Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
PAULA R. CAMARGO, PT, PhD1 FRANCISCO ALBURQUERQUE-SENDN, PT, PhD2 MARIANA A. AVILA, PT, PhD1
MELINA N. HAIK, PT, MS1 AMILTON VIEIRA, MS1 TANIA F. SALVINI, PT, PhD1
S
houlder impingement
TTSTUDY DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial. TTRESULTS: Independent of the intervention
syndrome (SIS) is a
TTOBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effects of an ex- group, small, clinically irrelevant changes in
ercise protocol, with and without manual therapy, scapular kinematics were observed postinterven- common condition of
on scapular kinematics, function, pain, and tion. A significant group-by-time interaction effect shoulder pain associated
mechanical sensitivity in individuals with shoulder (P = .001) was found for scapular anterior tilt
impingement syndrome. during elevation in the sagittal plane, with a 3.0 with repetitive work performed
TTBACKGROUND: Stretching and strengthening
increase (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.5, 7.5) at or above shoulder level and
Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy
1
Department of Physical Therapy, Federal University of So Carlos, So Carlos, Brazil. 2Department of Physical Therapy, University of Salamanca, Salamanca, Spain. This study was
supported by Coordenao de Aperfeioamento de Pessoal de Nvel Superior and Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cientfico e Tecnolgico. This study was approved by the
Institutional Review Boards of the Federal University of So Carlos and by the Ethics Committee of the Federal University of So Carlos (number 270/2010). This study is registered
at www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02035618). The authors certify that they have no affiliations with or financial involvement in any organization or entity with a direct financial interest in
the subject matter or materials discussed in the article. Address correspondence to Dr Paula Rezende Camargo, Departamento de Fisioterapia, Universidade Federal de So Carlos,
Rodovia Washington Luis, km 235, CEP 13565-905, So Carlos, SP, Brazil. E-mail: prcamargo@ufscar.br t Copyright 2015 Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy
Excluded, n = 47
Did not meet inclusion criteria, n = 25
Downloaded from www.jospt.org at Dot Lib-eMarketing Campaign on September 20, 2016. For personal use only. No other uses without permission.
Other reasons, n = 22
Randomized, n = 46
Allocation
Excluded from PPT and VAS due Excluded from PPT and VAS due
to BDI greater than 9 points, to BDI greater than 9 points,
n=2 n=3
Copyright 2015 Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy. All rights reserved.
Preintervention Preintervention
DASH, n = 23 DASH, n = 23
PPT and VAS, n = 21 PPT and VAS, n = 20
Scapular kinematics, n = 23 Scapular kinematics, n = 23
Intervention (4 wk)
Postintervention Postintervention
DASH, n = 23 DASH, n = 23
Analysis
FIGURE 1. Flow diagram representing enrollment, allocation, follow-up, and analysis for both groups. Abbreviations: BDI, Beck Depression Inventory; DASH, Disabilities of the
Arm, Shoulder and Hand questionnaire; PPT, pressure pain threshold; VAS, visual analog scale.
a pattern of increased scapular internal Many conservative interventions have strength in this population.2,13,53 However,
rotation and decreased scapular upward been proposed to address the aforemen- 2 recent systematic reviews16,22 have shown
rotation and posterior tilt has been ob- tioned factors.2,6,7,15,27,37,41,51,55,56 Systematic limited evidence for the effectiveness of
served in individuals with SIS.58 In addi- reviews have indicated that stretching manual therapy as an add-on therapy to
tion, SIS symptoms have been associated and strengthening exercises are effective exercises in the treatment of SIS to reduce
with altered activation of the scapular in decreasing pain and disability in indi- pain and enhance function. Given the
and rotator cuff muscles.48 Based on these viduals with SIS.22,37,45 Three studies have conflicting results, additional studies are
findings, it is believed that therapeutic demonstrated that the addition of manu- necessary to determine if adding manual
exercises designed to improve scapular al therapy to an exercise-based program therapy techniques to a standardized exer-
control might be effective in reducing is superior to exercise alone in improv- cise program is better than exercises alone
pain and enhancing function. ing pain, function, range of motion, and in the treatment of individuals with SIS.16
evation of the arm. Few investigations Age, y* 35.96 12.08 32.65 10.73
have assessed whether changes occur in Sex, n
scapular kinematics after a rehabilitation
Male 10 14
protocol in individuals with SIS,41,51,55,63
Female 13 9
and the results are unclear.
This study evaluated the effects of Mass, kg* 67.04 13.12 68.35 10.79
stretching and strengthening exercises, Height, m* 1.69 0.12 1.69 0.02
with and without manual therapy, on Involved shoulder, n
scapular kinematics, function, pain, and Dominant 14 11
mechanical sensitivity in individuals with
Nondominant 9 12
SIS. We hypothesized that manual therapy
Duration of pain, mo 47.09 57.82 (2-204) 38.39 51.10 (2-240)
combined with a protocol of therapeutic
exercises would result in greater benefit *Values are mean SD.
Values are mean SD (range).
as compared to exercises alone. Scapular
Copyright 2015 Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy. All rights reserved.
T
his study was a randomized clin- the intervention groups. The demograph- to the intervention.7 Individuals with a
Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy
ical trial with 1 blinded assessor. One ic characteristics of the participants are Beck Depression Inventory score higher
examiner, who was blinded to group provided in TABLE 1. than 9 (cutoff score for screening depres-
assignment, assessed mechanical sensi- Shoulder impingement syndrome was sion status)21 were excluded from pain
tivity and pain using a visual analog scale diagnosed based on clinical examination and mechanical sensitivity assessments.11
(VAS). Two additional examiners, who and patient self-report. To be classified This study was registered at www.
