Taping patients with clinical signs of subacromial impingement syndrome: the design of a randomized controlled trial

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Shoulder problems are a common complaint of the musculoskeletal system. Physical therapists treat these patients with different modalities such as exercise, massage, and shoulder taping. Although different techniques have been described, the effectiveness of taping has not yet been established. The aim of this study is to assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of usual physical therapy care in combination with a particular tape technique for subacromial impingement syndrome of the shoulder compared to usual physical therapy care without this tape technique in a primary healthcare setting.</p> <p>Methods and design</p> <p>An economic evaluation alongside a randomized controlled trial will be conducted. A sample of 140 patients between 18 and 65 years of age with a diagnosis of subacromial impingement syndrome (SAIS) as assessed by physical therapists will be recruited. Eligible patients will be randomized to either the intervention group (usual care in combination with the particular tape technique) or the control group (usual care without this tape technique). In both groups, usual care will consist of individualized physical therapy care. The primary outcomes will be shoulder-specific function (the Simple Shoulder Test) and pain severity (11-point numerical rating scale). The economic evaluation will be performed using a societal perspective. All relevant costs will be registered using cost diaries. Utilities (Quality Adjusted Life Years) will be measured using the EuroQol. The data will be collected at baseline, and 4, 12, and 26 weeks follow-up.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>This pragmatic study will provide information about the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of taping in patients presenting with clinical signs of SAIS.</p> <p>Trial registration</p> <p>Trial registration number: <a href="http://www.trialregister.nl/trialreg/admin/rctview.asp?TC=2575">NTR2575</a></p

The results of arthroscopic versus mini-open repair for rotator cuff tears at mid-term follow-up

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>To prospectively evaluate patients who underwent a "mini-open" repair versus a completely arthroscopic technique for small to large size rotator cuff tears.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Fifty-two patients underwent "mini-open" or all arthroscopic repair of a full thickness tear of the rotator cuff. Patients who complained of shoulder pain and/or weakness and who had failed a minimum of 6 weeks of physical therapy and had at least one sub-acromial injection were surgical candidates. Pre and post-operative clinical evaluations included the following: 1) demographics; 2) Simple Shoulder Test (SST); 3) University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) rating scale; 4) visual analog pain assessment (VAS); and 5) pre-op SF12 assessment. Descriptive analysis was performed for patient demographics and for all variables. Pre and post outcome scores, range of motion and pain scale were compared using paired t-tests. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to evaluate any effect between dependent and independent variables. Significance was set at p is less than or equal to 0.05.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>There were 31 females and 21 males. The average follow-up was 50.6 months (27 – 84 months). The average age was similar between the two groups [arthroscopic x = 55 years/mini-open x = 58 years, p = 0.7]. Twenty-seven patients underwent arthroscopic repair and 25 underwent repair with a mini-open incision. The average rotator cuff tear size was 3.1 cm (range: 1–5 centimeters). There was no significant difference in tear size between the two groups (arthroscopic group = 2.9 cm/mini-open group = 3.2 cm, p = 0.3). Overall, there was a significant improvement from pre-operative status in shoulder pain, shoulder function as measured on the Simple Shoulder test and UCLA Shoulder Form. Visual analog pain improved, on average, 4.4 points and the most recent Short Shoulder Form and UCLA scores were 8 and 26 respectively. Both active and passive glenohumeral joint range of motion improved significantly from pre-operatively.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Based upon the number available, we found no statistical difference in outcome between the two groups, indicating that either procedure is efficacious in the treatment of small and medium size rotator cuff tears.</p> <p>Level of Evidence</p> <p>Type III</p