STUDY DESIGN Cross-sectional. OBJECTIVES To compare sternoclavicular, acromioclavicular, and scapulothoracic joint motion between symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals during shoulder motion performed in 3 planes of humerothoracic elevation. BACKGROUND Differences in scapulothoracic kinematics are associated with shoulder pain. Several studies have measured these differences using surface sensors, but the results of this technique may be affected by skin-motion artifact. Furthermore, previous studies have not included the simultaneous measurement of sternoclavicular and acromioclavicular joint motion. METHODS Transcortical bone pins were inserted into the clavicle, scapula, and humerus of 12 asymptomatic and 10 symptomatic individuals for direct, bone-fixed tracking using electromagnetic sensors. Angular positions for the sternoclavicular, acromioclavicular, and scapulothoracic joints were measured during shoulder flexion, abduction, and scapular plane abduction. RESULTS Differences between groups were found for sternoclavicular and scapulothoracic joint positions. Symptomatic individuals consistently demonstrated less sternoclavicular posterior rotation, regardless of angle, phase, or plane of shoulder motion. Symptomatic individuals also demonstrated less scapulothoracic upward rotation at 30° and 60° of humerothoracic elevation during shoulder abduction and scapular plane abduction. CONCLUSION The results of this study show that differences in shoulder complex kinematics exist between symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals. However, the magnitude of these differences was small, and the resulting clinical implications are not yet fully understood. The biomechanical coupling of the sternoclavicular and acromioclavicular joints requires further research to better understand scapulothoracic movement deviations and to improve manual therapy and exercise-based physical therapy interventions.

"Impingement syndrome" is a common diagnostic label for patients presenting with shoulder pain. Historically, it was believed to be due to compression of the rotator cuff tendons beneath the acromion. It has become evident that "impingement syndrome" is not likely an isolated condition that can be easily diagnosed with clinical tests or most successfully treated surgically. Rather, it is likely a complex of conditions involving a combination of intrinsic and extrinsic factors. A mechanical impingement phenomenon as an etiologic mechanism of rotator cuff disease may be distinct from the broad diagnostic label of "impingement syndrome". Acknowledging the concepts of mechanical impingement and movement-related impairments may better suit the diagnostic and interventional continuum as they support the existence of potentially modifiable impairments within the conservative treatment paradigm. Therefore, it is advocated that the clinical diagnosis of "impingement syndrome" be eliminated as it is no more informative than the diagnosis of "anterior shoulder pain". While both terms are ambiguous, the latter is less likely to presume an anatomical tissue pathology that may be difficult to isolate either with a clinical examination or with diagnostic imaging and may prevent potentially inappropriate surgical interventions. We further recommend investigation of mechanical impingement and movement patterns as potential mechanisms for the development of shoulder pain, but clearly distinguished from a clinical diagnostic label of "impingement syndrome". For shoulder researchers, we recommend investigations of homogenous patient groups with accurately defined specific pathologies, or with subgrouping or classification based on specific movement deviations. Diagnostic labels based on the movement system may allow more effective subgrouping of patients to guide treatment strategies.

Mechanical subacromial rotator cuff compression is one theoretical mechanism in the pathogenesis of rotator cuff disease. However, the relationship between shoulder kinematics and mechanical subacromial rotator cuff compression across the range of humeral elevation motion is not well understood. The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of humeral elevation on subacromial compression risk of the supraspinatus during a simulated functional reaching task. Three-dimensional anatomical models were reconstructed from shoulder magnetic resonance images acquired from 20 subjects (10 asymptomatic, 10 symptomatic). Standardized glenohumeral kinematics from a simulated reaching task were imposed on the anatomic models and analyzed at 0°, 30°, 60°, and 90° humerothoracic elevation. Five magnitudes of humeral retroversion were also imposed on the models at each angle of humerothoracic elevation to investigate the impact of retroversion on subacromial proximities. The minimum distance between the coracoacromial arch and supraspinatus tendon and footprint were quantified. When contact occurred, the magnitude of the intersecting volume between the supraspinatus tendon and coracoacromial arch was also quantified. The smallest minimum distance from the coracoacromial arch to the supraspinatus footprint occurred between 30–90°, while the smallest minimum distance to the supraspinatus tendon occurred between 0–60°. The magnitude of humeral retroversion did not significantly affect minimum distance to the supraspinatus tendon except at 60° or 90° humerothoracic elevation. The results of this study provide support for mechanical rotator cuff compression as a potential mechanism for the development of rotator cuff disease.

STUDY DESIGN Cross-sectional. OBJECTIVES To compare differences in glenohumeral joint angular motion and linear translations between symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals during shoulder motion performed in 3 planes of humerothoracic elevation. BACKGROUND Numerous clinical theories have linked abnormal glenohumeral kinematics, including decreased glenohumeral external rotation and increased superior translation, to individuals with shoulder pain and impingement diagnoses. However, relatively few studies have investigated glenohumeral joint angular motion and linear translations in this population. METHODS Transcortical bone pins were inserted into the scapula and humerus of 12 a symptomatic and 10 symptomatic participants for direct bone-fixed tracking using electromagnetic sensors. Glenohumeral joint angular positions and linear translations were calculated during active shoulder flexion, abduction, and scapular plane abduction. RESULTS Differences between groups in angular positions were limited to glenohumeral elevation, coinciding with a reduction in scapulothoracic upward rotation. Symptomatic participants demonstrated 1.4 mm more anterior glenohumeral translation between 90° and 120° of shoulder flexion and an average of 1 mm more inferior glenohumeral translation throughout shoulder abduction. CONCLUSION Differences in glenohumeral kinematics exist between symptomatic and a symptomatic individuals. The clinical implications of these differences are not yet understood, and more research is needed to understand the relationship between abnormal kinematics, shoulder pain, and pathoanatomy.

In this issue of JOSPT, the Orthopaedic Section of the American Physical Therapy Association introduces the first of its shoulder clinical practice guidelines (CPGs), titled “Shoulder Pain and Mobility Deficits: Adhesive Capsulitis.” This CPG, as well as the collection of Orthopaedic Section CPGs previously published in JOSPT, use long diagnostic labels to identify the underlying clinical conditions. Author Paula M. Ludewig discusses the merits of using these movement system diagnostic labels rather than shorter pathoanatomic labels, which create a disconnect between diagnostic and treatment processes. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2013;43(5):280–283. doi:10.2519/jospt.2013.0104