See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/323666363

Comparison of conservative exercise therapy with and without Maitland

Thoracic Manipulative therapy in patients with subacromial pain: Clinical trial

Article in Journal of the Pakistan Medical Association · March 2018

CITATIONS READS

16 631

5 authors, including:

Muhammad Salman Bashir

University of Management and Technology (Pakistan)
69 PUBLICATIONS 141 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Muhammad Salman Bashir on 25 May 2022.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 381

RESEARCH ARTICLE
Comparison of conservative exercise therapy with and without Maitland
Thoracic Manipulative therapy in patients with subacromial pain: Clinical trial
Rizwan Haider,1 Muhammad Salman Bashir,2 Muhammad Adeel,3 Muhammad Junaid Ijaz,4 Azhar Ayub5

Abstract
Objective: To determine the effect of conservative exercise therapy with and without Maitland thoracic
manipulation in patients with subacromial pain.
Methods: The randomised controlled trial study was conducted at the Mayo Hospital, Lahore, Pakistan, from
June 2015 to February 2016, and comprised patients with subacromial pain (group 1) and controls (group
2).Pre-assessment was done by using numeric pain rating scale and shoulder pain and disability index as
subjective measurements, while range of motion was taken as objective measurement. SPSS version 21 was
used for data analysis.
Results: Of the 40 participants, there were 20(50%) in each group. The baseline pain intensity on numeric pain
rating scale for group 1 was 5.05±1.538 and for group 2 was 5.35±1.137; the values later changed to 0.70±0.923 and
2.30±0.979, respectively. The baseline functional status score according to shoulder pain and disability index for
group 1 and 2 was 40.25±12.354 and 43.15±7.343 that changed to 12.30±4.714 and 22.55±5.577, respectively.
Conclusion: Maitland thoracic spinal manipulation with conservative exercise therapy was more effective than
conservative exercise therapy alone.
Keywords: Shoulder impingement syndrome, Manipulation, Spinal, Physical therapy modalities. (JPMA 68: 381; 2018)

Introduction vascularity. Extrinsic factors that can add to the

American surgeon Charles Neer described shoulder advancement of RC tendinopathy by diminishing the
impingement as reduced structural space between the subacromial space incorporate anatomic variations of the
head of humerus and the acromion of spine of scapula.1 acromion, modifications in scapular or humeral
Shoulder impingement syndrome is the most common kinematics, postural anomalies, deficiencies in the
disease of the shoulder region that occurs by bony execution of rotator cuff and scapular muscles or
variations due to rotator cuff (RC) and scapular muscles diminished flexibility of pectoralis minor or posterior
imbalance and improper posture.2 The prevalence of shoulder.7
shoulder impingement syndrome is highest (36%) among
Initial treatment of subacromial impingement syndrome
the people with shoulder pain.3 In Iran, the prevalence of
(SIS) and related shoulder issues is prevalently non-
shoulder pain was found to be 41.6% in athletic
surgical, including rest, non-steroidal inflammatory drugs,
population.4 RC tendinopathy accounts for 69% to 75% of
corticosteroid infusions, and diverse modalities of
shoulder pain cases.5
physical therapy, specifically exercises. In the instance of
To describe the occurrence of subacromial pain, the term symptoms not diminishing for over three months, referral
"regional interdependence'' has been used in literature to to orthopaedic assessment is required.8 Numerous
explain that impairments in far anatomic region can rehabilitation modalities exist to treat RC tendinopathy,
associate patient's symptoms of shoulder pathology.6 The for example, physiotherapeutic exercises include open
aetiology of RC tendinopathy has been portrayed as chain, closed chain, and a range of motion (ROM)
multifactorial and can be related to a blend of both exercises,9 manual therapy, and electrotherapy. For
intrinsic and extrinsic causes. Intrinsic causes that add to practical concerns, multiple strategies for treating
RC tendon degeneration are identified as adjustments in shoulder pain disorders are used in clinics but no one is
its structure, mechanical properties, morphology and more effective.10
Maitland postero-anterior mobilisation is frequently used
1Department of Physiotherapy, Mayo Hospital, 2Associate Professor, UIPT, to treat spinal pain. The technique comprises rhythmic,
FAHS, UOL, Shalamar Institute of Health Sciences, 4School of Physiotherapy,
3 passive and gentle oscillations of the spine, and force and
King Edward Medical University, 5Arthritis Care Clinic, Shadman, Lahore. amplitude are applied permitting tissue responses and
Correspondence: Muhammad Salman Bashir. Email: chistisalman@yahoo.com the individual's condition.11 Thoracic spinal manipulation

