THE EFFECTIVENESS OF ROUTINE PHYSIOTHERAPY WITH
AND WITHOUT NEUROMOBILIZATION ON PAIN AND
FUNCTIONAL DISABILITY IN PATIENTS WITH SHOULDER
IMPINGEMENT SYNDROME: A RANDOMIZED CONTROL TRIAL
JOURNAL :- BMC Musculoskeletal disorders
AUTHORS : - Muhammad Akhtar, et. Al
Registered : 2019 Published : 2020
CRITICAL REVIEW-
TITLE AND ABSTRACT – 1a, 1b
TITLE
• Is the title of the article appropriate and clear? Yes
• Is the type of study mentioned? Yes
ABSTRACT
Structured summary of trial design
Overview about the methods, results and conclusions
PICOT format
• Population - Mentioned
• Intervention - Mentioned
• Comparison - Mentioned
• Outcome - Mentioned
• Time – Not Mentioned
INTRODUCTION-2a, 2b
• The shoulder impingement syndrome (SIS) consists of the rotator cuff
tendonitis and bursitis of the shoulder It shows the inflammation of the
supraspinatus tendon inside the anteroinferior junction of the acromion
and the greater tuberosity of the humerus.
• Patients with SIS report severe acute pain which increases during
overhead activities as well as sleeping on affected side
• The execution of specific components of body movements to generate
particular mechanical incident in the neural system is called NM.
• Mechanical management may therefore be used to augment
physiology in the nervous system
• The use of NM has the potential to lessen the perception of pain.
• The movement of the nervous system during NM may restore
axoplasm flow, restoring nutrients to the nerves.
• Matocha MA et al. highlighted neural involvement in patients with tendon
pain and discussed the role of NM for tendon pain [9]. The utilization of
neurodynamics may be important for the treatment purposes in patients
who suffer with tendonopathies which has neural component
AIM
• The objective of the study was to compare the effects of NM techniques
and routine physiotherapy on pain and functional disability in patients
having SIS.
METHODOLOGY
Design- 3a, 3b –
• Randomized controlled trial.
Participants- 4a, 4b –
• Shoulder impingement Syndrome
Sample size –
• 80
BLINDING : - Single blinded
• An independent assessor, who specialized in musculoskeletal injuries
with more than 5 year experience of dealing patients with shoulder
injury, had performed allocation of patients.
RANDOMIZATION
• Computer generator method
INTERVENTIONS- 5
• Routine physiotherapy was performed on both groups while NM was
done on experimental group.
• Patients were treated thrice a week on alternative days.
ROUTINE PHYSIOTHERAPY
• Pulsed Short Wave Diathermy (SWD) with frequency 27.12 MHZ,
• Ultrasonic Therapy (US) with frequency 1.0 MHZ and intensity
1.45w/cm2
• Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulator (TENS) 2–200 HZ with
output current < 20 Ma width 200 μ seconds along with continuous mode.
• Exercises were comprised of shoulder strengthing and stretching exercises
that were performed for 5s with 10 repetitions for both groups.
NEUROMOBILIZATION
• NM was applied by using Butler’s recommendations Initially, the patient
performed neural sliders and gradually progressed to neural tensioners.
• Neural sliders consisted of cervical lateral flexion movement, toward the involved
side, simultaneously with elbow flexion and extension movements. While moving
the head in to cervical lateral flexion the elbow was extended. When the elbow
began to flex, the cervical spine was returned to neutral position as shown in Figs.
1 and 2.
• Neural tensioners were performed to create tension in the nerve to get the
desired results.
• The tension position was not held for a length of time, but is released by
extending the elbow and returning the cervical spine to neutral. Once the
patient had pushed slight pain or discomfort at any point as shown in Figs.
3 and 4 [20].
• NM technique was performed for 5 s with 10 repetitions to control the
pain and improve the functional disability score to relive the pain shown
in Table
OUTCOME MEASURES- 6a
• VAS ( r = 0.94)
• UCLA Shoulder scale – (University of California and Los Angeles
shoulder score)
( r = 0.78 )
INCLUSION CRITERIA
• Positive upper limb tension test
• Neer test
• Hawkins Kennedy
• Empty Can
• Painful arc
• Cross body adduction test
EXCLUSION CRITERIA
• Shoulder surgery
• Shoulder injury
• Trauma
• Shoulder joint dislocation
• Cervical radiculopathy
• Systemic diseases
STATISTICALANALYSIS- 12a, 12b
• Data were analyzed by using (SPSS Version 22.0) software.
