| Literature DB >> 32724778 |
Hariharasudhan Ravichandran1, Balamurugan Janakiraman2, Asmare Yitayeh Gelaw2, Berihu Fisseha1, Subramanian Sundaram3, Hidangmayum Richa Sharma4.
Abstract
Scapular stabilization approaches have been a mainstay of therapeutic training programs in the recent past for patients with subacromial im-pingement syndrome, whereas its contributions solely in the clinical outcome of reducing shoulder pain and disability are largely unclear. This systematic review aims to evaluate and summarize the best evi-dence regarding the role of scapular stabilization interventions in allevi-ating shoulder dysfunction among subjects with subacromial impinge-ment syndrome. Six reviewers involved in this systematic review. Liter-ature was retrieved systematically through searching 5 electronic data-bases (PubMed, MEDLINE, CINAHL, Cochrane, and Google Scholar). Articles published from the year 2010 up to and including 2019 were in-cluded. The literature search included clinical trials those intervened subjects with scapular exercises or scapular stabilization exercises or scapular rehabilitation, as an intervention for subacromial impingement syndrome. Seven studies, totaling 228 participants were included in this systematic review. Articles included in this review were graded ac-cording to Lloyd-Smith hierarchy of evidence scale and critically ap-praised with a tool developed by National, Heart, Lung and Blood Insti-tute (United States), named as quality assessment of controlled inter-vention studies tool. There was a significant effect on the scapular sta-bilization exercise program on improving pain and disability among sub-jects with subacromial impingement syndrome. This systematic review provides sufficient evidence to suggest that scapular stabilization exer-cises offers effectiveness in reducing pain and disability among sub-jects with subacromial impingement syndrome. However, more trials with larger sample are needed to provide a more definitive evidence on the clinical outcomes of scapular stabilization exercises among pa-tients with impingement.Entities:
Keywords: Exercise; Scapular exercises; Scapular stabilization; Shoulder impingement syndrome; Shoulder rehabilitation; Subacromial impingement syndrome
Year: 2020 PMID: 32724778 PMCID: PMC7365732 DOI: 10.12965/jer.2040256.128
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Exerc Rehabil ISSN: 2288-176X
Keywords and syntax used in search strategy
| No. | Keywords | Pubmed | MEDLINE | CINAHL | Cochrane | Google Scholar |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Impingement | 25,673 | 723 | 3,891 | 1,279 | 39,742 |
| 2 | Shoulder impingement syndrome | 2,878 | 219 | 210 | 685 | 5,561 |
| 3 | Subacromial impingement | 2,109 | 187 | 128 | 541 | 6,723 |
| 4 | Above 1–3 | 1,578 | 521 | 4,101 | 2,276 | 49,888 |
| 5 | Scapular stabilization | 239 | 13 | 328 | 187 | 2,321 |
| 6 | Scapular exercises | 288 | 21 | 23 | 256 | 1,287 |
| 7 | Scapular rehabilitation | 451 | 122 | 38 | 478 | 3,456 |
| 8 | Above 5–7 | 326 | 118 | 381 | 734 | 6,733 |
| 9 | Randomized controlled trial | 2,233 | 424 | 129 | 2,109 | 5,925 |
| 10 | Experimental study design | 938 | 232 | 210 | 167 | 4,390 |
| 11 | Above 9–10 | 3,054 | 654 | 318 | 2,189 | 9,872 |
| 12 | Above 4+8+11 | 854 | 25 | 63 | 49 | 1,298 |
Lloyd-Smith hierarchy of evidence
| Level of evidence | Study design | Articles |
|---|---|---|
| 1a | Meta-analysis of randomized controlled study | |
| 1b | Individual randomized controlled study | |
| 2a | Well designed, non randomized controlled study | Hotta et al. (2017) |
| 2b | Well designed quasi experimental study | |
| 3 | Nonexperimental descriptive studies-comparative/case studies | |
| 4 | Respectable opinion |
Quality assessment of included articles
| Criteria | Bernardsson et al. (2011) | Hotta et al. (2017) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Was the study described as randomized, a randomized trial, a randomized clinical trial, or an RCT? | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | No |
| 2. Was the method of randomization adequate (i.e., use of randomly generated assignment)? | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | No |
| 3. Was the treatment allocation concealed (so that assignments could not be predicted)? | Not mentioned | No | Yes | Yes | No | Not mentioned | No |
| 4. Were study participants and providers blinded to treatment group assignment? | No | Not mentioned | Yes | Yes | Not mentioned | Not mentioned | No |
| 5. Were the people assessing the outcomes blinded to the participants’ group assignments? | No | Not mentioned | Yes | Yes | Not mentioned | Not mentioned | No |
| 6. Were the groups similar at baseline on important characteristics that could affect outcomes (e.g., demographics, risk factors, co-morbid conditions)? | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| 7. Was the overall drop-out rate from the study at endpoint 20% or lower of the number allocated to treatment? | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| 8. Was the differential drop-out rate (between treatment groups) at endpoint 15% points or lower? | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| 9. Was there high adherence to the intervention protocols for each treatment group? | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| 10. Were other interventions avoided or similar in the groups (e.g., similar background treatments)? | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| 11. Were outcomes assessed using valid and reliable measures, implemented consistently across all study participants? | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| 12. Did the authors report that the sample size was sufficiently large to be able to detect a difference in the main outcome between groups with at least 80% power? | Not mentioned | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| 13. Were outcomes reported or subgroups analyzed prespecified (i.e., identified before analyses were conducted)? | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| 14. Were all randomized participants analyzed in the group to which they were originally assigned, i.e., did they use an intention-to-treat analysis? | Not mentioned | Not mentioned | Not mentioned | Not mentioned | Not mentioned | Not mentioned | Not mentioned |
| Scores | 9/14 | 8/14 | 10/14 | 13/14 | 8/14 | 10/14 | 8/14 |
RCT, randomized controlled trials.