Vol. 68, No. 3, March 2018

382 R. Haider, M. S. Bashir, M. Adeel, et al

results in pain reduction and physical function arthrosis, concomitant shoulder pathology, cognitive
improvement in subacromial impingement syndrome impairments and pregnancy were excluded.
patients.12-14
In group 1, patients received thoracic manipulative
The results of one systematic review has shown the therapy included 1 non-thrust mobilisation and 3
impact of physiotherapy with activities in regard to different thrust manipulation techniques directed at
decreasing pain and enhancing functional capacity in thoracic spine and exercise therapy including hot or
patients with SIS.15 In physical therapy, neck and shoulder cold pack, mobility exercises (flexion and extension
pathologies are commonly managed by thoracic spinal exercises with arms in front of the wall, shoulder flexion
manipulation.16 Physiotherapy interventions for 90°, and exercises with shoulder circles)and
subacromial pain are stretching and strengthening strengthening exercises (resistance exercise with elbow
exercises, joint mobilisation and manipulation, scapular flexion 90° and an elastic band, shoulder flexion with
and proprioceptive training, taping, acupuncture and elbow extension holding bar (1-4 kg), body lift from a
physical modalities.17 The current study was planned to seated position with elbows extended, and resistance
determine the effect of therapeutic exercises with and exercises for external rotation).19 In group 2, patients
without Maitland thoracic manipulation in patients with received conservative exercise therapy including hot or
subacromial pain. cold pack, mobility exercises and strengthening
exercises. Each patient's first assessment was done
Patients and Methods before the first treatment session and terminal
This randomised controlled trial was conducted in the assessment after the sixth treatment session. Patients
outpatient physiotherapy department of Mayo Hospital, were treated for two weeks with three sessions per
Lahore, Pakistan, from June 2015 to February 2016, and week. Patients were followed for another week for any
comprised patients with subacromial pain and controls. change in signs and symptoms (Figure).
Simple random sampling technique was used. Patients
were divided into two groups (group 1: experimental, and The patient came to physical therapist either after
group 2: control) by even and odd randomisation in being referred by an orthopaedic surgeon or by
which both groups have equal number of participants themselves. The therapist assessed patients using Neer
with a ratio of 1:1. By computer-generated random impingement test (specificity=30.5, sensitivity=88.7)
number table, each participant was assigned a random and Hawkins Kennedy impingement test
number. The sample size was measured by using G power (specificity=25%, sensitivity=92%).(20) The physical
priori analysis 3.1 software by assuming power 0.80 with therapist completed the assessment after obtaining
95%confidence interval (CI) on the difference. The mean consent from the patient and then used numeric pain
difference between groups and effect size were rating scale (NPRS) to measure pain intensity, range of
calculated for the pain and function/disability outcomes motion for mobility and shoulder pain and disability
using the equation: index (SPADI) for functional status. The study was
approved by the institutional ethics committee.
The data were analysed using SPSS version 21. Data was
presented in the form of mean ± standard deviation
In the equation, d = effect size; X1 and X2 are the group (SD) along with its range, frequency tables, percentages
means, and S1 and S2 are the group standard deviations. and appropriate graphs. P<0.05 was considered
significant. Pre- and post-assessed parameters for pain
The effect sizes for studies that showed added benefit intensity, ROM and functional status were compared by
from manual therapy intervention ranged from 0.34 to mean difference. The comparison between pain
1.29 for pain measures and 0.34 to 1.66 for intensity and functional status for experimental and
function/disability outcomes.18 control groups was done by repeated measures analysis
of variance (ANOVA).
The inclusion criteria were: shoulder impingement
syndrome with positive physical test, shoulder pain for Results
two to three months, shoulder pain score of at least 3 on Of the 45 patients, 40(88.9%) were included. Of them,
the 10-point numeric pain rating scale, age 25-60 years, there were 20(50%) in each group. The overall mean
available documentation of patient consent. In contrast, age was 49.55±9.706 years. Moreover, 22(55%)
patients with systemic rheumatic disease, operative participants were females and 18(45%) males. Besides,
interventions on shoulder, spine and thorax, shoulder 19(47.5%) participants had right shoulder

