Article

The effect of rotator cuff tear size on shoulder strength and range of motion

Nicholas Institute of Sports Medicine and Athletic Trauma, Lenox Hill Hospital, New York, NY 10021, USA.
Journal of Orthopaedic and Sports Physical Therapy (Impact Factor: 2.38). 03/2005; 35(3):130-5.
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Prospective cohort study.
To determine the effect of rotator cuff tear size on shoulder strength and range of motion.
Patients with rotator cuff pathology typically present with weakness and motion loss in various motions. The extent to which the presence of a rotator cuff tear and the size of the tear affect strength and range of motion is not well understood.
Sixty-one patients scheduled for surgery, with a diagnosis of a rotator cuff tear and/or subacromial impingement, underwent examination for shoulder pain, function, range of motion, and strength. The extent of rotator cuff pathology was documented during subsequent surgery (presence of tear, tear size, tear thickness).
There were 10 massive tears, 15 large tears, 13 medium tears, 12 small tears, and 11 rotator cuffs without a tear. Patients had marked weakness in abduction strength at 90 degrees and 10 degrees of abduction, in external rotation strength at 90 degrees, and in the "full can test" (all, P<.0001). Marked range of motion losses in shoulder flexion and external rotation at 0 degrees and 90 degrees abduction (all, P<.001) were also observed. Abduction strength deficit at 10 degrees was affected by rotator cuff tear size (P<.0001). Twenty of 25 patients with large or massive tears had deficits greater than 50%, compared with only 1 of 11 patients with no tear, 2 of 12 patients with a small tear, and 5 of 13 patients with a medium tear (P<.0001). Other strength and range of motion deficits or indices of pain and function were unaffected by tear size.
Weakness of greater than 50% relative to the contralateral side in shoulder abduction at 10 degrees of abduction was indicative of a large or massive rotator cuff tear.

Download full-text

Full-text

Available from: Malachy Mchugh, Aug 06, 2015
0 Followers
 · 
91 Views
  • Source
    • "Supraspinatus tendon tears have a high prevalence and often affect active members of society (Reilly, Macleod, Macfarlane, Windley, & Emery, 2006; Sobel & Winters, 1996). Its consequences are most apparent during active arm abduction and elevation, expressed in pain and loss of arm force ranging from 0% to over 50% (McCabe, Nicholas, Montgomery, Finneran, & McHugh, 2005; Seida et al., 2010). "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The debate on the clinical and functional role of the Supraspinatus in relation to the Deltoid necessitates experimental assessment of their contributions to arm elevation. Our goal was to evaluate the responses of both muscles to increased elevation moment loading. Twenty-three healthy volunteers applied 30N elevation forces at the proximal and distal humerus, resulting in small and large glenohumeral elevation moment tasks. The responses of the Deltoid and Supraspinatus were recorded with surface and fine-wire electromyography, quantified by (EMGdistal-EMGproximal), and normalized by the summed activations (EMGdistal+EMGproximal) to RMuscle ratios. Deltoid activity increased with large elevation moment loading (RDE=.11, 95%-CI [.06-.16]). Surprisingly, there was no significant average increase in Supraspinatus activation (RSSp=.06, 95%-CI [-.08 to .20]) and its response was significantly more variable (Levene's test, F=11.7, p<.001). There was an inverse association between the responses (ß=-1.02, 95%-CI [-2.37 to .32]), indicating a potential complementary function of the Supraspinatus to the Deltoid. The Deltoid contributes to the glenohumeral elevation moment, but the contribution of the Supraspinatus is variable. We speculate there is inter-individual or intra-muscular function variability for the Supraspinatus, which may be related to the frequently reported variations in symptoms and treatment outcome of Supraspinatus pathologies.
    Human movement science 11/2013; 33. DOI:10.1016/j.humov.2013.08.010 · 2.03 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "The same study showed that stopping the elevation at 90° angle resulted in falling of the arm, which proves that the activity of the supraspinatus muscle continues until reaching 90° angle and then gradually fades. Further experiments allowed the researchers to observe , on the basis of the EMG record, that in the consecutive phase of elevation the activity of the infraspinatus and teres minor muscles was increasing [18], [19], [25]. This results form the fact that external rotation of the arm is necessary for achieving the maximum physiological range of motion. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The aim of this study was to assess the changes of the bioelectric activity of the selected muscles and their impact on the functioning of the shoulder joint in people with impingement syndrome. The study covered 58 subjects aged between 24 and 85, who were treated for impingement syndrome in the years 2004-2006. The average duration of the disease was 40 months. The following muscles were tested for bioelectric activity using surface myography: deltoid, supraspinatus, infraspinatus, latissimus dorsi, greater pectoral and biceps brachii on the healthy and the diseased sides. A significant drop in activity of the deltoid and the infraspinatus muscles on the diseased side was observed. The following muscles showed comparable activity on both sides: the supraspinatus, latissimus dorsi and the greater pectoral muscle. The activity of the biceps brachii muscles grew during resisted movements. The drop in the activity of the deltoid and the infraspinatus muscles on the affected side is an important factor responsible for changes of the active mobility of the shoulder and for the development of instability of the shoulder joint. A similar activity of the latissimus dorsi, greater pectoral and biceps brachii muscles on both sides indicates a development of the compensatory mechanisms and the role of those muscles in the dynamic stabilisation of the shoulder joint.
    Acta of bioengineering and biomechanics / Wroclaw University of Technology 02/2009; 11(1):37-45. · 0.98 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: A rotator cuff tear causes morphologic changes in rotator cuff muscles and tendons and reduced shoulder strength. The mechanisms by which these changes affect joint strength are not understood. This study's purpose was to empirically determine rotation moment arms for subregions of supraspinatus, infraspinatus, and for teres minor, and to test the hypothesis that subregions of the cuff tendons increase their effective moment arms through connections to other subregions. Tendon excursions were measured for full ranges of rotation on 10 independent glenohumeral specimens with the humerus abducted in the scapular plane at 10 and 60 degrees . Supraspinatus and infraspinatus tendons were divided into equal width subregions. Two conditions were tested: tendon divided to the musculotendinous junction, and tendon divided to the insertion on the humerus. Moment arms were determined from tendon excursion via the principle of virtual work. Moment arms for the infraspinatus (p < 0.001) and supraspinatus (p < 0.001) were significantly greater when the tendon was only divided to the musculotendinous junction versus division to the humeral head. Moment arms across subregions of infraspinatus (p < 0.001) and supraspinatus (p < 0.001) were significantly different. A difference in teres minor moment arm was not found for the two cuff tendon conditions. Moment arm differences between muscle subregions and for tendon division conditions have clinical implications. Interaction between cuff regions could explain why some subjects retain strength after a small cuff tear. This finding helps explain why a partial cuff repair may be beneficial when a complete repair is not possible. Data presented here can help differentiate between cuff tear cases that would benefit from cuff repair and cases for which cuff repair might not be as favorable.
    Journal of Orthopaedic Research 08/2006; 24(8):1737-44. DOI:10.1002/jor.20188 · 2.97 Impact Factor
Show more