were not blinded to group assignment, as having SIS, the participants had to clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02035618) and
collected scapular kinematics data, 1 of have a history of nontraumatic onset of approved by the Ethics Committee of
them performing all palpations during shoulder pain, painful arc during active the Federal University of So Carlos
the digitization process and the other op- elevation of the arm, 1 or more positive (number 270/2010). All participants
erating the computer to collect kinematic SIS tests (Hawkins-Kennedy, Jobe, Neer) received verbal and written explanation
data. All of the participants completed or pain during passive30 or isometric re- of the objectives and methodology of the
the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and sisted external rotation of the arm at 90 study, and those who agreed to partici-
Hand (DASH) questionnaire without of abduction,49,56 and pain with palpa- pate signed an informed-consent agree-
help from the examiners and were blind- tion of the rotator cuff tendons. A com- ment. All outcomes were collected at the
ed to the results of their previous assess- bination of shoulder tests is suggested to Laboratory of Analysis and Intervention
ments throughout the study. provide better diagnostic accuracy.28 All of the Shoulder Complex at the Federal
individuals had to be able to reach 150 University of So Carlos. Interventions
Participants of arm elevation as determined by visual were provided at the university clinics by
Forty-six individuals were randomly as- observation. physical therapists.
signed to 1 of 2 groups: those treated ex- Individuals were excluded if they had
clusively with exercises and those treated a history of clavicle, scapula, or humerus Scapular Kinematics
with the same exercises (FIGURE 1), supple- fracture; a history of rotator cuff surgery; The Flock of Birds (miniBIRD) hardware
mented with manual therapy. Prior to the numbness or tingling of the upper limb (Ascension Technology Corporation,
beginning of the study, group allocation reproduced by the cervical compression Shelburne, VT) integrated with Motion-
humeral elevation angle, and the third for the analysis. Pressure pain thresholds
defined internal/external rotation. were assessed bilaterally over the supra-
Considering the standard error of spinatus, infraspinatus, upper trapezius,
measurement observed in a previous levator scapulae, middle deltoid, articu-
study,26 a between-day difference of 4 or lar pillar of the C5-6 zygapophyseal joint
more in scapular kinematics was consid- (assessed due to its relationship with the
ered clinically relevant. shoulder1,18), and tibialis anterior, as a
remote site.1 The exact testing location
Function for each muscle is described elsewhere.1
The Brazilian version of the DASH ques- The reliability of the data obtained with
tionnaire was used to assess function this methodology is considered to be high
of the upper limbs.47 Scores range from (ICC = 0.91; 95% confidence interval
FIGURE 2. Methods for the assessment of scapular 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating [CI]: 0.82, 0.97).10 The order of sides and
kinematics. a worse condition. This version of the locations to be assessed was randomized
Copyright 2015 Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy. All rights reserved.
the system is 0.5 for orientation and 0.18 Pain and Mechanical Sensitivity DASH questionnaire, followed by data
cm for position, as reported by the man- Pain was assessed with a VAS, with scores collection of scapular kinematics, pain,
ufacturer. The electromagnetic sensors ranging from 0 (no pain) to 10 (maxi- and PPTs. The PPT assessment was con-
were attached with double-sided adhe- mum pain). Current pain at rest, pain ducted on both the involved and unin-
sive tape to the sternum, to the acromion during shoulder movement, greatest pain volved sides, with the participant seated
of the scapula, and to a thermoplastic cuff during the prior week, and least pain dur- and the region of interest exposed. For all
secured to the distal humerus to track ing the prior week were all assessed. The other assessments, only the involved side
humeral motion, as previously described VAS has been shown to be a reliable and of each participant was measured.
(FIGURE 2).4,25,26,50 The individual stood valid instrument to assess changes in Scapular kinematics was assessed with
with arms relaxed at the side in a neutral pain intensity. Test-retest reliability has the individuals in a relaxed standing posi-
position, with the transmitter directly be- been reported to be between 0.95 and tion in front of the transmitter. Kinematic
hind the shoulder to be tested, while bony 0.97.3,43 A change of 1 point or a percent- motion analysis consisted of selecting the
landmarks on the thorax, scapula, and age change of 15% to 20% is considered scapular data at 30, 60, 90, and 120
humerus were palpated and digitized to clinically important.17 of humerothoracic elevation for both sag-
allow transformation of the sensor data Mechanical sensitivity was measured ittal and scapular plane arm elevation.
to a local anatomically based coordinate with pressure pain threshold (PPT), The sagittal and scapular planes were
system, as recommended by the Interna- which is defined as the minimum pres- standardized using a flat surface to guide
tional Society of Biomechanics.64 sure at which the sensation of pressure movement and ensure the proper plane of
The y-x-z sequence was used to de- changes to pain.19 An algometer (Pain arm elevation. During elevation, individ-
scribe scapular motions relative to the Diagnosis and Treatment Inc, Great uals were instructed to keep their thumb
trunk. The rotations were described as Neck, NY) with a 1-cm2 rubber-tipped pointing toward the ceiling, to slide their
internal (positive) or external (negative) plunger was used to measure PPTs. Pres- hand on the board, and to elevate their
rotation, upward (positive) or down- sure was applied at a rate of 30 kPa/s. arm at a rate such that full elevation
ward (negative) rotation, and anterior For each testing location, the individuals was accomplished over approximately 3
Interventions
Therapeutic Exercises The therapeutic C D
exercise intervention included 3 stretch-
ing and 3 strengthening exercises (FIGURE
3), performed for both the involved and
uninvolved sides. All exercises were su-
pervised by a physical therapist with at
least 6 years of clinical experience. The
stretching exercises targeted the upper
Copyright 2015 Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy. All rights reserved.
40 40
was conducted for the DASH, pain, and
30 30
PPT data, with time (preintervention and
20 20 postintervention) as the within-subject
10 10 factor and group (exercise plus manual
0 0
therapy and exercise alone) as the be-
tween-subject factor. If no group-by-time
Copyright 2015 Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy. All rights reserved.
