Spencer Muscle Energy Technique Versus Conventional Treatment in Frozen Shoulder: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Abstract

Background: The latest osteopathic manual therapy method widely used is the Spencer Muscle Energy Technique (SMET) adopted in western clinical practices to treat various shoulder ailments. Objective: The study compares conventional treatment procedures’ effects and the SEMT for a frozen shoulder. Methodology: A randomized, single-blind observational experiment was carried out from February to May 2019. The study included idiopathic frozen shoulder patients of either sex aged 30 to 70 years, phases 1 and 2, or a stiff joint of an agonizing shoulder for a minimum of 3 months. Among the 60 patients examined, 40 were involved: 20 (50 %) in both groups. The mean age in the control and experimental groups was 49.75±8.52 and 49.10±9.01, respectively, the dissimilarities of the groups in terms of disability and pain were not substantial (P > 0.05) at standard, but there was a considerable variance in the assessments of halfway and post-intercession (p < 0.05), and similarly was the issue of shoulder Range of Motion (ROM). They comprised 30 (65 %) females and 10 (35 %) males randomly divided into two groups. The first group received SMET, and the second group received the conventional treatment procedure. Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NPRS) was utilized to evaluate Shoulder pain, comprising 11 objects of no pain with a value of 0 and objects of most pain with a value of 10. Standard physical goniometer used to record Shoulder ROM as a consistent device for the analysis of degrees’ movement. Results: NPRS score values were t = 26.1, p-value of 0.000. The Wilcoxon Sign Rank test was adopted in the control group to discover the significance of the pain intensity treatment. The NPRS score values were W = -4.06, p-value of 0.000. A double-sample t-test was adopted to discover the treatment significance with the experimental and control group. The values for the Disability Index (SPADI) score in the experimental group were t=17.31p-value of 0.000. The values for the SPADI score in the control group were t=18.55 p-value 0.000. Conclusions: SMET was more effective in shoulder pain reduction, in which conventional treatment showed more effectiveness in enhancing the shoulder ROM. It can be concluded that SMET can be used or incorporated as an alternative treatment method or combined with other treatment procedures for pain reduction.