Examination of the neck when a patient complains of shoulder pain: a global survey of current practice (2019)

Differentiating Shoulder Pathology from Cervical Spine Pathology: An Algorithmic Approach

Accurate and timely diagnosis of musculoskeletal conditions is an essential component of high-quality orthopaedic care. The proximity of the shoulder to the cervical spine leads to a multitude of pathologic conditions whose clinical presentations overlap, posing a diagnostic challenge to orthopaedic providers. Missed or delayed diagnosis of the etiology for patient-described 'shoulder pain' causes frustration among patients, incurs increased healthcare costs, and delays treatment. Moreover, patients with concurrent conditions of the cervical spine and shoulder require deliberate consideration for how each condition contributes to patients' symptoms. The purpose of this review was to describe a systematic approach for evaluating and differentiating pathologies of the shoulder and cervical spine.

Chronic pain and local pain in usually painless conditions including neuroma may be due to compressive proximal neural lesion

It has been unexplained why chronic pain does not invariably accompany chronic pain-prone disorders. This question-driven, hypothesis-based article suggests that the reason may be varying occurrence of concomitant peripheral compressive proximal neural lesion (cPNL), e.g., radiculopathy and entrapment plexopathies. Transition of acute to chronic pain may involve development or aggravation of cPNL. Nociceptive hypersensitivity induced and/or maintained by cPNL may be responsible for all types of general chronic pain as well as for pain in isolated tissue conditions that are usually painless, e.g., neuroma, scar, and Dupuytren's fibromatosis. Compressive PNL induces focal neuroinflammation, which can maintain dorsal root ganglion neuron (DRGn) hyperexcitability (i.e., peripheral sensitization) and thus fuel central sensitization (i.e., hyperexcitability of central nociceptive pathways) and a vicious cycle of chronic pain. DRGn hyperexcitability and cPNL may reciprocally maintain each other, because cPNL can result from reflexive myospasm-induced myofascial tension, muscle weakness, and consequent muscle imbalance- and/or pain-provoked compensatory overuse. Because of pain and motor fiber damage, cPNL can worsen the causative musculoskeletal dysfunction, which further accounts for the reciprocity between the latter two factors. Sensitization increases nerve vulnerability and thus catalyzes this cycle. Because of these mechanisms and relatively greater number of neurons involved, cPNL is more likely to maintain DRGn hyperexcitability in comparison to distal neural and non-neural lesions. Compressive PNL is associated with restricted neural mobility. Intermittent (dynamic) nature of cPNL may be essential in chronic pain, because healed (i.e., fibrotic) lesions are physiologically silent and, consequently, cannot provide nociceptive input. Not all patients may be equally susceptible to develop cPNL, because occurrence of cPNL may vary as vary patients' predisposition to musculoskeletal impairment. Sensitization is accompanied by pressure pain threshold decrease and consequent mechanical allodynia and hyperalgesia, which can cause unusual local pain via natural pressure exerted by space occupying lesions or by their examination. Worsening of local pain is similarly explainable. Neuroma pain may be due to cPNL-induced axonal mechanical sensitivity and hypersensitivity of the nociceptive nervi nervorum of the nerve trunk and its stump. Intermittence and symptomatic complexity of cPNL may be the cause of frequent misdiagnosis of chronic pain.

Exploring indicators of extremity pain of spinal source as identified by Mechanical Diagnosis and Therapy (MDT): a secondary analysis of a prospective cohort study

OBJECTIVE

To explore indicators that predict whether patients with extremity pain have a spinal or extremity source of pain.

METHODS

The data were from a prospective cohort study (n = 369). Potential indicators were gathered from a typical Mechanical Diagnosis and Therapy (MDT) history and examination. A stepwise logistic regression with a backward elimination was performed to determine which indicators predict classification into spinal or extremity source groups. A Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve was constructed to examine the number of significant indicators that could predict group classification.

RESULTS

Five indicators were identified to predict group classification. Classification into the spinal group was associated with the presence of paresthesia [odds ratio (OR) 1.984], change in symptoms with sitting/neck or trunk flexion/turning neck/when still (OR 2.642), change in symptoms with posture change (OR 3.956), restrictions in spinal movements (OR 2.633), and no restrictions in extremity movements (OR 2.241). The optimal number of indicators for classification was two (sensitivity = 0.638, specificity = 0.807).

DISCUSSION

This study provides guidance on clinical indicators that predict the source of symptoms for isolated extremity pain. The clinical indicators will allow clinicians to supplement their decision-making process in regard to spinal and extremity differentiation so as to appropriately target their examinations and interventions.

Current preoperative physiotherapy management strategies for patients awaiting Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction (ACLR): A worldwide survey of physiotherapy practice

BACKGROUND

Anterior cruciate ligament ruptures are the most common ligament injury to the knee with surgical reconstruction considered standard treatment. This study aimed to explore the current physiotherapy management strategies used during the preoperative phase of rehabilitation for patients awaiting anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR).

METHODS

An anonymous survey was disseminated online via Twitter and the 'interactive Chartered Society of Physiotherapy' message board. Practising physiotherapists who treated at least one patient prior to ACLR in the past year were invited to take part. Responses were collected over a 4-week period in March 2020. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

In total, 183 respondents replied; 122 completed the full survey. Responses were collected from 20 countries across 3 settings, NHS/public health services, private and sports. Most respondents reported prescribing exercises, advice and education to patients during prehabilitation. Up to 40% also utilised passive treatments including manual therapy, taping/bracing and electrotherapy. The frequency of recommended exercise completion and length of treatment varied. Most respondents (n = 103/84.4%) felt that many patients waiting for ACLR did not receive prehabilitation. Many physiotherapists reported that patients expressed concerns regarding their readiness for surgery (n = 61/50%) and return to preinjury levels of physical activity (n = 112/91.8%). Almost all respondents would discuss non-operative management with patients (n = 112/91.8%) if they had returned to their preinjury level of physical activity before their ACLR.

CONCLUSION

Overall, this survey provides some insight as to how physiotherapists manage patients awaiting ACLR. Areas of uncertainty in physiotherapy practice have also been highlighted that require further high-quality research.