PTJ 0791
PTJ 0791
PTJ 0791
S
houlder disorders are a com- symptoms often change across an rehabilitation to resemble those of
mon musculoskeletal problem1 episode of care, which requires mod- patient B, with specific impairments
causing pain and functional ification of the intervention and may to be accurately identified and
loss. Traditionally, diagnostic catego- change the prognosis. The pathoana- treated. In both cases, the pathoana-
ries are based on a pathoanatomic tomic model also implies that the tomic diagnosis of rotator cuff tendi-
medical model aimed at identifying pathology explains patient symp- nopathy could be supported and
the pathologic tissues. Much work toms and disability (activity limita- remain accurate over the episode of
has been published regarding diag- tions and participation restrictions) care; however, specific pain, symp-
nostic accuracy of the history and and that correcting the pathology toms, and impairments dictate very
physical examination tests2 used to will improve the symptoms and dis- different rehabilitation strategies and
diagnose patients with shoulder dis- ability. Although the pathoanatomic interventions.
orders. However, the pathoanatomic system of diagnosis may be very
Level 1: Screening
History, Basic Physical Examination, Red or Yellow Flags
Appropriate for
Appropriate for Physical Therapy Not Appropriate for
Physical Therapy and Referral Physical Therapy
Figure.
Overall system for classification incorporating screening, pathoanatomic diagnosis, and rehabilitation classification. The specific
pathoanatomic diagnoses shown at level 2 are only given as common examples; these are not meant to represent a complete list.
For clarity, pathoanatomic diagnosis and rehabilitation classification are listed sequentially. However, they both are derived primarily
from the history and physical examination and, in practice, likely occur in parallel rather than sequentially.
could facilitate improved outcomes based classification systems that go clinical commentary is to propose a
and reduce overall health care costs. beyond a pathoanatomic diagnosis staged approach for rehabilitation
have been developed for neck and classification system for shoulder
Classification systems primarily aim low back pain,13,14 with patients sub- pain (STAR–Shoulder). We propose a
to guide treatment decision making grouped based on their history, staged approach to classification that
and inform prognosis. Additionally, impairments, and specific symptom- includes: (1) screening, (2) patho-
diagnostic categories are important atic responses to mechanical stress. anatomic diagnosis, and (3) a reha-
for communication among payers, Evidence indicates improved patient- bilitation classification based on
health care providers, researchers, rated outcomes when patients irritability rating and primary impair-
and those utilizing research findings. received the treatment matched to ments (Figure). We also propose a
In order to accomplish these various their category of classification com- system that matches intervention
goals, a classification system should pared with patients who did not strategies and tactics with the cate-
have mutually exclusive categories receive the matched treatment for gories of classification. The rehabili-
that identify subgroups within a neck and low back pain.15,16 Further- tation classification of patients based
patient population that require a more, cost of care for rehabilitation on tissue irritability and impairments
unique treatment approach. There was lower in those receiving enables the development of a
are multiple classification systems matched treatment.17 Rehabilitation directed rehabilitation treatment
for the shoulder, but they lack rele- guided by classification systems, or program.
vant categories to guide rehabilita- stratified care,18,19 can improve
tion, the categories are not mutually patient-rated outcomes and reduce
exclusive, and they are largely based immediate and downstream health
on pathology.5,12 Specific treatment- care costs.20 –23 The purpose of this
Table 2.
Examples of Common Pathoanatomic Diagnoses Based on History and Physical Examination Findings
Other Common
Measure Subacromial Pain Syndrome Adhesive Capsulitis Glenohumeral Instability Diagnoses
Key positive findings Impingement signs (Neer, Hawkins, Spontaneous progressive pain Age usually ⬍40 y Postoperative
“rule in”: Jobe tests) Loss of motion in multiple History of dislocation or Glenohumeral arthritis
Painful arc planes: external rotation subluxation Fractures
Pain with isometric resistance most limited Apprehension test Acromioclavicular joint
Weakness Pain at end-range of motion Relocation test Neural entrapment
Atrophy (tear) Generalized laxity Myofascial pain
Fibromyalgia
Key negative findings Significant loss of motion Normal motion No history of dislocation or
“rule out”: Instability signs Age ⬍40 y subluxation
The findings from the basic physical because surgical intervention is ary instability, and SLAP lesions. The
examination performed during the designed to address specific ana- current use of such a large number
screening are used along with a vast tomic pathologies. Although specific of pathoanatomic diagnostic catego-
array of available special tests to indications for a surgical rather than ries that are not easily differentiated
attempt to identify the specific tis- a nonsurgical approach are often by a physical examination is imprac-
sues responsible for shoulder symp- unclear and the subject of consider- tical and likely does not facilitate
toms. As examples, the key positive able debate,23 this level is where that treatment decision making for
and negative findings associated decision occurs. Entities such as rehabilitation.
