Ross Hauser, MD; Danielle Matias, PA-C; Demi Foster, APRN

A frozen shoulder can make simple movements difficult: getting dressed, reaching behind the back, turning in bed, or lifting an arm overhead. Some people have intense night pain. Others gradually adapt to restricted movement without recognizing how much motion they have lost.

At Caring Medical, people describe both experiences. Some report months or years of stiffness despite exercises or injections. Others, like Emil in the video below, remain active but modify their movements until a painful episode brings the restriction to their attention.

The important questions are whether the limitation is truly adhesive capsulitis, whether another shoulder or neck condition coexists, and which treatment offers a reasonable chance of improving pain and function.

Watch: Emil’s shoulder pain, limited tennis serve, and improvement after treatment

Emil came to Caring Medical after family members had positive experiences with treatment. He described severe right shoulder pain that made getting in and out of bed difficult. He had played tennis without an obvious injury, but pain developed after the game and worsened.

During the encounter, Demi recognized restricted movement. When asked to demonstrate his tennis serve, Emil showed a modified motion that he said he had used for years. He had not thought of his shoulder as “frozen.”

The treatment described was hydrodilatation together with a suprascapular nerve block—not a documented course of Prolotherapy or PRP.

Rapid pain relief and progressive movement gains

Emil reported being pain-free within 24 hours. Full movement did not return that quickly: he described an immediate improvement, estimated by him at about 15%, followed by further gains as he performed the stretches discussed in the interview.

At the filmed return visit, he demonstrated improved reaching behind the back and overhead movement and described a better tennis serve. Demi also noted less prominence of the shoulder blade during the demonstration.

These are reported and observed changes in one patient. The video provides no standardized before-and-after motion measurements, a precise follow-up interval, or long-term recurrence assessment. The shoulder-blade observation does not establish that a nerve palsy was present or corrected.

Because hydrodilatation and a nerve block were performed together, we cannot attribute the response to either intervention alone. The transcript does not specify the ingredients of the injected solutions. Emil’s belief that surgery would have delayed his return to tennis is his personal view, not a tested comparison.

What is frozen shoulder?

Adhesive capsulitis involves inflammation, fibrosis, and tightening of the capsule surrounding the glenohumeral joint—the ball-and-socket shoulder joint. The characteristic finding is restricted active and passive movement: movement is limited both when the person moves the arm and when an examiner gently moves it. External rotation is particularly informative. (1)

Frozen shoulder can arise without an identifiable injury. It may also follow trauma, surgery, or a period of restricted use. Diabetes, thyroid disease, and dyslipidemia are associated with increased risk. It is more complex than simply failing to stretch the shoulder every day. (2)

Pain-related guarding, tendon weakness, arthritis, and a contracted capsule can all limit movement, but they are not interchangeable diagnoses.

The familiar freezing, frozen, and thawing phases

The traditional stages describe a general pattern:

These phases overlap, and their duration varies. Describing them does not predict an exact recovery date or mean that everyone regains full motion without treatment. (3)

A 2026 review emphasizes that prolonged symptoms and incomplete recovery occur in some patients despite the traditional description of frozen shoulder as self-limiting. (1)

Why pain and stiffness should be considered separately

A person may feel much better yet remain unable to reach behind the back. Another may have less capsular restriction but persistent tendon pain or weakness.

Emil’s account illustrates that distinction: pain improved rapidly while movement continued to recover. The same distinction helps explain why research measures pain, disability, and individual directions of movement separately.

Years of symptoms may also lead to reduced muscle bulk, weakness, altered shoulder-blade movement, and compensation through the neck or trunk. These functional consequences matter even when pain fluctuates.

Diagnosis: the examination comes before the image

Frozen shoulder is primarily a clinical diagnosis. Imaging helps assess alternatives or coexisting problems rather than replacing the history and examination. (2)

Questions include whether passive movement is truly restricted, whether there is substantial weakness, and whether arthritis, a rotator cuff tear, calcific tendinopathy, injury, or a neurological condition offers a better explanation.

Plain radiographs can help distinguish arthritis from a relatively preserved joint with capsular restriction. Ultrasound or MRI may be useful when another lesion is suspected. A motion X-ray can display restricted movement, as described in Emil’s case, but does not independently establish the reason for it.

