Adhesive CapsulitisCHLTenexNCT04549051
Percutaneous Interruption of the Coracohumeral Ligament for the Treatment of Frozen Shoulder
A study testing Tenex and Local anesthetic in people with Adhesive Capsulitis, run by Albert Einstein College of Medicine at 1 site in United States.
Trial summary
Percutaneous Interruption of the Coracohumeral Ligament for the treatment of Frozen Shoulder. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 to 89 years
- Conditions the study is for
- Adhesive Capsulitis
- What is being tested?
- Tenex and Local anesthetic
- Type of treatment
- Medical device
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 46 participants
- Where
- 1 siteUnited States
- Study dates
- 17 Nov 2020to 19 Jan 2023
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- Yes, posted in the registrySummary in the doctors' view
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 18 to 89 years
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- Established Diagnosis of Adhesive capsulitis (AC) Ligament Flavum >3mm, diagnosed by US evaluation decreased shoulder ROM in external rotation and abduction (50% of unaffected side)
- Patients who have tried other conventional therapies like steroid treatments, surgical treatments, physiotherapy with little (defined by less than 20 degrees improvement in shoulder ROM - external rotation) to no improvement in the shoulder ROM
Who cannot join
- Age less than 18 years and greater than 89 years
- Patients with AC but showing improvement in shoulder ROM progressively (defined by improvement in ROM > 200 external rotation or 20 degrees per week when undergoing physiotherapy)
- Patients who are currently pregnant
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
About this study
Official title: Percutaneous Interruption of the Coracohumeral Ligament for the Treatment of Frozen Shoulder.
Percutaneous Interruption of the Coracohumeral Ligament for the treatment of Frozen Shoulder.
Read the detailed description
Chronic inflammation of the shoulder joint capsule and its associated structures can lead to clinically significant symptoms, including insidious onset of pain, and ultimately restricting range of motion. Although the underlying mechanism for adhesive capsulitis (AC) is not well defined, some studies suggest that fibroblast proliferation and thickening of the coracohumeral ligament (CHL) is a proposed mechanism for which AC and subsequent prolonged immobilization and symptoms present (1, 2, 3). Other studies suggest that it is due to a combination of capsular fibrosis and inflammation within the synovium, and other focus on the fact that thickening of the CHL is responsible for limiting external rotation in patients affected by adhesive capsulitis (1).
AC coined frozen shoulder by Codman in 1934 [2), has an estimated prevalence of 2-3% in the general population, with ages 40-70 affected most commonly, and predominantly women. While the precise etiology remains undefined, it can be secondary to trauma or an idiopathic etiology and has been found to have an incidence as high as 20% in diabetic patients, with worse functional outcomes when compared to non-diabetic patients. Hypothyroidism and cerebrovascular disease have also been shown to be associated with an increased risk of developing AC (4). AC is typically a clinical diagnosis. However, both magnetic resonance and ultrasonography have consistently shown thickening of the CHL (1). Several studies have compared arthrographic evidence of findings in adhesive capsulitis, and many reported a thickening of the CHL in cases of frozen shoulder as compared to control subjects (2). In a study implementing shear-wave elastography (SWE), the CHL in patients diagnosed with adhesive capsulitis was thicker and stiffer (4).
