Management of atraumatic shoulder instability in physiotherapy (MASIP): a survey of physiotherapy practice.

BACKGROUND: The impact of atraumatic shoulder instability (ASI) on patients can be extensive, its management complex, with a biopsychosocial approach recommended. Currently how physiotherapists manage ASI is unknown or the extent to which current clinical practice aligns with existing evidence. At the time of this study no national guidelines or consensus to direct practice existed. METHODS: A cross-sectional electronic survey was distributed between July-September 2018, targeting UK-based physiotherapists managing shoulder pathology. Respondents were invited to describe their management of ASI, and rate their awareness and utilisation of various treatment techniques on a Likert-scale; median and interquartile ranges were calculated. Free text survey items were analysed using quantitative content analysis (QCA) to identify codes and categories. Means and percentages were calculated to summarise QCA and descriptive data. RESULTS: Valid survey responses were analysed (n = 135). Respondents had between 2 and 39 years of physiotherapy experience (mean = 13.9 years); the majority (71.1 %) reported that ASI made up < 10 % of their caseload. Only 22.9 % (n = 31/135) of respondents reported feeling 'very confident' in managing ASI; the majority feeling 'somewhat confident' (70.4 %, n = 95/135) or 'not confident' (6.7 %, n = 9/135). The majority of respondents (59.3 %) used an ASI classification system, > 90 % citing the Stanmore Classification. Physiotherapists adapted their management according to clinical presentation, responding to differing biopsychosocial needs of the patient scenario. Most respondents (> 80 %) did not use a protocol to guide their management. Exercise was the most utilised management approach for ASI, followed by education; novel treatment strategies, including cortical rehabilitation, were also reported. CONCLUSION: Findings indicate physiotherapists utilise a wide range of treatment strategies and respond to biopsychosocial cues when managing patients with ASI. The majority reported not being very confident in managing this condition, however only a minority use rehabilitation protocols to support their management. Some interventions that respondents reported using lacked evidence to support their use in ASI management and further research regarding effectiveness is required. Guidelines have been published since this survey; the impact of these will need evaluating to determine their effectiveness in the future.

Use of ultrasound imaging by physiotherapists: a pilot study to survey use, skills and training.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to design and pilot a questionnaire to survey the use of ultrasound imaging (USI) by physiotherapists in the United Kingdom (UK), the type and content of ultrasound training physiotherapists using USI had undertaken and their perceived future training needs. BACKGROUND: The use of USI by physiotherapists is becoming increasingly common but is highly operator dependent and there are safety and professional issues regarding use in physiotherapy practice. Currently there are no specific training guidelines relating to physiotherapists using USI. METHODS: A questionnaire was developed, based on research literature and guidelines. Twelve experts in USI commented on the content and design. The electronic on-line questionnaire was piloted on groups that were likely to be users of USI. RESULTS: Forty-six respondents completed the questionnaire. Results indicated that USI is used predominantly for biofeedback and there are many unmet training needs. Respondents reported a mismatch between techniques for which they had received training and those that they used in practice and indicated a more structured training framework is required. CONCLUSIONS: The development and piloting of the questionnaire provides a starting point for a more extensive evaluation of how USI is being used, the training needs of physiotherapists and benefits as a biofeedback tool. Refinement is needed and replication in a larger sample. Results could assist the development of a structured formal training framework encompassing key skills.

Investigation of optimal cues to instruction for pelvic floor muscle contraction: a pilot study using 2D ultrasound imaging in pre-menopausal, nulliparous, continent women.

AIMS: Optimal urethrovesical positioning (UVP) may be important for continence. Pelvic floor muscle contraction (PFMC) influences UVP. PFMC instruction cues vary and often encourage anterior PFM recruitment that may result in sub-maximal posterior facilitation. STUDY HYPOTHESIS: posterior or combined cues are more influential in optimizing UVP during PFMC following a brief practice period than anterior cue. METHODS: Seventeen pre-menopausal, nulliparous, continent women were taught selective PFMC using different cues: anterior; posterior; anterior and posterior combined. Perineal ultrasound images of three PFMC for each cue were captured in supine and standing twice, 5 min apart. For reliability two raters measured data using angle of urethral inclination (AUI). Data analysis was undertaken using a customized General Linear Model ANOVA testing for interactions between all variables; subject, cue, posture, and test. Post hoc Bonferroni correction was used with a significance level of 0.05. RESULTS: The ANOVA showed significant differences between variables (P = 0.000). Post hoc analysis indicated significant differences between posterior and anterior cues 4.240° (P = 0.003); combined and anterior 3.756° (P = 0.009) but not between posterior and combined cues -0.484° (P = 1.00). Mean difference in AUI between supine and standing was 9.496° (P = 0.000); however, the interaction of cues and postures was not significant. CONCLUSIONS: AUI was significantly more acute/optimal when PFMC instruction included a posterior cue. This may be due to optimal recruitment of puborectalis and other posterior regional muscles which may be sub-maximally recruited with anterior cue. Investigation of the potential impact of these findings and possible usefulness of standardized instructions in PFM training is required.