J Pak Med Assoc

Comparison of conservative exercise therapy with and without Maitland Thoracic Manipulative therapy... 383
Table-1: Baseline demographics. impingement, 17(42.5%) left and 4(10%) bilateral
shoulder involvement. The duration of symptoms was
Experimental group Control group two months in 13(32.5%) cases, one month in
(n=20) (n=20)
11(27.5%) cases and four months in 9(22.5%) cases
Age (years) 49.30(9.985) 49.80(9.671) (Table-1).
Gender: The baseline pain intensity on NPRS for group 1 was
Male 9(45%) 9(45%)
5.05±1.538 and for group 2 it was 5.35±1.137 that was
Female 11(55%) 11(55%)
Side Involved: changed to 0.70±0.923 and 2.30±0.979, respectively. The
Right 10 (50%) 9(45%) baseline functional status score according to SPADI for
Left 9(45%) 8(40%) group 1 and group 2 was 40.25±12.354 and 43.157.343
Bilateral 1(5%) 3(15%) that was changed to 12.30±4.714 and 22.55±5.577,
Duration of Symptoms: respectively (Table-2).
One month 5(25%) 6(30%)
Two month 6(30%) 7(35%) Repeated measures ANOVA for pain intensity and
Three month 4(20%) 3(15%) functional status score within subjects' comparison and
Four month 5(25%) 4(20%) between the subjects' comparison was carried out. The

Table-2: Comparison between Pain Intensity and functional Status Score.

Group 1(n=20) Group 2(n=20)

Baseline After 2 Weeks P-value Baseline After 2 Weeks P-value
Mean(SD) Mean(SD) Mean(SD) Mean(SD)

Pain Intensity (NPRS) 5.05±1.538 0.70±0.923 0.00 5.35±1.137 2.30±0.979 0.00

Functional Status Score (SPADI) 40.25±12.354 12.30±4.714 0.00 43.15±7.343 22.55±5.577 0.00
SD: Standard deviation. NPRS: Numeric pain rating scale. SPADI: Shoulder pain and disability index.

Table-3: Tests of Within-Subjects Contrasts.

Study Source Pain Functional Type III Sum df Mean F Sig. Partial Eta
Group Intensity Status of Squares Square Squared

Experimental group Pain_Intensity Linear 10951.200 1 10951.200 193.053 0.000 0.910

Error(Pain_Intensity) Linear 1077.800 19 56.726
Functional_Status Linear 5216.450 1 5216.450 206.248 0.000 0.916
Error(Functional_Status) Linear 480.550 19 25.292
Pain_Intensity * Functional_Status Linear Linear 2784.800 1 2784.800 167.335 0.000 0.898
Error(Pain_Intensity*Functional_Status) Linear Linear 316.200 19 16.642
Control Group Pain_Intensity Linear 16849.012 1 16849.012 537.370 0.000 0.966
Error(Pain_Intensity) Linear 595.737 19 31.355
Functional_Status Linear 2796.612 1 2796.612 390.309 0.000 0.954
Error(Functional_Status) Linear 136.138 19 7.165
Pain_Intensity * Functional_Status Linear Linear 1540.012 1 1540.012 209.394 0.000 0.917
Error(Pain_Intensity*Functional_Status) Linear Linear 139.738 19 7.355
df: Difference. Sig.: Significance.