Does everyone need an MRI?

A retrospective study identified 609 patients with frozen shoulder; 403 underwent MRI. Additional structural abnormalities were found in 22% of those scanned, mostly rotator cuff findings. However, only 11 of the 403 patients—2.7%—underwent surgery for the additional MRI-detected pathology. (4)

This supports selective imaging when the clinical picture suggests another problem. It does not mean MRI is unnecessary after trauma, unexplained weakness, atypical symptoms, or diagnostic uncertainty.

Our shoulder osteoarthritis article discusses a different source of painful restriction: joint degeneration and bony changes.

Frozen shoulder and cervical radiculopathy can coexist

A study first reported online in 2024 reviewed 438 patients who had undergone shoulder hydrodistension. Of these, 107 reported neck pain; 48 met the detailed study criteria. The analysis found an association between same-side frozen shoulder and C4–5 foraminal narrowing, which can affect the C5 nerve root. (5)

This is an association from a selected retrospective population. It does not prove that cervical disease causes every frozen shoulder or that neck treatment replaces shoulder assessment.

Pain radiating from the neck, sensory changes, or neurological weakness may change the differential diagnosis. Conversely, a painful neck does not exclude a genuinely contracted shoulder capsule.

Physical therapy and movement: match the approach to the painful shoulder

Movement-based treatment remains important. Its purpose can include preserving tolerable motion, gradually recovering mobility, and rebuilding strength and function.

A highly painful shoulder may not tolerate aggressive stretching. Later, when pain is less dominant, more sustained mobility work may be appropriate. The 2021 clinical update distinguishes pain-relieving therapy from mobilization and strengthening and cautions against aggressive mobilization during the painful phase. (3)

“More force” is not automatically “more recovery.” Likewise, symptom relief can make movement easier without immediately resolving the underlying restriction.

A 2025 evidence-based British pathway reviews the relative roles of rehabilitation, injections, and procedures and identifies continuing evidence gaps. Treatment studies should therefore be read in the context of symptom severity, disease stage, and follow-up duration. (6)

Medication and corticosteroid injections

Anti-inflammatory medicines or other analgesics may reduce discomfort and make daily activity easier. They should not be described as reliably reversing capsular fibrosis. Oral corticosteroids and a corticosteroid injection into the shoulder are different interventions with different risk profiles.

A systematic review of 65 studies involving 4,097 participants found that intra-articular corticosteroid had important short-term benefits. The authors supported its early use in appropriate patients, accompanied by an exercise program. (7)

A smaller study of 80 patients also reported better six-week pain and disability outcomes with corticosteroid injection plus physiotherapy than with physiotherapy alone. (8)

Benefit can diminish with time. Injection discomfort, infection risk, and temporary blood-glucose elevation are relevant considerations, especially in diabetes. Broad claims that all anti-inflammatory treatment inevitably worsens frozen shoulder are not supported by these findings.

Hydrodilatation: what the procedure is intended to do

Hydrodilatation, also called hydrodistension, introduces fluid into the glenohumeral joint to distend the contracted capsule. Protocols differ in volume, approach, injected medication, and whether the capsule is preserved or allowed to rupture.

It is therefore more accurate to describe controlled capsular distension than assume every procedure must “break up” the capsule. Recent trials include capsule-preserving methods. (9)

Hydrodilatation, Prolotherapy, PRP, and a nerve block are not interchangeable names. They may differ in their target, intended mechanism, and injected solution.

Why hydrodilatation research sometimes disagrees

An earlier overview favored hydrodilatation with corticosteroid among conservative options, while noting that the underlying meta-analyses were low or critically low quality. (10) A randomized trial published in 2020 found no additional benefit from distension over an intra-articular steroid injection alone. (11)

A 2023 systematic review found at least transient improvements in disability and passive external rotation compared with steroid injection, but questioned the clinical importance of some differences. (12)

The practical lesson is that adding fluid volume does not guarantee a better result. Different protocols, comparison treatments, exercise programs, and outcome timing can produce different findings.