10 10
30 60 90 120 30 60 90 120 interaction was observed, the main effect
Humeral Elevation, deg Humeral Elevation, deg of time was analyzed. A separate 3-factor
E F
20 20
ANOVA was conducted for each scapular
15 15
rotation, with time (preintervention and
Posterior
Posterior
10 10
postintervention) and angle (30, 60,
Scapular Tilt, deg
Anterior
10 10
angle by group, group by time, angle by
15 15
30 60 90 120 30 60 90 120 time) were observed, the main effect of
Humeral Elevation, deg Humeral Elevation, deg time was analyzed. The Tukey and dk
tests were used for post hoc analysis
Preintervention Postintervention
when necessary. The level of significance
FIGURE 4. Preintervention and postintervention scapular internal rotation (A and B), upward rotation (C and D), was set at .05 for all statistical analyses.
and anterior/posterior tilt (E and F) during elevation of the arm in the sagittal plane for the exercise-plusmanual In cases of missing data due to discon-
therapy group (left) and the exercise-alone group (right). Values are mean SD. tinuation of treatment, the data were an-
alyzed with an intention-to-treat analysis
to address limitations of the glenohumer- were needed.29 Both the assessments and (expectation-maximization method).
al and scapulothoracic joints. However, the application of manual therapy were Between- and within-group effect
the techniques were also provided to the performed by a physical therapist with sizes for all quantitative variables were
shoulder girdle, cervical spine, and upper a manual therapy certification from the measured with the Cohen d coefficient.
thoracic spine, including the costotrans- Madrid Osteopathic School DO (equiva- An effect size greater than 0.8 was con-
verse joints, when necessary.62 lent to 2000 hours of postgraduate train- sidered large, around 0.5 moderate, and
The manual therapy techniques were ing) and more than 5 years of clinical less than 0.2 small.12
implemented according to the clini- experience in treating shoulder patholo-
cal presentation of each individual. The gies with this approach. RESULTS
progression of treatment, as well as the
time ratio between the joint and soft Statistical Analysis Scapular Kinematics
F
tissue procedures, depended on assess- Sample size was determined using ENE IGURES 4 and 5 show the data for
ments during each session, indicating 3.0 software (GlaxoSmithKline, Madrid, scapular kinematics during elevation
when changes in the technique and/or Spain), and was based on a significance of the arm in the sagittal and scapu-
the intensity of the applied technique level of .05 and a power of 0.80 to detect lar planes, respectively, for both groups.
10 10
upward rotation postintervention. The 30 60 90 120 30 60 90 120
Cohen d coefficient showed small with- Humeral Elevation, deg Humeral Elevation, deg
E F
in- and between-group effect sizes of 20 20
interventions. 15 15
Posterior
Posterior
For scapular tilt, the 3-factor inter- 10
Scapular Tilt, deg
Anterior
interaction of group by time (P = .001), 5
Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy
10
where the exercise-plusmanual ther-
15 10
apy group showed more anterior tilt 30 60 90 120 30 60 90 120
at postintervention compared to pre- Humeral Elevation, deg Humeral Elevation, deg
intervention. The Cohen d coefficient
Preintervention Postintervention
showed moderate and small effects
of intervention for the exercise-plus FIGURE 5. Preintervention and postintervention scapular internal rotation (A and B), upward rotation (C and D),
manual therapy group and the exercise- and anterior/posterior tilt (E and F) during elevation of the arm in the scapular plane for the exercise-plusmanual
alone group, respectively. The effect therapy group (left) and the exercise-alone group (right). Values are mean SD.
size of intervention between groups was
moderate. actions of angle by time (P = .70) and small within-group effect of intervention
Elevation of the Arm in the Scapular group by time (P = .87). The main effect for both groups and moderate between-
Plane For scapular internal rotation, the of time was also not significant (P = .06). group effects of intervention.
3-factor interaction was not significant The Cohen d coefficient showed small
(P = 1.00), nor were the 2-factor inter- within- and between-group effect sizes Function of the Upper Limbs
actions of angle by time (P = .23) and of intervention. TABLE 2 shows the results of the DASH
group by time (P = .98). The main effect For scapular tilt, the 3-factor inter- questionnaire. The 2-factor ANOVA re-
of time was significant (P<.001), with action was not significant (P = .51), nor vealed no interaction of group by time
less internal rotation postintervention. was the 2-factor interaction of angle by for the DASH score (P = .25). However,
The Cohen d coefficient showed small time (P = .97). There was a significant the main effect of time was significant
within- and between-group effect sizes group-by-time interaction (P = .01), (P<.001), with lower scores postinterven-
of intervention. where the exercise-plusmanual therapy tion. The Cohen d coefficient showed a
For scapular upward rotation, the group showed more anterior tilt at post large within-group effect of intervention
3-factor interaction was not significant intervention compared to preinterven- and a moderate between-group effect of
(P = 1.00), nor were the 2-factor inter- tion. The Cohen d coefficient showed a intervention.
Between-Group
Within-Group Within-Group Effect Differences in Between-Group
Movement/Outcome/Group* Preintervention Postintervention Changes Sizes, Cohen d Change Scores Effect Sizes, Cohen d
Sagittal plane elevation
Scapular internal rotation 0.8 (3.5, 5.1) 0.11 (0.47, 0.69)
Exercise plus MT 46.4 8.9 45.3 9.4 1.1 (6.4, 4.3) 0.12 (0.70, 0.46)
Exercise alone 48.3 7.6 46.4 7.4 1.9 (6.4, 2.6) 0.25 (0.83, 0.33)
Scapular upward rotation 0.4 (5.2, 4.4) 0.05 (0.63, 0.53)
Exercise plus MT 19.9 14.8 21.5 14.7 1.6 (7.1, 10.3) 0.11 (0.47, 0.68)
Exercise alone 18.4 13.0 19.6 14.6 1.2 (7.0, 9.4) 0.09 (0.49, 0.66)
Scapular tilt
3.3 (7.2, 0.6) 0.50 (1.08, 0.09)
Exercise plus MT 0.3 8.4 3.3 6.6 3.0 (7.5, 1.5) 0.40 (0.97, 0.19)
Exercise alone 0.6 7.1 0.9 7.9 0.3 (4.2, 4.8) 0.03 (0.54, 0.62)
Copyright 2015 Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy. All rights reserved.
Exercise plus MT 0.1 8.1 2.2 7.0 2.1 (6.6, 2.4) 0.28 (0.85, 0.31)
Exercise alone 1.6 7.3 1.9 8.3 0.4 (4.3, 4.9) 0.04 (0.62, 0.54)
DASH score 3.9 (10.5, 2.8) 0.34 (0.92, 0.25)
Exercise plus MT 25.3 16.1 12.4 12.3 12.9 (17.6, 8.2) 0.90 (1.49, 0.28)
Exercise alone 20.8 10.4 11.7 9.5 9.1 (13.8, 4.3) 0.91 (1.50, 0.29)
Abbreviations: DASH, Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand questionnaire; MT, manual therapy.
*23 patients in each group.
Values are mean SD degrees.