• Repeated measure ANOVA was applied to compare average pain score
as primary outcome while average UCLA score as a secondary
outcome at different time points (baseline, 5th week, 11th week).
• The confidence level of 95% was used as well as p value ≤0.05 was
considered as significant.
Results
Participant flow – 13a, 13b
Recruitment – 14a, 14b, 15, 16
RESULTS
Demographic data
DISCUSSION
• Different neuromuscular responses (like hypoalgesia,, afferent
discharge and changes in the mobility of muscle) associated with
neuromobilization indirectly indicates the spinal cord mediated effect of
the NM.
• Neuromobilization had an quick hypoalgesic effect on C-fibre mediated
pain perception, as not on A-delta fibre mediated pain perception
• Another reason of more improvement of function in the experimental
group may be shown the restoration of mobility due to the
biomechanical effects which are inter-linked with NM
• Physiologically we may explain that a nerve which closely passes to a
joint is mostly kept in a tunnel or it is attached with collagen fibres or
fascia to the nearby musculoskeletal components.
• Nerves move side by side within the upper limb hence the
neuromobilization given during management cause break of the cross
linkages.
• The possible effect of stretch on axons is the improved ion flux in
stretch sensitive ion channels.
CONCLUSION
• On the basis of results it is concluded that addition of NM with routine
physiotherapy has greater improvement to reduce pain severity and
disability in SIS patients than without NM.
IMPACT FACTOR
• The impact score 2021 of BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders is 2.53
• h-index of 104.
Fog index
REFERENCES
• Gebremariam L, Hay EM, van der Sande R, Rinkel WD, Koes BW, Huisstede BM.
Subacromial impingement syndrome—effectiveness of physiotherapy and manual
therapy. Br J Sports Med. 2014;48(16):1202–8.
• Koh E-K, Jung D-Y. Effects of modified cross-body stretching on range of motion in
Glenohumeral joint. J Korean Soc Phys Med. 2015;10(4):1–7.
• Neer CN. Impingement lesions. Clin Orthop. 1983;173(70):7.
• Ark JW, Flock TJ, Flatow EL, Bigliani LU. Arthroscopic treatment of calcific
tendinitis of the shoulder. Arthroscopy. 1992;8(2):183–8.
• Ark JW, Flock TJ, Flatow EL, Bigliani LU. Arthroscopic treatment of calcific
tendinitis of the shoulder. Arthroscopy. 1992;8(2):183–8.
• Shacklock M. Clinical neurodynamics: a new system of musculoskeletal
treatment: Elsevier Health Sciences; London. 2005.
• Kaux J-F, Forthomme B, Le Goff C, Crielaard J-M, Croisier J-L. Current opinions
on tendinopathy. J Sports Sci Med. 2011;10(2):238.
• Rees J, Wilson A, Wolman R. Current concepts in the management of tendon
disorders. Rheumatology. 2006;45(5):508–21.
• Siechen S, Yang S, Chiba A, Saif T. Mechanical tension contributes to clustering
of neurotransmitter vesicles at presynaptic terminals. Proc Natl Acad Sci.
2009;106(31):12611–6.
• Matocha MA, Baker RT, Nasypany AM, Seegmiller JG. Effects of
neuromobilization on tendinopathy: Part I. Int J Athletic Ther Train. 2015;
20(2):36–40.
• Cook J, Purdam CR. Is tendon pathology a continuum? A pathology model to
explain the clinical presentation of load-induced tendinopathy. Br J Sports Med.
2009;43(6):409–16.
CROSS REFERENCES
• Akalin E, El O, Peker O, et al. Treatment of carpal tunnel syndrome with nerve
and tendon gliding exercises. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2002;81:108- 113.
• Butler DS, Jones MA. Mobilisation of the Nervous System. London, UK:
Churchill Livingstone; 1991.
Thank you
Journal Club Presentation

Journal Club Presentation

  • 1.
