4.2 Article

Physiotherapy after ultrasound-guided percutaneous irrigation in rotator cuff calcific tendinopathy

Journal

Publisher

IOS PRESS
DOI: 10.3233/BMR-191637

Keywords

Tendinopathy; shoulder; ultrasound; interventional; physiotherapy

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The study suggests that non-standardized physiotherapy after UGPI treatment may not provide additional clinical benefits in short and medium term for patients with RCCT. Symptoms may recur on average after 13 weeks.
BACKGROUND: Rotator cuff calcific tendinopathy (RCCT) is a very frequent and debilitating disease often treated with Ultrasound-guided percutaneous irrigation (UGPI) followed by physiotherapy. OBJECTIVE: A multicenter observational clinical study was designed to assess the effects of physiotherapy after UGPI on the functional recovery of the shoulders of patients suffering from RCCT. METHOD: One hundred sixty-six patients (mean age 50.7 +/- 7.6 years), 121 women, with painful RCCT were treated with UGPI and assessed at the day of UGPI (T0), and at one (T1), 3 (T2) and 6 (T3) months after treatment by the Constant- Murley Score (CMS), Oxford Shoulder Scale (OSS) and Numerical Rating Scale (NRS). Patients were divided into 2 groups, Physiotherapy (PT+) and not Physiotherapy (PT-) according to the performance of the rehabilitation program based on personal decision. RESULTS: A significant improvement at T1 in all outcomes in both groups and between T1 and T3 for NRS during movement and OSS was found, but not for NRS at rest and CMS. There was no difference between groups for all outcome measures. In 27,1% of patients symptoms recurred in an average of 13 +/- 8 weeks. CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest that post-UGPI not-standardized physiotherapy might not provide additional clinical benefits in short and medium term. Further studies could assess the effectiveness of physiotherapy performed after three months in patients with recurrence of pain.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available