{Reference Type}: Journal Article
{Title}: Definition, Diagnosis, Treatment, and Prognosis of Frozen Shoulder: A Consensus Survey of Shoulder Specialists.
{Author}: Cho CH;Lee YH;Kim DH;Lim YJ;Baek CS;Kim DH;
{Journal}: Clin Orthop Surg
{Volume}: 12
{Issue}: 1
{Year}: Mar 2020
{Factor}: 2.503
{DOI}: 10.4055/cios.2020.12.1.60
{Abstract}: <B>BACKGROUND: </B>The objective of this study was to identify a consensus on definition, diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis of frozen shoulder (FS) among shoulder specialists.<BR><B>METHODS: </B>A questionnaire composed of 18 questions about FS-definition, classification, utilization of diagnostic modalities, the propriety of treatment at each stage, and prognosis-was sent to 95 shoulder specialists in Korea. Most questions (15 questions) required an answer on a 5-point analog scale (1, strongly disagree; 5, strongly agree); three questions about the propriety of treatment were binary.<BR><B>RESULTS: </B>We received 71 responses (74.7%). Of the 71 respondents, 84.5% agreed with the proposed definition of FS, and 88.8% agreed that FS should be divided into primary and secondary types according to the proposed definition. Only 43.7% of the respondents agreed that FS in patients with systemic disease should be classified as secondary FS. For the diagnosis of FS, 71.9% agreed that plain radiography should be used and 64.8% agreed ultrasonography should be used. There was a high consensus on proper treatment of FS: 97.2% agreed on education, 94.4%, on the use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs; 76.1%, on intra-articular steroid injections; and 97.2%, on stretching exercise. Among all respondents, 22.5% answered that more than 10% of the patients with FS do not respond to conservative treatment.<BR><B>CONCLUSIONS: </B>The survey revealed a general consensus among shoulder specialists on the definition and treatment of FS. However, classification of FS was found controversial.