Comparison and critical evaluation of rehabilitation and home-based exercises for treating shoulder stiffness: prospective, multicenter study with 148 cases.

INTRODUCTION: The goal of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of individual exercises performed as classic rehabilitation or a home program on the clinical progression of patients with shoulder stiffness. Based on this information, the secondary goal was to develop a new rehabilitation protocol. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This prospective, comparative series included 148 cases of shoulder stiffness. There were three treatment groups: T1: classic rehabilitation performed below the pain threshold (58 cases); T2: home program with provocation above the pain threshold (59 cases); T3: home program supervised by a physical therapist (31 cases). The execution, pain level and time spent doing each exercise were compiled for each work session - every day for the first 6 weeks, then every week up to 3 months. Clinical (Constant score) and range of motion evaluations were performed at enrollment, week 6 and month 3.Changes were compared between groups; correlation tests were used to analyse the effectiveness of each exercise during each session. RESULTS: Other than physical therapy and balneotherapy, classic rehabilitation exercises had a negative effect on clinical progression during the first 3 to 5 weeks (P<0.05), but this did not hinder the occurrence of a slow, continuous clinical improvement (P<0.05). Home programs led to rapid functional progression with improvement directly related to the number of exercises actually performed (P<0.05), however, pain during the day increased and pain at night decreased. Supervision by a physical therapist helped to optimize the home program, with the same result at week 6, but a better result at month 3 (P<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Based on the results of this study, a new treatment protocol for shoulder stiffness was proposed that combines an intensive patient home program with a well-informed physical therapist, who progressively adds classic rehabilitation techniques when they provide the best treatment value for each exercise. Patient education is the key to treatment success.

Management of the stiff shoulder. A prospective multicenter comparative study of the six main techniques in use: 235 cases.

INTRODUCTION: Stiffness in the shoulder is a frequent symptom associated with a number of clinical entities whose management remains inadequately defined. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This prospective study of 235 cases of stiffness in the shoulder compared six therapeutic techniques with a mean follow-up of 13 months (range, 3-28 months) (T1: 58 cases, conventional rehabilitation under the pain threshold, T2: 59 cases, self-rehabilitation over the pain threshold, T3: 31 cases, T2 + supervision, T4: 11 cases, T1 + capsular distension, T5: 31 cases, T1 + locoregional anesthesia, T6: 45 cases, T1 + T5 + capsulotomy). The therapeutic power of each technique and its impact on the result were assessed at each self-rehabilitation and rehabilitation session during the first 6 weeks and then at 3 months, 6 months, and at the final revision depending on subjective criteria (pain, discomfort, and morale) and objective criteria (Constant score, goniometric measurements). RESULTS: Conventional rehabilitation (T1) is less effective than self-rehabilitation over the pain threshold (T2 & T3) during the first 6 weeks (P<0.05). Self-rehabilitation stagnates between the 6th and 12th week except when it is supervised by a therapist (T3). Anesthesia (T4) and capsular distension (T5) do not lead to significantly different progression beyond 6 months. Capsulotomy does not demonstrate greater therapeutic power but its failure rate (persisting stiffness at 1 year) is 0% versus 14-17% for the other techniques (P<0.05). DISCUSSION: The techniques are complementary and therapeutic success stems from an algorithm adapted to the individual patient with, over the first 3 months, successive self-rehabilitation and conventional rehabilitation, possibly completed by capsular distension or anesthesia between the 3rd and 6th months. In case of failure at 6 months, endoscopic capsulotomy can be proposed. Therapeutic patient education and active participation are the key to treatment success or failure.

Pain management in the rehabilitation of stiff shoulder: prospective multicenter comparative study of 193 cases.