with the most common shoulder acute or traumatic full-thickness rota-
pathologies are shown in Table 2. tor cuff tears, recurrent glenohu- Level 3–Rehabilitation
Although many diagnostic accuracy meral dislocations in younger active Classification/Tissue irritability
studies have been performed for var- patients, or severe glenohumeral and Impairments
ious special tests and pathologies, arthritis often can be managed suc- The rehabilitation categories are based
there is considerable variation in cessfully with surgery.33–37 How- on the stage of tissue irritability to
findings among studies.2 We selected ever, some patients with clearly guide the intensity of treatment, and
tests to define each category based proven tissue deficits such as partial- impairments are used to guide the
on current evidence.2 It is important or full-thickness rotator cuff tears selection of specific rehabilitation
to note that most of the diagnostic may respond well without surgical techniques. The concept of tissue “irri-
accuracy studies performed on spe- intervention.38 Future research iden- tability” is meant to reflect the tissue’s
cial tests of the shoulder use either tifying specific characteristics pre- ability to handle physical stress and
imaging or direct visualization dur- dicting success with surgical or non- theoretically relates to its physical sta-
ing surgery as a gold standard in surgical intervention will be im- tus and the degree of inflammatory
determining accuracy. Therefore, portant to improving classification. activity present. Three phases of irrita-
the gold standard is based on identi- bility, developed by consensus,6 are
fied tissue pathology rather than The tissue-based, pathoanatomic operationally defined in Table 3 using
direct evidence that the pathologic medical diagnosis classification of pain levels, the relationship between
tissue is actually producing the musculoskeletal shoulder pain has a pain and motion, and self-report of dis-
symptoms. Imaging procedures such large number of categories consist- ability. These irritability stages are
as radiography, ultrasound, and mag- ing of a single diagnosis or a combi- meant to be mutually exclusive and,
netic resonance imaging also would nation of diagnoses.11 We have cho- therefore, are the primary means of
fit with this level of diagnosis, as they sen to illustrate only a few of the classifying at this level. The physical
help to directly identify tissue most common entities seen by phys- intensity of intervention can then be
pathology. ical therapists as examples. The cat- directly matched to the stage of irrita-
egory of “subacromial pain syn- bility. We intentionally did not include
One of the primary intervention drome” is particularly challenging3 specific thresholds for each disability
decisions made at this level is sur- and includes common pathoana- criterion for tissue irritability using
gery versus nonsurgery, which may tomic labels such as subacromial patient-rated outcome instruments, as
include medication, corticosteroid impingement, bicipital tendinopa- there is no single standard accepted
injection, rest, and rehabilitation. thy, rotator cuff tendinopathy and patient-rated outcome instrument and
This is an appropriate decision point tears, subacromial bursitis, second- no current basis for specific thresh-
Table 3.
Operational Definitions for 3 Stages of Tissue Irritability Derived by Consensusa
Stage of Irritability
History and examination findings High pain (ⱖ7/10) Moderate pain (4–6/10) Low pain (ⱕ3/10)
Consistent night or rest pain Intermittent night or rest pain Absent night or rest pain
Pain before end of ROM Pain at end of ROM Minimal pain with overpressure
AROM⬍PROM AROM⬃PROM AROM⫽PROM
High disability Moderate disability Low disability
Intervention focus Minimize Physical Stress Mild–Moderate Physical Stress Moderate–High Physical Stress
Activity modification Address impairments Address impairments
Monitor impairments Basic-level functional activity restoration High-demand functional activity restoration
olds. We hope to encourage identifi- Further specific guidance in rehabil- tion of the patient with glenohu-
cation of thresholds through appropri- itation is based on identified impair- meral laxity. Likewise, 2 patients
ate future research. ments that are deemed relevant reporting high pain levels would
because they are believed to either likely be approached differently if
Tissue irritability staging is useful in perpetuate the pathology or cause the history and physical examination
guiding rehabilitation that aims to functional loss and disability. Table 4 suggest actual tissue injury in one
place the appropriate physical stress describes common shoulder impair- patient versus high fear avoidance
on the tissue at each stage. Patients ments and the associated matched and psychological distress in the
with high irritability are not ready for treatment strategies. Impairment cat- other patient. Although a standard
significant physical stress to the egories are not mutually exclusive, “one size fits all” rehabilitation pro-
affected tissues. Therefore, the treat- and a specific patient may have mul- tocol is the cleanest approach in
ment would emphasize activity mod- tiple impairments; therefore, impair- terms of research methodology,39 – 43
ification and appropriate modalities, ments should be considered only as a it is unlikely to yield optimal out-
medication, and manual therapy to secondary means of classification. A comes unless very similar impair-
relieve pain and inflammation, with full explanation of how best to iden- ments across all patients can be
only low levels of physical stress via tify each of these impairments in an assumed.
