The Downward Dog: An Age Old Yoga Exercise With Modern Day Shoulder
Rehabilitation Application
Today’s rehabilitation environment involves providing
services that ensure quality care that is designed to meet
the needs of the patient, payer and provider. Practicing in
this environment is quite a change from the days of
yesteryear when you could treat a rotator cuff repair for 30
visits and no one would blink an eye. You were paid by
performing a whole lot of intervention and reimbursement was
determined by the adding up of units of CPT codes and
procedures. Contract negotiations were based on a “fee
schedule” vs. today’s trend of outcome based contracting and
selected providers who can document results that skilled
intervention is necessary. Back in those days your outcome
may have been attributed to the natural history of the
disease (simply the passage of time) vs. your specific
treatment intervention. This obviously can still be the case
and just because you did not get a good outcome does not
mean your intervention was not effective (1). Also there was
little to no discussion of documenting a treatment effect
and utilizing outcome measures such as the DASH
–Disabilities of the Arm Shoulder and Hand (2).
Rehabilitation today is now being performed in the age of
accountability. New frontier lingo like classification
systems, clinical predictor rules and regional
interdependence is hopefully rolling off the tongues of new
grads and clinician’s who stay current. The age of
accountability is driving us in the orthopedic rehab
settings to be more precise and efficient. This mindset is
to enhance our outcomes that parallel the advances in
orthopedic surgery.
There are many influences of an outcome (1). The actual
intervention that we provide needs to be directed at
restoring function earlier and earlier in the care plan. We
also need to create an environment that integrates the whole
kinetic chain (3). This approach will open the door to
facilitate neuromuscular control and re-education thus
allowing the underlying dysfunction to be addressed or
corrected. This thought process will enable the clinician
the ability to design “corrective” therapeutic exercises vs.
a series of single joint isolation therapeutic exercises. I
have always said that there should be a separate CPT code
for “corrective “exercise 97110-C vs. just having your
patient go over to a corner and pull on a rubber band and
follow “protocol”. Why should that provider be reimbursed
the same as the provider who is able to evaluate and
identify movement dysfunction and integrates correction into
the whole chain? In those “old days” our training involved
the previously mentioned series of single joint isolation
exercises that were based on the latest EMG article. We
would have our shoulder patient perform 10 separate
exercises for weeks before implementing functional exercises
later. It always would be a point of curiosity to me as to
why we “ortho” clinicians would think this way. It would be
weeks before we put the “part into the whole” (“neuro”
principle) and stimulated the sensorimotor system (4).
CLINICAL EXAMPLE
A clinical example of this concept is the patient with pain
to arm elevation. These patients are typically 45 yrs old
and have pain with overhead movements. Radiographs show A/C
DJD and a slight curved acromion. These patients have a
diagnosis of impingement. The clinician’s exam reveals weak
scapular and rotator cuff muscles and a tight posterior
capsule. They pull out the bottom staff office drawer
prescription plan is typically 7-8 individual “isolated”
rotator cuff and scapular stabilization exercises and some
posterior shoulder stretching with local modalities as
needed. After 3-4 weeks the patient is still complaining of
pain. This standard approach failed to look at WHY the
patient was “impinging “with arm elevation. The exam
typically looks at individual muscles and movements rather
than the entire upper quadrant chain. The patient thus
returns to the orthopedist and subsequently undergoes a
arthroscopic shoulder decompression. The patient returns to
PT after surgery and goes through 6 weeks of forced
conservative care, ROM and reconditioning. The patient
reports much less pain with arm elevation and is discharged.
The question that should be asked is, was the disappearance
of pain the result of surgery, therapy intervention or just
the passage of time by removing the shoulder from
aggravating factors? How often do these same patients return
to us with a “chronic “diagnosis? We must begin asking
ourselves were the musculoskeletal impairments causing the
functional deficit of raising the arm overhead with ADL’s
and/or sport activities ever identified?
HOW ABOUT THIS APPROACH?
The approach of form and function would have assessed this
patient quite differently. All the required components of
arm elevation would have been assessed and a clinical
hypothesis would have been formed as to why the patient has
pain to overhead movements. The exam would have included:
looking proximally to the ground up, at the trunk/lower
extremity and thoracic spine as we know we need thoracic
extension for efficient arm elevation (5). Attention would
have been given to the scapular restrictors such as the
pectorals minor and levator scapula. An assessment of the
over dominance of the upper force couples that are known to
inhibit the lower force couples would have been performed as
this affects scapular humeral rhythm and decreases the
subacrominion space, leading to pain and inhibition of the
rotator cuff. This sequenced approach is another example of
the orthopedic clinician incorporating a fundamental of
neurological sensorimotor system rehabilitation (7).
THE DOWNWARD “THERAPY” DOG
Yoga participants are familiar with the fundamentals of the
downward facing dog technique. With a few adjustments to the
traditional technique, a sequence to facilitate and inhibit
muscle timing required in arm elevation can be implemented.