INTRODUCTION: The present study investigated the impact of respecting pain threshold on clinical recovery in stiff shoulder. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A prospective multicenter comparative study followed up 193 cases of shoulder stiffness for a mean 12-month period (range, 8-31 months) after four different treatment protocols: (1) conventional sub-pain-threshold rehabilitation (58 cases); (2) self-rehabilitation exceeding the pain threshold (59 cases); (3) supervised suprathreshold rehabilitation (31 cases); and (4) capsulotomy with sub-threshold rehabilitation (45 cases). Follow-up was daily for the first 6 weeks then weekly for the next 6; each session included assessment of the painfulness, feasibility and duration of each rehabilitation and self-rehabilitation exercise and of pain status, disability and psychological status. The surgeon followed patients up at 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, 1 year and at last follow-up. RESULTS: Sub-threshold rehabilitation provided progressive results, limited in time (P<0.05). Suprathreshold self-rehabilitation provided reduced pain (P<0.05) as of the first days, with nocturnal pain ceasing after 7 days' rehabilitation in 43% of cases. Supervision of self-rehabilitation exercises optimized the clinical result (P<0.05). Capsulotomy did not influence pain evolution over the first 8 weeks, but then improved it. Failure (at 1 year, 14-17%; last follow-up, 3.5%) correlated directly with the number of exercises performed by the patient (P<0.05). DISCUSSION: The dogma of respecting the pain threshold is dated: pain inflicted on a passive patient impairs clinical evolution, but pain managed by an informed active patient under experienced supervision provides rapid recovery of function and pain-free status.

[Arthroscopic repair of full-thickness cuff tears: a multicentric retrospective study of 576 cases with anatomical assessment]. / Réparation arthroscopique des ruptures transfixiantes de la coiffe des rotateurs: étude rétrospective multicentrique de 576 cas avec contrôle de la cicatrisation.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY: Totally arthroscopic repair of rotator cuff tears is now common practice. The techniques used were evaluated by a retrospective multicentric analysis conducted by the French Society of Arthroscopy. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The series was limited to arthroscopic repair of full thickness tears of the supraspinatus or infraspinatus evaluated using the Constant score and arthro-MRI or arthroscan performed with at least one year follow-up. Data were processed with SPSS 10. The series included 576 patients who underwent surgery between January 2001 and June 2003. Mean patient age was 57.7 years; 52% were men and 60% were manual laborers. The mean preoperative Constant score was 46.4 +/- 13.4/100. The tear was limited to the supraspinatus in 69% of shoulders, with extension to the upper third of the infraspinatus in 23.5% and the entire infraspinatus in 7.5%. The supraspinatus tear was distal in 41.7% of shoulders, intermediary in 44% and retracted in 14.3%. Fatty degeneration of the supraspinatus was noted grade 0 in 60%, 1 in 27%, 2 in 11% and 3 in 2%. Arthroscopic repair was performed in all cases, with locoregional anesthesia in 60.9%. Bioresorbable implants were used in 33% and metallic implants in 62.1%. Acromioplasty was performed in 92.7% and capsulotomy in 14.9%. RESULTS: On average, the subjective outcome was scored 8.89/10. The Constant score improved from 46.3 +/- 13.4 to 82.7 +/- 10.3 with 62% having a strictly pain free shoulder. Muscle force improved from 5.8 +/- 3.7 to 13.6 +/- 5.4. Outcome was excellent in 94% of shoulders at 18.5 months mean follow-up. The complication rate in this series was 6.2% with 3.1% prolonged stiffness, 2.7% reflex dystrophy, 0.2% infection, and 0.2% anchor migration. The cuff was considered normal in 55.7% of shoulders with an intratendon addition image in 19%, i.e. 74.7% of non-ruptured cuffs. Minimal loss of integrity was noted in 9.5% and was marked in 15.7%, i.e. 25.2% iterative tears.ANATOMOCLINICAL CORRELATIONS: The Constant score was strongly correlated with rotator cuff integrity (p<0001). This correlation was also found for force (p<0001), motion (0.01) and activity (0.04), but not for pain. The clinical outcome was correlated with extension, retraction, intrasubstance tear, and fatty degeneration of the lesion preoperatively. Anatomic results were statistically less favorable for tears which were older, extensive, retracted or associated with fatty degeneration. Age was correlated with extent of the initial tear and also with less favorable anatomic and clinical outcome. Occupational accidents were correlated with less favorable clinical outcome. CONCLUSION: Functional improvement after healing is a strong argument for repair. Arthroscopy has the advantage of combining a low complication rate with good clinical and anatomic results. Age is correlated with functional outcome and healing, but is not a contraindication.