exercise. Patient education during examination is beyond the scope of
this stage would typically emphasize this article. However, we think the Discussion
how to avoid harmful stress to the list given in Table 4 captures the The STAR classification system is
affected tissues while maintaining common impairments related to founded with the pathoanatomic
appropriate stress to uninvolved tis- shoulder dysfunction that are used to diagnosis and then is expanded to
sues. The treatment strategy for select appropriate rehabilitation aid rehabilitation treatment decision
patients with moderate irritability is interventions. Identifying impair- making by classifying the level of irri-
controlled physical stress in the form ments is an essential part of the tability and identification of impair-
of progressive manual therapy, mild examination because patients with ments. Although we have argued
stretching and motor control exer- the same pathoanatomic diagnosis that the rehabilitation classification
cises, and basic functional activity. and level of irritability may have dif- is essential for guiding specific reha-
The low irritability category fering impairments and, therefore, bilitation, we believe the pathoanat-
describes those patients who have require different intervention strate- omic diagnosis is still an essential ele-
little pain and whose tissues are gies. For example, one patient may ment of the process. Consider, for
ready for progressive physical stress have “subacromial pain syndrome” example, 3 patients with a primary
in the form of stretching, manual associated with glenohumeral laxity, impairment of limited glenohumeral
therapy, resistive exercise, and and another patient may have the mobility attributed to capsular
higher-demand physical activity. Cat- same “subacromial pain syndrome” changes. Patient 1 is 30 years old and
egorizing the stage of tissue irritabil- with a posterior shoulder contrac- 8 weeks post-proximal humeral frac-
ity enables the selection of a ture. Stretching in various forms ture, patient 2 is 50 years old with
matched intervention intensity. would be critical to the latter patient early-stage adhesive capsulitis, and
but would likely worsen the condi- patient 3 is 70 years old with chronic
Table 4.
Common Shoulder Impairments Associated With Progressively Intensive Intervention Tactics Across a Spectrum of Tissue
Irritabilitya
Impairment High Irritability Moderate Irritability Low Irritability
Pain associated with local tissue Activity modification Activity modification No modalities
injury Manual therapy Manual therapy
Modalities Limited modality use
Limited passive mobility: ROM, stretching, manual therapy: ROM, stretching, manual therapy: ROM, stretching, manual therapy:
joint/muscle/neural tissues pain-free only, typically non–end- comfortable end-range stretch, tolerable stretch sensation at
range typically intermittent end-range, typically longer
duration and frequency
Neuromuscular weakness AROM within pain-free ranges Light or moderate resistance to Moderate or high resistance to
associated with atrophy, disuse, fatigue fatigue
and deconditioning Mid-ranges Include end-ranges
Neuromuscular weakness AROM within pain-free ranges Basic movement training with High-demand movement training
associated with poor motor Consider use of biofeedback, emphasis on quality/precision with emphasis on quality rather
control or neural activation neuromuscular electrical stimulation, rather than resistance according than resistance according to
or other activation strategies to motor learning principles motor learning principles
Functional activity intolerance Protect joint or tissue from end-range, Progressively engage in basic Progressively engage in high-
encourage use of unaffected regions functional activity demand functional activity
Poor patient understanding leading Appropriate patient education Appropriate patient education Appropriate patient education
to inappropriate activity (or
avoidance of activity)
a
ROM⫽range of motion, AROM⫽active range of motion.
pain and stiffness due to glenohu- 3 months. Likewise, a patient labeled prognosis and be more readily en-
meral arthritis identified radiograph- as having “subacromial pain syn- couraged to explore surgical options
ically. The rehabilitation strategy for drome” with a known rotator cuff if not responding to rehabilitation.
all 3 patients would likely be similar, tear might be managed similarly in Hence, patient management and pro-
namely to impart physical stress to rehabilitation to a patient with tendi- gnosis could vary substantially based
the glenohumeral joint in the form of nopathy and no tear based on iden- on the pathology present despite
active and passive stretching and tified impairments (eg, shoulder wea- having similar impairments. Table 5
manual therapy consistent with the kness). However, the patient with a summarizes essential features of
stage of irritability. However, the known tear might have a poorer
expected time course of recovery
and prognosis would likely be very
different based on the pathoanat-
Table 5.
omic diagnosis. Patient 1 would be Comparison of Features Between Pathoanatomic Diagnosis and Rehabilitation
expected to recover the majority of Classification
ROM within 3 to 4 months postin-
Pathoanatomic Diagnosis Rehabilitation Classification
jury, whereas patient 2 would be
expected to recover motion much Identifies primary tissue pathology Identifies level of irritability and key impairments
more slowly over a period of 1 to 2 Remains stable across an episode of care Typically changes over an episode of care
years. Patient 3 may recover motion Guides a general treatment strategy Guides specific rehabilitation intervention
with rehabilitation but would likely ● Surgery or nonoperative care? ● Appropriate intensity of physical stress?
