Shoulder Musculoskeletal Disorder Rehabilitation Using a Robotic Device Based on Electromyography (EMG) Biofeedback: A Retrospective Cohort Study

Overview

Journal Medicina (Kaunas)

Publisher MDPI

Specialty General Medicine

Date 2025 Feb 26

PMID 40005389

Authors

Martin Lavalliere

Mathieu Tremblay

Etienne Ojardias

Maxime Turpin

Anaick Perrochon

Philippe Rigoard

Lisa Goudman

Maarten Moens

Romain David

Maxime Billot

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

: While shoulder injuries represent the musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) most encountered in physical therapy, there is no consensus on their management. In attempts to provide standardized and personalized treatment, a robotic-assisted device combined with EMG biofeedback specifically dedicated to shoulder MSDs was developed. This study aimed to determine the efficacy of an 8-week rehabilitation program (3 sessions a week) using a robotic-assisted device combined with EMG biofeedback (RA-EMG group) in comparison with a conventional program (CONV group) in patients presenting with shoulder MSDs. : This study is a retrospective cohort study including data from 2010 to 2013 on patients initially involved in a physical rehabilitation program in a private clinic in Chicoutimi (Canada) for shoulder MSDs. Shoulder flexion strength and range of motion were collected before and after the rehabilitation program. Forty-four patients participated in a conventional program using dumbbells (CONV group), while 73 completed a program on a robot-assisted device with EMG and visual biofeedback (RA-EMG group); both programs consisted of two sets of 20 repetitions at 60% of maximal capacity. : We showed that the RA-EMG had significantly greater benefits than the CONV group for shoulder flexion strength (4.45 [2.6;6.15] kg vs. 2.3 [0.90;4.775] kg, U = 761, = 0.013) and for normalized strength (77.5 [51.3;119.1] % vs. 39.1 [16.6;89.2] %, U = 755, = 0.016). In addition, the RA-EMG group showed a trend to greater absolute gain of ROM than the CONV group (10.0 [0;24.3] degrees vs. 5.5 [0;12.0] degrees, U = 1931, = 0.067), and a greater benefit in normalized ROM was observed for the RA-EMG (7.4. [0;17.7] %) than the CONV group (4.6 [0;10.8], U = 1907, = 0.046). : The current retrospective cohort study showed that a specific and tailored 8-week rehabilitation program with constant effort by automatic adjustment of the level of resistance by EMG feedback induced greater benefits for shoulder flexion strength and a trend to improve range of motion compared to conventional rehabilitation in patients with shoulder MSDs. Future research should be pursued to determine the added potential of this approach for abduction and external rotation with a randomized controlled design.

References

Nestoriuc Y, Rief W, Martin A . Meta-analysis of biofeedback for tension-type headache: efficacy, specificity, and treatment moderators. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2008; 76(3):379-96. DOI: 10.1037/0022-006X.76.3.379. View

Boland K, Smith C, Bond H, Briggs S, Walton J . Current concepts in the rehabilitation of rotator cuff related disorders. J Clin Orthop Trauma. 2021; 18:13-19. PMC: 8082254. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcot.2021.04.007. View

Chien W, Chong Y, Tse M, Chien C, Cheng H . Robot-assisted therapy for upper-limb rehabilitation in subacute stroke patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Brain Behav. 2020; 10(8):e01742. PMC: 7428503. DOI: 10.1002/brb3.1742. View

Kroger I, Nerz C, Schwickert L, Scholch S, Mussig J, Studier-Fischer S . Robot-assisted training after proximal humeral fracture: A randomised controlled multicentre intervention trial. Clin Rehabil. 2020; 35(2):242-252. DOI: 10.1177/0269215520961654. View

Gaffney B, Maluf K, Davidson B . Evaluation of Novel EMG Biofeedback for Postural Correction During Computer Use. Appl Psychophysiol Biofeedback. 2016; 41(2):181-9. PMC: 9328112. DOI: 10.1007/s10484-015-9328-3. View