Table-4: Tests of Between-Subjects Effects.

Study Group Source Type III Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Partial Eta Squared

Experimental group Intercept 16994.450 1 16994.450 214.043 0.000 0.918

Error 1508.550 19 79.397
Control Group Intercept 26901.112 1 26901.112 649.754 0.000 0.972
Error 786.637 19 41.402
df: Difference. Sig.: Significance.

Vol. 68, No. 3, March 2018

384 R. Haider, M. S. Bashir, M. Adeel, et al

Table-5: Range of motion pre and post treatment statistics.

Active Range of Motion Study Group N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

Rt_AROM_flexion_1 Experimental group 20 131.00 33.388 7.466

Control Group 20 119.50 34.864 7.796
Rt_AROM_flexion_2 Experimental group 20 161.00 5.525 1.235
Control Group 20 149.00 14.105 3.154
Rt_AROM extension_1 Experimental group 20 39.25 11.271 2.520
Control Group 20 33.25 12.698 2.839
Rt_AROM_extension_2 Experimental group 20 48.75 4.833 1.081
Control Group 20 39.25 7.826 1.750
Rt_AROM_abduction_1 Experimental group 20 127.25 36.255 8.107
Control Group 20 116.00 36.187 8.092
Rt_AROM_abduction_2 Experimental group 20 157.50 6.977 1.560
Control Group 20 142.50 13.908 3.110
Rt_AROM_external rotation_1 Experimental group 20 40.75 16.802 3.757
Control Group 20 35.00 10.513 2.351
Rt_AROM_external rotation_2 Experimental group 20 54.25 10.915 2.441
Control Group 20 46.25 7.412 1.657
Rt_AROM_internal rotation_1 Experimental group 20 49.50 17.313 3.871
Control Group 20 42.75 17.806 3.981
Rt_AROM_internal rotation_2 Experimental group 20 62.50 9.528 2.131
Control Group 20 55.00 12.247 2.739
Lt_AROM_flexion_1 Experimental group 20 130.00 31.954 7.145
Control Group 20 125.00 31.539 7.052
Lt_AROM_flexion_2 Experimental group 20 160.50 6.863 1.535
Control Group 20 147.75 14.910 3.334
Lt_AROM_extension_1 Experimental group 20 37.90 12.578 2.812
Control Group 20 34.65 9.965 2.228
Lt_AROM_extension_2 Experimental group 20 48.40 4.489 1.004
Control Group 20 41.00 7.363 1.646
Lt_AROM_abduction_1 Experimental group 20 126.00 30.677 6.859
Control Group 20 124.00 30.890 6.907
Lt_AROM_abduction_2 Experimental group 20 157.75 6.781 1.516
Control Group 20 146.75 13.599 3.041
Lt_AROM_external rotation_1 Experimental group 20 41.25 12.863 2.876
Control Group 20 35.50 12.450 2.784
Lt_AROM_external rotation_2 Experimental group 20 53.25 8.626 1.929
Control Group 20 45.25 9.525 2.130
Lt_AROM_internal rotation_1 Experimental group 20 49.00 18.180 4.065
Control Group 20 46.00 13.822 3.091
Lt_AROM_internal rotation_2 Experimental group 20 65.25 5.955 1.332
Control Group 20 56.50 10.650 2.381
Std: Standard
Lt: Left
Rt: Right
AROM: Active Range of Motion
1: Pre-treatment
2: Post-treatment

J Pak Med Assoc

Comparison of conservative exercise therapy with and without Maitland Thoracic Manipulative therapy... 385

Figure: Consort Flowchart showing the flow of participants through each stage of a randomised trial.

