Does the outcome of diagnostic ultrasound influence the treatment modalities and recovery in patients with shoulder pain in physiotherapy practice? Results from a prospective cohort study

Highlights

• About one third of patients received a diagnostic ultrasound.

• Tendinopathy was the most observed abnormality, followed by calcification.

• Diagnostic ultrasound does not seem to influence diagnostic work-up, and recovery.

• The choice of treatment slightly differed between the ultrasound groups.

• Advise was the most common treatment approach regardless of clinical diagnosis.

Abstract

Study design

Prospective cohort study including patients with shoulder pain in primary care physiotherapy.

Background

There is an increased tendency to use diagnostic ultrasound to aid the diagnostic strategy and target treatment. It is a relatively cheap and accessible imaging technique but the implications for practice and patients are unknown.

Objectives

To study the influence of diagnostic ultrasound (DUS) on diagnostic work-up, treatment modalities and recovery.

Methods

Participants (n = 389) with a new episode of shoulder pain were assessed at baseline and followed for 6, 12 and 26 weeks. Diagnostic work-up, including the use of DUS, and treatment strategies were reported by the therapists at 3, 6 and 12 weeks.

Results

Most patients (41%) were diagnosed with subacromial impingement/pain syndrome after physical examination or DUS. DUS was used in 31% of the participants. Tendinopathy was the most found abnormality in this sub-population. Patients who underwent DUS were more frequently treated using exercise therapy. Patients that not had DUS were more likely to receive massage therapy, trigger point therapy or mobilisation techniques. Logistic regression analyses did not show a significant association between DUS and recovery after 26 weeks (0.88, 95%CI:0.50–1.57). Correcting for the therapist as a confounder using a multilevel binary logistic regression did not show a significant cluster effect.

Conclusion

Diagnostic US as a work-up component does not seem to influence diagnosis or recovery but does influence the choice of treatment modality. Conclusions are limited to observational data. High quality randomized trials should study the effect of DUS on recovery.

Introduction

Shoulder complaints are the third most common musculoskeletal complaint in the Netherlands (Kooijman et al., 2013). Studies have shown an unfavourable recovery for 40–70% of patients with shoulder pain after 6 months and high indirect costs attributed to sick leave. (Bot et al., 2005b, Karel et al., 2016, Kuijpers et al., 2006, Virta et al., 2012) In Dutch general practice about 50% of patients receive medication, 32% a wait-and-see policy and 16% are referred to a physical therapist (Dorrestijn et al., 2010).

Initial management of patients with shoulder complaints is usually conservative except for younger patients with an acute traumatic rotator cuff tear (Arce et al., 2013). When primary care treatment fails to improve the patient's symptoms, a referral to secondary care can be made.

According to the Dutch guidelines, physical therapists (PTs) and general practitioners (GPs) are recommended to classify patients into one of three groups: 1) with reduced passive range of motion (complaints due to glenohumeral deficit), 2) without reduced passive range of motion but with a painful abduction range (subacromial deficit), 3) without reduced passive range of motion and without a painful abduction range (shoulder instability) (Geraets et al., 2008, Jansen et al., 2011). This classification can give the clinician an indication of the nature of the complaint. Research has shown that based on history taking and physical examination a more detailed classification of diagnostic labels is not reliable and not likely to change the initial therapeutic approach chosen by the GP (Beaudreuil et al., 2009, Hegedus et al., 2007, Hughes et al., 2008).

In primary care there is an increased tendency to use diagnostic ultrasound (DUS) as an application to aid the diagnostic strategy in combination with patient history and findings from physical examination. Several studies have developed valid measurement parameters for rotator cuff pathology, like the size of the subacromial space or acromiohumeral distance or applied ultrasound for rehabilitation purposes like neuromuscular re-education, changes in morphology, localizing target areas for manual interventions or guiding needle placement (McCreesh et al., 2014, Michener et al., 2015). It is a relatively cheap and accessible imaging technique. Some clinicians believe that determining an accurate diagnosis is essential to be able to provide the appropriate treatment. On the other hand, there is a lack of correlation between rotator cuff tears and symptoms experienced by the patient (Minagawa et al., 2014). Whether the emerging use of diagnostic imaging has a potential use for the diagnostic assessment and treatment strategy for the PTs remains unknown. Therefore our aim was to study the influence of DUS on clinical reasoning, treatment modalities and recovery in physical therapy practice.

The research question was:

What is the influence of DUS on clinical reasoning of PTs, treatment modalities chosen by PTs and recovery of patients with shoulder pain in physical therapy practice?