Prospective blinded comparison of surface versus wire electromyographic analysis of muscle recruitment in shoulder instability.

BACKGROUND: This pilot study assesses level of agreement between surface and fine-wire electromyography (EMG), in order to establish if surface is as reliable as fine wire in the diagnosis and treatment of abnormal muscle patterning in the shoulder. METHOD: Eighteen participants (11 female) with unstable shoulders were recruited after written consent and ethical approval. Anthropometric information and mean skinfold size for triceps, subscapular, biceps and suprailiac sites were obtained. Triple-stud self-adhesive surface electrodes ('Triode'; Thermo Scientific, Physio Med Services, Glossop, Derbyshire, England) were placed over pectoralis major (PM), latissimus dorsi (LD), anterior deltoid (AD) and infraspinatus (IS) at standardized locations. Participants performed five identical uniplanar standard movements (flexion, abduction, external rotation, extension and cross-body adduction). After a 20-minute rest period, a dual-needle technique for fine-wire insertion was performed and the standard movements were repeated. An experienced examiner in each technique reported if muscle activation patterns differed from agreed normal during any movement and were blinded to the other test results. Sensitivity, specificity and Kappa values for level of agreement between methods were calculated for each muscle according to the method of Altman (1991). RESULTS: Fifteen participants were successfully tested. Sensitivity, specificity and Kappa values between techniques for each muscle were PM (57%, 50%, 0.07), LD (38%, 85%, 0.22), AD (0%, 76%, -0.19) and IS (85%, 75%, 0.6). Only IS demonstrated high sensitivity and specificity and a moderate level of agreement between the two techniques. There was no correlation between skinfold size and agreement levels. CONCLUSION: The use of surface EMG may help to classify types of shoulder instability and recognize abnormal muscle patterns. It may allow physiotherapists to direct specific rehabilitation strategies, avoiding strengthening of inappropriate muscles. It has a reasonable degree of confidence to evaluate IS but may have poor sensitivity in detecting abnormal patterns in PM, LD and AD. Further work is required to see if investigator interpretation may have been a factor for the poor level of agreement.

Randomized controlled trial of specific spinal stabilization exercises and conventional physiotherapy for recurrent low back pain.

STUDY DESIGN: Pragmatic, multicentered randomized controlled trial, with 12-month follow-up. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of adding specific spinal stabilization exercises to conventional physiotherapy for patients with recurrent low back pain (LBP) in the United Kingdom. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Spinal stabilization exercises are a popular form of physiotherapy management for LBP, and previous small-scale studies on specific LBP subgroups have identified improvement in outcomes as a result. METHODS: A total of 97 patients (18-60 years old) with recurrent LBP were recruited. Stratified randomization was undertaken into 2 groups: "conventional," physiotherapy consisting of general active exercise and manual therapy; and conventional physiotherapy plus specific spinal stabilization exercises. Stratifying variables used were laterality of symptoms, duration of symptoms, and Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire score at baseline. Both groups received The Back Book, by Roland et al. Back-specific functional disability (Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire) at 12 months was the primary outcome. Pain, quality of life, and psychologic measures were also collected at 6 and 12 months. Analysis was by intention to treat. RESULTS: A total of 68 patients (70%) provided 12-month follow-up data. Both groups showed improved physical functioning, reduced pain intensity, and an improvement in the physical component of quality of life. Mean change in physical functioning, measured by the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire, was -5.1 (95% confidence interval -6.3 to -3.9) for the specific spinal stabilization exercises group and -5.4 (95% confidence interval -6.5 to -4.2) for the conventional physiotherapy group. No statistically significant differences between the 2 groups were shown for any of the outcomes measured, at any time. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with LBP had improvement with both treatment packages to a similar degree. There was no additional benefit of adding specific spinal stabilization exercises to a conventional physiotherapy package for patients with recurrent LBP.