The Effect of Early Range of Motion on Quality of Life, Clinical Outcome, and Repair Integrity After Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Repair.

PURPOSE: To compare the effect of early versus delayed motion protocols on quality of life, clinical outcomes, and repair integrity in patients who have undergone arthroscopic single-tendon rotator cuff repair. METHODS: This was a prospective, randomized, investigator-blinded clinical trial. Seventy-three patients from a single surgeon's practice who underwent arthroscopic repair of a single-tendon rotator cuff tear were randomized to either an early motion protocol (starting 2 to 3 days after surgery) or a delayed motion protocol (starting 28 days after surgery). The primary outcome measure was the Western Ontario Rotator Cuff index (WORC). Secondary outcome measures included clinical outcome scores, integrity of the repair on 6-month magnetic resonance imaging scans, pain scores, physical examination data, and ultrasonography. Study participants were followed up at 3, 6, and 12 weeks; 6 months; and 1 year postoperatively. RESULTS: There was no statistically significant difference in WORC scores at 6 months (529 ± 472 in delayed group vs 325 ± 400 in early group, P = .08). Mixed-effects analysis indicated the early group maintained lower WORC scores throughout the postoperative period (estimated difference of 191, P = .04). The proportions of patients with tears on the 6-month postoperative magnetic resonance imaging scan were comparable (31% in delayed group vs 34% in early group, P = .78). CONCLUSIONS: There was no difference between the delayed and early motion groups in WORC scores at 6 months after surgery. Early motion was associated with lower WORC scores throughout the postoperative period; however, both groups had a similar trajectory of improvement, suggesting both protocols have the same effect on patient-reported improvement. Although failure rates were similar between the groups, the sample size was not sufficient to support a statement regarding the relation between tear morphology and the rehabilitation protocol. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II, lesser-quality randomized controlled trial.

Short-term effects of thoracic spinal manipulations and message conveyed by clinicians to patients with musculoskeletal shoulder symptoms: a randomized clinical trial.

STUDY DESIGN: Randomized clinical trial. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effects of high-velocity, low-amplitude thrust manipulations (HVLATMs) and various messages on patients with musculoskeletal shoulder symptoms. BACKGROUND: Previous studies indicated that HVLATM directed at the thoracic spine and ribs resulted in improvements of shoulder range of motion, pain, and disability in patients with musculoskeletal shoulder symptoms. These studies did not explore if the outcome was dependent on thrust location, clinician communication with the patient, or if there were any lasting effects. METHODS: A consecutive sample of 100 patients with shoulder pain was randomized into four groups. Patients received one intervention session including: six thoracic HVLATM (spine versus scapula), a message about HVLATM (neutral versus positive), and standardized home exercises. Outcome measures included shoulder Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NPRS), NPRS with impingement testing, and Shoulder Pain and Disability Index (SPADI). Measurements were recorded prior to intervention, immediately following intervention, and at short-term follow-up. Kruskal-Wallis statistics were used for between-group comparisons and Wilcoxon signed ranks for within-group comparisons. RESULTS: Eighty-eight patients (22 per group) completed the study. Statistically significant differences were found for within-group comparisons for most time points assessed. No statistical differences were found for between-group comparisons. CONCLUSION: Patients improved following the interventions. Neither the type of HVLATM nor the message conveyed to the patients had a significant effect on the patients' improvements. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 1b.

Reliability and relationship of the fear-avoidance beliefs questionnaire with the shoulder pain and disability index and numeric pain rating scale in patients with shoulder pain.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to determine: 1) the test-retest reliability of Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire (FABQ) Work (FABQW) subscale, FABQ Physical Activity (FABQPA) subscale, Shoulder Pain and Disability Index (SPADI) Pain subscale, SPADI Disability subscale, and Numeric Pain Rating scale (NPRS); and 2) the relationship between the FABQPA, FABQW, SPADI pain, SPADI disability, and NPRS after 4 weeks of pragmatically applied physical therapy (PT) in patients with shoulder pain. DESIGN: Prospective, single-group observational design. METHODS: Data were collected at initial evaluation, the first follow-up visit prior to the initiation of treatment, and after 4 weeks of treatment. RESULTS: Statistically significant Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC2,1) values were reported for the FABQPA, FABQW, SPADI Pain, SPADI Disability, and NPRS. A statistically significant moderate relationship between the FABQPA subscale, SPADI subscale, and NPRS could not be established prior to and after 4 weeks of pragmatically applied PT. Statistically significant differences were observed between the initial evaluation and four-week follow-up for the FABQPA, SPADI Pain, SPADI Disability, and NPRS (p < 0.01). DISCUSSION: Since a meaningful relationship between the FABQ, SPADI, and NPRS did not exist, it suggests that the FABQPA may be measuring a metric other than pain. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that the FABQW may not be sensitive to change over time.

