Rotator cuff disorders: An updated survey of current (2023) UK physiotherapy practice

BackgroundClinical guidelines recommend treatment by a physiotherapist for people with shoulder pain due to rotator cuff disorder. Despite this recommendation, research evidence supporting the effectiveness of treatment by a physiotherapist is uncertain. While developing a randomised controlled trial to test the effectiveness of treatment by a physiotherapist for people with shoulder pain due to rotator cuff disorders we first aimed to understand current practice as a basis for defining usual care.MethodsAn online survey was developed based on a clinical vignette used in a previous survey exploring physiotherapy practice for people with shoulder pain due to rotator cuff disorder. UK-based physiotherapists were invited to complete the survey via X and email across professional networks.Results170 complete responses were received. 167 (98%) respondents would offer advice/education to patients with shoulder rotator cuff disorders; 146 (86%) would use isotonic exercise (including concentric/eccentric strengthening); 20 (12%) would offer a corticosteroid injection; 7 (4%) would use joint mobilisation. 168/169 (99%) would offer in-person assessment; 115 (68%) expect to deliver treatment over 3-4 sessions. 50% agreed there is uncertainty about the effectiveness of physiotherapy treatment for patients with shoulder rotator cuff disorders. 76% agreed that patients with this condition can recover without physiotherapy intervention. ConclusionsExercise and advice remain the most common treatments offered by physiotherapists for people with shoulder pain due to rotator cuff disorder. Corticosteroid injections are infrequently considered. Uncertainty about the effectiveness of treatment by a physiotherapist for shoulder pain due to rotator cuff disorder is evident.<br/

Progressive exercise compared with best practice advice, with or without corticosteroid injection, for the treatment of patients with rotator cuff disorders (GRASP): a multicentre, pragmatic, 2 × 2 factorial, randomised controlled trial

Background Corticosteroid injections and physiotherapy exercise programmes are commonly used to treat rotator cuff disorders but the treatments' effectiveness is uncertain. We aimed to compare the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a progressive exercise programme with a single session of best practice physiotherapy advice, with or without corticosteroid injection, in adults with a rotator cuff disorder. Methods In this pragmatic, multicentre, superiority, randomised controlled trial (2 × 2 factorial), we recruited patients from 20 UK National Health Service trusts. We included patients aged 18 years or older with a rotator cuff disorder (new episode within the past 6 months). Patients were excluded if they had a history of significant shoulder trauma (eg, dislocation, fracture, or full-thickness tear requiring surgery), neurological disease affecting the shoulder, other shoulder conditions (eg, inflammatory arthritis, frozen shoulder, or glenohumeral joint instability), received corticosteroid injection or physiotherapy for shoulder pain in the past 6 months, or were being considered for surgery. Patients were randomly assigned (centralised computer-generated system, 1:1:1:1) to progressive exercise (≤6 sessions), best practice advice (one session), corticosteroid injection then progressive exercise, or corticosteroid injection then best practice advice. The primary outcome was the Shoulder Pain and Disability Index (SPADI) score over 12 months, analysed on an intention-to-treat basis (statistical significance set at 1%). The trial was registered with the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Register, ISRCTN16539266, and EuDRACT, 2016-002991-28. Findings Between March 10, 2017, and May 2, 2019, we screened 2287 patients. 708 patients were randomly assigned to progressive exercise (n=174), best practice advice (n=174), corticosteroid injection then progressive exercise (n=182), or corticosteroid injection then best practice advice (n=178). Over 12 months, SPADI data were available for 166 (95%) patients in the progressive exercise group, 164 (94%) in the best practice advice group, 177 (97%) in the corticosteroid injection then progressive exercise group, and 175 (98%) in the corticosteroid injection then best practice advice group. We found no evidence of a difference in SPADI score between progressive exercise and best practice advice when analysed over 12 months (adjusted mean difference −0·66 [99% CI −4·52 to 3·20]). We also found no evidence of a difference between corticosteroid injection compared with no injection when analysed over 12 months (−1·11 [–4·47 to 2·26]). No serious adverse events were reported. Interpretation Progressive exercise was not superior to a best practice advice session with a physiotherapist in improving shoulder pain and function. Subacromial corticosteroid injection provided no long-term benefit in patients with rotator cuff disorders

Development of a physiotherapist-led exercise programme for traumatic tears of the rotator cuff for the SPeEDy study

