In many instances , no or minimal attempts to screen were undertaken or reported .
Background Subacromial shoulder pain is a common clinical presentation with much diagnostic uncertainty .
Some of this uncertainty relates to the involvement of the cervical spine as a source or contribution to subacromial shoulder pain .
Currently , there is no accepted method of screening of the cervical spine in the presence of subacromial shoulder pain , which risks patients receiving misguided and /or ineffective interventions .
Objective To evaluate approaches used to screen the cervical spine in patients with subacromial shoulder pain .
Arthroscopic subacromial decompression for subacromial shoulder pain (CSAW): a multicentre, pragmatic, parallel group, placebo-controlled, three-group, randomised surgical trial
Summary Background Arthroscopic sub-acromial decompression ( decompressing the sub-acromial space by removing bone spurs and soft tissue arthroscopically ) is a common surgery for subacromial shoulder pain , but its effectiveness is uncertain . We did a study to assess its effectiveness and to investigate the mechanism for surgical decompression . Methods We did a multicentre , r and omised , pragmatic , parallel group , placebo-controlled , three-group trial at 32 hospitals in the UK with 51 surgeons . Participants were patients who had subacromial pain for at least 3 months with intact rotator cuff tendons , were eligible for arthroscopic surgery , and had previously completed a non-operative management programme that included exercise therapy and at least one steroid injection . Exclusion criteria included a full-thickness torn rotator cuff . We r and omly assigned participants ( 1:1:1 ) to arthroscopic subacromial decompression , investigational arthroscopy only , or no treatment ( attendance of one re assessment appointment with a specialist shoulder clinician 3 months after study entry , but no intervention ) . Arthroscopy only was a placebo as the essential surgical element ( bone and soft tissue removal ) was omitted . We did the r and omisation with a computer-generated minimisation system . In the surgical intervention groups , patients were not told which type of surgery they were receiving ( to ensure masking ) . Patients were followed up at 6 months and 1 year after r and omisation ; surgeons coordinated their waiting lists to schedule surgeries as close as possible to r and omisation . The primary outcome was the Oxford Shoulder Score ( 0 [ worst ] to 48 [ best ] ) at 6 months , analysed by intention to treat . The sample size calculation was based upon a target difference of 4·5 points ( SD 9·0 ) . This trial has been registered at Clinical Trials.gov , number NCT01623011 . Findings Between Sept 14 , 2012 , and June 16 , 2015 , we r and omly assigned 313 patients to treatment groups ( 106 to decompression surgery , 103 to arthroscopy only , and 104 to no treatment ) . 24 [ 23 % ] , 43 [ 42 % ] , and 12 [ 12 % ] of the decompression , arthroscopy only , and no treatment groups , respectively , did not receive their assigned treatment by 6 months . At 6 months , data for the Oxford Shoulder Score were available for 90 patients assigned to decompression , 94 to arthroscopy , and 90 to no treatment . Mean Oxford Shoulder Score did not differ between the two surgical groups at 6 months ( decompression mean 32·7 points [ SD 11·6 ] vs arthroscopy mean 34·2 points [ 9·2 ] ; mean difference −1·3 points ( 95 % CI −3·9 to 1·3 , p=0·3141 ) . Both surgical groups showed a small benefit over no treatment ( mean 29·4 points [ SD 11·9 ] , mean difference vs decompression 2·8 points [ 95 % CI 0·5–5·2 ] , p=0·0186 ; mean difference vs arthroscopy 4·2 [ 1·8–6·6 ] , p=0·0014 ) but these differences were not clinical ly important . There were six study -related complications that were all frozen shoulders ( in two patients in each group ) . Interpretation Surgical groups had better outcomes for shoulder pain and function compared with no treatment but this difference was not clinical ly important . Additionally , surgical decompression appeared to offer no extra benefit over arthroscopy only . The difference between the surgical groups and no treatment might be the result of , for instance , a placebo effect or postoperative physiotherapy . The findings question the value of this operation for these indications , and this should be communicated to patients during the shared treatment decision-making process . Funding Arthritis Research UK , the National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre , and the Royal College of Surgeons ( Engl and )
In many instances , no or minimal attempts to screen were undertaken or reported .
Background Subacromial shoulder pain is a common clinical presentation with much diagnostic uncertainty .
Some of this uncertainty relates to the involvement of the cervical spine as a source or contribution to subacromial shoulder pain .
Currently , there is no accepted method of screening of the cervical spine in the presence of subacromial shoulder pain , which risks patients receiving misguided and /or ineffective interventions .
Objective To evaluate approaches used to screen the cervical spine in patients with subacromial shoulder pain .