Comparing exercises with and without electromyographic biofeedback in subacromial pain syndrome: A randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Deficits in movement and muscle activation of scapulohumeral joint are related to Subacromial Pain Syndrome. Electromyography biofeedback during exercise may enhance muscle activation and coordination, and consequently improve pain and shoulder function. METHODS: This study compared the effects of an exercise protocol with and without using electromyographic biofeedback on pain, function and movement of the shoulder complex in subjects with Subacromial Pain Syndrome. A total of 24 patients with subacromial pain (mean age = 46.2 + 8.1;18 women) were randomized to either therapeutic exercise or exercise plus biofeedback to the trapezius and serratus muscles. Pain and shoulder function were evaluated as the primary outcome and range of motion, muscle strength, electromyographic activity and scapulohumeral kinematics as secondary outcomes. The subjects underwent eight weeks of intervention and comparisons were made between groups in baseline, at 4 weeks, 8 weeks, and at 4 weeks post intervention. FINDINGS: There were differences between groups for pain [mean difference = 1.5 (CI 0.3, 3.2) p = 0.01] at 8 weeks in the Exercise group and scapular upward rotation at 60° of arm elevation [mean difference = 13.9 (CI 0.9, 9.3), p = 0.006] in the Biofeedback group. There was no difference for the other variables of scapular kinematics as well as for shoulder function (DASH), muscle strength, range of motion and electromyographic variables. INTERPRETATION: The addition of Biofeedback to the exercise protocol increased upward rotation of the scapula. However, the volunteers who performed only the Exercises had a better response in reducing pain.

The Effect of Shoulder Mobilization on Scapular and Shoulder Muscle Activity During Resisted Shoulder Abduction: A Crossover Study of Asymptomatic Individuals.

OBJECTIVE: The primary aim was to investigate the effect of inferior shoulder mobilization on scapular and shoulder muscle activity during resisted shoulder abduction in asymptomatic individuals. METHODS: This was a lab-based, repeated-measures, crossover, randomized controlled study. Twenty-two participants were recruited. The order of experimental conditions was randomized. Each participant performed 5 repetitions of resisted shoulder abduction before and after the control and mobilization (grade +IV inferior shoulder mobilization, 3 sets, 60 seconds) conditions. Surface electromyography recorded the muscle activity of anterior, middle, and posterior deltoid; supraspinatus; infraspinatus; upper and lower trapezius; serratus anterior; and latissimus dorsi muscles. RESULTS: Muscle activity levels reduced for infraspinatus (11.3% MVIC, 95% CI: 1.7-20.8), middle (22.4% MVIC, 95% CI: 15.9-28.8) and posterior deltoid (8.7 % MVIC, 95% CI: 4.6-12.9), and serratus anterior (-28.1% MVIC, 95% CI: 15.6-40.8) muscles after the mobilization condition during the eccentric phase of shoulder abduction. No carryover effects were observed, and within-session reliability was excellent (intraclass correlation coefficient scores ranging from 0.94 to 0.99). CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that inferior glenohumeral mobilization reduces activity levels of some scapular and shoulder muscles. Given the exploratory nature of our study, changes in muscle activity levels may have been found by chance. Confirmatory studies are required.