A 2025 randomized trial: cortisone with or without hydrodilatation

A double-blind trial involving 79 patients compared corticosteroid injection alone with the same injection followed by saline distension. Both groups improved, but there was no significant difference in the main outcomes at eight weeks. Hydrodilatation was more painful during the procedure. (13)

This does not negate an individual’s improvement. It asks whether distension adds benefit beyond the medication and other care given to both groups.

A 2026 trial: 5% dextrose versus corticosteroid

An 84-patient randomized trial, published online in 2025 and in a 2026 journal issue, compared capsule-preserving hydrodilatation using 5% dextrose water with a triamcinolone-and-saline protocol. Both groups improved, with similar pain, disability, and movement results at 12 weeks; oral anti-inflammatory use was higher in the dextrose group at one assessment. (9)

This is evidence about a particular joint-distension protocol. It should not be relabeled proof that ligament-targeted Prolotherapy has the same effects. Nor does it establish which solution Emil received.

November 2026 research: the protocol matters

A network meta-analysis published in November 2026 included 20 randomized trials and 1,410 participants. Results differed across approaches: some corticosteroid-containing hydrodilatation techniques ranked favorably for pain or specific movement outcomes, while other protocols did not. (14)

Network comparisons include indirect evidence and depend on the comparability of the included studies. A ranking is not a guarantee that one technique is best for every patient, and it does not validate an unspecified combination used in a testimonial.

What does a suprascapular nerve block add?

The suprascapular nerve carries important shoulder sensory input and supplies the supraspinatus and infraspinatus muscles. A block can reduce pain signaling, potentially making movement or another procedure more tolerable.

Pain reduction from a block is different from capsular release or tendon repair. A temporary response does not establish that the entire condition has resolved.

Earlier combination studies

A 2019 retrospective study of 102 patients reported improvements with both intra-articular steroid alone and steroid combined with a suprascapular block, with some advantages for the combination. (15)

However, a randomized study of 40 patients found an added immediate benefit from the block but no additional benefit at the later measured follow-ups. (16) An earlier systematic review found encouraging results but called for better comparative trials. (17)

These findings explain why immediate comfort and long-term recovery should be assessed separately.

Newer controlled studies remain mixed

A 2024 randomized trial involving 76 patients compared suprascapular injections with intra-articular injections, both alongside physiotherapy. Several outcomes favored the intra-articular approach; the study did not establish universal superiority of nerve blocks. (18)

A trial published in a 2026 journal issue randomized 290 patients to physiotherapy with or without serial suprascapular blocks; 182 were followed. It found no statistically significant superiority for the block group on its measured outcomes. The substantial follow-up loss is an important limitation. (19)

A separate 2026 randomized comparison reported greater improvements with a suprascapular block in some outcomes, including movement pain and flexion, while other outcomes were comparable with intra-articular injection. It tested a different comparison, not whether every patient benefits from adding a block to hydrodilatation. (20)

Hydrodilatation and a block together

A 2026 study reported outcomes in 71 patients with adhesive capsulitis or postoperative stiffness who underwent large-volume hydrodilatation under a suprascapular block. Motion and patient-reported outcomes improved, including follow-up at six months or longer. (21)

This was not a randomized comparison isolating the contribution of the block or fluid volume. The protocol also included specified anesthetic and steroid components. It supports further investigation of a combined approach without establishing that it matches Emil’s treatment or predicts his long-term course.

Shockwave therapy and high-intensity laser

These options deserve discussion without assuming that improvement in pain means full functional recovery.

A small 2015 study of 30 patients found greater pain and functional improvement with extracorporeal shockwave therapy than with the comparison physical-therapy program. (22) A 2019 study of 20 patients with diabetic frozen shoulder also reported benefit when shockwave treatment was added to mobilization and exercises, compared with an ultrasound-based program. Both studies were small. (23)

A 2024 trial of 60 participants investigated shockwave treatment within an injection-and-exercise program and reported better outcomes in the active-treatment group through six months. The combined interventions and study-specific protocol matter when interpreting what produced the benefit. (24)

For high-intensity laser, a sham-controlled trial enrolling 36 patients found advantages in pain and some quality-of-life measures, but not superior improvements in disability or range of motion. (25)

When manipulation or surgery is considered

Persistent disabling restriction despite appropriate nonoperative care may lead to discussion of manipulation under anesthesia or arthroscopic capsular release.

