Home > Journals > European Journal of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine > Past Issues > European Journal of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine 2020 August;56(4) > European Journal of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine 2020 August;56(4):438-43

CURRENT ISSUE
 

JOURNAL TOOLS

eTOC
To subscribe
Submit an article
Recommend to your librarian
 

ARTICLE TOOLS

Publication history
Reprints
Permissions
Cite this article as

 

ORIGINAL ARTICLE   Freefree

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

top of page