The SPeEDy study (Surgery versus physiotherapist-led exercise for traumatic tears of the rotator cuff) is a two-arm, parallel group, pilot and feasibility randomised controlled trial aiming to evaluate the feasibility of a future main trial. In this paper, the development process and the resultant physiotherapist-led exercise programme used in the SPeEDy study is described. Thirteen physiotherapists and three patients met to discuss and develop the key principles that should underpin the exercise programme. Taking in to account the current research evidence and incorporating expert clinical and patient opinion, the group developed an individualised, structured and progressive physiotherapist-led exercise programme based on the principle of self dosing. Exercise prescription within the programme is based on establishing the current functional capacity of the patient in relation to the most challenging shoulder movements and is supported over approximately six contact sessions across a 12-week period. The SPeEDy study aims to recruit 76 participants across eight hospitals and will provide high quality evidence about the feasibility of a future main randomised controlled trial in a clinical area where there is a lack of evidence from randomised controlled trials to support clinical decision-making

Physiotherapist-led exercise versus usual care (waiting-list) control for patients awaiting rotator cuff repair surgery: a pilot randomised controlled trial (POWER)

Background: Once a decision to undergo rotator cuff repair surgery is made, patients are placed on the waiting list. It can take weeks or months to receive surgery. There has been a call to move from waiting lists to ‘preparation’ lists to better prepare patients for surgery and to ensure it remains an appropriate treatment option for them. Objective: To evaluate the feasibility, as measured by recruitment rates, treatment fidelity and follow-up rates, of a future multi-centre randomised controlled trial to compare the clinical and cost-effectiveness of undertaking a physiotherapist-led exercise programme while waiting for surgery versus usual care (waiting-list control). Design: Two-arm, multi-centre pilot randomised controlled trial with feasibility objectives in six NHS hospitals in England. Method: Adults (n = 76) awaiting rotator cuff repair surgery were recruited and randomly allocated to a programme of physiotherapist-led exercise (n = 38) or usual care control (n = 38). Results: Of 302 eligible patients, 76 (25%) were randomised. Of 38 participants randomised to physiotherapist-led exercise, 28 (74%) received the exercise programme as intended. 51/76 (67%) Shoulder Pain and Disability Index questionnaires were returned at 6-months. Of 76 participants, 32 had not received surgery after 6-months (42%). Of those 32, 20 were allocated to physiotherapist-led exercise; 12 to usual care control. Conclusions: A future multi-centre randomised controlled trial is feasible but would require planning for variable recruitment rates between sites, measures to improve treatment fidelity and opportunity for surgical exit, and optimisation of follow-up. A fully powered, randomised controlled trial is now needed to robustly inform clinical decision-making.</p

Physiotherapist-led exercise versus usual care (waiting-list) control for patients awaiting rotator cuff repair surgery: A pilot randomised controlled trial (POWER).

Once a decision to undergo rotator cuff repair surgery is made, patients are placed on the waiting list. It can take weeks or months to receive surgery. There has been a call to move from waiting lists to 'preparation' lists to better prepare patients for surgery and to ensure it remains an appropriate treatment option for them. To evaluate the feasibility, as measured by recruitment rates, treatment fidelity and follow-up rates, of a future multi-centre randomised controlled trial to compare the clinical and cost-effectiveness of undertaking a physiotherapist-led exercise programme while waiting for surgery versus usual care (waiting-list control). Two-arm, multi-centre pilot randomised controlled trial with feasibility objectives in six NHS hospitals in England. Adults (n = 76) awaiting rotator cuff repair surgery were recruited and randomly allocated to a programme of physiotherapist-led exercise (n = 38) or usual care control (n = 38). Of 302 eligible patients, 76 (25%) were randomised. Of 38 participants randomised to physiotherapist-led exercise, 28 (74%) received the exercise programme as intended. 51/76 (67%) Shoulder Pain and Disability Index questionnaires were returned at 6-months. Of 76 participants, 32 had not received surgery after 6-months (42%). Of those 32, 20 were allocated to physiotherapist-led exercise; 12 to usual care control. A future multi-centre randomised controlled trial is feasible but would require planning for variable recruitment rates between sites, measures to improve treatment fidelity and opportunity for surgical exit, and optimisation of follow-up. A fully powered, randomised controlled trial is now needed to robustly inform clinical decision-making. [Abstract copyright: Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.