Manipulation under anesthesia (MUA) uses controlled movement while the patient is anesthetized to address capsular restriction. Arthroscopic capsular release surgically divides selected contracted capsular tissue. Both can improve symptoms; both have risks.

Manipulation can cause complications such as a humeral fracture or rotator cuff injury. Anesthetic and operative risks also matter when considering either procedure. (3)

Better early results do not always mean better long-term results

A surgical series of 140 shoulders reported early improvements after arthroscopic release. Without a randomized comparison, it cannot establish superiority over nonoperative treatment. (26)

A retrospective comparison of 57 manipulation patients and 22 release patients found similar outcomes by three months, although early outcomes differed. Some still required further steroid injections, particularly patients with diabetes. (27)

Another retrospective study compared surgery plus injection and physiotherapy with injection and physiotherapy alone. Surgery produced faster improvements in some outcomes, but differences at 12 months were too small to be clinically notable. (28)

What the UK FROST trial found

The UK FROST trial randomized 503 patients to MUA, arthroscopic capsular release, or early structured physiotherapy with steroid injection. At 12 months, none was clinically superior by the trial’s prespecified thresholds. More serious adverse events were reported with capsular release than with manipulation. (29)

This does not mean surgery is never helpful. It means the extra invasiveness should be weighed against the expected benefit rather than assumed necessary for every persistent frozen shoulder.

Is a larger capsular release better?

A systematic review comparing less extensive release with more extensive and 360-degree techniques found that additional release did not consistently produce better pain or functional outcomes. Some movement differences favored different approaches, and a complete release did not show a uniform additional advantage. (30)

The question is which restriction needs addressing—not simply how much tissue can be released.

Diabetes and procedural recovery

A small comparative surgical study found improvement in both diabetic and non-diabetic patients, but slower or less complete recovery in some diabetic patients. (31) Diabetes does not make improvement impossible; it can affect expectations, medication considerations, and interpretation of the evidence.

Prolotherapy: a separate treatment question

Prolotherapy uses an injected solution, commonly dextrose, with the intent of treating selected painful connective-tissue structures. The term should not be used as a substitute for every shoulder injection involving fluid or dextrose.

At Caring Medical, our interest includes coexisting tendon or ligament problems that may contribute to shoulder pain. That clinical perspective should remain distinct from claims that all adhesive capsulitis begins with rotator cuff weakness or that Prolotherapy reliably restores a contracted capsule.

Our Prolotherapy for frozen shoulder article provides a more focused discussion.

Watch Dr. Ross Hauser’s shoulder Prolotherapy demonstration and pain-study discussion. This broader shoulder presentation describes a different treatment concept from the hydrodilatation and nerve block used in Emil’s account.

Two patients: Prolotherapy plus physical therapy versus physical therapy alone

A 2022 report described two men, aged 66 and 65, with painful restricted shoulders. The patient receiving Prolotherapy plus physical therapy improved in pain and movement, while the physical-therapy-only patient did not show comparable pain improvement. (32)

These were two separate cases, not a randomized trial. Differences between the patients and their natural course prevent a conclusion that Prolotherapy caused the difference.

A combined-treatment case with seven-year follow-up

A 50-year-old man with adhesive capsulitis and a partial infraspinatus tear received manipulation under anesthesia, subsequent therapy, and later dextrose injections. The report described pain improving from 77 to 11 out of 100, restoration of motion, and maintained improvement seven years later. (33)

The long follow-up is useful, but the combined treatment cannot establish the separate effect of Prolotherapy.

Cases involving diabetes and hypertension

A 2023 series described three patients: a 58-year-old woman without the highlighted comorbidities, a 61-year-old man with diabetes and bilateral symptoms, and a 59-year-old woman with hypertension. All received Prolotherapy and physical therapy. Improvement was reported, but the two patients with comorbidities had less complete motion recovery. (34)

Three cases cannot establish general effectiveness regardless of diabetes or hypertension. They illustrate observations requiring stronger comparative research.

