kinesio USA: technical merit

Utilization of Kinesio Tex Tape in Patients with Shoulder Pain or Dysfunction: A Case Series Scott Frazier, PT; Julie M. Whitman, PT, DSc; Marcia B. Smith, PT, PhD
North Texas Rehabilitation Center, Wichita Falls, TX Regis University Transitional Doctor of Physical Therapy Program Introduction Shoulder disorders are a common complaint and often associated with significant disability and reduced generai health. Despite little research support, management of shoulder disorders have historically included taping techniques. According to the manufacturers, Kinesio Tex Tape is purported to be useful for pain reduction, muscle inhibition or facilitation, improved Iymphatic flow, improved joint mechanics, and scar mobilization. What is Kinesio Tex Tape? Elastic tape that stretches up to 130-140% of resting length. Differs from other tapes: - greater elasticity, - requires no undertape, - allows for full mobility. The purpose of this case series is to examine and document the clinica! outcomes for patients with shoulder disorders who were treated with a comprehensive physical therapy program that included taping techniques with Kinesio Tex Tape. Case Descriptions N=5, age 41-55 years, (M=5, F=0) Diagnoses: 2 shoulder pain, 1 RCT, 1 impingement, 1 s/p acromioplasty Median Range of Motion: Passive elevation: 124 (67-170) Passive Ext Rotation: 40 (15-100) Active Int Rotation: Unable- full PSFS: Median 4.3 (1.5 5.0) DASH: Median 34.2 (33.3-75.8) NPRS: Median 6.0 (4 - 8) Interventions Patients were seen 2-3 X/wk (4-20 visits) Interventions CH jt Gr I-IV mobilizations/manipulation Scapular stabilization exercises Rotator cuff strengthening exercises Thermal Modalities (Heat/Ice) Kinesio Taping techniques Goals for Kinesiotaping techniques: General pain relief Facilitation of targeted muscles Inhibition of targeted muscles lmproved shoulder retraction

page 16

summer 2006

Advance healing

Results All patients demonstrated clinically important improvements in function (PSFS), and 4/5 patients achieved clinically important improvements in disability (DASH). Pain levels varied over time, although a genera! trend for reduced pain was observed. Patients reported a range of perceived improvement from +3 ("somewhat better") to +7 (a very great deal better"). Subj 2 dropped from the study, seeking care for an unrelated medica! condition. However, he completed self-report measures at 8-wks (through mai!), and these data were used for final outcomes scores

Global Rating of Change Scores at Discharge

8

Discussion This case series demonstrated a potential positive impact on outcomes with the use of Kinesio Tex Tape in patients with shoulder pain or dysfunction. While the exact mechanisms of taping remain unknown, possible explanations for positive outcomes with taping techniques include potential mechanical and/or proprioceptive effects. However, scant evidence does exist supporting the use of taping techniques for patients with various musculoskeletal disorders. Subjects in this case series all reported decreased pain and less disability with this treatment approach. Four patients reported that they thought the tape helped their condition. One patient (subj. 3) felt that the tape had little effect on his condition. Based on this study design, it is possible that changes in patient status were due to factors other than the kinesiotaping techniques. Conclusion Kinesio Tex Tape should be considered as an optional clinical adjunct in the treatment of shoulder pain as part of a comprehensive physical therapy regimen. Further studies are needed to determine the efficacy of this taping procedure, the economic value of utilizing Kinesio Tex Tape, and subgroups of patients with shoulder pain who may benefit from its use.

GRC Score (-7 to +7)

7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0

Subj 1

Subj 2

Subj 3

Subj 4

Subj 5

Subj 6

Subject Number
Note: Score represents patient perceived improvement s nce india! visit. Potential scores range from: -7 ("A very great deal worse") through + 7 ("A very great dea! better"). A score of "0" indicates that the patient reports he/she is "about the Same"

Patient Specific Functional scale (PSFS) Score

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Subj 1 Subj 2 Subj 3 Subject Number Subj 4 Subj 5

Baseline Week 4 Discharge

Note: Score represents average score for three identified activities that the patient was having difficulty with due to their problem. Higher scores represent greater function (10="able to do activity as before problem"), and lower scores represent lower levels of function (0 = "cannot do activity due to problem"). For patients with neck pain, the minima! clinically important differente (MCID) = 1 pt.

PSFS Score (0-10)

DASH Score (0-100)

80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

Disability of the arm, Shoulder, & Hand (DASH) Scores

Baseline Week 4 Discharge

Subj 1

Subj 2

Subj 3

Subj 4

Subj 5

Subject Number
Note: On this scale, higher scores represent greater levels of disability. The MCID for this scale is 10 percentage points.

Advance healing

summer 2006

page 17