Reliability of the Shoulder Symptom Modification Procedure and association of within-session and between-session changes with functional outcomes

Application of the Staged Approach for Rehabilitation Classification System and Associated Improvements in Patient-Reported Outcomes Following Rehabilitation for Shoulder Pain

OBJECTIVE

The Staged Approach for Rehabilitation Classification for the Shoulder (STAR-Shoulder) has been proposed as a model to guide management and improve outcomes for patients with shoulder pain; however, the effect of its utilization on patient outcomes has not been established. Therefore, the primary purpose of this study was to determine whether patient outcomes were improved if care was matched to the STAR-Shoulder system compared with unmatched care.

METHODS

Collected and reviewed demographic, examination, and intervention data for all patients receiving physical therapist treatment for shoulder pain during a 1-year period within a single health care system. Outcome variables included the numeric pain rating scale, the Quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand Questionnaire (QuickDASH), and the number of visits. Clinical records from patients receiving care at the discretion of the therapist were systematically audited to determine whether care provided was considered matched or unmatched.

RESULTS

A total of 692 patient records were examined. The interrater reliability of classifying care as matched or unmatched was substantial (κ = 0.6; 95% CI = 0.4 to 0.9), with 82% agreement. Changes in patient outcome scores were significantly better for those patients whose care matched the STAR-Shoulder system for pain changes (mean difference = -1.2; 95% CI = 0.8 to 1.6; effect size [d] = 0.5) and QuickDASH score (mean difference = 12.7; 95% CI = 9.9 to 15.5; d = 0.7). No difference was noted for number of visits.

CONCLUSION

The STAR-Shoulder system appears to be a meaningful way to classify patients and guide intervention to improve patient outcomes.

IMPACT

Application of the STAR-Shoulder system to help align physical therapist interventions more closely with tissue irritability and physical impairments appears to improve patient outcomes. These findings support this model as a promising approach to advance evidence-based practice for shoulder pain.

Kinetic chain revisited: consensus expert opinion on terminology, clinical reasoning, examination, and treatment in people with shoulder pain

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to reach consensus on the most appropriate terminology and issues related to clinical reasoning, examination, and treatment of the kinetic chain (KC) in people with shoulder pain among an international panel of experts.

METHODS

A 3-round Delphi study that involved an international panel of experts with extensive clinical, teaching, and research experience in the study topic was conducted. A search equation of terms related to the KC in Web of Science and a manual search were used to find the experts. Participants were asked to rate items across 5 different domains (terminology, clinical reasoning, subjective examination, physical examination, and treatment) using a 5-point Likert-type scale. An Aiken coefficient of validity (V) ≥0.7 was considered indicative of group consensus.

RESULTS

The participation rate was 30.2% (n = 16), whereas the retention rate was high throughout the 3 rounds (100%, 93.8%, and 100%). A total of 15 experts from different fields and countries completed the study. After the 3 rounds, consensus was reached on 102 items: 3 items were included in the "terminology" domain; 17 items, in the "rationale and clinical reasoning" domain; 11 items, in the "subjective examination" domain; 44 items, in the "physical examination" domain; and 27 items, in the "treatment" domain. Terminology was the domain with the highest level of agreement, with 2 items achieving an Aiken V of 0.93, whereas the domains of physical examination and treatment of the KC were the 2 areas with less consensus. Together with the terminology items, 1 item from the treatment domain and 2 items from the rationale and clinical reasoning domain reached the highest level of agreement (V = 0.93 and V = 0.92, respectively).

CONCLUSION

This study defined a list of 102 items across 5 different domains (terminology, rationale and clinical reasoning, subjective examination, physical examination, and treatment) regarding the KC in people with shoulder pain. The term "KC" was preferred and a agreement on a definition of this concept was reached. Dysfunction of a segment in the chain (ie, weak link) was agreed to result in altered performance or injury to distal segments. Experts considered it important to assess and treat the KC in particular in throwing or overhead athletes and agreed that no one-size-fits-all approach exists when implementing shoulder KC exercises within the rehabilitation process. Further research is now required to determine the validity of the identified items.

The long head of biceps at the shoulder: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

This review aimed to explore the available literature to update our understanding of the long head of biceps (LHB) at the shoulder. Synthesise our findings to identify emergent themes and knowledge gaps to inform future research and management directions.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, Cinahl, SportDiscus, CENTRAL, and Web of Science were searched from inception to 31st December 2021. Articles were included if they referenced adult participants > 18 years of age and were written in English.