Values in parentheses are 95% confidence interval.
Negative numbers indicate anterior tilt of the scapula.
Pain Intensity pain was less postintervention. The VAS In contrast, there was a group-by-
Two patients from the exercise-plus scores for current pain at rest were under time interaction for least pain during
manual therapy group and 3 from the 20 mm on average, and the within-group the last week (P = .02). The post hoc
exercise-alone group were excluded from effect size for pain at rest was moderate, analyses indicated a decrease in pain
the pain and PPT analyses due to high with the lower bound of the 95% CI close level postintervention for the exercise-
scores on the Beck Depression Inventory. to the absence of effect, and there was a plusmanual therapy group only. The
The 2-factor ANOVA revealed no group- small effect size between groups. There Cohen d coefficient showed an absence
by-time interaction for current pain at were large within-group effect sizes and of effect for the exercise-alone group, a
rest (P = .38), pain during movement (P a nonexistent between-group effect size moderate effect for the exercise-plus
= .94), and greatest pain during the last for the variables of pain during move- manual therapy group, and a moderate
week (P = .71). For all 3 outcomes, there ment and greatest pain during the last effect size for the between-group com-
was a main effect of time (P<.01), where week (TABLE 3). parison (TABLE 3).
Between-Group
Within-Group Within-Group Effect Differences in Between-Group
Downloaded from www.jospt.org at Dot Lib-eMarketing Campaign on September 20, 2016. For personal use only. No other uses without permission.
Measure/Outcome/Group* Preintervention Postintervention Changes Sizes, Cohen d Change Scores Effect Sizes, Cohen d
Pain VAS (0-100), mm
Current pain at rest 6.3 (20.9, 8.1) 0.28 (0.89, 0.34)
Exercise plus MT 19.3 27.6 6.3 11.6 13.0 (25.5, 0.5) 0.61 (1.22, 0.02)
Exercise alone 10.3 14.1 3.6 6.1 6.7 (19.5, 6.2) 0.62 (1.24, 0.03)
Pain during movement 0.6 (17.3, 18.3) 0.02 (0.59, 0.63)
Exercise plus MT 41.0 35.2 16.2 27.4 24.8 (40.1, 9.4) 0.80 (1.40, 0.14)
Exercise alone 38.8 21.1 13.4 12.3 25.4 (41.1, 9.7) 1.47 (2.14, 0.75)
Greatest pain last week 2.9 (18.5, 12.7) 0.12 (0.73, 0.50)
Exercise plus MT 53.9 33.0 23.6 29.5 30.3 (43.7, 16.8) 0.97 (1,59, 0.31)
Exercise alone 54.2 19.5 26.8 22.5 27.4 (41.2, 13.6) 1.31 (1.96, 0.61)
Least pain last week 9.6 (17.7, 1.5) 0.75 (1.37, 0.10)
Copyright 2015 Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy. All rights reserved.
Exercise plus MT 15.6 17.7 5.4 9.4 10.2 (17.2, 3.2) 0.72 (1.33, 0.08)
Exercise alone 6.4 7.3 5.8 7.7 0.7 (7.8, 6.5) 0.09 (0.70, 0.54)
Pressure pain threshold, kg/cm 2
Exercise plus MT 2.8 1.5 3.3 1.8 0.5 (0.3, 1.3) 0.30 (0.31, 0.91)
Exercise alone 3.4 2.1 3.9 1.4 0.5 (0.3, 1.3) 0.29 (0.35, 0.90)
Involved infraspinatus 1.4 (0.5, 2.3) 0.96 (0.30, 1.59)
Exercise plus MT 4.2 1.7 4.2 1.8 0.1 (0.9, 0.8) 0.01 (0.60, 0.60)
Exercise alone 4.1 1.8 5.5 2.5 1.4 (0.5, 2.2) 0.64 (0.01, 1.26)
Uninvolved infraspinatus 0.5 (0.3, 1.3) 0.43 (0.20, 1.04)
Exercise plus MT 4.0 1.8 4.3 1.7 0.3 (0.3, 1.0) 0.18 (0.44, 0.77)
Exercise alone 4.7 1.9 5.5 2.2 0.8 (0.1, 1.5) 0.42 (0.24, 1.01)
Involved supraspinatus 0.1 (1.1, 1.3) 0.06 (0.55, 0.67)
Exercise plus MT 3.3 1.9 4.1 2.8 0.9 (0.2, 1.9) 0.35 (0.28, 0.94)
Exercise alone 4.0 2.5 5.0 2.1 1.0 (0.1, 2.1) 0.44 (0.19, 1.05)
Table continues on page 993.
Pressure Pain Threshold side (involved or uninvolved) tested. The pattern was for the involved infraspinatus
The 2-factor ANOVAs consistently re- within-group effect sizes were higher for PPT, which showed a significant group-
vealed no group-by-time interaction and the exercise-alone group, although all by-time interaction (P = .004), with no
a significant main effect of time for PPTs Cohen effect-size indices of this group change between preintervention and
measured in the shoulder region, ex- and of the between-group comparisons postintervention being noted for the ex-
cept for the involved-side infraspinatus. could be considered small, with the lower ercise-plusmanual therapy group; there
The main effect of time was a result of bound of the 95% CI being below zero, was a significant increase in PPT (P<.01)
the PPTs being higher postintervention, as can be observed in the within-group and a moderate within-group effect size
independent of the group (exercise plus effect sizes of the exercise-plusmanual for the exercise-alone group. For this site,
manual therapy or exercise alone) or therapy group. The only exception to this the between-group difference was 1.4 kg/
Between-Group
Within-Group Within-Group Effect Differences in Between-Group
Downloaded from www.jospt.org at Dot Lib-eMarketing Campaign on September 20, 2016. For personal use only. No other uses without permission.
