ORIGINAL ARTICLE   Free access

European Journal of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine 2020 August;56(4):438-43

DOI: 10.23736/S1973-9087.19.05890-8

Copyright © 2019 EDIZIONI MINERVA MEDICA

language: English

Shoulder adhesive capsulitis: diagnostic value of active and passive range of motion with volume of gleno-humeral capsule as a reference

Etienne JAMES-BELIN ^{1, 2} ✉, Sandra LASBLEIZ ¹, Albert HADDAD ¹, Odile MORCHOISNE ², Agnès OSTERTAG ¹, Alain YELNIK ², Jean-Denis LAREDO ³, Thomas BARDIN ¹, Philippe ORCEL ¹, Pascal RICHETTE ¹, Johann BEAUDREUIL ^{1, 2}

¹ Department of Rheumatology, Lariboisière-Fernand Widal Hospital, AP-HP, Paris 7 University, Paris, France; ² Department of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine, Lariboisière-Fernand Widal Hospital, AP-HP, Paris 7 University, Paris, France; ³ Department of Musculoskeletal Radiology, Lariboisière-Fernand Widal Hospital, AP-HP, Paris 7 University, Paris, France

BACKGROUND: The diagnosis of adhesive capsulitis is currently based on restricted range of motion (ROM) but its diagnostic value has only been rarely investigated.
AIM: The aim of this study is to assess the diagnostic value of active global and passive gleno-humeral ROM to diagnose shoulder adhesive capsulitis.
DESIGN: Cross-sectional descriptive study.
SETTING: One French center for Rehabilitation Medicine.
POPULATION: Patients referred for treatment of shoulder adhesive capsulitis in our center were included. Inclusion criteria were: shoulder pain; limitation of active global ROM (abduction or flexion <180°); limitation of passive gleno-humeral ROM (abduction or flexion <90° or 25% reduction at less of lateral rotation versus the opposite shoulder); no gleno-humeral arthropathy on radiography.
METHODS: The volume of the gleno-humeral capsule was assessed during a procedure of arthro-distension. The reference criterion for adhesive capsulitis was a volume <12 mL. We analyzed the correlation between the parameters of mobility and the volume of the gleno-humeral capsule; and the positive predictive value (PPV) of inclusion criteria, with the reference criterion for the diagnosis of adhesive capsulitis.
RESULTS: We included 38 patients. Passive gleno-humeral ROM in abduction only was correlated with volume of the gleno-humeral capsule: r=0.33, P=0.043. The PPV of inclusion criteria was 82% for the diagnosis of shoulder adhesive capsulitis. Rather than 90°, when we considered 80°, 60° and 40° as the threshold of passive gleno-humeral ROM in abduction, the PPV increased from 83% to 100%.
CONCLUSIONS: Passive gleno-humeral ROM in abduction is correlated with volume of the gleno-humeral capsule. The PPV is high for active global and passive gleno-humeral ROM for diagnosis of shoulder adhesive capsulitis.
CLINICAL REHABILITATION IMPACT: Limitation of active and passive shoulder ROM, especially passive abduction gleno-humeral, is a good criterion to diagnose shoulder adhesive capsulitis, in patients with shoulder pain and no gleno-humeral arthropathy on radiography.

KEY WORDS: Bursitis; Articular range of motion; Diagnosis