Non-operative management of shoulder osteoarthritis: Current concepts.

Glenohumeral osteoarthritis (OA) is one of the most common causes of shoulder pain. Conservative treatment options include physical therapy, pharmacological therapy, and biological therapy. Patients with glenohumeral OA present shoulder pain and decreased shoulder range of motion (ROM). Abnormal scapular motion is also seen in patients as adaptation to the restricted glenohumeral motion. Physical therapy is performed to (1) decrease pain, (2) increase shoulder ROM, and (3) protect the glenohumeral joint. To decrease pain, it should be assessed whether the pain appears at rest or during shoulder motion. Physical therapy may be effective for motion pain rather than rest pain. To increase shoulder ROM, the soft tissues responsible for the ROM loss need to be identified and targeted for intervention. To protect the glenohumeral joint, rotator cuff strengthening exercises are recommended. Administration of pharmacological agents is the major part next to physical therapy in the conservative treatment. The main aim of pharmacological treatment is the reduction of pain and diminution of inflammation in the joint. To achieve this aim, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs are recommended as first-line therapy. Additionally, the supplementation of oral vitamin C and vitamin D can help to slow down cartilage degeneration. Depending on the individual comorbidities and contraindications, sufficient medication with good pain reduction is thus possible for each patient. This interrupts the chronic inflammatory state in the joint and, in turn, enables pain-free physical therapy. Biologics such as platelet-rich plasma, bone marrow aspirate concentrate, and mesenchymal stem cells have gathered increased attention. Good clinical outcomes have been reported, but we need to be aware that these options are helpful in decreasing shoulder pain but neither stopping the progression nor improving OA. Further evidence of biologics needs to be obtained to determine their effectiveness. In athletes, a combined approach of activity modification and physical therapy can be effective. Oral medications can provide patients with transient pain relief. Intra-articular corticosteroid injection, which provides longer-term effects, must be used cautiously in athletes. There is mixed evidence for the efficacy of hyaluronic acid injections. There is still limited evidence regarding the use of biologics.

Does distal tibiofibular joint mobilization decrease limitation of ankle dorsiflexion?

Limitation of ankle motion is in many cases treated by joint mobilization (JM), a kind of manual physical therapy technique. Until now, the JM approach has mainly focused on the talocrural joint, with less attention to the distal tibiofibular joint. We applied cyclic loading to the lateral malleolus as in JM in order to clarify the relationship between the dorsiflexion angle and the excursion of the lateral malleolus. Seven normal, fresh-frozen cadaver legs were used. To each specimen, cyclic loading with a 30N force was applied 1000 times to the lateral malleolus at a speed of 15N/s. The displacement of the lateral malleolus was measured with a magnetic tracking system. The maximum dorsiflexion angle was measured before and after cyclic loading. After the first 100 and 1000 times of cyclic loading, the tibia was displaced 0.44+/-0.30mm and 0.75+/-0.36mm, respectively, and the fibula was displaced 0.44+/-0.28mm and 0.92+/-0.39mm, respectively. The average dorsiflexion angle increased from 14.36+/-7.51 degrees to 16.74+/-7.21 degrees after cyclic loading (P<0.05). Movement of the distal tibiofibular joint led to a significant increase in the range of ankle dorsiflexion. These results suggest that tibiofibular JM would be effective for limitation of ankle dorsiflexion.