Measure/Outcome/Group* Preintervention Postintervention Changes Sizes, Cohen d Change Scores Effect Sizes, Cohen d
Uninvolved supraspinatus 0.5 (0.2, 1.3) 0.48 (0.15, 1.09)
Exercise plus MT 3.5 1.6 3.8 2.1 0.4 (0.3, 1.0) 0.17 (0.45, 0.76)
Exercise alone 4.0 2.2 5.1 2.0 1.1 (0.4, 1.7) 0.51 (0.12, 1.14)
Involved deltoid 0.1 (0.5, 0.6) 0.08 (0.54, 0.69)
Exercise plus MT 2.1 1.6 2.6 1.8 0.5 (0.0, 1.0) 0.30 (0.32, 0.90)
Exercise alone 3.0 1.5 3.6 1.7 0.6 (0.1, 1.1) 0.36 (0.26, 0.99)
Uninvolved deltoid 0.3 (0.4, 0.9) 0.20 (0.42, 0.81)
Exercise plus MT 2.2 1.4 2.5 1.9 0.3 (0.3, 0.9) 0.20 (0.43, 0.78)
Exercise alone 3.0 1.5 3.6 1.7 0.7 (0.0, 1.3) 0.39 (0.26, 0.99)
Involved levator scapulae 0.2 (0.4, 0.8) 0.18 (0.43, 0.79)
Exercise plus MT 2.6 1.4 3.3 1.7 0.7 (0.2, 1.3) 0.46 (0.17, 1.05)
Copyright 2015 Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy. All rights reserved.
Exercise alone 3.2 1.5 4.1 1.6 0.9 (0.3, 1.5) 0.59 (0.06, 1.20)
Uninvolved levator scapulae 0.1 (0.5, 0.6) 0.06 (0.55, 0.67)
Exercise plus MT 2.8 1.5 3.3 1.6 0.5 (0.0, 0.9) 0.30 (0.29, 0.92)
Exercise alone 3.5 1.2 4.0 1.4 0.5 (0.0, 1.0) 0.39 (0.25, 1.00)
Involved C5-6 0.7 (0.1, 1.2) 0.70 (0.05, 1.31)
Exercise plus MT 1.7 1.1 1.7 1.2 0.1 (0.5, 0.5) 0.00 (0.60, 0.60)
Exercise alone 1.9 1.1 2.5 0.9 0.6 (1.3, 2.5) 0.62 (0.05, 1.22)
Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy
cm2, with a large effect size. All data for P = .01; uninvolved side, P<.01) and a for the exercise-alone group and non-
PPTs are provided in TABLE 3. significant difference between groups existent for the exercise-plusmanual
There was a significant group-by-time postintervention (involved side, P = .017; therapy group. For the between-group
interaction for PPTs measured over C5-6 uninvolved side, P = .049), where the comparisons, the differences were 0.6 kg/
on both the involved and uninvolved PPTs of the exercise-alone group were cm2 or greater, and the Cohen index was
sides (P = .03 and P = .04, respectively). significantly higher than those of the moderate for the involved side and large
For both sides, post hoc analyses indi- exercise-plusmanual therapy group. for the uninvolved side.
cated a significant increase in PPTs for The preintervention-to-postintervention Finally, PPTs measured over the an-
the exercise-alone group (involved side, within-group effect sizes were moderate terior tibialis muscle bilaterally showed
small or nonexistent. cuff.58 Although the current study did not do not support this premise. Overall, in
use thrust manipulation techniques, a re- the literature, there continues to be a lack
DISCUSSION cent study27 has shown greater scapular of agreement about the effectiveness of
anterior tilt immediately after thoracic manual therapy as a component of treat-
T
his study showed that the addi- manipulation in asymptomatic individu- ment for SIS.8,16,34
tion of manual therapy to an exercise als. As such, potential effects of different Mechanical sensitivity in the shoul-
protocol does not further enhance manual therapy techniques on scapular der region improved bilaterally in both
improvements in pain, function, or scap- tilt deserve future attention, as results groups after the 4-week intervention, in-
ular kinematics after 4 weeks of interven- from the present study are not conclusive dependent of the intervention, again in-
tion in individuals with SIS. In fact, for in suggesting that manual therapy may dicating that manual therapy provided no
most outcomes, the exercise-alone group cause biomechanical harm to the scapula. additional benefits. Pressure pain thresh-
tended to demonstrate greater improve- old over the tibialis anterior, considered
ment than the exercise-plusmanual Function of the Upper Limbs a remote location, did not change over
therapy group. However, caution should The outcomes of the DASH question- time, which may indicate the absence of
Copyright 2015 Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy. All rights reserved.
be taken when interpreting the results, naire showed significantly better func- widespread sensitivity alterations in these
because the wide CIs of some variables tion of the involved upper extremity after patients or the inability of the interven-
indicate that individuals may or may not the intervention for both groups. How- tions to alter PPTs at a remote location.
benefit from adding manual therapy to an ever, only the change for the exercise- Walton et al61 established a minimal
exercise program. Previous studies have plusmanual therapy group (mean, 12.9 detectable change of between 0.45 and
shown greater decreases in pain when points) exceeded the minimal detectable 1.13 kg/cm2 for locations over the upper
exercises were combined with techniques change reported by Franchignoni et al.20 trapezius and between 1.0 and 1.7 kg/cm2
of manual therapy.2,53 To our knowledge, It is important to consider that the ex- for locations over the tibialis anterior for
no previous studies have analyzed the ef- ercise-alone group started with a lower individuals with neck pain. In the pres-
Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy
fects of the combination of exercise and score on the DASH questionnaire, result- ent study, differences in PPTs between
manual therapy on scapular kinematics ing in less room for improvement. preintervention and postintervention for
and mechanical hypersensitivity. shoulder and C5-6 locations bilaterally
Pain were within or above the upper trapezius
Scapular Kinematics Patients in both intervention groups re- PPT relevant differences,61 but differenc-
Studies have assessed the effects of physi- ported decreased pain after the interven- es for measurements over the tibialis an-
cal therapy intervention on scapular ki- tion. The least pain during the past week terior did not achieve the lower bound of
nematics.27,31,41,46,51,55,63 Although these was the only variable that showed greater the reported minimal detectable change.
