No abstract

No abstract

Background Glenohumeral idiopathic adhesive capsulitis is a common shoulder condition that hinders functionality. Addressing the pathology has been extensively researched. Ultrasound (US)‐guided injections have shown their efficacy. However, no study has been conducted to compare anatomical accuracy between different approaches in targeting the coracohumeral ligament (CHL). Objective To investigate whether US‐guided injection of the CHL can be performed accurately using either the rotator interval (RI) or the coracoidal (CO) approach. Methods An experimental cadaveric case series. Setting Anatomy laboratory. Specimens Both shoulders of 13 Thiel‐embalmed cadavers. Interventions Three physiatrists each injected a 0.1 mL bolus of colored dye in both shoulders of each cadaver using either the RI or the CO approach under US guidance. Each cadaver received a total of six injections (three injections per shoulder). The accuracy of the injection was determined following shoulder dissection by an anatomist. Main Outcome Measure The accuracy of the US‐guided injection of the CHL. Results The RI approach yielded 36 accurate injections, giving it an accuracy of 100%. With the CO approach two injections were deemed inaccurate yielding an accuracy of 94%. There was no significant difference in accuracy between all operators. Conclusions US‐guided injection of the CHL can be performed accurately with both the RI and CO approaches. The RI approach was likely to be more accurate.

Background: Coracohumeral ligament (CHL) thickening, contracture, and fibroplasia have been identified in glenohumeral idiopathic adhesive capsulitis (GHIAC). The CHL is the main structure responsible for the range of motion limitations. Favorable outcomes have been reported with CHL surgical release. Intra-articular glenohumeral joint corticosteroid infiltrations are utilized to disrupt the inflammatory process and reduce pain in GHIAC. The aim of this study was to investigate whether the CHL could be accurately targeted with a periligamentous infiltration. Methods: A convenience sample of 12 unembalmed cadaver shoulders (mean age: 74.5 years, range 66-87 years) without evidence of previous injury or surgery were utilized in this exploratory double factor feasibility cadaveric (unguided and ultrasound (US) guided) case series. Two clinicians trained in musculoskeletal infiltration techniques carried out the infiltrations on each shoulder with colored latex. One clinician infiltrated without guidance, the other with US-guidance. The injecting clinicians were blinded to the others infiltration procedure and the order was randomized. An anatomist blinded to the infiltration order performed a shoulder dissection and recorded the infiltrate location. Percentage calculation for accuracy of infiltration and a chi-square evaluation of the difference between unguided and US-guided infiltrations was applied. Results: An accuracy of 75% was achieved for unguided infiltration and 80% for US-guided infiltration techniques. Chi-squared indicated there was no significant difference (p = 0.82) between the unguided and US-guided techniques. Conclusion: US-guided and unguided infiltrations achieved good accuracy targeting the CHL, suggesting infiltrations can specifically and accurately target the CHL. In vivo investigation using such infiltration techniques are warranted.