An observational study in Rotator Cuff, Syndrome, Frozen Shoulder and Humerus, Fracture, sponsored by Haute Ecole de Santé Vaud. Completed at 1 site in Switzerland. Open to participants aged 18 Years and older, including healthy volunteers. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2015-06-04.
Sponsored by Haute Ecole de Santé Vaud · Observational
A lot of shoulder function evaluation scores exist but none has been universally accepted as a gold standard.
Recent studies have demonstrated the potential of computerized movement analysis with embedded sensors for objective evaluation of shoulder functional outcome following surgery.
A very simple testing procedure is possible as just a few repetitions of two simple shoulder movements are sufficient. This could potentially facilitate implementation of shoulder function movement analysis in current clinical practice.
However, at the present stage of development, the method needs to be extensively validated. This means that the research will intend to determine precisely for which current shoulder pathology it can be applied, what the outcome of healthy people is, what the reliability of the score is and how it can monitor patient evolution.
Measurement of shoulder function is a controversial issue. There is a great variety of measurement tools but none of them has been universally accepted. There is therefore a need to develop extensively validated and convenient measurement tools.
Embedded computerized movement analysis can potentially meet these requirements for measurement of shoulder function. Ambulatory measurement devices allow application in various clinical conditions, display adequate precision and accuracy, and are considerably more straightforward than laboratory-based systems.
Using a Physilog ® II embedded system, Coley (2007) developed a relatively simple score of shoulder function (P Score). The method is based on arm power measurement by three-dimensional accelerometers and gyroscopes during seven consecutive shoulder movements. It demonstrated reliability, responsiveness and criterion-based validity. However, additional knowledge and technological progress could now contribute to further simplification of the testing procedure.
Indeed, a secondary analysis of Coley's study data based on principal component analysis and multiple regressions highlighted that a procedure including only two selected movements produces comparable results to P Score. Moreover, the development of wireless systems considerably simplifies set up. Consequently, simpler but equivalent measurement procedure can now be considered.
A pilot study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01281085) has been conducted to prepare this study. it contributed to determine the number of replications of movements needed and to refine the testing procedure.
The aim of this study is to proceed to an extensive validation study of the simplified testing procedure. Kinematic measurements will be carried out with four groups of patients presenting with frequent shoulder conditions (rotator cuff condition, shoulder instability, diaphyseal or subcapital humerus fracture, frozen shoulder) and a group of healthy people. Measurement procedure includes two consecutive measurements, alternatively conducted by two evaluators and measured simultaneously by two different movement analysis systems. Currently used functional questionnaires will be completed at both stages for comparison. Measurement will be performed at baseline and 6 months later.
Statistical analysis will address reproducibility, responsiveness, minimal clinically important difference and correlation with current clinical scores.
411 studies on the registry are indexed under Bursitis; 112 are open to participants now.
This study's enrollment of 108 is above the median of 58 across 32 observational studies indexed under Bursitis.
Browse Bursitis studies →Haute Ecole de Santé Vaud is the lead sponsor of 17 studies on the registry; 4 are open to participants now.
Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.
Patients consulting at the specialized shoulder consultation of the University Hospital of Lausanne
Exclusion Criteria:
Healthy volunteers, less than 35 years old and presenting with no shoulder condition
Patients with rotator cuff condition, conservative treatment indicated
Patients with shoulder instability, conservative treatment indicated
Patients with diaphyseal humerus fracture or subcapital humerus fracture treated surgically or conservatively, at 6 weeks post stabilization. (Surgical and conservative treatment will be considered as the same population from the functional point of view as functional outcome is similar) (Handoll et al. 2003).
Patients with frozen shoulder, conservative treatment indicated
Kinematic functional score
The kinematic functional score will be determined as the percentage of power of the pathological shoulder compared to the healthy shoulder (e.g. 70% means that the power developed during the movement of the pathological shoulder reaches 70% of the power developed on the healthy side)
Time frame: Baseline
Changes in kinematic functional shoulder scores
Aforementioned score will be measured again 6 months after baseline to evaluate its responsiveness to patients' evolution
Time frame: Change from Baseline in kinematic functional shoulder scores at 6 months
Functional scores as determined by several currently used shoulder scores
Questionnaires include Constant score, Quick DASH, subjective shoulder value, Simple shoulder test, WOSI (Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index; when relevant i.e. for shoulder instability), stiffness and pain EVA
Time frame: Baseline
Changes in functional shoulder scores
All aforementioned scores will be measured again 6 months after baseline to compare their respective responsiveness to patients' evolution
Time frame: Change from Baseline in functional shoulder scores at 6 months
This study is completed, as verified in Jun 2015. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.
Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.
Sign in to followQuestions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.
Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.
Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.
Haute Ecole de Santé Vaud