investigations used different interven- benefits from adding the manual therapy The mechanical sensitivity of the
tions and methodologies, most showed techniques. Although the pain level for shoulder has been reported to be altered
either no evidence of improvement in the patients in the exercise-plusmanual in shoulder pain conditions,33 specifically
scapular motion31,41,63 or changes that therapy group decreased by more than 1 in SIS.1 Both peripheral1 and central sen-
could not be considered clinically im- point (10 mm), the low initial pain value sitization33 processes, which are contribu-
portant.27,46 In the present investigation, for the exercise-alone group (6.4 mm) tors to the development and maintenance
changes in scapular kinematics after the may explain the significant interaction. of chronic pain,23 have been reported in
4-week intervention are inconclusive due For the current level of pain during individuals with SIS. It should be high-
to the wide CIs. movement and the greatest amount of lighted that both interventions applied in
Although some statistically signifi- pain during the prior week, preinterven- the present study reduced mechanical hy-
cant differences were found in scapular tion-to-postintervention improvements peralgesia, resulting in PPT scores within
kinematics from preintervention to post exceeded the reported minimal clinically normal values based on a similar control/
intervention, these were not considered important change,17 with differences of asymptomatic sample,1 postintervention.
clinically meaningful. However, the in- more than 2.5 points (25 mm). This is an Thus, the results of the present study are
crease in anterior scapular tilt observed improvement of better than 50%, which consistent with the presence and resolu-
for the exercise-plusmanual therapy corresponds to large effect sizes. tion of segmental (C5-6 PPT effect for
T
Downloaded from www.jospt.org at Dot Lib-eMarketing Campaign on September 20, 2016. For personal use only. No other uses without permission.
over the tibialis anterior). Although the he findings of this study indi- jospt.2000.30.3.126
lack of benefits of adding manual therapy cate that the addition of manual 3. Bijur PE, Silver W, Gallagher EJ. Reliability of the
visual analog scale for measurement of acute
was an unexpected result, other authors therapy to an exercise protocol does
pain. Acad Emerg Med. 2001;8:1153-1157.
have previously reported a similar lack of not provide added benefits to improving 4. Borstad JD, Ludewig PM. Comparison of scapu-
effects of manual therapy (mobilization pain and function in individuals with SIS. lar kinematics between elevation and lowering
with movement) in altering PPTs in in- Given the large improvement in pain and of the arm in the scapular plane. Clin Biomech
(Bristol, Avon). 2002;17:650-659.
dividuals with SIS.57 function and the absence of changes in
5. Borstad JD, Ludewig PM. The effect of long
This study has some limitations. Indi- scapular kinematics postintervention, versus short pectoralis minor resting length on
viduals with different baseline conditions it appears that improvements in pain scapular kinematics in healthy individuals. J Or-
may respond differently to treatments, and function are not likely explained by thop Sports Phys Ther. 2005;35:227-238. http://
dx.doi.org/10.2519/jospt.2005.35.4.227
as described when peripheral or central changes in scapular motion. However,
6. Camargo PR, Alburquerque-Sendn F, Salvini TF.
sensitization processes exist.24 Further, it is possible that some individuals may Eccentric training as a new approach for rota-
the interventions have shown differ- or may not benefit from the addition tor cuff tendinopathy: review and perspectives.
ent effects depending on the outcome. of manual therapy due to the wide CIs World J Orthop. 2014;5:634-644. http://dx.doi.
found for the scapular kinematic data. t
Copyright 2015 Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy. All rights reserved.
org/10.5312/wjo.v5.i5.634
It remains unknown if a longer period
7. Camargo PR, Haik MN, Ludewig PM, Filho
of intervention could lead to clinically RB, Mattiello-Rosa SM, Salvini TF. Effects
meaningful effects on kinematics. Stud- KEY POINTS of strengthening and stretching exercises
ies with different periods of intervention FINDINGS: The findings of this study indi- applied during working hours on pain and
physical impairment in workers with sub-
may help to clarify this point. One may cate that the addition of manual therapy
acromial impingement syndrome. Physiother
argue that not blinding the examiners to an exercise protocol does not provide Theory Pract. 2009;25:463-475. http://dx.doi.
collecting kinematic data can be a limi- added benefits to improving pain and org/10.3109/09593980802662145
tation. We believe that this fact hardly function in individuals with SIS. The 8. Camarinos J, Marinko L. Effectiveness of
manual physical therapy for painful shoul-
introduced bias into the results, because absence of change in scapular kinematics
der conditions: a systematic review. J Man
Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy
the data were not collected directly by the postintervention suggests that improve- Manip Ther. 2009;17:206-215. http://dx.doi.
examiner but had to undergo computer ments in pain and function are not likely org/10.1179/106698109791352076
processing, decreasing the examiners explained by changes in scapular motion. 9. Chesterton LS, Barlas P, Foster NE, Baxter
GD, Wright CC. Gender differences in pres-
ability to influence the outcomes. Future IMPLICATIONS: The results suggest that an
sure pain threshold in healthy humans. Pain.
research should also include assessment exercise-based program should be the 2003;101:259-266.
of muscle activation. primary intervention for this condition 10. Chesterton LS, Sim J, Wright CC, Foster NE.
There is limited knowledge with re- and that the addition of manual therapy Interrater reliability of algometry in measur-
ing pressure pain thresholds in healthy
spect to the reliability and the minimum may be considered if there is a lack of
humans, using multiple raters. Clin J Pain.
change that are clinically relevant for improvement with exercise alone. 2007;23:760-766. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/
scapular kinematics. We used data from CAUTION: These results are not generaliz- AJP.0b013e318154b6ae
a previously published study by our re- able to individuals with a more acute 11. Chiu YH, Silman AJ, Macfarlane GJ, et al. Poor
sleep and depression are independently associ-
search group to determine the sample condition of SIS. Individuals in this study
ated with a reduced pain threshold. Results of a
size. However, some standard deviations had high heterogeneity in the duration of population based study. Pain. 2005;115:316-321.
for scapular upward rotation were larger symptoms and were treated over a rela- http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pain.2005.03.009
than estimated (4.5), which could in- tively short period for this condition. 12. Cohen J. Statistical Power Analysis for the
Behavioral Sciences. 2nd ed. Hillsdale, NJ: Law-
crease the risk of type II error. Neverthe-
rence Erlbaum Associates; 1988.
less, all within-group and between-group 13. Conroy DE, Hayes KW. The effect of joint mo-
changes in scapular upward rotation REFERENCES bilization as a component of comprehensive
were lower than the estimated clinically treatment for primary shoulder impinge-
1. A
lburquerque-Sendn F, Camargo PR, Vieira A, ment syndrome. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther.