Interventions aimed at improving AC and CHL damage, clinical symptomatology, as well as histopathological findings range from rest and physical therapy, local injections and hydrodilation, to advanced surgical interventions (4, 5). These surgical options include manipulation under anesthesia (MUA) and arthroscopic capsulotomy. MUA is an aggressive mobilization of the joint in an effort to lyse adhesions and to stretch the contracted glenohumeral capsule. Despite potential benefits, MUA has been associated with superior labral anterior and posterior (SLAP) lesions, bankart lesions, capsular tears, hemarthrosis, and even humeral or glenoid fractures (4). Arthroscopic capsulotomy allows for direct visualization of the CHL and confirmation of the diagnosis of AC, and several studies have shown improvement in pain relief as well as range of motion (4). However, patients who did not benefit from this intervention were women, typically over the age of 50, with a past medical history of diabetes mellitus. CHL resection has also been described as a potential treatment option for AC (6, 7), with current therapy limited to a surgical approach. Management of refractory disease through arthroscopic capsular release has been shown to improve pain and increase range-of-motion (8, 9, 4). A sequela of arthroscopic surgery is postoperative persistent AC, which some surgeons attempt to prophylactically prevent with adequate postoperative pain control so that the patient can participate in a physical therapy program. The potential limitations of current conservative management and IRB NUMBER: 2020-11998 IRB APPROVAL DATE: 11/17/2020 sequelae of surgical approaches have prompted additional novel therapies. International have researchers developed an ultrasound guided technique with a scalpel incision of the CHL to address this need. Scalpel use is not the standard of care for interventional musculoskeletal pain treatments and our team decided to improve this limitation. Blades and scalpels limit US visibility, thus marginalizing the safety of the procedure. Our team used a percutaneous, ultrasound visible, needle shaped, tissue cutting device to lesion the CHL while improving upon the potential safety concerns. The tool, TENEX®, is widely used by Pain physicians to perform percutaneous tenotomies and has been described in the management of various tendinous pathologies (10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15).; this device was selected because the gross architectural similarities of tendon and ligament suggest that the CHL could be modified by this tool. Our novel procedure was performed on cadavers to provide proof of concept
The authors performed cadaveric dissection in 8 cadaveric shoulders with the hypothesis that sonographically guided percutaneous dissection will result in sectioning of the coracohumeral ligament. In this study we found that complete sectioning was reproducibly achieved in 7 minutes with approximately 250 passes of the device. This was the desired outcome for improving the shoulder ROM (16). This shows proof of concept and we want to perform this procedure in living subjects for validation. If the results are positive patients can have an outpatient procedure in the interventional pain clinic with desirable results. This cadaveric technique study has already been submitted to Pain Medicine journal for publication.
In addition to the above proof of concept above this procedure was performed in living subjects. A peer reviewed paper was submitted based on data from these subjects. 7 patients were selected for the publication as these patients had follow-ups as requested by the reviewer. In these patients the average improvement in external rotation was 40 degrees and the average abduction improvement was 31 degrees. All patients retained this improvement in shoulder ROM at follow-up visits. Of note, one patients follow-up visit was 116 after the procedure and her improvement in ROM was 60 and 110 in external rotation and abduction respectively. Given these outcomes the authors decided to do a prospective RCT.
- Conditions
- Adhesive Capsulitis
- Being tested
- Tenex, Local anesthetic
- Medical subject headings
- Bursitis
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
TenexDevice
Local anesthetic plus Tenex into the coracohumeral ligament for adhesive capsulitis
Local anestheticDrug
Only local anesthetic into the coracohumeral ligament for adhesive capsulitis
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Tenex plus local anesthetic | Experimental | Use of the TENEX device for sectioning of the CHL Receives: Device: Tenex; Drug: Local anesthetic |
| Local Anesthetic | Other | Only Local anesthetic will be injected into the CHL. This arm will have the option to cross over into Tenex arm at 1 month Receives: Drug: Local anesthetic |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Comparison of Range of Motion of the Shoulder
Change in shoulder range of motion (ROM) (external rotation and abduction) procedure by at least 100%, measured with goniometer. Increased degrees of motion is indicative of more favorable/better outcomes.
Measured: Immediately following procedure, up to 60 minutes
Secondary outcomes (6)
Durability of Local Anesthetic - Change in Range Of Motion (ROM)
Shoulder abduction and external rotation measured with goniometer. Increased degrees of motion is indicative of more favorable/better outcomes.
Measured: Baseline (Before the procedure) and at 1 month
Durability of the TENEX - Change in Range Of Motion (ROM)
Shoulder abduction and external rotation measured with goniometer. Increased degrees of motion is indicative of more favorable/better outcomes.
