Background Manipulation under anaesthesia and arthroscopic capsular release are costly and invasive treatments for frozen shoulder, but their effectiveness remains uncertain. We compared these two surgical interventions with early structured physiotherapy plus steroid injection. MethodsIn this multicentre, pragmatic, three-arm, superiority randomised trial, patients referred to secondary care for treatment of primary frozen shoulder were recruited from 35 hospital sites in the UK. Participants were adults (≥18 years) with unilateral frozen shoulder, characterised by restriction of passive external rotation (≥50%) in the affected shoulder. Participants were randomly assigned (2:2:1) to receive manipulation under anaesthesia, arthroscopic capsular release, or early structured physiotherapy. In manipulation under anaesthesia, the surgeon manipulated the affected shoulder to stretch and tear the tight capsule while the participant was under general anaesthesia, supplemented by a steroid injection. Arthroscopic capsular release, also done under general anaesthesia, involved surgically dividing the contracted anterior capsule in the rotator interval, followed by manipulation, with optional steroid injection. Both forms of surgery were followed by postprocedural physiotherapy. Early structured physiotherapy involved mobilisation techniques and a graduated home exercise programme supplemented by a steroid injection. Both early structured physiotherapy and postprocedural physiotherapy involved 12 sessions during up to 12 weeks. The primary outcome was the Oxford Shoulder Score (OSS; 0-48) at 12 months after randomisation, analysed by initial randomisation group. We sought a target difference of 5 OSS points between physiotherapy and either form of surgery, or 4 points between manipulation and capsular release. The trial registration is ISRCTN48804508.

Primary care lags behind secondary care in the reporting of, and learning from, incidents that put patient safety at risk. In primary care, there is no universally agreed approach to classifying the severity of harm arising from such patient-safety incidents. This lack of an agreed approach limits learning that could lead to the prevention of injury to patients. In a review of research on patient safety in primary care, we identified 21 existing approaches to the classification of harm severity. Using the World Health Organization’s (WHO’s) International Classification for Patient Safety as a reference, we undertook a framework analysis of these approaches. We then developed a new system for the classification of harm severity. To assess and classify harm, most existing approaches use measures of symptom duration (11/21), symptom severity (11/21) and/or the level of intervention required to manage the harm (14/21). However, few of these approaches account for the deleterious effects of hospitalization or the psychological stress that may be experienced by patients and/or their relatives. The new classification system we developed builds on WHO’s International Classification for Patient Safety and takes account not only of hospitalization and psychological stress but also of so-called near misses and uncertain outcomes. The constructs we have outlined have the potential to be applied internationally, across primary-care settings, to improve both the detection and prevention of incidents that cause the most severe harm to patients.

No abstract

Introduction: Total knee replacement is a reliable operation for reducing pain and improving function in severe osteoarthritis of the knee. As incidence of obesity is increasing worldwide, there is a debate about the role of Body Mass Index (BMI) in selection of patients requiring total knee replacement. The aim of the study was to evaluate the impact of body mass index on total knee replacement in terms of post-operative improvement in knee range of motion, patient satisfaction and complications.Material and methods: Out of 175 patients who suffered from advance knee osteoarthritis and were candidates for primary total knee replacement from January 2016 to March 2018, 155 patients fit the inclusion criteria. Group 1 included 66 patients who were overweight and class 1 obese while group 2 included 89 patients who were class 2 and 3 obese according to WHO Body Mass Index classification. All patients underwent total knee replacement according to the hospital guidelines. Pre and post-operative range of motion, patient satisfaction and complications were assessed and documented. Results: There was no statistically significant difference in improvements in post-operative knee range of motion between the two groups up to 2 years of follow up. [Mann-Whitney U test p= 0.069]. Similarly, Mann-Whitney U test showed that there is no significant difference between patient satisfaction levels (SF-12 scores) of the two groups (p= 0.09). Conclusion: There is no significant impact of obesity on outcomes after total knee replacement and BMI should not be used as a factor in selecting patients who qualify for total knee replacement.Level of Evidence: Level III

No abstract