ABSTRACT
The relationship between subacromial pain syndrome (SAPS) and altered scapular movement has been previously reported. The purpose of this review was to determine the effect of interventions that focus on addressing scapular components to improve shoulder pain, function, shoulder range of motion (ROM), and muscle strength in adults with SAPS. Databases searched in September 2016 were: PubMed, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials [Central], EMBASE [via Ovid] and PEDro. All studies selected for this review were randomized controlled trials. In total, six studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in the meta-analyses. In adults with SAPS, scapular focused interventions significantly improved pain with activities (MD [95% CI] = -0.88 [-1.19 to -0.58], I2 43%) and shoulder function (-11.31 [-17.20 to -5.41] I2 65%) in the short term. No between-group difference in shoulder pain and function were found at follow up (4 weeks). A between-group difference in shoulder abduction ROM in the short term only was found (12.71 [7.15 to 18.26]°, I2 36%). No between-group difference in flexion ROM, supraspinatus muscle strength, pectoralis minor length or forward shoulder posture were found. In conclusion, in adults with SAPS, scapular focused interventions can improve short-term shoulder pain and function.
Subject(s)
Physical Therapy Modalities , Scapula/physiopathology , Shoulder Impingement Syndrome/therapy , Shoulder Joint/physiopathology , Shoulder Pain/therapy , Adult , Aged , Biomechanical Phenomena , Chi-Square Distribution , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Muscle Strength , Pectoralis Muscles/physiopathology , Range of Motion, Articular , Recovery of Function , Shoulder Impingement Syndrome/diagnosis , Shoulder Impingement Syndrome/physiopathology , Shoulder Pain/diagnosis , Shoulder Pain/physiopathology , Treatment OutcomeABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Mobilisation of patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) is an area of growing research. Currently, there is little data on baseline mobilisation practises and the barriers to them for patients of all admission diagnoses. METHODS: The objectives of the study were to (1) quantify and benchmark baseline levels of mobilisation in Australian and Scottish ICUs, (2) compare mobilisation practises between Australian and Scottish ICUs and (3) identify barriers to mobilisation in Australian and Scottish ICUs. We conducted a prospective, observational, cohort study with a 4-week inception period. Patients were censored for follow-up upon ICU discharge or after 28 days, whichever occurred first. Patients were included if they were >18 years of age, admitted to an ICU and received mechanical ventilation in the ICU. RESULTS: Ten tertiary ICUs in Australia and nine in Scotland participated in the study. The Australian cohort had a large proportion of patients admitted for cardiothoracic surgery (43.3%), whereas the Scottish cohort had none. Therefore, comparison analysis was done after exclusion of patients admitted for cardiothoracic surgery. In total, 60.2% of the 347 patients across 10 Australian ICUs and 40.1% of the 167 patients across 9 Scottish ICUs mobilised during their ICU stay (p < 0.001). Patients in the Australian cohort were more likely to mobilise than patients in the Scottish cohort (hazard ratio 1.83, 95% confidence interval 1.38-2.42). However, the percentage of episodes of mobilisation where patients were receiving mechanical ventilation was higher in the Scottish cohort (41.1% vs 16.3%, p < 0.001). Sedation was the most commonly reported barrier to mobilisation in both the Australian and Scottish cohorts. Physiological instability and the presence of an endotracheal tube were also frequently reported barriers. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study to benchmark baseline practise of early mobilisation internationally, and it demonstrates variation in early mobilisation practises between Australia and Scotland.