● Key tissue and movement ● Key impairments driving symptoms and loss
be offered a surgical option of total precautions? of function?
shoulder replacement if not making
Informs prognosis May inform prognosis
satisfactory improvement within 2 to
both the pathoanatomic diagnosis with largely positive feedback. The for initial intervention. Other clini-
and rehabilitation classification. belief is that this classification cap- cally determined features such as the
tures the thought process used by most distal extent of perceived pain
We believe postoperative conditions experienced clinicians. Another fea- or the nature of the end-feel with
fit nicely within this system. In the ture is that the STAR simply expands passive ROM may prove useful in
postoperative patient, the pathoana- the current, prevailing pathoanat- determining irritability level. Cur-
tomic diagnosis is quite clear and omic model. Therefore, it is not sep- rently, the relationships among tis-
defined by which tissues have been arate from the predominant existing sue pathology, symptoms, and func-
debrided or repaired as well as the medical framework and does not tional loss at the shoulder are poorly
extent of the surgical repair (eg, require learning an entirely unique understood.
small full-thickness rotator cuff tear and novel system. Including the
repaired directly versus large or mas- pathoanatomic diagnosis in the sys- We have not offered specific opera-
2. Standard operational definitions impairments guides specific tactics 9 McCabe RA, Nicholas SJ, Montgomery KD,
et al. The effect of rotator cuff tear size on
based on patient history and clin- used for intervention. Although shoulder strength and range of motion.
ical examination procedures need applied specifically to shoulder dis- J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2005;35:130 –
135.
to be developed for accurately id- orders, we believe the model may be
entifying each of the proposed im- useful in classifying musculoskeletal 10 Gill TK, Shanahan EM, Allison D, et al.
Prevalence of abnormalities on shoulder
pairments delineated in Table 4. disorders in other body regions. The MRI in symptomatic and asymptomatic
system is only at a conceptual stage, older adults. Int J Rheum Dis. 2014;17:
863– 871.
3. Specific treatment procedures and research is needed to evaluate,
11 Braman JP, Zhao KD, Lawrence RL, et al.
matched to defined impairments, refine, and validate the proposed Shoulder impingement revisited: evolu-
with operationally defined inten- model. tion of diagnostic understanding in ortho-
pedic surgery and physical therapy. Med
sity levels, need to be developed Biol Eng Comput. 2014;52:211–219.
such that the type of treatment
22 Kromer TO, Tautenhahn UG, de Bie RA, 30 Wainner RS, Fritz JM, Irrgang JJ, et al. Reli- 39 Osteras H, Torstensen TA, Osteras B. High-
et al. Effects of physiotherapy in patients ability and diagnostic accuracy of the clin- dosage medical exercise therapy in
with shoulder impingement syndrome: a ical examination and patient self-report patients with long-term subacromial shoul-
systematic review of the literature. J Reha- measures for cervical radiculopathy. Spine der pain: a randomized controlled trial.
bil Med. 2009;41:870 – 880. (Phila Pa 1976). 2003;28:52– 62. Physiother Res Int. 2010;15:232–242.
23 Pedowitz RA, Yamaguchi K, Ahmad CS, 31 Rubinstein SM, Pool JJ, van Tulder MW, 40 Ginn KA, Cohen ML. Exercise therapy for
et al. Optimizing the management of rota- et al. A systematic review of the diagnostic shoulder pain aimed at restoring neuro-
tor cuff problems. J Am Acad Orthop accuracy of provocative tests of the neck muscular control: a randomized compara-
Surg. 2011;19:368 –379. for diagnosing cervical radiculopathy. Eur tive clinical trial. J Rehabil Med. 2005;37:
Spine J. 2007;16:307–319. 115–122.
24 Yung E, Asavasopon S, Godges JJ. Screen-
ing for head, neck, and shoulder pathol- 32 Tong HC, Haig AJ, Yamakawa K. The
Spurling test and cervical radiculopathy. 41 Ludewig PM, Borstad JD. Effects of a home
ogy in patients with upper extremity signs exercise programme on shoulder pain and
and symptoms. J Hand Ther. 2010;23: Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2002;27:156 –159.
functional status in construction workers.
173–185; quiz 186. 33 Lahteenmaki HE, Virolainen P, Hiltunen A, Occup Environ Med. 2003;60:841– 849.
25 Mitchell C, Adebajo A, Hay E, Carr A. et al. Results of early operative treatment
Shoulder pain: diagnosis and management of rotator cuff tears with acute symptoms. 42 Senbursa G, Baltaci G, Atay A. Comparison