meaningful difference (less than 4) and Salvini TF. Bilateral myofascial trigger points 1998;28:3-14. http://dx.doi.org/10.2519/
lower than the standard error of measure- and pressure pain thresholds in the shoulder jospt.1998.28.1.3
ment,26 which means low or nonexistent muscles in patients with unilateral shoulder 14. Coronado RA, Simon CB, Valencia C, George
changes. Further, the effect sizes of the impingement syndrome: a blinded, controlled SZ. Experimental pain responses support
study. Clin J Pain. 2013;29:478-486. http:// peripheral and central sensitization in patients
kinematic variables were low or absent,
effect of a 6-week training program on muscle J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2014;44:341-349. Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2009;18:138-160. http://
recruitment and functional outcome. Am J http://dx.doi.org/10.2519/jospt.2014.4705 dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2008.06.004
Sports Med. 2012;40:1906-1915. http://dx.doi. 27. Haik MN, Alburquerque-Sendn F, Silva CZ, 38. Ludewig PM, Borstad JD. Effects of a home
org/10.1177/0363546512453297 Siqueira-Junior AL, Ribeiro IL, Camargo PR. exercise programme on shoulder pain and
16. Desjardins-Charbonneau A, Roy JS, Dionne CE, Scapular kinematics pre and postthoracic functional status in construction workers. Occup
Frmont P, MacDermid JC, Desmeules F. The thrust manipulation in individuals with and Environ Med. 2003;60:841-849.
efficacy of manual therapy for rotator cuff tendi- without shoulder impingement symptoms: a 39. Ludewig PM, Reynolds JF. The association
nopathy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. randomized controlled study. J Orthop Sports of scapular kinematics and glenohumeral
J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2015;45:330-350. Phys Ther. 2014;44:475-487. http://dx.doi. joint pathologies. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2519/jospt.2015.5455 org/10.2519/jospt.2014.4760 2009;39:90-104. http://dx.doi.org/10.2519/
17. Dworkin RH, Turk DC, McDermott MP, et al. 28. Hegedus EJ, Goode AP, Cook CE, et al. Which jospt.2009.2808
Interpreting the clinical importance of group dif- physical examination tests provide clinicians 40. Magee DJ. Orthopedic Physical Assessment. 3rd
ferences in chronic pain clinical trials: IMMPACT with the most value when examining the shoul- ed. Philadelphia, PA: W.B. Saunders; 1997.
recommendations. Pain. 2009;146:238-244. der? Update of a systematic review with meta- 41. McClure PW, Bialker J, Neff N, Williams G, Kar-
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pain.2009.08.019 analysis of individual tests. Br J Sports Med. duna A. Shoulder function and 3-dimensional ki-
18. Fernndez-Carnero J, Fernndez-de-las-Peas 2012;46:964-978. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/ nematics in people with shoulder impingement
C, de la Llave-Rincn AI, Ge HY, Arendt-Nielsen bjsports-2012-091066 syndrome before and after a 6-week exercise
Copyright 2015 Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy. All rights reserved.
L. Widespread mechanical pain hypersensitiv- 29. Hengeveld E, Banks K. Maitlands Peripheral program. Phys Ther. 2004;84:832-848.
ity as sign of central sensitization in unilateral Manipulation. 5th ed. London, UK: Elsevier/ 42. McClure PW, Michener LA, Karduna AR.
epicondylalgia: a blinded, controlled study. Churchill Livingstone; 2013. Shoulder function and 3-dimensional scapu-
Clin J Pain. 2009;25:555-561. http://dx.doi. 30. Heyworth BE, Williams RJ, 3rd. Internal lar kinematics in people with and without
org/10.1097/AJP.0b013e3181a68a040 impingement of the shoulder. Am J Sports shoulder impingement syndrome. Phys Ther.
19. Fischer AA. Application of pressure algometry in Med. 2009;37:1024-1037. http://dx.doi. 2006;86:1075-1090.
manual medicine. J Man Med. 1990;5:145-150. org/10.1177/0363546508324966 43. McCormack HM, Horne DJ, Sheather S. Clinical
20. Franchignoni F, Vercelli S, Giordano A, Sartorio 31. Hibberd EE, Oyama S, Spang JT, Prentice W, My- applications of visual analogue scales: a critical
F, Bravini E, Ferriero G. Minimal clinically im- ers JB. Effect of a 6-week strengthening program review. Psychol Med. 1988;18:1007-1019.
portant difference of the Disabilities of the Arm, on shoulder and scapular-stabilizer strength 44. Michener LA, McClure PW, Karduna AR. Ana-
Shoulder and Hand outcome measure (DASH) and scapular kinematics in Division I collegiate tomical and biomechanical mechanisms of sub-
and its shortened version (QuickDASH). J Or- swimmers. J Sport Rehabil. 2012;21:253-265. acromial impingement syndrome. Clin Biomech
Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy
thop Sports Phys Ther. 2014;44:30-39. http:// 32. Hidalgo-Lozano A, Fernndez-de-las-Peas (Bristol, Avon). 2003;18:369-379.
dx.doi.org/10.2519/jospt.2014.4893 C, Alonso-Blanco C, Ge HY, Arendt-Nielsen L, 45. Michener LA, Walsworth MK, Burnet EN. Effec-
21. Furlanetto LM, Mendlowicz MV, Romildo Bueno Arroyo-Morales M. Muscle trigger points and tiveness of rehabilitation for patients with sub-
J. The validity of the Beck Depression Inventory- pressure pain hyperalgesia in the shoulder acromial impingement syndrome: a systematic
Short Form as a screening and diagnostic in- muscles in patients with unilateral shoulder review. J Hand Ther. 2004;17:152-164. http://
strument for moderate and severe depression in impingement: a blinded, controlled study. Exp dx.doi.org/10.1197/j.jht.2004.02.004
medical inpatients. J Affect Disord. 2005;86:87- Brain Res. 2010;202:915-925. http://dx.doi. 46. Muth S, Barbe MF, Lauer R, McClure PW. The ef-
91. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2004.12.011 org/10.1007/s00221-010-2196-4 fects of thoracic spine manipulation in subjects
22. Gebremariam L, Hay EM, van der Sande R, Rin- 33. Hidalgo-Lozano A, Fernndez-de-las-Peas C, with signs of rotator cuff tendinopathy. J Orthop
kel WD, Koes BW, Huisstede BM. Subacromial Caldern-Soto C, Domingo-Camara A, Mad- Sports Phys Ther. 2012;42:1005-1016. http://
impingement syndromeeffectiveness of phys- eleine P, Arroyo-Morales M. Elite swimmers with dx.doi.org/10.2519/jospt.2012.4142
iotherapy and manual therapy. Br J Sports Med. and without unilateral shoulder pain: mechani- 47. Orfale AG, Arajo PM, Ferraz MB, Natour J.