RESULTS

214 articles were included in the final analysis, and results were categorised into six emergent themes: (1) Anatomy - Normal anatomical variation of the biceps from aberrant origins, third and fourth accessory heads, and an absence of the LHB tendon (LHBT) are not necessarily benign, with shoulder pain and instability a commonly reported theme. (2) Function - Bicep's role in glenohumeral elevation and stability in healthy shoulders is minimal. In contrast, LHB has a more significant role in shoulder stability and humeral head depression in subjects with rotator cuff failure or an absent LHBT. (3) Pathology - There is an association between LHB tendinopathy, rotator cuff disease, LHBT instability and occult rotator cuff tears. Early recruitment and hyperactivity of the LHB in subjects with symptomatic rotator cuff tears and instability suggest a potential compensatory role. (4) Assessment - The limited diagnostic utility of special orthopaedic tests in assessing LHBT pathology was a consistent theme. The utility of magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasound to identify full-thickness tendon tears and instability of the LHBT was moderate to high. However, the utility of clinical tests and imaging may be underestimated due to arthroscopy's limitations in fully visualising the proximal LHBT. (5) Non-Surgical Management - Ultrasound-guided injections into the biceps sheath show greater accuracy and patient outcomes than blinded injections; however, the entry of injectate into the intraarticular glenohumeral joint may have unwanted complications. (6) Surgical management - For the surgical management of biceps pathology with or without rotator cuff pathology, both biceps tenodesis and tenotomy report similar improvements in pain without any significant adverse effect on strength or function. Tenodesis favoured higher overall constant scores and a lower incidence of Popeye deformity and cramping arm pain, with tenotomy trending to be more cost and time effective. For patients with a healthy LHBT, rotator cuff repair with adjunctive tenodesis or tenotomy fails to provide additional clinical improvements compared to rotator cuff repair in isolation.

CONCLUSIONS

The scoping review highlights the variability of biceps anatomy, which is not necessarily benign and suggests a minimal role of the LHB in shoulder elevation and stability in healthy individuals. In contrast, individuals with rotator cuff tears experience proximal humeral migration and demonstrate hyperactivity of the LHB, suggesting a potential compensation role. The observed prevalence of LHBT pathology with rotator cuff tears is well established; however, the cause-and-effect relationship between LHBT pathology and rotator cuff disease is undetermined. The diagnostic utility of clinical tests and imaging to exclude LHBT pathology may be understated due to the limitations of arthroscopy to visualise the proximal LHBT fully. Rehabilitation programs for the LHB are understudied. Similar post-surgical clinical outcomes are observed for tenodesis and tenotomy for biceps and rotator cuff-related shoulder pain. Subjects undergoing biceps tenodesis are less likely to have cramping arm pain and a Popeye deformity than patients undergoing biceps tenotomy. The significance of routine surgical removal of the LHBT and sequelae on rotator cuff tear progression to failure and long-term shoulder function is unknown, and further research is required.

PRE-REGISTRATION

OSF: https://osf.io/erh9m.

Symptom response to mobilization and outcomes in patients with subacromial pain syndrome: A cohort study

OBJECTIVES

The objectives of this study were the following: (1) to determine if there was a difference in outcomes between immediate responders to glenohumeral mobilizations at the initial evaluation, 2-week, 4-week, and 6-month follow-up as compared to those that do not respond in participants with subacromial pain syndrome; (2) to see if there were statistically significant differences in outcomes within these groups between these time frames of interest, and (3) to see if symptom response at the initial evaluation was predictive of a favorable recovery.

METHODS

This was a prospective, single-group observational design. Clinicians pragmatically identified positive responders as improving at least two points on the Numeric Pain Rating Scale and/or a 20° improvement in shoulder active range of motion (AROM) following shoulder mobilization at the initial evaluation. Data were collected for the subjective and objective variables of interest at the initial evaluation, 2-week, 4-week, and 6-month follow-up.

RESULTS

The prevalence of responders at the initial evaluation was 99 (81.8%). There were no statistically significant between-group differences for the variables of interest except for the Global Rating of Change (GRoC; f = 2.79, p = 0.006). The shoulder abduction AROM between-group difference exceeded the minimal detectable change at 4 weeks. The pair-wise comparison showed statistically significant differences for the outcomes of interest at each time point except for the GRoC between 4 weeks and 6 months. There was a statistically significant correlation between responders at the initial evaluation and shoulder abduction AROM at the 4-week follow-up (r_pb (112) = 0.27, p = 0.004).

CONCLUSION

Individuals with SAPS may benefit from shoulder mobilization independent of their within-session response to shoulder mobilization at the initial evaluation. Future research should seek to differentiate if these improvements are related to the within-session positive treatment response at the initial evaluation in individuals who are randomized to receive shoulder mobilization or not.

Are within and/or between session improvements in pain and function prognostic of medium and long-term improvements in musculoskeletal problems? A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Initial or between session improvements in pain and/or function are often considered to be predictive of ultimate outcomes in musculoskeletal problems.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the long-term prognostic value of within and between session improvements to pain and function.

DESIGN

Systematic review of relevant literature.

METHOD

A search was made of multiple databases (Pubmed/Medline, Cochrane, Cinahl, and AMed) using relevant search terms. Titles, abstracts, and then full texts were filtered to find articles that met the strict inclusion/exclusion criteria. Searching, data extraction, and quality assessment, using GRADE, were done independently by two authors. Disagreements were resolved by consensus.

RESULTS

Only 13 articles met the criteria for inclusion. For the effect of pain location or pain intensity changes in the first treatment session on medium or long-term pain, disability, return-to-work, or global outcomes nine outcomes were available. Findings were mostly inconclusive (5) or negative (3). There was only one study evaluating between session improvements with ambiguous results. There were no studies evaluating the prognostic value of early improvements in function.

CONCLUSIONS

There is no conclusive evidence to support the concept that early changes in pain location or pain intensity offer a good longer-term prognosis on a variety of outcomes; and no evidence relating to early improvements in function. The idea that patients who appear to improve in the first treatment session will do well longer term is not supported by the literature.