PRP injections: promising research with remaining questions

Platelet-rich plasma is prepared from a patient’s blood and contains platelets and associated signaling molecules. Its proposed biological effects differ from mechanical distension and nerve blockade.

A randomized study of 64 patients found improvements with both PRP and conventional physical therapy, without significant differences in the main measured outcomes during short follow-up. Acetaminophen use was lower in the PRP group. (35)

A separate small blinded trial comparing PRP with saline, both alongside exercise, reported advantages for PRP on several measures. (36) A 60-patient cohort comparing PRP with corticosteroid also favored PRP on some 12-week outcomes, but its nonrandomized design limits causal interpretation. (37)

A randomized trial comparing PRP with procaine reported a more sustained response with PRP over six months. The comparator was not a contemporary multimodal program, and larger trials were recommended. (38)

An earlier case report described a 45-year-old man reporting substantial pain and functional improvement after PRP injections. It is a patient observation, not a response-rate estimate. (39)

A 2026 PRP meta-analysis

A review of 13 randomized studies involving 1,056 patients found advantages for PRP over corticosteroid in several six-month pain, disability, and movement outcomes. However, some early outcomes were comparable, and flexion did not significantly differ. Variation in preparations and protocols remains relevant. (40)

These findings support continued investigation, not a guarantee that PRP is best for every shoulder or that combining it with another injection is proven superior.

For more detail, see our PRP injections for adhesive capsulitis article.

Pain relief, useful movement, and returning to activity

For many people, the important outcome is being able to sleep, dress, work, or play a sport again. Pain scores matter, but so do motion, strength, and confidence using the arm.

Emil’s story adds a useful reminder: someone can remain active while compensating for a restricted shoulder. His reported rapid pain relief and later movement gains are encouraging, while the combined procedure and unspecified follow-up limit what can be concluded.

Return to overhead sport is a different demand from comfort at rest. A painless shoulder is not automatically ready for every load or movement.

Symptoms that need reassessment

Sudden shoulder pain after an injury, marked new weakness, fever with a hot or swollen joint, or new neurological symptoms should not automatically be labeled frozen shoulder. Shoulder pain accompanied by chest discomfort or breathlessness requires urgent assessment.

Persistent symptoms also warrant reconsidering whether capsular restriction is the whole explanation or whether arthritis, tendon disease, or cervical nerve irritation coexists.

Medical disclaimer: This article provides general education and does not establish an individual diagnosis or predict treatment response. Emil’s experience is a single patient account involving hydrodilatation and a nerve block together. Published case reports and combined-treatment studies cannot establish the separate effectiveness of each component.

References

1 Achilova F, Daher M, Nassar JE, Daniels AH, Abboud JA. Frozen shoulder: Diagnosis and treatment of adhesive capsulitis. The American journal of medicine. 2026;139(5):598-605. doi:10.1016/j.amjmed.2026.01.021. [Google Scholar]

2 Lee BC, Kim BS, Lee BJ, Moon CW, Park CH, Kim DH, et al. Clinical Practice Guidelines for Diagnosis and Non-Surgical Treatment of Primary Frozen Shoulder. Annals of rehabilitation medicine. 2025;49(3):113-138. doi:10.5535/arm.250057. [Google Scholar]

3 Pandey V, Madi S. Clinical Guidelines in the Management of Frozen Shoulder: An Update! Indian journal of orthopaedics. 2021;55(2):299-309. doi:10.1007/s43465-021-00351-3. [Google Scholar]

4 Dimitriou D, Winkler E, Zindel C, Grubhofer F, Wieser K, Bouaicha S. Is routine magnetic resonance imaging necessary in patients with clinically diagnosed frozen shoulder? Utility of magnetic resonance imaging in frozen shoulder. JSES international. 2022;6(5):855-858. doi:10.1016/j.jseint.2022.05.009. [Google Scholar]

5 Russo S, Sharma A, Vardanyan R, Thavarajasingam SG, Riew KD. The Association Between Cervical Foraminal Stenosis and Adhesive Capsulitis: An Imaging-based Case-Control Study. Spine. 2026;51(18):1319-1325. doi:10.1097/brs.0000000000005031. [Google Scholar]

