SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Turkish Journal of Medical Sciences / 2014 / Cilt: 44 - Sayı: 5

Effects of conservative therapy applied before arthroscopic subacromial decompression on the clinical outcome in patients with stage 2 shoulder impingement syndrome

Ali AYDIN
Vahit YILDIZ
Murat TOPAL
Kutsi TUNCER
Mehmet KÖSE
Eyüp ŞENOCAK
Pages
871–874
Publication Date
2014-05-01
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Conclusion: Conservative therapy applied in patients with stage 2 shoulder impingement syndrome before arthroscopic subacromial decompression does not have a positive contribution on the clinical outcome after arthroscopic subacromial decompression.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:To investigate the effects of conservative therapy applied before arthroscopic subacromial decompression on the clinical outcome in patients with stage 2 shoulder impingement syndrome.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Materials and methods: Sixty-eight patients having stage 2 shoulder impingement syndrome and treated with arthroscopic subacromial decompression were included in the study.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Conclusion: Conservative therapy applied in patients with stage 2 shoulder impingement syndrome before arthroscopic subacromial decompression does not have a positive contribution on the clinical outcome after arthroscopic subacromial decompression.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Stage 2 shoulder impingement syndrome · arthroscopic subacromial decompression · conservative therapy

Abstract

To investigate the effects of conservative therapy applied before arthroscopic subacromial decompression on the clinical outcome in patients with stage 2 shoulder impingement syndrome. Materials and methods: Sixty-eight patients having stage 2 shoulder impingement syndrome and treated with arthroscopic subacromial decompression were included in the study. We divided these patients into 2 groups, whereby 32 (47%) patients received conservative therapy before arthroscopic subacromial decompression and 36 (53%) patients did not receive conservative therapy. We compared both groups in terms of the the Constant, UCLA, and VAS scores for shoulder pain before and after arthroscopic subacromial decompression. Results: Constant, UCLA, and VAS scores were statistically significantly improved in both groups after arthroscopic subacromial decompression (P < 0.001). Constant, UCLA, and VAS scores before arthroscopic subacromial decompression were statistically better in Group 1 than in Group 2 (P < 0.001). No statistically significant difference was found between the groups in terms of Constant, UCLA, and VAS scores after arthroscopic subacromial decompression (P > 0.05). Conclusion: Conservative therapy applied in patients with stage 2 shoulder impingement syndrome before arthroscopic subacromial decompression does not have a positive contribution on the clinical outcome after arthroscopic subacromial decompression.

Özet

To investigate the effects of conservative therapy applied before arthroscopic subacromial decompression on the clinical outcome in patients with stage 2 shoulder impingement syndrome. Materials and methods: Sixty-eight patients having stage 2 shoulder impingement syndrome and treated with arthroscopic subacromial decompression were included in the study. We divided these patients into 2 groups, whereby 32 (47%) patients received conservative therapy before arthroscopic subacromial decompression and 36 (53%) patients did not receive conservative therapy. We compared both groups in terms of the the Constant, UCLA, and VAS scores for shoulder pain before and after arthroscopic subacromial decompression. Results: Constant, UCLA, and VAS scores were statistically significantly improved in both groups after arthroscopic subacromial decompression (P < 0.001). Constant, UCLA, and VAS scores before arthroscopic subacromial decompression were statistically better in Group 1 than in Group 2 (P < 0.001). No statistically significant difference was found between the groups in terms of Constant, UCLA, and VAS scores after arthroscopic subacromial decompression (P > 0.05). Conclusion: Conservative therapy applied in patients with stage 2 shoulder impingement syndrome before arthroscopic subacromial decompression does not have a positive contribution on the clinical outcome after arthroscopic subacromial decompression.

🔖

Cite This Article

AYDIN, A., YILDIZ, V., TOPAL, M., TUNCER, K., KÖSE, M., ŞENOCAK, E. (2014). Effects of conservative therapy applied before arthroscopic subacromial decompression on the clinical outcome in patients with stage 2 shoulder impingement syndrome. Turkish Journal of Medical Sciences, Cilt: 44 - Sayı: 5, 871–874. https://ajindex.com/articles/186259

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (12)

  1. Bigliani LU, Levine WN. Current concepts review. Subacromial impingement syndrome. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1997; 79: 1854– 1868. Caspari RB, Thal R. A technique for arthroscopic subacromial decompression. Arthroscopy 1992; 8: 23–30. Gartsman GM. Arthroscopic acromioplasty for lesion of the rotator cuff. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1990; 72: 169–180.
  2. Lindh N, Norlin R. Arthroscopic subacromial decompression versus open acromioplasty. A two-year follow-up study. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1993; 290: 174–176.
  3. Olsewski JM, Depew AD. Arthroscopic subacromial decompression and rotator cuff debridement for stage II and stage III impingement. Arthroscopy 1994; 10: 61–68. Ryu RK. Arthroscopic subacromial decompression: a clinical review. Arthroscopy 1992; 8: 141–147.
  4. Speer KP, Lohnes J, Garret WE. Arthroscopic subacromial decompression: results in advanced impingement syndrome. Arthroscopy 1991; 7: 291–296.
  5. Van Holsbeeck E, DeRycke J, Declercq G, Martens M, Verstreken J, Fabry G. Subacromial impingement: open versus arthroscopic decompression. Arthroscopy 1992; 8: 173–178.
  6. Constant CR, Murley AH. A clinical method of functional assessment of the shoulder. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1987; 214: 160–164.
  7. Amstutz HC, Sew Hoy AL, Clarke IC. UCLA anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1981; 155: 7–20.
  8. Jensen MP, Karoly P, Braver S. The measurement of clinical pain intensity: a comparison of six methods. Pain 1986; 27: 117–126.
  9. Hanratty CE, McVeigh JG, Kerr DP, Basford JR, Finch MB, Pendleton A, Sim J. The effectiveness of physiotherapy exercises in subacromial impingement syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Semin Arthritis Rheum 2012; 42: 297–316.
  10. Heredia-Rizo AM, López-Hervás A, Herrera-Monge P, Gutiérrez- Leonard A, Piña-Pozo F. Shoulder functionality after manual therapy in subjects with shoulder impingement syndrome: a case series. J Bodyw Mov Ther 2013; 17: 212–218.
  11. Holmgren T, Björnsson Hallgren H, Öberg B, Adolfsson L, Johansson K. Effect of specific exercise strategy on need for surgery in patients with subacromial impingement syndrome: randomised controlled study. BMJ 2012; 344: e787. Atalar AC, Demirhan M, Kocabey Y, Akalin Y. Arthroscopic subacromial decompression: one- to seven-year results. Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc 2001; 35: 377–381.
  12. Imhoff A, Ledermann T. Arthroscopic subacromial decompression with and without the Holmium:YAG-laser. A prospective comparative study. Arthroscopy 1995; 11: 549–556. Norlin R. Arthroscopic subacromial decompressi