2014;48:1202-1208. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/ cal hyperalgesia and active/latent muscle trig- Translation into Brazilian Portuguese, cultural
bjsports-2012-091802 ger points in neckshoulder muscles. Scand J adaptation and evaluation of the reliability
23. Graven-Nielsen T, Arendt-Nielsen L. Peripheral Med Sci Sports. 2013;23:66-73. http://dx.doi. of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and
and central sensitization in musculoskeletal org/10.1111/j.1600-0838.2011.01331.x Hand Questionnaire. Braz J Med Biol Res.
pain disorders: an experimental approach. Curr 34. Ho CY, Sole G, Munn J. The effectiveness of 2005;38:293-302. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/
Rheumatol Rep. 2002;4:313-321. manual therapy in the management of musculo- S0100-879X2005000200018
24. Gwilym SE, Oag HC, Tracey I, Carr AJ. Evidence skeletal disorders of the shoulder: a systematic 48. Phadke V, Camargo P, Ludewig P. Scapular and
that central sensitisation is present in patients review. Man Ther. 2009;14:463-474. http:// rotator cuff muscle activity during arm eleva-
with shoulder impingement syndrome and dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.math.2009.03.008 tion: a review of normal function and altera-
influences the outcome after surgery. J Bone 35. Kebaetse M, McClure P, Pratt NA. Tho- tions with shoulder impingement. Rev Bras
Joint Surg Br. 2011;93:498-502. http://dx.doi. racic position effect on shoulder range of Fisioter. 2009;13:1-9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/
org/10.1302/0301-620X.93B4.25054 motion, strength, and three-dimensional S1413-35552009005000012
25. Habechian FA, Fornasari GG, Sacramento LS, scapular kinematics. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 49. Phadke V, Ludewig PM. Study of the scapular
Camargo PR. Differences in scapular kinematics 1999;80:945-950. muscle latency and deactivation time in people
and scapulohumeral rhythm during elevation 36. Kibler WB, Ludewig PM, McClure PW, Michener with and without shoulder impingement. J
and lowering of the arm between typical chil- LA, Bak K, Sciascia AD. Clinical implications of Electromyogr Kinesiol. 2013;23:469-475. http://
dren and healthy adults. J Electromyogr Kine- scapular dyskinesis in shoulder injury: the 2013 dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jelekin.2012.10.004
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmpt.2013.07.006 56. Tate AR, McClure PW, Young IA, Salvatori R, dx.doi.org/10.2519/jospt.2011.3666
51. Roy JS, Moffet H, Hbert LJ, Lirette R. Effect Michener LA. Comprehensive impairment-based 62. Winters JC, Sobel JS, Groenier KH, Arendzen
of motor control and strengthening exercises exercise and manual therapy intervention HJ, Meyboom-de Jong B. Comparison of physio-
on shoulder function in persons with impinge- for patients with subacromial impingement therapy, manipulation, and corticosteroid injec-
ment syndrome: a single-subject study design. syndrome: a case series. J Orthop Sports tion for treating shoulder complaints in general
Man Ther. 2009;14:180-188. http://dx.doi. Phys Ther. 2010;40:474-493. http://dx.doi. practice: randomised, single blind study. BMJ.
org/10.1016/j.math.2008.01.010 org/10.2519/jospt.2010.3223 1997;314:1320-1325. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/
52. Seitz AL, McClure PW, Finucane S, Board- 57. Teys P, Bisset L, Collins N, Coombes B, Vicen- bmj.314.7090.1320
man ND, 3rd, Michener LA. Mechanisms of zino B. One-week time course of the effects 63. Worsley P, Warner M, Mottram S, et al. Mo-
rotator cuff tendinopathy: intrinsic, extrin- of Mulligans Mobilisation with Movement tor control retraining exercises for shoulder
sic, or both? Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). and taping in painful shoulders. Man Ther. impingement: effects on function, muscle
2011;26:1-12. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. 2013;18:372-377. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. activation, and biomechanics in young adults.
clinbiomech.2010.08.001 math.2013.01.001 J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2013;22:e11-e19. http://
53. Senbursa G, Baltaci G, Atay A. Comparison 58. Timmons MK, Thigpen CA, Seitz AL, Kar- dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2012.06.010
of conservative treatment with and without duna AR, Arnold BL, Michener LA. Scapular 64. Wu G, van der Helm FC, Veeger HE, et al.
manual physical therapy for patients with kinematics and subacromial-impingement ISB recommendation on definitions of joint
shoulder impingement syndrome: a prospective, syndrome: a meta-analysis. J Sport Rehabil. coordinate systems of various joints for the
Copyright 2015 Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy. All rights reserved.
randomized clinical trial. Knee Surg Sports Trau- 2012;21:354-370. reporting of human joint motionpart II:
matol Arthrosc. 2007;15:915-921. http://dx.doi. 59. Tyler TF, Nicholas SJ, Roy T, Gleim GW. Quantifi- shoulder, elbow, wrist and hand. J Biomech.
org/10.1007/s00167-007-0288-x cation of posterior capsule tightness and motion 2005;38:981-992. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
54. Spallek M, Kuhn W, Schwarze S, Hartmann loss in patients with shoulder impingement. Am jbiomech.2004.05.042
B. Occupational medical prophylaxis for the J Sports Med. 2000;28:668-673.
musculoskeletal system: a function-oriented 60. van der Windt DA, Koes BW, de Jong BA, Bouter
@ MORE INFORMATION
system for physical examination of the locomo- LM. Shoulder disorders in general practice:
tor system in occupational medicine (fokus(C)). incidence, patient characteristics, and manage-
J Occup Med Toxicol. 2007;2:12. http://dx.doi. ment. Ann Rheum Dis. 1995;54:959-964. WWW.JOSPT.ORG
Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy