3 Clinical Trials for Frozen Shoulder (Adhesive Capsulitis)
The purpose of this study is to compare ActiveMatrix® to standard of care corticosteroid injection in the treatment of adhesive capsulitis of the shoulder (frozen shoulder).
Study 1 - Adhesive Capsulitis Study - 110 patients The purpose of this study is to compare treatment of patients with symptoms of adhesive capsulitis, primary and secondary, between three groups: I) Physical Therapy alone; II) ERMI Shoulder Flexionater® alone; III) PT + Device. Study 2 - Postoperative Shoulder Stiffness Study - 90 patients The purpose of this study is to compare treatment of patients with post-operative stiffness indicative of secondary adhesive capsulitis between three groups: I) Physical Therapy alone; II) ERMI Shoulder Flexionater® alone; III) PT + Device. Study 3 - Stiffness after MUA Study - enroll all eligible patients (goal of at least 15) The purpose of this study is to compare treatment of patients who have undergone manipulation under anesthesia or lysis of adhesions between three groups: I) Physical Therapy alone; II) ERMI Shoulder Flexionater® alone; III) PT + Device.
The purpose of this study is to identify individuals 18 or older who have diagnostic presentation of adhesive capsulitis and randomize them into two arms, distinguished by use of physical therapy and steroid injections compared with steroid injections followed by watchful waiting. This prospective study will be used to determine whether there is a significant impact on patient outcome and whether the additional financial burden is justified. There are no experimental interventions for this study. The use of physical therapy, oral and parenteral corticosteroids, and watchful waiting are offered following the standard of care for adhesive capsulitis. Our hypothesis is that patients will not have a significant difference in outcome between the two study arms. One group will undergo regular physical therapy with corticosteroid injections (Arm 1) and the other will have steroid injections during the inflammatory phase only and then be regularly observed (Arm 2). We also hypothesize there will be a significant financial burden associated with the PT arm that is not justified with the possibility of increased symptom reports in that arm.