Risk of bias in included studies
| Bias | Bernardsson et al. (2011) | Sturyf et al. (2013) | Hotta et al. (2017) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Selection of participants | Low risk | Low risk | Low risk | Low risk | Low risk | Low risk | High risk |
| Allocation concealment | Low risk | High risk | Low risk | Low risk | High risk | Low risk | High risk |
| Blinding of participants | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear | Low risk | High risk | Unclear | Unclear |
| Assessor blinding | Unclear | Low risk | Low risk | Low risk | High risk | Unclear | Unclear |
| Incomplete data | Low risk | Low risk | Low risk | Low risk | Low risk | Low risk | Low risk |
| Selective reporting | Low risk | Low risk | Low risk | Low risk | Low risk | Low risk | Low risk |
| Other Bias | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear | Low risk |
Fig. 1PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) flow diagram illustrating the selection process.
Characteristics of individual studies
| Study | Country | Method | Participants | Intervention (scapular stabilization exercise) | Duration | Outcome measures | Result | Conclusion |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Turkey | RCT | 40 Unilateral shoulder impingement subjects, (Neer stage I & II) | Scapular PNF. Scapular clock exercise. | 6 Weeks | Visual analogue scale, Shoulder ROM, Rotator cuff, Trapezius and Serratus anterior muscle strength, Joint position test, Western Ontario Rotator cuff index | Statistically significant improvement in the muscle strength. | Scapular stabilization exercises are superior to conventional program. | |
| Sweden | Single group, pre post design | 11 Subjects completed intervention | Shoulder shrug. | 12 Weeks | Visual analogue scale, Constant score, Western Ontario Rotator cuff index | Pain intensity decreased among 8 subjects. | Eccentric training program targeting the rotator cuff and incorporating scapular control and correct movement pattern can be effective in reducing pain and improving function among subjects with subacromial impingement syndrome. | |
| Belgium | Double-blinded RCT | 22 Subjects with shoulder impingement syndrome | Manual mobilization of scapula. | 12 Weeks | Shoulder disability questionnaire, Verbal numerical rating scale, Visual analogue scale, Visual observation for tilting & winging, Forward head posture, Pectoralis minor muscle length, Scapular upward rotation, Scapular motor control, Isometric elevation strength | There is no statistical difference in control group. A large clinically important treatment effect was found in intervention group with significant reductions in pain (Cohen d 0.76, 1.04 and 0.92, respectively) and improvement in self-reported disability (Cohen d 0.93 and | Scapular oriented exercise is effective in reducing pain and disability for patients with shoulder impingement syndrome. | |
| Iran | RCT | 68 Patients with shoulder impingement syndrome | Scapular PNF. | 6 Week | Visual analogue scale, Abduction & external rotation, ROM, Forward head posture, Forward shoulder translation, Scapular protraction and rotation, Pectoralis minor length | No significant difference was detected in pain reduction between the groups ( | Scapular stabilization based exercise intervention was successful in increasing shoulder range, decreasing forward head and improves shoulder postures and pectoralis minor flexibility. | |
| Abu Dhabi | Single group, pre post design | 7 Male patients with impingement of shoulder | Pectorals stretches. | 2 Weeks | SPADI, Lateral scapular slide test | Significant improvement in reducing pain and disability of SPADI with | Scapular stabilization exercise protocol is found to be effective. | |
| Turkey | RCT | 30 Subacromial impingement syndrome subjects | Wall slides with squats, wall push ups with ipsilateral leg raise. Lawnmower with diagonal squat, resisted scapular retraction with contralateral single leg squat, robbery with squat. | 12 Weeks | 3 dimensional scapular kinematics, SPADI (Turkish version) | There was statistical significant improvement in pain and disability of SPADI in both groups. Significant differences were observed in both the groups for external rotation, posterior tilt and upward rotation. | Specific scapular stabilization exercise reduces pain and disability among subjects with impingement. | |
| Hotta et al. (2017) | Brazil | Non randomized controlled study | 50 Shoulder impingement syndrome subjects | Neuromuscular exercises and scapular strengthening. (n=25) | 8 Weeks | Numerical pain rating scale, SPADI (Brazilian version) | A significant difference in total score of SPADI ( | Motor control and muscular strengthening of scapula improves function among subjects with shoulder impingement syndrome. |
RCT, randomized controlled trials; PNF, proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation; SPADI, shoulder pain and disability index.
Fig. 2Risk of bias graph: author’s judgment about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies.
Fig. 3Risk of bias assessment of included trials.