炎的最佳治疗方式。•尽管在三种方式中没有发现显著差异,但后路关节内水扩张显示出对疼痛和活动范围的最佳长期结果。肩胛上神经阻滞推荐用于严重疼痛的患者,而肩关节间隙的水扩张则没有持久的益处。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparative efficacy of supra-scapular nerve block, posterior shoulder capsule hydro-dilatation, and shoulder interval hydro-dilatation in managing shoulder adhesive capsulitis.

Aim of work: This study aimed to compare the effects of supra-scapular nerve block, posterior intra-articular hydro-dilatation, and hydro-dilatation of the shoulder interval, in terms of improving pain, function, and range of motion in patients with adhesive capsulitis.

Patients and methods: A total of 50 patients diagnosed with adhesive capsulitis were randomly divided into three groups. The first group received a suprascapular nerve block, the second group underwent posterior intra-articular hydro-dilatation, and the third group underwent shoulder interval hydro-dilatation. Patient assessment was conducted using visual analogue scale for pain, shoulder pain and disability index, and measurements of range of motion.

Results: Group 1 experienced rapid and sustained pain reduction (p-value < 0.001 at both baseline vs. first follow-up and baseline vs. second follow-up), with non-significant improvement in internal rotation after 12 weeks (p value = 0.330). Group 2 showed delayed improvement in internal rotation (p-value = 0.068), but more sustained pain reduction (p-value < 0.001) and improved range of motion in all directions at the 12-week mark. Group 3 exhibited rapid pain reduction (p-value < 0.001) and improved range of motion, but non-significant improvements in internal (p-value = 0.131) and external rotation (p-value = 0.052) after 12 weeks.

Conclusion: Although no significant differences were observed among the three groups, we recommend posterior intra-articular hydro-dilatation as it yielded the most promising and sustainable outcomes as regard pain reduction and range of motion improvement. Suprascapular nerve block is recommended for patients with prominent pain symptoms. Rotator interval hydro-dilatation is the least recommended intervention, being the most challenging and painful technique, and as it demonstrated a less sustained effect on range of motion. Key Points • This study aimed to find the best treatment modality for adhesive capsulitis through comparing the effects of suprascapular nerve block, posterior intra-articular hydro-dilatation, and hydro-dilatation of the shoulder interval. • Although no significant differences were found among three modalities, posterior intra-articular hydro-dilatation showed the best long-term outcomes for pain and range of motion. Suprascapular nerve block is recommended for patients with severe pain, while hydro-dilatation of the shoulder interval had less lasting benefits.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Clinical Rheumatology
Clinical Rheumatology 医学-风湿病学
CiteScore
6.90
自引率
2.90%
发文量
441
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: Clinical Rheumatology is an international English-language journal devoted to publishing original clinical investigation and research in the general field of rheumatology with accent on clinical aspects at postgraduate level. The journal succeeds Acta Rheumatologica Belgica, originally founded in 1945 as the official journal of the Belgian Rheumatology Society. Clinical Rheumatology aims to cover all modern trends in clinical and experimental research as well as the management and evaluation of diagnostic and treatment procedures connected with the inflammatory, immunologic, metabolic, genetic and degenerative soft and hard connective tissue diseases.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信