Preliminary reliability and validity of the shoulder functional reach score.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine (a) if the newly developed shoulder functional reach score (SFRS) is reliable; (b) if the SFRS demonstrates construct validity by being able to differentiate between patients' symptomatic and asymptomatic shoulders; (c) if the SFRS is able to detect changes over time; and (d) if the potential changes in the SFRS demonstrated criterion validity at three different time intervals by being associated the Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NPRS) and Shoulder Pain and Disability Index (SPADI). METHODS: Patients were consecutively screened for consultation related to complaints of shoulder pain. Thirty-eight subjects agreed to participate and signed informed consent. Twenty-nine subjects fulfilled the study after the 4 weeks of follow-up. Outcome measures were collected at the initial evaluation and at the first follow-up visit prior to the initiation of treatment. Data were then collected after 2 and 4 weeks of treatment. RESULTS: There were statistically significant differences between symptomatic and asymptomatic shoulders on the SFRS. Intratester reliability of the SFRS was intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC2,1 ) = 0.94. Intertester reliability of the SFRS was ICC2,1  = 0.92. Statistically significant differences were observed between the initial evaluation, 2 and 4 weeks for the SFRS, SPADI, and NPRS. Moderate (rs  = 0.62) to strong (rs  = 0.87) positive correlations were observed between the NPRS and SPADI. Moderate negative (rs  = -0.50-0.51) correlations were found between the SFRS and the SPADI. Moderate negative (rs  = -0.36-0.54) statistically significant (p < 0.05) correlations were found between the SFRS and the NPRS. CONCLUSION: In this small sample, the SFRS was an objective, reliable, and valid tool for assessing shoulder active range of motion in a clinical setting.

Retrospective analysis of physical therapy utilization by the specificity of the diagnosis and order written on the referral.

BACKGROUND: Arguments against reimbursement for direct access to physical therapy (PT) are that a physician examination is necessary to diagnose and that there is a potential for increased cost. OBJECTIVE: To determine what percentage of PT referrals had a specific diagnosis and treatment orders. Additionally, specific and non-specific diagnoses and treatment orders were compared in regards to PT units billed, average visits per referral, and average cost per referral. METHODS: The charts of 1,000 patients treated in outpatient PT underwent a retrospective chart review. Interferential statistics were used to determine if there was a statistically significant difference between specific and non-specific diagnoses and treatment orders in regard to PT units billed, average visits per referral, and average cost per referral. RESULTS: Twenty-nine percent of all referring diagnoses were non-specific in nature and 58% contained treatment orders that were non-specific. Charts with a specific diagnosis had a statistically significant higher utilization as compared to non-specific diagnoses (p ≤ 0.001). Patients with a specific treatment order also displayed a statistically significant larger average in billed units, average visits per referral, and average reimbursement per referral than those without a specific treatment order (p ≤ 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that a physician diagnosis and referral may not be required to direct care for patients seeking PT services. Third-party payers that require a physician referral for PT services may be delaying access to healthcare and increasing costs.

The Shoulder Pain and Disability Index: Is it sensitive and responsive to immediate change?

BACKGROUND: The Shoulder Pain and Disability Index (SPADI) is designed to detect changes in shoulder pain and disability after a one-week interval. With the new Medicare guideline, the SPADI may have to be employed for time frames of less than one week. PURPOSE: To determine if the SPADI or its subscales could detect immediate changes in pain and function after a thoracic manipulative intervention known to produce short-term improvement and by comparing it to changes on the numeric pain rating scale (NPRS). METHODS: Subjects with primary complaints of non-post-surgical shoulder pain completed the NPRS and the SPADI prior to and immediately following interventions. FINDINGS: The SPADI pain subscale detected statistically significant differences that were also detected using the NPRS. In addition, the SPADI pain score and the NPRS scores were moderately correlated between the pre-intervention SPADI and NPRS scores (r = 0.49-0.61, p < 0.001) and post-intervention SPADI and NPRS scores (r = 0.49-0.67, p < 0.001). These differences did not appear to be sensitive or responsive to immediate change. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Since the SPADI may have to be employed in durations of less than one week secondary to third party payer requirements, it is valuable to validate the SPADI for this particular use. CONCLUSION: Although SPADI scores demonstrated low sensitivity and responsiveness to immediate changes, the SPADI pain scale was able to detect changes in durations of less than one week. This finding should be confirmed through further prospective experimentation.

Thoracic spinal manipulation for musculoskeletal shoulder pain: Can an instructional set change patient expectation and outcome?

STUDY DESIGN: Planned secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial. OBJECTIVES: To examine: 1) patients' baseline expectations for treatment outcome of thoracic high velocity low amplitude thrust manipulations (HVLATM) to the thoracic spine for shoulder pain; 2) if the message conveyed by the clinician changed the patients' expectation; 3) any differences in outcome based on expectation independent of messaging.; and 4) any differences in outcome for those patients whose expectations significantly changed as a result of the messaging. BACKGROUND: Thoracic HVLATM may be an effective intervention for patients suffering from musculoskeletal shoulder pain. The role of expectation in the treatment effectiveness of this intervention has not been established. METHODS: Subjects' expectations regarding the effectiveness of HVLATM on shoulder pain were recorded at baseline. This was reassessed immediately following the provision of positive or neutral instructional set. The subjects then received a thoracic or scapular HVLATM. The Shoulder Pain and Disability Index (SPADI) and the numeric pain rating scale (NPRS) were used as outcomes measures. RESULTS: There was a 10 subject change (23%) in positive expectation that was statistically significant (p = 0.019) following a positive message. There was no statistically significant difference in pain and function when these subjects were compared to all other subjects. CONCLUSION: Although patients' expectations of positive outcome significantly changed when providing a positive instructional set, these changes did not translate into clinically significant short term changes in shoulder pain and function. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 1b.