    THE EFFECTIVENESS OFROUTINE PHYSIOTHERAPY WITH AND WITHOUT NEUROMOBILIZATION ON PAIN AND FUNCTIONAL DISABILITY IN PATIENTS WITH SHOULDER IMPINGEMENT SYNDROME: A RANDOMIZED CONTROL TRIAL JOURNAL :- BMC Musculoskeletal disorders AUTHORS : - Muhammad Akhtar, et. Al Registered : 2019 Published : 2020
  • 2.
    CRITICAL REVIEW- TITLE ANDABSTRACT – 1a, 1b TITLE • Is the title of the article appropriate and clear? Yes • Is the type of study mentioned? Yes ABSTRACT Structured summary of trial design Overview about the methods, results and conclusions
  • 3.
    PICOT format • Population- Mentioned • Intervention - Mentioned • Comparison - Mentioned • Outcome - Mentioned • Time – Not Mentioned
  • 4.
    INTRODUCTION-2a, 2b • Theshoulder impingement syndrome (SIS) consists of the rotator cuff tendonitis and bursitis of the shoulder It shows the inflammation of the supraspinatus tendon inside the anteroinferior junction of the acromion and the greater tuberosity of the humerus. • Patients with SIS report severe acute pain which increases during overhead activities as well as sleeping on affected side
  • 5.
    • The executionof specific components of body movements to generate particular mechanical incident in the neural system is called NM. • Mechanical management may therefore be used to augment physiology in the nervous system • The use of NM has the potential to lessen the perception of pain. • The movement of the nervous system during NM may restore axoplasm flow, restoring nutrients to the nerves.
  • 6.
    • Matocha MAet al. highlighted neural involvement in patients with tendon pain and discussed the role of NM for tendon pain [9]. The utilization of neurodynamics may be important for the treatment purposes in patients who suffer with tendonopathies which has neural component
  • 7.
    AIM • The objectiveof the study was to compare the effects of NM techniques and routine physiotherapy on pain and functional disability in patients having SIS.
  • 8.
    METHODOLOGY Design- 3a, 3b– • Randomized controlled trial. Participants- 4a, 4b – • Shoulder impingement Syndrome Sample size – • 80
  • 9.
    BLINDING : -Single blinded • An independent assessor, who specialized in musculoskeletal injuries with more than 5 year experience of dealing patients with shoulder injury, had performed allocation of patients. RANDOMIZATION • Computer generator method
  • 10.
    INTERVENTIONS- 5 • Routinephysiotherapy was performed on both groups while NM was done on experimental group. • Patients were treated thrice a week on alternative days.
  • 11.
    ROUTINE PHYSIOTHERAPY • PulsedShort Wave Diathermy (SWD) with frequency 27.12 MHZ, • Ultrasonic Therapy (US) with frequency 1.0 MHZ and intensity 1.45w/cm2 • Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulator (TENS) 2–200 HZ with output current < 20 Ma width 200 μ seconds along with continuous mode. • Exercises were comprised of shoulder strengthing and stretching exercises that were performed for 5s with 10 repetitions for both groups.
  • 13.
    NEUROMOBILIZATION • NM wasapplied by using Butler’s recommendations Initially, the patient performed neural sliders and gradually progressed to neural tensioners. • Neural sliders consisted of cervical lateral flexion movement, toward the involved side, simultaneously with elbow flexion and extension movements. While moving the head in to cervical lateral flexion the elbow was extended. When the elbow began to flex, the cervical spine was returned to neutral position as shown in Figs. 1 and 2.
  • 15.
    • Neural tensionerswere performed to create tension in the nerve to get the desired results. • The tension position was not held for a length of time, but is released by extending the elbow and returning the cervical spine to neutral. Once the patient had pushed slight pain or discomfort at any point as shown in Figs. 3 and 4 [20]. • NM technique was performed for 5 s with 10 repetitions to control the pain and improve the functional disability score to relive the pain shown in Table
  • 17.
    OUTCOME MEASURES- 6a •VAS ( r = 0.94) • UCLA Shoulder scale – (University of California and Los Angeles shoulder score) ( r = 0.78 )
  • 19.