6 Rupani N, Gwilym SE, BESS Frozen Shoulder Working Group. British Elbow and Shoulder Society patient care pathway: Frozen shoulder. Shoulder & elbow. 2025;17(4):351-363. doi:10.1177/17585732251335955. [Google Scholar]

7 Challoumas D, Biddle M, McLean M, Millar NL. Comparison of Treatments for Frozen Shoulder: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. JAMA network open. 2020;3(12):e2029581. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.29581. [Google Scholar]

8 Ahmad Khan RD, Shahzad K, Khan S, Israr M, Zahid FM. Comparison of physiotherapy with and without intra-articular corticosteroid injection for treatment of frozen shoulder: A comparative study. JPMA. The Journal of the Pakistan Medical Association. 2021;71(8 Suppl 5):S17-S21. [Google Scholar]

9 Liu Y, Hu Y, Xiong M, Kang Y, Liu J, Fang M, Chen L. Short-term efficacy of ultrasound-guided capsule-preserving hydrodilatation for primary frozen shoulder using 5% dextrose water vs. corticosteroid: a randomized controlled trial. Journal of shoulder and elbow surgery. 2026;35(1):261-269. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2025.04.024. [Google Scholar]

10 Lädermann A, Piotton S, Abrassart S, Mazzolari A, Ibrahim M, Stirling P. Hydrodilatation with corticosteroids is the most effective conservative management for frozen shoulder. Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA. 2021;29(8):2553-2563. doi:10.1007/s00167-020-06390-x. [Google Scholar]

11 Paruthikunnan SM, Shastry PN, Kadavigere R, Pandey V, Karegowda LH. Intra-articular steroid for adhesive capsulitis: does hydrodilatation give any additional benefit? A randomized control trial. Skeletal radiology. 2020;49(5):795-803. doi:10.1007/s00256-019-03316-8. [Google Scholar]

12 Poku D, Hassan R, Migliorini F, Maffulli N. Efficacy of hydrodilatation in frozen shoulder: a systematic review and meta-analysis. British medical bulletin. 2023;147(1):121-147. doi:10.1093/bmb/ldad018. [Google Scholar]

13 Konarski A, Narayanasamy K, Coghlan J, Chung T, Andrews M, Bell S. A Double Blind Randomised Controlled Trial Comparing Glenohumeral Cortisone With and Without Hydrodilatation in Patients With Frozen Shoulder. ANZ journal of surgery. 2025;95(10):2162-2170. doi:10.1111/ans.70200. [Google Scholar]

14 Lei Q, Li J, Xie X. Comparative Efficacy of Isolated Hydrodilatation and Hydrodilatation with Adjuvant Interventions for Frozen Shoulder: A Network Meta-analysis. American journal of physical medicine & rehabilitation. 2026. Published online November 2, 2026. doi:10.1097/phm.0000000000003197. [Google Scholar]

15 Jung TW, Lee SY, Min SK, Lee SM, Yoo JC. Does Combining a Suprascapular Nerve Block With an Intra-articular Corticosteroid Injection Have an Additive Effect in the Treatment of Adhesive Capsulitis? A Comparison of Functional Outcomes After Short-term and Minimum 1-Year Follow-up. Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine. 2019;7(7):2325967119859277. doi:10.1177/2325967119859277. [Google Scholar]

16 Gencer Atalay K, Kurt S, Kaplan E, Yağcı İ. Clinical effects of suprascapular nerve block in addition to intra-articular corticosteroid injection in the early stages of adhesive capsulitis: A singleblind, randomized controlled trial. Acta orthopaedica et traumatologica turcica. 2021;55(6):459-465. doi:10.5152/j.aott.2021.21071. [Google Scholar]

17 Jump CM, Waghmare A, Mati W, Malik RA, Charalambous CP. The Impact of Suprascapular Nerve Interventions in Patients with Frozen Shoulder: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. JBJS reviews. 2021;9(12):e21.00042. doi:10.2106/jbjs.rvw.21.00042. [Google Scholar]