Measured: Immediately after the procedure and at the long term follow-up (10 months to 2 years)
Change of Pain Intensity Score for Local Anesthetic Group
Measured by visual analog scale (VAS). VAS is a validated, subjective measure for for acute and chronic pain. Range of possible values: 0-10. (Higher score indicates more pain)
Measured: at the Baseline visit (Before the procedure) and at the 1-month visit
Change of Pain Intensity Score for TENEX Group
Measured by visual analog scale (VAS). VAS is a validated, subjective measure for for acute and chronic pain. Range of possible values: 0-10. (Higher score indicates more pain)
Measured: at the Baseline visit (before the procedure) and at the long-term follow-up (10 months to 2 years)
Change of the Oxford Shoulder Score for Local Anesthetic Group
Measured by The Oxford Shoulder Score (OSS) questionnaire form. The Oxford Shoulder Score (OSS) is a 12-item patient-report questionnaire with a 0-4 scoring format, developed to identify functional changes of the shoulder. Range of possible values: 0-48. (Higher score represents a better outcome)
Measured: at the baseline (before the procedure) and at the 1-month visit
Change of the Oxford Shoulder Score for TENEX Group
Measured by The Oxford Shoulder Score (OSS) questionnaire form. The Oxford Shoulder Score (OSS) is a 12-item patient-report questionnaire with a 0-4 scoring format, developed to identify functional changes of the shoulder. Range of possible values: 0-48. (Higher score represents a better outcome)
Measured: at the baseline (before the procedure) and at the long term follow-up (10 months to 2 years)
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted16 Sep 2020
- Study start17 Nov 2020
- Primary completion16 Mar 2022
- Study completion19 Jan 2023
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Posted resultsParticipant flow, outcome measures and adverse events reported by the sponsor.
- Publications (16)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Adhesive CapsulitisStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Crossover
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Enrolment
- 46 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Albert Einstein College of Medicine
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Sponsor
- Investigators
- Sayed Wahezi, MD, Principal investigator, Montefiore Medical Center
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT04549051
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- 2020-11998
- Acronym
- CHLTenex
- Status last verified
- May 2024
- First submitted
- 9 Sep 2020
- Last updated
- 29 May 2024
- Results posted
- Yes, on ClinicalTrials.gov
- Data monitoring committee
- Yes
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- Yes
- Individual data sharing
- No
Publications
Wu CH, Chen WS, Wang TG. Elasticity of the Coracohumeral Ligament in Patients with Adhesive Capsulitis of the Shoulder. Radiology. 2016 Feb;278(2):458-64. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2015150888. Epub 2015 Aug 31.
PubMed 26323030Mengiardi B, Pfirrmann CW, Gerber C, Hodler J, Zanetti M. Frozen shoulder: MR arthrographic findings. Radiology. 2004 Nov;233(2):486-92. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2332031219. Epub 2004 Sep 9.
PubMed 15358849Dias R, Cutts S, Massoud S. Frozen shoulder. BMJ. 2005 Dec 17;331(7530):1453-6. doi: 10.1136/bmj.331.7530.1453.
PubMed 16356983Le HV, Lee SJ, Nazarian A, Rodriguez EK. Adhesive capsulitis of the shoulder: review of pathophysiology and current clinical treatments. Shoulder Elbow. 2017 Apr;9(2):75-84. doi: 10.1177/1758573216676786. Epub 2016 Nov 7.
PubMed 28405218Maund E, Craig D, Suekarran S, Neilson A, Wright K, Brealey S, Dennis L, Goodchild L, Hanchard N, Rangan A, Richardson G, Robertson J, McDaid C. Management of frozen shoulder: a systematic review and cost-effectiveness analysis. Health Technol Assess. 2012;16(11):1-264. doi: 10.3310/hta16110.
PubMed 22405512Hagiwara Y, Sekiguchi T, Ando A, Kanazawa K, Koide M, Hamada J, Yabe Y, Yoshida S, Itoi E. Effects of Arthroscopic Coracohumeral Ligament Release on Range of Motion for Patients with Frozen Shoulder. Open Orthop J. 2018 Sep 18;12:373-379. doi: 10.2174/1874325001812010373. eCollection 2018.