pain intensity and functional status scores after treatment population with shoulder pain was high. In a previous
were significant (p<0.05) (Tables 3-4). study, the mean age was 31.15±12.2 years. 21 The
duration of onset of shoulder pain symptoms in the
Mean values for active ROM of shoulder flexion, current study was 4 to 8 weeks as compared to >12
extension, abduction, external rotation and internal weeks in a previous study.21 The difference can be
rotation ranged between 33.25±12.698 and 161±5.525 explained by the fact that about 50% patients in the
(Table-5). present study had one- to two-month history of onset
of shoulder pain and that the age group differed
Discussion
between the two studies.
Our study findings suggest that subacromial pain was
more common in females as compared to males. Impingement syndrome is the most common cause of
Moreover, the patients of subacromial pain belonged shoulder or subacromial pain.2 The main findings of
to the age group of 49-50 years because we collected this study suggest that thoracic spinal manipulative
data from a public hospital where the ratio of old therapy (SMT) with conservative physical therapy have

Vol. 68, No. 3, March 2018

386 R. Haider, M. S. Bashir, M. Adeel, et al

greater effect on pain reduction and shoulder better and yielded improved outcome than conservative
functional status improvement in subacromial physical therapy.
impingement syndrome than conservative physical
therapy alone. Disclaimer: None.

Pain intensity scores in comparison to the control group Conflict of Interest: One of the authors was also Incharge
changed 4.3 points on the numeric pain rating scale of the ethics committee during that tenure. That article
from pre- to post-treatment in the experimental group. has been retrieved from thesis work.
The difference of change in the NPRS score was more Source of Funding: None.
significant in the experimental group. The previous
study reported 0.9-point change in score on NPRS by References
applying thoracic spinal manipulative therapy and 1.5- 1. Neer CS. Anterior acromioplasty for the chronic impingement
point change for the sham spinal manipulative therapy syndrome in the shoulder. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005;
87:1399.
group.21 2. Morton S, Chan O, Ghozlan A, Price J, Perry J, Morrissey D. High
volume image guided injections and structured rehabilitation in
The functional status score on the SPADI scale changed shoulder impingement syndrome: a retrospective study. Muscles
by 27.95 points in the experimental group and 20.6 Ligaments Tendons J. 2015; 5:195-9.
points in the control group. The more improvement was 3. Juel NG, Natvig B. Shoulder diagnoses in secondary care, a one
noted in the experimental group in terms of functional year cohort. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2014; 15:89.
4. Mohseni-Bandpei MA, Keshavarz R, Minoonejhad H, Mohsenifar H,
status. But in comparison, Penn scale was used that
Shakeri H. Shoulder Pain in Iranian Elite Athletes: The Prevalence
showed a change of 9.2 points in the thoracic SMT and Risk Factors. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2012; 35:541-8.
group and 11 points in the sham SMT group.21 The 5. Tekavec E, Jöud A, Rittner R, Mikoczy Z, Nordander C, Petersson IF,
results of a previous study for functional status showed et al. Population-based consultation patterns in patients with
more improvement in the sham SMT group than in the shoulder pain diagnoses. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2012;
13:238.
thoracic SMT group, but the difference was very small 6. Wainner RS, Whitman JM, Cleland JA, Flynn TW. Regional
and also different scale was used, therefore its results interdependence: a musculoskeletal examination model whose
can be compared to our study. time has come. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2007; 37:658-60.
7. Seitz AL, McClure PW, Finucane S, Boardman ND, Michener LA.
The active ROM for shoulder flexion, extension and Mechanisms of rotator cuff tendinopathy: intrinsic, extrinsic, or
external rotation consistently increased from pre- to both? Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2011; 26:1-12.
8. Chaudhury S, Gwilym SE, Moser J, Carr AJ. Surgical options for
post-treatment in both groups except left-side patients with shoulder pain. Nat Rev Rheumatol. 2010; 6:217-26.
abduction (mean difference =31.75) and internal 9. Heron SR, Woby SR, Thompson DP. Comparison of three types of
rotation (mean difference =16.25) for the experimental exercise in the treatment of rotator cuff tendinopathy/shoulder
group. impingement syndrome: A randomized controlled trial.
Physiotherapy. 2017; 103:167-73.
The current study had a few limitations as well. The data 10. Green S, Buchbinder R, Glazier R, Forbes A. WITHDRAWN:
Interventions for shoulder pain. Cochrane Database Syst Rev.
was collected from a single department of the hospital;
2007; 4:CD001156.
therefore, the results and conclusions had limited 11. Maitland GD. Maitland's vertebral manipulation: Butterworth-
applicability. Due to shortage of time, the data was Heinemann; London 2005.
obtained from fewer patients. Moreover, some illiterate 12. Boyles RE, Ritland BM, Miracle BM, Barclay DM, Faul MS, Moore JH,
and hesitant patients did not give appropriate answers et al. The short-term effects of thoracic spine thrust manipulation
on patients with shoulder impingement syndrome. Man Ther.
and were less responsive. 2009; 14:375-80.
13. Muth S, Barbe MF, Lauer R, McClure P. The effects of thoracic spine
Future research is necessary to know the mechanism of manipulation in subjects with signs of rotator cuff tendinopathy.
thoracic SMT in patients with shoulder pain. There should J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2012; 42:1005-16.
be a long-term follow-up to check the relation of thoracic 14. Strunce JB, Walker MJ, Boyles RE, Young BA. The immediate
manipulation with shoulder impingement syndromes. effects of thoracic spine and rib manipulation on subjects with
primary complaints of shoulder pain. J Man Manip Ther. 2009;
Besides, future research should examine changes in 17:230-6.
kinematics or neurophysiologic variables in groups of 15. Hanratty CE, McVeigh JG, Kerr DP, Basford JR, Finch MB, Pendleton
patients with shoulder pain who respond to thoracic SMT A, et al. editors. The effectiveness of physiotherapy exercises in
compared to the control group. subacromial impingement syndrome: a systematic review and
meta-analysis. Semin Arthritis Rheum. 2012; 42:297-316.
Conclusion 16. McDevitt A, Young J, Mintken P, Cleland J. Regional
interdependence and manual therapy directed at the thoracic
The Maitland mobilisation and manipulation with spine. J Man Manip Ther. 2015; 23:139-46.
conservative physical therapy for subacromial pain was 17. Haik M, Alburquerque-Sendín F, Moreira R, Pires E, Camargo P.

J Pak Med Assoc

 Comparison of conservative exercise therapy with and without Maitland Thoracic Manipulative therapy... 387
Effectiveness of physical therapy treatment of clearly defined of Cervicothoracic Manipulation Plus Supervised Exercises vs a
subacromial pain: a systematic review of randomised controlled Home Exercise Program for the Treatment of Shoulder
trials. Br J Sports Med. 2016; 50:1124-34. Impingement. J Chiropr Med. 2017;16:85-93.
18. Kardouni JR. Effects of Thoracic Spinal Manipulative Therapy on 20. White R, Paull D, Fleming K. Rotator cuff tendinitis: comparison of
Thoracic Spine and Shoulder Kinematics, Thoracic Spine subacromial injection of a long acting corticosteroid versus oral
Flexion/Extension Excursion, and Pressure Pain Sensitivity in indomethacin therapy. J Rheumatol. 1986; 13:608-13.
Patients with Subacromial Pain Syndrome: [Online] 2013 [Cited 21. Kardouni J. Effects of Thoracic Spinal Manipulative Therapy on
2014 February 21]. Available from: URL: Thoracic Spine and Shoulder Kinematics, Thoracic Spine
https://scholarscompass.vcu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=43 Flexion/Extension Excursion, and Pressure Pain Sensitivity in
03&context=etd. Patients with Subacromial Pain Syndrome. [Online] 2013 [Cited
19. Vinuesa-Montoya S, Aguilar-Ferrándiz ME, Matarán-Peñarrocha 2014 February 11]. Available from URL:
GA, Fernández-Sánchez M, Fernández-Espinar EM, Castro- https://scholarscompass.vcu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=43
Sánchez AM. A Preliminary Randomized Clinical Trial on the Effect 03&context=etd.

Vol. 68, No. 3, March 2018

View publication stats