| Literature DB >> 27278468 |
Birgitte Hede Christensen1,2, Kathrine Skov Andersen2,3, Sten Rasmussen4,5,6, Elizabeth Lykholt Andreasen1, Lotte Mejlvig Nielsen1, Steen Lund Jensen7,8.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Rotator cuff rupture is associated with dysfunction, pain and muscular weakness related to the upper extremity. Some evidence exists to support the beneficial effect of exercises but there is lack of evidence of which exercises imply the best effect and how physiotherapy should be administered. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to examine the effect of a neuromuscular exercise program for patients with irreparable rotator cuff rupture.Entities:
Keywords: Conservative management; Exercise therapy; Rehabilitation; Rotator cuff rupture; Tendon injuries
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27278468 PMCID: PMC4898474 DOI: 10.1186/s12891-016-1116-6
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Musculoskelet Disord ISSN: 1471-2474 Impact factor: 2.362
Fig. 1Exercises protocol. a-d shows the exercises for m. deltoideus anterior in different stages. First with external support (a), then changes in the starting position and thereby the load and gravity of the exercise (c-d) and finally external weight could be applied. From the positions illustrated the patients performed flexion. e-f shows the exercises for m. teres minor again challenging the patient by changing the starting position and adding external load. From the positions illustrated the patient performed external rotation. Consent to the use of the images has been obtained from the subject
Fig. 2Scores on the Oxford Shoulder Score from baseline, 3 and 5 months. Data are presented as mean and standard deviations. * significant difference from baseline. ϯ significant difference from 3 months
Range of motion
| Baseline mean (SD) | 5 months mean (SD) | Difference mean (95 % CI) | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Abduction | 93.7 (38.9) | 128.1 (52.7) | 34.4 (11.6–57.2) | 0.005* |
| Flexion | 132.5 (8.0) | 133.9 (60.0) | 1.4 (−24.1–26.8) | 0.912 |
| External rotation | 27.9 (18.6) | 31.7 (15.7) | 3.8 (−4.7–12.4) | 0.364 |
| Baseline median (25th ; 75th percentiles) | 5 months median (25th, 75th percentiles) | Difference p-value | ||
| VAS abduction | 5.0 (3.0;6.3) | 2.0 (1.0;4.0) | 0.001* | |
| VAS flexion | 5.0 (3.8;7.3) | 1.0 (0.0;3.0) | <0.001* | |
| VAS external rotation | 4.0 (1.8;6.3) | 0.5 (0.0;3.8) | 0.015* | |
Range of motion presented as mean and standard deviations (SD) and pain reported on a visual analogue scale (VAS) presented as median, 25th and 75th percentiles during the same movement directions. The outcome measures were performed at baseline and 5 months follow-up. CI Confidence interval. * indicates significant difference
Strength measured on a hand-held dynamometer and pain measured on a visual analogue scale
| Baseline mean (SD) | 5 months mean (SD) | Difference mean (95 % CI) | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Abduction | 50.2 (32.5) | 62.5 (34.1) | 12.3 (3.4–21.3) | 0.009* |
| Flexion 45° | 23.5 (15.9) | 33.7 (22.8) | 10.2 (0.8–19.6) | 0.036* |
| Flexion 90° | 17.6 (8.4) | 24.6 (17.0) | 7.0 (0.0–14.0) | 0.049* |
| Internal rotation | 93.1 (47.4) | 102.1 (54.6) | 9.0 (−1.9–19.8) | 0.102 |
| Baseline median (25th; 75th percentiles) | 5 months median (25th; 75th percentiles) | Difference | ||
| External rotation | 24.2 (7.0;44.7) | 24.9 (11.0;44.7) | 0.363 | |
| Baseline median (25th; 75th percentiles) | 5 months median (25th; 75th percentiles) | Difference | ||
| VAS abduktion | 5.3 (3.0;6.5) | 4.3 (3.0;7.0) | 0.655 | |
| VAS flexion 45° | 6.5 (4.4;8.0) | 2.7 (1.0;5.0) | <0.001* | |
| VAS flekxion 90° | 5.3 (4.2;8.2) | 3.0 (0.5;5.0) | 0.001* | |
| VAS internal rotation | 3.0 (0.0;4.3) | 0.2 (0.0;2.8) | 0.047* | |
| VAS external rotation | 4.5 (2.0;7.0) | 1.0 (0.0;4.3) | 0.001* | |
Strength measured in Newton presented as mean and standard deviations (SD) for normally distributed values. If not normally distributed data is presented as median, 25th and 75th percentiles (external rotation). Pain reported on a visual analogue scale presented as median and 25th and 75th percentiles. CI Confidence interval. * indicates significant difference
Electromyography during isometric abduction, isometric and dynamic flexion
| m. trapezius - mean (SD) | m. deltoideus – mean (SD) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Baseline | 5 months | Baseline | 5 months | |
| Abduction | 138.1 (182.2) | 147.2 (179.1) | 123.8 (60.2) | 141.0 (88.8) |
| Flexion 45° | 108.4 (127.2) | 313.6 (909.2) | 134.8 (81.2) | 117.0 (83.0) |
| Flexion 90° | 169.9 (213.9) | 179.4 (158.3) | 138.1 (32.7) | 109.8 (27.2)* |
| Dynamic flexion | 130.2 (184.2) | 147.4 (163.3) | 108.1 (52.8) | 110.5 (54.8) |
Data from the electromyography of m. trapezius superior and m. deltoideus anterior. Data are normalized to a maximum isometric contraction and therefore displayed as present of a reference value. Data are presented as mean and standard deviations (SD). Only 14 patients were able to perform flexion 90°. * indicates significant difference (here p = 0.021)