PubMed 30288192Yukata K, Goto T, Sakai T, Fujii H, Hamawaki J, Yasui N. Ultrasound-guided coracohumeral ligament release. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2018 Oct;104(6):823-827. doi: 10.1016/j.otsr.2018.01.016. Epub 2018 Mar 19.
PubMed 29567320Austgulen OK, Oyen J, Hegna J, Solheim E. [Arthroscopic capsular release in treatment of primary frozen shoulder]. Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen. 2007 May 17;127(10):1356-8. Norwegian.
PubMed 17519989Chen SK, Chien SH, Fu YC, Huang PJ, Chou PH. Idiopathic frozen shoulder treated by arthroscopic brisement. Kaohsiung J Med Sci. 2002 Jun;18(6):289-94.
PubMed 12355929Sanchez PJ, Grady JF, Saxena A. Percutaneous Ultrasonic Tenotomy for Achilles Tendinopathy Is a Surgical Procedure With Similar Complications. J Foot Ankle Surg. 2017 Sep-Oct;56(5):982-984. doi: 10.1053/j.jfas.2017.06.015.
PubMed 28842108Kamineni S, Butterfield T, Sinai A. Percutaneous ultrasonic debridement of tendinopathy-a pilot Achilles rabbit model. J Orthop Surg Res. 2015 May 20;10:70. doi: 10.1186/s13018-015-0207-7.
PubMed 25986341Chimenti RL, Stover DW, Fick BS, Hall MM. Percutaneous Ultrasonic Tenotomy Reduces Insertional Achilles Tendinopathy Pain With High Patient Satisfaction and a Low Complication Rate. J Ultrasound Med. 2019 Jun;38(6):1629-1635. doi: 10.1002/jum.14835. Epub 2018 Oct 2.
PubMed 30280399Barnes DE, Beckley JM, Smith J. Percutaneous ultrasonic tenotomy for chronic elbow tendinosis: a prospective study. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2015 Jan;24(1):67-73. doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2014.07.017. Epub 2014 Oct 8.
PubMed 25306494Koh JS, Mohan PC, Howe TS, Lee BP, Chia SL, Yang Z, Morrey BF. Fasciotomy and surgical tenotomy for recalcitrant lateral elbow tendinopathy: early clinical experience with a novel device for minimally invasive percutaneous microresection. Am J Sports Med. 2013 Mar;41(3):636-44. doi: 10.1177/0363546512470625. Epub 2013 Jan 9.
PubMed 23302261Zhu J, Hu B, Xing C, Li J. Ultrasound-guided, minimally invasive, percutaneous needle puncture treatment for tennis elbow. Adv Ther. 2008 Oct;25(10):1031-6. doi: 10.1007/s12325-008-0099-6.
PubMed 18791678
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 29 May 2024. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Percutaneous Interruption of the Coracohumeral Ligament for the Treatment of Frozen Shoulder.
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT04549051
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- CHLTenex / 2020-11998
- Conditions
- Adhesive Capsulitis
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 46 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- Albert Einstein College of MedicineUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- 17 Nov 2020 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 16 Mar 2022 (actual)
- Study completion
- 19 Jan 2023 (actual)
- First posted
- 16 Sep 2020 (actual)
- Results
- Posted 29 May 2024
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
Percutaneous Interruption of the Coracohumeral Ligament for the treatment of Frozen Shoulder.
Detailed description
Chronic inflammation of the shoulder joint capsule and its associated structures can lead to clinically significant symptoms, including insidious onset of pain, and ultimately restricting range of motion. Although the underlying mechanism for adhesive capsulitis (AC) is not well defined, some studies suggest that fibroblast proliferation and thickening of the coracohumeral ligament (CHL) is a proposed mechanism for which AC and subsequent prolonged immobilization and symptoms present (1, 2, 3). Other studies suggest that it is due to a combination of capsular fibrosis and inflammation within the synovium, and other focus on the fact that thickening of the CHL is responsible for limiting external rotation in patients affected by adhesive capsulitis (1).