18 Lin YT, Kuo YC, Wu XN, Liu YF, Hsieh LF. Comparison of the Efficacy of Ultrasound-Guided Suprascapular Nerve Blocks and Intraarticular Corticosteroid Injections for Frozen Shoulder: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Pain physician. 2024;27(7):415-424. doi:10.36076/ppj.2024.27.415. [Google Scholar]

19 Medeiros-Filho JF, Lima DA, Conforto Gracitelli ME, Angeli Malavolta E, Nunes Oliveira W, Tabosa do Egito ES. Effectiveness of suprascapular nerve block associated with physiotherapy compared with physiotherapy isolated for treatment of adhesive capsulitis: a randomized controlled trial. Journal of shoulder and elbow surgery. 2026;35(1):254-260. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2025.03.025. [Google Scholar]

20 Yalvaç M, Başaran PÖ, Doğan AG, Doğan M, İpek D, Dündar A. Comparison of the effects of ultrasound-guided suprascapular nerve block and intra-articular shoulder injection on pain, functional status and range of motion in patients with adhesive capsulitis: Randomized, controlled trial. Journal of back and musculoskeletal rehabilitation. 2026. Published online August 18, 2026. doi:10.1177/10538127261476808. [Google Scholar]

21 Judkins BL, Marston GA, Broughton P, Drosback M, Adams K, Schmitz T. Large-volume hydrodiatlation under suprascapular nerve block for the treatment of shoulder adhesive capsulitis. JSES reviews, reports, and techniques. 2026;6(3):100704. doi:10.1016/j.xrrt.2026.100704. [Google Scholar]

22 Park C, Lee S, Yi CW, Lee K. The effects of extracorporeal shock wave therapy on frozen shoulder patients’ pain and functions. Journal of physical therapy science. 2015;27(12):3659-3661. doi:10.1589/jpts.27.3659. [Google Scholar]

23 Muthukrishnan R, Rashid AA, Al-Alkharji F. The effectiveness of extracorporeal shockwave therapy for frozen shoulder in patients with diabetes: randomized control trial. Journal of physical therapy science. 2019;31(7):493-497. doi:10.1589/jpts.31.493. [Google Scholar]

24 Nambi G, Alghadier M, Eltayeb MM, Aldhafian OR, Saleh AK, Alsanousi N, Ibrahim MNA, Attallah AA, Ismail MA, Elfeshawy M, Wahd YESH, Albarakati AJA. Additional Effect of Extracorporeal Shockwave Therapy with Lidocaine Injection on Clinical and MRI Findings in Frozen Shoulder: A Prospective, Randomized, Double-Blinded, Placebo-Controlled Trial. Pain and therapy. 2024;13(2):251-268. doi:10.1007/s40122-024-00575-9. [Google Scholar]

25 Atan T, Bahar-Ozdemir Y. Efficacy of high-intensity laser therapy in patients with adhesive capsulitis: a sham-controlled randomized controlled trial. Lasers in medical science. 2021;36(1):207-217. doi:10.1007/s10103-020-03121-z. [Google Scholar]

26 Barnes CP, Lam PH, Murrell GA. Short-term outcomes after arthroscopic capsular release for adhesive capsulitis. Journal of shoulder and elbow surgery. 2016;25(9):e256-64. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2015.12.025. [Google Scholar]

27 Lee SJ, Jang JH, Hyun YS. Can manipulation under anesthesia alone provide clinical outcomes similar to arthroscopic circumferential capsular release in primary frozen shoulder (FS)?: the necessity of arthroscopic capsular release in primary FS. Clinics in shoulder and elbow. 2020;23(4):169-177. doi:10.5397/cise.2020.00283. [Google Scholar]

28 Satora W, Brzóska R, Prill R, Reichert P, Oleksy Ł, Mika A, Królikowska A. Surgical versus Nonsurgical Multimodality Treatment in an Idiopathic Frozen Shoulder: A Retrospective Study of Clinical and Functional Outcomes. Journal of clinical medicine. 2021;10(21):5185. doi:10.3390/jcm10215185. [Google Scholar]

