INTRODUCTION: Deficits after breast cancer treatment have been examined by comparing the surgically affected upper extremity to the unaffected extremity. It is not possible to know precisely if anti-cancer treatment such as radiation and chemotherapy had any effect on the unaffected arm. The purpose of this study was to compare ROM, strength, and shoulder function between breast cancer survivors and healthy, matched controls. METHODS: Shoulder pain and function was assessed using the Disabilities of the Arm Shoulder Hand (DASH) and the Pennsylvania Shoulder Score (PSS). Active and passive range of motion (ROM) for shoulder flexion, extension, external rotation (ER) at 0° and 90° of abduction, internal rotation (IR) at 90° of abduction were measured on the affected side using a digital inclinometer. Strength was measured using a hand held dynamometer for scapular abduction and upward rotation, scapular depression and adduction, flexion, internal rotation, ER, scaption, and horizontal adduction. RESULTS: Significant differences were found between the two groups for the DASH (p < 0.001) and PSS (p < 0.001), active flexion (p < 0.001), 90° ER (p = 0.020), extension (p = 0.004) and passive flexion (p < 0.001) and 90° ER (p = 0.012). All 7 of the shoulder girdle strength measures were significantly different between groups for abduction and upward rotation (p = 0.006), depression and adduction (p = 0.001), flexion (p < 0.001), ER (p = 0.004), IR (p = 0.001), scaption (p < 0.001), and adduction (p < 0.001). DISCUSSION/ CONCLUSIONS: These results provide preliminary evidence to suggest clinicians focus on these particular ROM, strength, and shoulder function measures when treating a breast cancer survivors. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: Shoulder ROM, strength, and function are important to assess in BCS.
INTRODUCTION: Deficits after breast cancer treatment have been examined by comparing the surgically affected upper extremity to the unaffected extremity. It is not possible to know precisely if anti-cancer treatment such as radiation and chemotherapy had any effect on the unaffected arm. The purpose of this study was to compare ROM, strength, and shoulder function between breast cancer survivors and healthy, matched controls. METHODS: Shoulder pain and function was assessed using the Disabilities of the Arm Shoulder Hand (DASH) and the Pennsylvania Shoulder Score (PSS). Active and passive range of motion (ROM) for shoulder flexion, extension, external rotation (ER) at 0° and 90° of abduction, internal rotation (IR) at 90° of abduction were measured on the affected side using a digital inclinometer. Strength was measured using a hand held dynamometer for scapular abduction and upward rotation, scapular depression and adduction, flexion, internal rotation, ER, scaption, and horizontal adduction. RESULTS: Significant differences were found between the two groups for the DASH (p < 0.001) and PSS (p < 0.001), active flexion (p < 0.001), 90° ER (p = 0.020), extension (p = 0.004) and passive flexion (p < 0.001) and 90° ER (p = 0.012). All 7 of the shoulder girdle strength measures were significantly different between groups for abduction and upward rotation (p = 0.006), depression and adduction (p = 0.001), flexion (p < 0.001), ER (p = 0.004), IR (p = 0.001), scaption (p < 0.001), and adduction (p < 0.001). DISCUSSION/ CONCLUSIONS: These results provide preliminary evidence to suggest clinicians focus on these particular ROM, strength, and shoulder function measures when treating a breast cancer survivors. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: Shoulder ROM, strength, and function are important to assess in BCS.
Authors: M Clarke; R Collins; S Darby; C Davies; P Elphinstone; V Evans; J Godwin; R Gray; C Hicks; S James; E MacKinnon; P McGale; T McHugh; R Peto; C Taylor; Y Wang Journal: Lancet Date: 2005-12-17 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: T Kuehn; W Klauss; M Darsow; S Regele; F Flock; C Maiterth; R Dahlbender; I Wendt; R Kreienberg Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2000-12 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Jack Crosbie; Sharon L Kilbreath; Elizabeth Dylke; Kathryn M Refshauge; Leslie L Nicholson; Jane M Beith; Andrew J Spillane; Kate White Journal: Phys Ther Date: 2010-03-11
Authors: Brian G Leggin; Lori A Michener; Michael A Shaffer; Susan K Brenneman; Joseph P Iannotti; Gerald R Williams Journal: J Orthop Sports Phys Ther Date: 2006-03 Impact factor: 4.751
Authors: Barbara A Springer; Ellen Levy; Charles McGarvey; Lucinda A Pfalzer; Nicole L Stout; Lynn H Gerber; Peter W Soballe; Jerome Danoff Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2010-02 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Emily Jo Rajotte; Jean C Yi; K Scott Baker; Lindsey Gregerson; Andréa Leiserowitz; Karen L Syrjala Journal: J Cancer Surviv Date: 2012-01-13 Impact factor: 4.442
Authors: Frank C Sweeney; Wendy Demark-Wahnefried; Kerry S Courneya; Nathalie Sami; Kyuwan Lee; Debu Tripathy; Kimiko Yamada; Thomas A Buchanan; Darcy V Spicer; Leslie Bernstein; Joanne E Mortimer; Christina M Dieli-Conwright Journal: Phys Ther Date: 2019-10-28
Authors: Shana Harrington; Lori A Michener; Tiffany Kendig; Susan Miale; Steven Z George Journal: Arch Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2013-08-06 Impact factor: 3.966
Authors: Shirley S M Fong; Shamay S M Ng; W S Luk; Joanne W Y Chung; Louisa M Y Chung; William W N Tsang; Lina P Y Chow Journal: Evid Based Complement Alternat Med Date: 2013-04-23 Impact factor: 2.629