AC coined frozen shoulder by Codman in 1934 [2), has an estimated prevalence of 2-3% in the general population, with ages 40-70 affected most commonly, and predominantly women. While the precise etiology remains undefined, it can be secondary to trauma or an idiopathic etiology and has been found to have an incidence as high as 20% in diabetic patients, with worse functional outcomes when compared to non-diabetic patients. Hypothyroidism and cerebrovascular disease have also been shown to be associated with an increased risk of developing AC (4). AC is typically a clinical diagnosis. However, both magnetic resonance and ultrasonography have consistently shown thickening of the CHL (1). Several studies have compared arthrographic evidence of findings in adhesive capsulitis, and many reported a thickening of the CHL in cases of frozen shoulder as compared to control subjects (2). In a study implementing shear-wave elastography (SWE), the CHL in patients diagnosed with adhesive capsulitis was thicker and stiffer (4).
Interventions aimed at improving AC and CHL damage, clinical symptomatology, as well as histopathological findings range from rest and physical therapy, local injections and hydrodilation, to advanced surgical interventions (4, 5). These surgical options include manipulation under anesthesia (MUA) and arthroscopic capsulotomy. MUA is an aggressive mobilization of the joint in an effort to lyse adhesions and to stretch the contracted glenohumeral capsule. Despite potential benefits, MUA has been associated with superior labral anterior and posterior (SLAP) lesions, bankart lesions, capsular tears, hemarthrosis, and even humeral or glenoid fractures (4). Arthroscopic capsulotomy allows for direct visualization of the CHL and confirmation of the diagnosis of AC, and several studies have shown improvement in pain relief as well as range of motion (4). However, patients who did not benefit from this intervention were women, typically over the age of 50, with a past medical history of diabetes mellitus. CHL resection has also been described as a potential treatment option for AC (6, 7), with current therapy limited to a surgical approach. Management of refractory disease through arthroscopic capsular release has been shown to improve pain and increase range-of-motion (8, 9, 4). A sequela of arthroscopic surgery is postoperative persistent AC, which some surgeons attempt to prophylactically prevent with adequate postoperative pain control so that the patient can participate in a physical therapy program. The potential limitations of current conservative management and IRB NUMBER: 2020-11998 IRB APPROVAL DATE: 11/17/2020 sequelae of surgical approaches have prompted additional novel therapies. International have researchers developed an ultrasound guided technique with a scalpel incision of the CHL to address this need. Scalpel use is not the standard of care for interventional musculoskeletal pain treatments and our team decided to improve this limitation. Blades and scalpels limit US visibility, thus marginalizing the safety of the procedure. Our team used a percutaneous, ultrasound visible, needle shaped, tissue cutting device to lesion the CHL while improving upon the potential safety concerns. The tool, TENEX®, is widely used by Pain physicians to perform percutaneous tenotomies and has been described in the management of various tendinous pathologies (10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15).; this device was selected because the gross architectural similarities of tendon and ligament suggest that the CHL could be modified by this tool. Our novel procedure was performed on cadavers to provide proof of concept
The authors performed cadaveric dissection in 8 cadaveric shoulders with the hypothesis that sonographically guided percutaneous dissection will result in sectioning of the coracohumeral ligament. In this study we found that complete sectioning was reproducibly achieved in 7 minutes with approximately 250 passes of the device. This was the desired outcome for improving the shoulder ROM (16). This shows proof of concept and we want to perform this procedure in living subjects for validation. If the results are positive patients can have an outpatient procedure in the interventional pain clinic with desirable results. This cadaveric technique study has already been submitted to Pain Medicine journal for publication.