Incidentally, this would be an interesting EMG study to see
if the suprascapular muscles are indeed inhibited when the
lower scapula muscles are facilitated. The adjustments to
the downward facing dog are designed to facilitate the lower
force couples of the scapulahumeral rhythm complex all the
while inhibiting the often over dominant upper force
couples. An example of this is what Sahrmann describes as
movement impairment during the act of arm elevation (6). This
movement impairment syndrome results in downward rotation of
the scapular when the rhomboids and levator scapulae are
over dominating the action of the lower force couples (serratus
anterior, lower trapezius). Vladimir Janda noted in 1979
predictable muscle patterns of tightness (levator/upper
trapezius and pectoralis) would inhibit phasic muscles such
as the serratus anterior and lower trapezius. Janda stressed
that this leads to movement dysfunction. These patterns are
the result of chronic pain or disuse neural drive. Janda
clearly identified this as The Upper Cross Syndrome (7).
• When I teach the downward “therapy” dog, I instruct my
patients to really emphasize the pushing of the hands into
the floor as the buttock is raised. This pushing movement is
creating activation of the serratus anterior similar to the
push up with a plus however the clinically significant
difference is that the scapula is functionally upwardly
rotating with the serratus activation vs. the wall push-up
plus exercise activates the serratus in a non-functional
movement pattern of horizontal adduction and protraction vs.
your desired “corrective” movement which is upward rotation.
The other key advantage here is that as the body is being
elevated via the pushing action of the trunk and hip
extension as the lower trapezius will be facilitated. As the
hips go into extension and you instruct the patient to
“grow” into the movement by accentuating the PSIS ‘s to the
sky , you instruct the patient to inhale with a strong
diaphragmatic breath which creates this strong thoracic
extension action further facilitating the smooth upward
rotation of the scapular. I also instruct my patients to
exhale at the top of the movement as they emphasize the
pushing movement of the hands into the floor further getting
those last few degrees of upward rotation. Another tip is to
have your patient tuck their chin down and away from the
tight levator side at the top of the movement. This tip is
an extremely functional way to stretch the tight levator as
the scapula is upperly rotated maximizing the elongation of
the levator compare this to how the levator is traditionally
stretched by having the patient side bend and rotate away
with the arm down at the side similar to looking into the
arm pit. This traditional manner is not functional at all
and will not get the same timing sequence required of the
scapula force couples being facilitated at the correct
degree of scapulahumeral rhythm (8). The real beauty of this
exercise pattern is that it is creating an inhibitory effect
on the often over dominant and tight levator scapulae by the
stimulus to the previous phasic muscles (serratus
anterior/lower trapezius) (9). An overly tight levator will
result in downward rotation of the scapula when arm
elevation is attempted during traditional arm elevation
therapy exercises. The downward facing “therapy “ dog
naturally creates the environment of the entire kinetic
chain of arm elevation: THE LEGS DRIVING THE TRUNK
WHICH ENABLES THE SCAPULA TO BE PROPERLY POSITIONED TO HOUSE
THE HUMERAL HEAD WHICH STIMULATES THE ROTATOR CUFF AND
DELTOID MUSCULATURE TO CENTER THE BALL IN THE SOCKET (3).
To the best of my knowledge this exercise has not been
researched with EMG studies. I am basing my analysis on the
extensively studied mechanics of upper rotation of the
scapulae and force coupling. I am clinically expressing a
corrective therapeutic exercise based on my extensive
clinical application. I have observed countless patients who
have had difficulty regaining that smooth overhead movement
and who have had struggled with putting all the little
“parts” into the “whole” movement. Having said that I would
like to offer this rationale to anyone who would like to
take it on and perform first some EMG studies to put it out
there and see if this exercise is facilitating and
inhibiting the described patterns. I would at least start
with this experiment basically because it is what the
current method of investigation in our professions is. I
would then like to see it be part of randomized controlled
trial to truly measure the effectiveness of the intervention
being described.
I will describe a common therapeutic session that I employ
in a patient I often see who comes to me after being
involved in a therapy program doing the “cookbook” approach
such as described in my introduction. This patient will
often seek another opinion because of lack of progress with
the dreaded shoulder hike secondary to impairments such as
restriction of soft tissue and weakness. I will first assess
the movement pattern and based on what restrictors to arm
elevation occurs, whether it is soft tissue or accessory
joint mobility, I will address that. I will then quickly
integrate the downward dog exercise to get everything
working in balance. The exercise will quickly kick in muscle
groups that have been dormant for a long period of time and
you will see an amazing “freeing up” of previously tight
motions. I will then follow the patient’s response to
movement model so typical of the McKenzie Method and
reassess their movement. I will document movement patterns
of slowed velocity, postural change and look for less and
less of this in subsequent sessions. Manual Therapy combined
with exercise is effective in shoulder dysfunction. It
should be stressed that the sequencing of the therapeutic
session that is vital. One key point needs to be that you
have to employ your manual therapy skills directed to the
pectoralis minor, subscapulairis, levator scapular and the
infraspinatus due to the chronicity of these cases. A
progression of forces on the soft tissue will augment the
corrective exercise.
As stated above traditional isolated therapy exercises work
the parts with the hope that all the proper neuromuscular
timing will occur when the patient is asked to perform arm
elevation. When the timing is off often because of the long
term lack of neural drive, the patient will often perform
that faulty arm elevation movement described as the SHOULDER
HIKE. I strongly encourage clinicians to incorporate
therapeutic exercises that have stood the test of time. I
believe the downward facing “therapy” dog gets the job done.
Last revised: February 11, 2010
by
John O'Halloran DPT, OCS, ATC, CSCS, