COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS OF HIGH-GRADE MOBILIZATION AND SHORTWAVE DIATHERMY ON SHOULDER RANGE OF MOTION IN STAGE II ADHESIVE CAPSULITIS: A RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED STUDY
Main Article Content
Keywords
Adhesive capsulitis, high-grade mobilization, shortwave diathermy, range of motion, stretching.
Abstract
Background:
Adhesive capsulitis is a common shoulder condition which causes pain and progressive restriction of shoulder movements. Loss of range of motion (ROM), especially in abduction and external rotation, is the main clinical feature during the frozen stage. Physiotherapy treatment usually includes stretching and mobilization techniques or the use of deep heating modalities like shortwave diathermy.
Objective:
To evaluate and compare the effectiveness of high-grade mobilization with stretching and shortwave diathermy with stretching on shoulder range of motion in subjects with stage II adhesive capsulitis.
Methods:
Sixty subjects diagnosed with stage II adhesive capsulitis were randomly divided into two groups of thirty each. Group A received high-grade mobilization with stretching, and Group B received shortwave diathermy with stretching. Active ROM of flexion, abduction, external rotation, and internal rotation was measured using a universal goniometer at baseline and after four weeks of treatment. Data were analyzed using paired t-tests for within-group and unpaired t-tests for between-group comparisons.
Results:
Both groups showed significant improvements in shoulder ROM after four weeks (p < 0.001). Between-group comparison showed that mobilization with stretching produced greater improvement in abduction (p = 0.012) and external rotation (p = 0.0002) compared to shortwave diathermy with stretching.
Conclusion:
Both treatment methods were effective in improving shoulder ROM in stage II adhesive capsulitis, but high-grade mobilization with stretching showed better gains in abduction and external rotation than shortwave diathermy with stretching.
References
2. Galarraga B. Adhesive Capsulitis of the shoulder: a review article. CPD Rheumatology 2002;3(2):54-58.
3. Bunker TD. Frozen shoulder: unravelling the enigma. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 1997;79:210-213.
4. Wadsworth CT. Frozen Shoulder. Physical Therapy 1986 Dec;66(12):1878-1883.
5. Anton HA. Frozen shoulder. Canadian Family Physician 1993;39:1773-1779.
6. Nilufer B, Mustafa B, Sedar T. Shoulder Adhesive Capsulitis and shoulder range of motion in type II diabetes mellitus: association with diabetic complications. J Diab Comp 1999;13:135-140.
7. Robertson VJ, Ward AR, Jung P. The effect of heat on tissue extensibility: a comparison of deep and superficial heating. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2005;86:819-825.
8. Leung MSF, Cheing GLY. Effects of deep heating and superficial heating in the management of frozen shoulder. J Rehabil Med 2008;40:145-150.
9. Nicholson GG. The effects of passive joint mobilization on pain and hypomobility associated with adhesive capsulitis of the shoulder. JOSPT 1985;6(4):238-246.
10. Vermeulen HM, Rozing PM, Obermann WR, le Cessie S, Vliet Vlieland TPM. Comparison of High-Grade and Low-Grade mobilization techniques in adhesive capsulitis: randomized controlled trial. Phys Ther 2006;86(3):355-368.
11. Johnson AJ, Godges JJ, Zimmerman GJ, Ounanian LL. The effect of anterior versus posterior glide joint mobilization on external rotation range of motion in patients with shoulder adhesive capsulitis. JOSPT 2007 Mar;37(3):88-99.
12. Hayes K, Walton JR, Szomor LZ, Murrell AC. Reliability of five methods for assessing shoulder ROM. Aust J Physiother 2001;47:289-294.
13. Kim JS, Dailey JR. Biostatistics for Oral Healthcare. 1st ed. Blackwell Munksgaard; 2008. p.45-46.
14. Cameron MH. Physical Agents in Rehabilitation: research and practice. 3rd ed. p.153-155.