In addition to the above proof of concept above this procedure was performed in living subjects. A peer reviewed paper was submitted based on data from these subjects. 7 patients were selected for the publication as these patients had follow-ups as requested by the reviewer. In these patients the average improvement in external rotation was 40 degrees and the average abduction improvement was 31 degrees. All patients retained this improvement in shoulder ROM at follow-up visits. Of note, one patients follow-up visit was 116 after the procedure and her improvement in ROM was 60 and 110 in external rotation and abduction respectively. Given these outcomes the authors decided to do a prospective RCT.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Crossover
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Number of arms
- 2
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Tenex plus local anesthetic | Experimental | Device: Tenex, Drug: Local anestheticUse of the TENEX device for sectioning of the CHL |
| Local Anesthetic | Other | Drug: Local anestheticOnly Local anesthetic will be injected into the CHL. This arm will have the option to cross over into Tenex arm at 1 month |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 to 89 years
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (2 listed)
- Established Diagnosis of Adhesive capsulitis (AC) Ligament Flavum >3mm, diagnosed by US evaluation decreased shoulder ROM in external rotation and abduction (50% of unaffected side)
- Patients who have tried other conventional therapies like steroid treatments, surgical treatments, physiotherapy with little (defined by less than 20 degrees improvement in shoulder ROM - external rotation) to no improvement in the shoulder ROM
Key exclusion criteria (3 listed)
- Age less than 18 years and greater than 89 years
- Patients with AC but showing improvement in shoulder ROM progressively (defined by improvement in ROM > 200 external rotation or 20 degrees per week when undergoing physiotherapy)
- Patients who are currently pregnant
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| TenexLocal anesthetic plus Tenex into the coracohumeral ligament for adhesive capsulitis | Device | Tenex plus local anesthetic |
| Local anestheticOnly local anesthetic into the coracohumeral ligament for adhesive capsulitis | Drug | Local Anesthetic, Tenex plus local anesthetic |
Primary outcome
Comparison of Range of Motion of the Shoulder
Time frame: Immediately following procedure, up to 60 minutes
Change in shoulder range of motion (ROM) (external rotation and abduction) procedure by at least 100%, measured with goniometer. Increased degrees of motion is indicative of more favorable/better outcomes.
6 secondary outcomes
Durability of Local Anesthetic - Change in Range Of Motion (ROM)
Time frame: Baseline (Before the procedure) and at 1 month
Durability of the TENEX - Change in Range Of Motion (ROM)
Time frame: Immediately after the procedure and at the long term follow-up (10 months to 2 years)
Change of Pain Intensity Score for Local Anesthetic Group
Time frame: at the Baseline visit (Before the procedure) and at the 1-month visit
Change of Pain Intensity Score for TENEX Group
Time frame: at the Baseline visit (before the procedure) and at the long-term follow-up (10 months to 2 years)
Change of the Oxford Shoulder Score for Local Anesthetic Group
Time frame: at the baseline (before the procedure) and at the 1-month visit
Change of the Oxford Shoulder Score for TENEX Group
Time frame: at the baseline (before the procedure) and at the long term follow-up (10 months to 2 years)
Results and safety
Loading the posted results from ClinicalTrials.gov…
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 29 May 2024.
- Posted resultsParticipant flow, baseline, all outcome measures and adverse events.
- Background: PubMed 26323030Wu CH, Chen WS, Wang TG. Elasticity of the Coracohumeral Ligament in Patients with Adhesive Capsulitis of the Shoulder. Radiology. 2016 Feb;278(2):458-64. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2015150888. Epub 2015 Aug 31.
- Background: PubMed 15358849Mengiardi B, Pfirrmann CW, Gerber C, Hodler J, Zanetti M. Frozen shoulder: MR arthrographic findings. Radiology. 2004 Nov;233(2):486-92. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2332031219. Epub 2004 Sep 9.
- Background: PubMed 16356983Dias R, Cutts S, Massoud S. Frozen shoulder. BMJ. 2005 Dec 17;331(7530):1453-6. doi: 10.1136/bmj.331.7530.1453.
- Background: PubMed 28405218Le HV, Lee SJ, Nazarian A, Rodriguez EK. Adhesive capsulitis of the shoulder: review of pathophysiology and current clinical treatments. Shoulder Elbow. 2017 Apr;9(2):75-84. doi: 10.1177/1758573216676786. Epub 2016 Nov 7.