Cools A, De Wilde L, Van Tongel A, Ceyssens C, Ryckewaert R, Cambier D . Measuring shoulder external and internal rotation strength and range of motion: comprehensive intra-rater and inter-rater reliability study of several testing protocols. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2014; 23(10):1454-61. DOI: 10.1016/j.jse.2014.01.006. View

Banyai A, Brisan C . Robotics in Physical Rehabilitation: Systematic Review. Healthcare (Basel). 2024; 12(17). PMC: 11395122. DOI: 10.3390/healthcare12171720. View

Scott A, Squier K, Alfredson H, Bahr R, Cook J, Coombes B . ICON 2019: International Scientific Tendinopathy Symposium Consensus: Clinical Terminology. Br J Sports Med. 2019; 54(5):260-262. DOI: 10.1136/bjsports-2019-100885. View

Edwards P, Ebert J, Joss B, Bhabra G, Ackland T, Wang A . EXERCISE REHABILITATION IN THE NON-OPERATIVE MANAGEMENT OF ROTATOR CUFF TEARS: A REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE. Int J Sports Phys Ther. 2016; 11(2):279-301. PMC: 4827371. View

10.

Ellenbecker T, Cools A . Rehabilitation of shoulder impingement syndrome and rotator cuff injuries: an evidence-based review. Br J Sports Med. 2010; 44(5):319-27. DOI: 10.1136/bjsm.2009.058875. View

11.

Lim O, Kim J, Song S, Cynn H, Yi C . Effect of Selective Muscle Training Using Visual EMG Biofeedback on Infraspinatus and Posterior Deltoid. J Hum Kinet. 2015; 44:83-90. PMC: 4327383. DOI: 10.2478/hukin-2014-0113. View

12.

Lin I, Wiles L, Waller R, Goucke R, Nagree Y, Gibberd M . What does best practice care for musculoskeletal pain look like? Eleven consistent recommendations from high-quality clinical practice guidelines: systematic review. Br J Sports Med. 2019; 54(2):79-86. DOI: 10.1136/bjsports-2018-099878. View

13.

San Juan J, Gunderson S, Kane-Ronning K, Suprak D . Scapular kinematic is altered after electromyography biofeedback training. J Biomech. 2016; 49(9):1881-1886. DOI: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2016.04.036. View

14.

Ketola S, Lehtinen J, Arnala I . Arthroscopic decompression not recommended in the treatment of rotator cuff tendinopathy: a final review of a randomised controlled trial at a minimum follow-up of ten years. Bone Joint J. 2017; 99-B(6):799-805. DOI: 10.1302/0301-620X.99B6.BJJ-2016-0569.R1. View

15.

Lucca J, Recchiuti S . Effect of electromyographic biofeedback on an isometric strengthening program. Phys Ther. 1983; 63(2):200-3. DOI: 10.1093/ptj/63.2.200. View

16.

Maciejasz P, Eschweiler J, Gerlach-Hahn K, Jansen-Troy A, Leonhardt S . A survey on robotic devices for upper limb rehabilitation. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2014; 11:3. PMC: 4029785. DOI: 10.1186/1743-0003-11-3. View

17.

Naunton J, Harrison C, Britt H, Haines T, Malliaras P . General practice management of rotator cuff related shoulder pain: A reliance on ultrasound and injection guided care. PLoS One. 2020; 15(1):e0227688. PMC: 6957186. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0227688. View

18.

Gumaa M, Rehan Youssef A . Is Virtual Reality Effective in Orthopedic Rehabilitation? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Phys Ther. 2019; 99(10):1304-1325. DOI: 10.1093/ptj/pzz093. View

19.

Huang H, Lin J, Guo Y, Wang W, Chen Y . EMG biofeedback effectiveness to alter muscle activity pattern and scapular kinematics in subjects with and without shoulder impingement. J Electromyogr Kinesiol. 2012; 23(1):267-74. DOI: 10.1016/j.jelekin.2012.09.007. View

20.

Khan M, Alolabi B, Horner N, Bedi A, Ayeni O, Bhandari M . Surgery for shoulder impingement: a systematic review and meta-analysis of controlled clinical trials. CMAJ Open. 2019; 7(1):E149-E158. PMC: 6411477. DOI: 10.9778/cmajo.20180179. View