Manual Therapy in Chronic Shoulder Pain Treatment

The Initial Effects on Pain, Pain Sensitivity, Range of Motion and Muscle Strength of an Anteroposterior Mobilization of the Glenohumeral Joint in Overhead Athletes With Chronic Shoulder Pain

Background: Passive oscillatory mobilizations are often employed by physiotherapists to reduce shoulder pain and increase function. However, there is little data about the neurophysiological effects of these mobilizations.

Objectives: To investigate the initial effects of an anteroposterior (AP) shoulder joint mobilization on measures of pain and function in overhead athletes with chronic shoulder pain.

Study Overview

• Status: Completed
• Conditions: Shoulder Pain
• Intervention / Treatment: Procedure: Mobilization to the glenohumeral joint; Procedure: The manual contact condition; Other: No-contact condition

Detailed Description

Design: Double-blind, controlled, within-subjects repeated-measures design Method: Thirty-one overhead athletes with chronic shoulder pain participated. The effects of a 9-min, AP mobilization of the glenohumeral joint were compared with manual contact and no-contact interventions. Pressure pain threshold (PPT), range of movement (ROM), muscle strength, self-reported pain, and disability were measured immediately before and after each intervention.

• Study Type: Interventional
• Enrollment (Actual): 31
• Phase: Not Applicable

Contacts and Locations

Study Locations

• Spain
  • Madrid
    • Alcala de Henares, Madrid, Spain, 2805
      • Clinical University

Participation Criteria

Eligibility Criteria

• Ages Eligible for Study: 18 years to 60 years (Adult)
• Accepts Healthy Volunteers: No
• Genders Eligible for Study: All

Description

Inclusion Criteria:

• History of chronic shoulder pain lasting ≥3 months.
• Play overhead sport regularly.

Exclusion Criteria:

• Had a non-musculoskeletal origin of shoulder pain.
• Previous surgery to the shoulder complex.
• Frozen shoulder.
• Any co-existing inflammatory, infectious or neurological condition.
• The patient from physiotherapy treatment.
• Any evidence of pain referred from the cervical spine to the shoulder

Study Plan

How is the study designed?

Design Details

• Primary Purpose: Treatment
• Allocation: Randomized
• Interventional Model: Crossover Assignment
• Masking: Double

Number of Arms

3

Arms and Interventions

Participant Group / Arm	Intervention / Treatment
Experimental: Mobilization to the glenohumeral joint; This condition consisted on the application of a passive rhythmic AP mobilization to the glenohumeral joint of the affected shoulder	Procedure: Mobilization to the glenohumeral joint; The treatment condition consisted on the application of a passive rhythmic AP mobilization to the glenohumeral joint of the affected shoulder. In particular, a Grade III AP glide to the humeral head with the arm positioned in 90º of glenohumeral abduction and full internal rotation was used. The posterior gliding force to the humeral head was applied maintaining the glide at right angles to the plane of movement and at a frequency of 2 Hz which was controlled by means of a metronome. The arm was returned to its original position between each set.; Other Names: Joint Manipulation
Sham Comparator: The manual contact condition; In this condition the therapist positioned the patient in a mid-range position of glenohumeral abduction and internal rotation and applied the hands to the same contact point as in the treatment condition.	Procedure: The manual contact condition; During the manual contact condition the therapist positioned the patient in a mid-range position of glenohumeral abduction and internal rotation and applied the hands to the same contact point as in the treatment condition. However, a simulated posterior glide was performed but with minimal pressure actually applied. The number of repetitions and sets were as per the treatment condition.; Other: No-contact condition; During the no-contact condition, the subject remained in the initial starting position thorough the entire session but there was no manual contact between the therapist and the participant. The total treatment time was the same as per the other conditions.
No Intervention: No-contact condition; There was no manual contact between the therapist and the participant

What is the study measuring?

Primary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure	Measure Description	Time Frame
Self-reported shoulder pain	Participants were asked to indicate the intensity of their current shoulder pain using a numeric rating pain scale (NRPS). In this scale, 0 is not pain and 10 is the worse pain possible	Change from Baseline at 5 minutes after intervention

Secondary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure	Measure Description	Time Frame
Shoulder disability	The DASH is comprised of 30 items (disability/symptom section) and two optional sections related to the impact of pathology on work and sports. Each item is scored from 1 to 5 with increasing values representing more severity of symptoms. The total score for the disability/symptoms section ranges from 30 to 150, but it is then transformed to a scale from 0 (better score possible) to 100 (worse score possible).	Change from Baseline at 24 hours after treatment
Shoulder range of movement (ROM)	Active elevation in the scapular plane and passive glenohumeral internal and external rotation were measured using a Standard BASELINE ® 12-inch plastic goniometer following previous guidelines. The 0 degrees of movement is worse and 180 degrees is the better	Change from Baseline at and 5 minutes after treatment
Shoulder muscles strength	Isometric strength of the shoulder internal and external rotator musculature was measured using a portable hand-held dynamometer (Nicholas Manual Muscle Tester, Lafayette Instruments, USA). Normal external rotation strength is 20 Newtons and 27 newton in internal rotation strength	Change from Baseline at 5 minutes after treatment
Pressure pain threshold (PPT)	The PPT was measured using an analogue Fisher algometer (Force Dial model FDK, Wagner Instruments) with a surface area at the round tip of 1cm2. The algometer probe tip was applied perpendicular to the skin at a rate of 1kg/cm2/s until the first onset of pain. The PPT value is specific in each subject.The minimal clinically important difference is 2Kg/cm	Change from Baseline at 5 minutes after treatment

Collaborators and Investigators

• Sponsor: University of Alcala
• Investigators: Principal Investigator: Daniel Pecos-Martin, Dr, Alcala University

Study record dates

Study Major Dates

• Study Start (Actual): February 15, 2018
• Primary Completion (Actual): March 15, 2018
• Study Completion (Actual): March 15, 2018

Study Registration Dates

• First Submitted: January 11, 2018
• First Submitted That Met QC Criteria: January 29, 2018
• First Posted (Actual): January 31, 2018

Study Record Updates

• Last Update Posted (Actual): March 27, 2018
• Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria: March 25, 2018
• Last Verified: March 1, 2018

More Information

Terms related to this study

• Additional Relevant MeSH Terms: Pain; Neurologic Manifestations; Joint Diseases; Musculoskeletal Diseases; Arthralgia; Shoulder Pain
• Other Study ID Numbers: H1496053548524

Drug and device information, study documents

• Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated drug product: No
• Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated device product: No