    INCLUSION CRITERIA • Positiveupper limb tension test • Neer test • Hawkins Kennedy • Empty Can • Painful arc • Cross body adduction test
  • 20.
    EXCLUSION CRITERIA • Shouldersurgery • Shoulder injury • Trauma • Shoulder joint dislocation • Cervical radiculopathy • Systemic diseases
  • 21.
    STATISTICALANALYSIS- 12a, 12b •Data were analyzed by using (SPSS Version 22.0) software. • Repeated measure ANOVA was applied to compare average pain score as primary outcome while average UCLA score as a secondary outcome at different time points (baseline, 5th week, 11th week). • The confidence level of 95% was used as well as p value ≤0.05 was considered as significant.
  • 22.
    Results Participant flow –13a, 13b Recruitment – 14a, 14b, 15, 16
  • 24.
  • 27.
    DISCUSSION • Different neuromuscularresponses (like hypoalgesia,, afferent discharge and changes in the mobility of muscle) associated with neuromobilization indirectly indicates the spinal cord mediated effect of the NM. • Neuromobilization had an quick hypoalgesic effect on C-fibre mediated pain perception, as not on A-delta fibre mediated pain perception
  • 28.
    • Another reasonof more improvement of function in the experimental group may be shown the restoration of mobility due to the biomechanical effects which are inter-linked with NM • Physiologically we may explain that a nerve which closely passes to a joint is mostly kept in a tunnel or it is attached with collagen fibres or fascia to the nearby musculoskeletal components.
  • 29.
    • Nerves moveside by side within the upper limb hence the neuromobilization given during management cause break of the cross linkages. • The possible effect of stretch on axons is the improved ion flux in stretch sensitive ion channels.
  • 30.
    CONCLUSION • On thebasis of results it is concluded that addition of NM with routine physiotherapy has greater improvement to reduce pain severity and disability in SIS patients than without NM.
  • 31.
    IMPACT FACTOR • Theimpact score 2021 of BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders is 2.53 • h-index of 104.
  • 32.
  • 35.
    REFERENCES • Gebremariam L,Hay EM, van der Sande R, Rinkel WD, Koes BW, Huisstede BM. Subacromial impingement syndrome—effectiveness of physiotherapy and manual therapy. Br J Sports Med. 2014;48(16):1202–8. • Koh E-K, Jung D-Y. Effects of modified cross-body stretching on range of motion in Glenohumeral joint. J Korean Soc Phys Med. 2015;10(4):1–7. • Neer CN. Impingement lesions. Clin Orthop. 1983;173(70):7. • Ark JW, Flock TJ, Flatow EL, Bigliani LU. Arthroscopic treatment of calcific tendinitis of the shoulder. Arthroscopy. 1992;8(2):183–8. • Ark JW, Flock TJ, Flatow EL, Bigliani LU. Arthroscopic treatment of calcific tendinitis of the shoulder. Arthroscopy. 1992;8(2):183–8.
  • 36.
    • Shacklock M.Clinical neurodynamics: a new system of musculoskeletal treatment: Elsevier Health Sciences; London. 2005. • Kaux J-F, Forthomme B, Le Goff C, Crielaard J-M, Croisier J-L. Current opinions on tendinopathy. J Sports Sci Med. 2011;10(2):238. • Rees J, Wilson A, Wolman R. Current concepts in the management of tendon disorders. Rheumatology. 2006;45(5):508–21. • Siechen S, Yang S, Chiba A, Saif T. Mechanical tension contributes to clustering of neurotransmitter vesicles at presynaptic terminals. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2009;106(31):12611–6. • Matocha MA, Baker RT, Nasypany AM, Seegmiller JG. Effects of neuromobilization on tendinopathy: Part I. Int J Athletic Ther Train. 2015; 20(2):36–40. • Cook J, Purdam CR. Is tendon pathology a continuum? A pathology model to explain the clinical presentation of load-induced tendinopathy. Br J Sports Med. 2009;43(6):409–16.
  • 37.
    CROSS REFERENCES • AkalinE, El O, Peker O, et al. Treatment of carpal tunnel syndrome with nerve and tendon gliding exercises. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2002;81:108- 113. • Butler DS, Jones MA. Mobilisation of the Nervous System. London, UK: Churchill Livingstone; 1991.
  • 38.