- Background: PubMed 22405512Maund E, Craig D, Suekarran S, Neilson A, Wright K, Brealey S, Dennis L, Goodchild L, Hanchard N, Rangan A, Richardson G, Robertson J, McDaid C. Management of frozen shoulder: a systematic review and cost-effectiveness analysis. Health Technol Assess. 2012;16(11):1-264. doi: 10.3310/hta16110.
- Background: PubMed 30288192Hagiwara Y, Sekiguchi T, Ando A, Kanazawa K, Koide M, Hamada J, Yabe Y, Yoshida S, Itoi E. Effects of Arthroscopic Coracohumeral Ligament Release on Range of Motion for Patients with Frozen Shoulder. Open Orthop J. 2018 Sep 18;12:373-379. doi: 10.2174/1874325001812010373. eCollection 2018.
- Background: PubMed 29567320Yukata K, Goto T, Sakai T, Fujii H, Hamawaki J, Yasui N. Ultrasound-guided coracohumeral ligament release. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2018 Oct;104(6):823-827. doi: 10.1016/j.otsr.2018.01.016. Epub 2018 Mar 19.
- Background: PubMed 17519989Austgulen OK, Oyen J, Hegna J, Solheim E. [Arthroscopic capsular release in treatment of primary frozen shoulder]. Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen. 2007 May 17;127(10):1356-8. Norwegian.
- Background: PubMed 12355929Chen SK, Chien SH, Fu YC, Huang PJ, Chou PH. Idiopathic frozen shoulder treated by arthroscopic brisement. Kaohsiung J Med Sci. 2002 Jun;18(6):289-94.
- Background: PubMed 28842108Sanchez PJ, Grady JF, Saxena A. Percutaneous Ultrasonic Tenotomy for Achilles Tendinopathy Is a Surgical Procedure With Similar Complications. J Foot Ankle Surg. 2017 Sep-Oct;56(5):982-984. doi: 10.1053/j.jfas.2017.06.015.
- Background: PubMed 25986341Kamineni S, Butterfield T, Sinai A. Percutaneous ultrasonic debridement of tendinopathy-a pilot Achilles rabbit model. J Orthop Surg Res. 2015 May 20;10:70. doi: 10.1186/s13018-015-0207-7.
- Background: PubMed 30280399Chimenti RL, Stover DW, Fick BS, Hall MM. Percutaneous Ultrasonic Tenotomy Reduces Insertional Achilles Tendinopathy Pain With High Patient Satisfaction and a Low Complication Rate. J Ultrasound Med. 2019 Jun;38(6):1629-1635. doi: 10.1002/jum.14835. Epub 2018 Oct 2.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: No
Related trials for Adhesive Capsulitis
Not yet recruiting
Effects of Clinic Versus mHealth Application-Based Shoulder Rehabilitation in Patients With Adhesive Capsulitis
Adhesive Capsulitis
Not yet recruiting
Effect of Hormone Replacement Therapy on Physiotherapy Outcomes in Postmenopausal Women With Frozen Shoulder
Frozen Shoulder, Adhesive Capsulitis
Not yet recruiting
Effects of Posterior Capsular Stretching With and Without Dynamic Neuromuscular Stabilization Exercises in Frozen Shoulder
Frozen Shoulder
Active, not recruiting
Spencer vs. Ola Grimsby Techniques With Scapular Motor Training in Idiopathic Adhesive Capsulitis
Idiopathic Adhesive Capsulitis
Not yet recruitingPhase 4
OMT for Adhesive Capsulitis
Adhesive Capsulitis of the Shoulder, Frozen Shoulder
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
Sayed Wahezi, MD principal investigator
Montefiore Medical Center
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Tenex and Local anesthetic in people with Adhesive Capsulitis, run by Albert Einstein College of Medicine at 1 site in United States.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 2 inclusion and 3 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 29 May 2024. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in United States. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
Yes. Results are posted in the registry (first posted 29 May 2024). A summary is in the For doctors view, and the full results are on ClinicalTrials.gov.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Comparison of Range of Motion of the Shoulder (time frame: Immediately following procedure, up to 60 minutes). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT04549051, which also lists 16 linked publications.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 29 May 2024.