29 Rangan A, Brealey SD, Keding A, Corbacho B, Northgraves M, Kottam L, et al. Management of adults with primary frozen shoulder in secondary care (UK FROST): a multicentre, pragmatic, three-arm, superiority randomised clinical trial. Lancet (London, England). 2020;396(10256):977-989. doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(20)31965-6. [Google Scholar]

30 Sivasubramanian H, Chua CXK, Lim SY, Manohara R, Ng ZWD, V PK, Poh KS. Arthroscopic capsular release to treat idiopathic frozen shoulder: How much release is needed? Orthopaedics & traumatology, surgery & research : OTSR. 2021;107(1):102766. doi:10.1016/j.otsr.2020.102766. [Google Scholar]

31 Mehta SS, Singh HP, Pandey R. Comparative outcome of arthroscopic release for frozen shoulder in patients with and without diabetes. The bone & joint journal. 2014;96-B(10):1355-1358. doi:10.1302/0301-620x.96b10.34476. [Google Scholar]

32 Sam N, Yusuf I, Idris I, Adnan E, Haryadi RD, Hamid F, Usman MA, Johan MP, Zainuddin AA, Bukhari A. Effectiveness of Prolotherapy Combined with Physical Therapy Versus Physical Therapy Only for Frozen Shoulder: A Case Report. The American journal of case reports. 2022;23:e936995. doi:10.12659/ajcr.936995. [Google Scholar]

33 Morningstar MW, Strauchman MN. Manipulation Under Anesthesia and Prolotherapy for Adhesive Capsulitis and Rotator Cuff Tear: A Case Report With 7-Year Follow-Up. Journal of chiropractic medicine. 2022;21(4):327-330. doi:10.1016/j.jcm.2022.04.005. [Google Scholar]

34 Sam N, Yusuf I, Idris I, Adnan E, Haryadi RD, Hamid F, Usman MA, Johan MP, Zainuddin AA. A Case Series: Effect of Comorbidities on the Outcomes of Prolotherapy Injection for Frozen Shoulder Patients. International medical case reports journal. 2023;16:257-263. doi:10.2147/imcrj.s407723. [Google Scholar]

35 Thu AC, Kwak SG, Shein WN, Htun M, Htwe TTH, Chang MC. Comparison of ultrasound-guided platelet-rich plasma injection and conventional physical therapy for management of adhesive capsulitis: a randomized trial. The Journal of international medical research. 2020;48(12):0300060520976032. doi:10.1177/0300060520976032. [Google Scholar]

36 Ünlü B, Çalış FA, Karapolat H, Üzdü A, Tanıgör G, Kirazlı Y. Efficacy of platelet-rich plasma injections in patients with adhesive capsulitis of the shoulder. International orthopaedics. 2021;45(1):181-190. doi:10.1007/s00264-020-04518-9. [Google Scholar]

37 Barman A, Mukherjee S, Sahoo J, Maiti R, Rao PB, Sinha MK, Sahoo D, Tripathy SK, Patro BK, Bag ND. Single Intra-articular Platelet-Rich Plasma Versus Corticosteroid Injections in the Treatment of Adhesive Capsulitis of the Shoulder: A Cohort Study. American journal of physical medicine & rehabilitation. 2019;98(7):549-557. doi:10.1097/phm.0000000000001144. [Google Scholar]

38 Lin J. Platelet-rich plasma injection in the treatment of frozen shoulder: A randomized controlled trial with 6-month follow-up . International journal of clinical pharmacology and therapeutics. 2018;56(8):366-371. doi:10.5414/cp203262. [Google Scholar]

39 Aslani H, Nourbakhsh ST, Zafarani Z, Ahmadi-Bani M, Ananloo ME, Beigy M, Salehi S. Platelet-Rich Plasma for Frozen Shoulder: A Case Report. The archives of bone and joint surgery. 2016;4(1):90-93. [Google Scholar]

40 Xu C, Wang Z, Tan J, Zhou N, Zhong Q, Chen Y, Huang R. Comparison of the efficacy of platelet-rich plasma versus corticosteroid in the treatment of adhesive capsulitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis based on randomized controlled trials. Frontiers in medicine. 2026;13:1766836. doi:10.3389/fmed.2026.1766836. [Google Scholar]