Rotator cuff tendinopathy/subacromial impingement syndrome: is it time for a new method of assessment?

Abstract

Disorders of the shoulder are extremely common, with reports of prevalence ranging from 30% of people experiencing shoulder pain at some stage of their lives up to 50% of the population experiencing at least one episode of shoulder pain annually. In addition to the high incidence, shoulder dysfunction is often persistent and recurrent, with 54% of sufferers reporting ongoing symptoms after 3 years. To a large extent the substantial morbidity reflects (i) a current lack of understanding of the pathoaetiology, (ii) a lack of diagnostic accuracy in the assessment process, and (iii) inadequacies in current intervention techniques. Pathology of the rotator cuff and subacromial bursa is considered to be the principal cause of pain and symptoms arising from the shoulder. Generally these diagnostic labels relate more to a clinical hypothesis as to the underlying cause of the symptoms than to definitive evidence of the histological basis for the diagnosis or the correlation between structural failure and symptoms. Diagnosing rotator cuff tendinopathy or subacromial impingement syndrome currently involves performing a structured assessment that includes taking the patient's history in conjunction with performing clinical assessment procedures that generally involve tests used to implicate an isolated structure. Based on the response to the clinical tests, a diagnosis of rotator cuff tendinopathy or subacromial impingement syndrome is achieved. The clinical diagnosis is strengthened with the findings from supporting investigations such as blood tests, radiographs, ultrasound, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), computed axial tomography (CT), radionucleotide isotope scan, single photon emission computed tomography, electromyography, nerve conduction and diagnostic analgesic injection. This process eventually results in the formation of a clinical hypothesis, and then, in conjunction with the patient, a management plan is decided upon and implemented. This paper focuses on the dilemmas associated with the current process, and an alternative method for the clinical examination of the shoulder for this group of patients is proposed.Pathology of the rotator cuff and subacromial bursa is considered to be the principal cause of pain and symptoms arising from the shoulder. This is reflected in the variety of diagnostic labels given to describe the pathology: rotator cuff tendinopathy/ tendinosis/tendinitis, supraspinatus tendinopathy/ tendinosis/tendinitis, subacromial impingement syndrome, subacromial bursitis, bursal reaction, partial thickness, full thickness and massive rotator cuff tear. Generally these diagnostic labels relate to a clinical hypothesis attempting to explain the cause of presenting symptoms rather than to a definitive diagnosis based on robust and definitive biomechanical, histological and imaging evidence to explain the basis of the presenting symptoms.The substantial morbidity associated with rotator cuff pathology reflects (i) a current lack of understanding of the pathoaetiology, (ii) a lack of diag...

Efficacy of Exercise Intervention as Determined by the McKenzie System of Mechanical Diagnosis and Therapy for Knee Osteoarthritis: A Randomized Controlled Trial

“…8,25 This suggests that alternative nonanatomic classification systems should be considered. 25 The diagnosis of knee OA may be too broad to have a high degree of utility as a diagnostic category for identifying the most appropriate conservative care.…”

Eccentric training as a new approach for rotator cuff tendinopathy: Review and perspectives

“…Shoulder impingement is one of the most common causes of shoulder tendinopathy [42,43] and refers to the compression of the subacromial structures against the coracoacromial ligament during elevation of the arm [44] . Apoptosis [45] , vascular changes [26,31] , tears [46] and calcifications [47] of the supraspinatus tendon have already been described in subjects who were treated with subacromial decompression.…”

Do Patients Undergoing Physical Testing Report Pain Intensity Reliably?

“…A decrease in pain intensity with a test performed after an intervention compared to the preintervention test pain intensity implies that the intervention has had a beneficial effect (1)(2)(3). Patient reports of pain intensity must be reliable for this assumption to be supported.…”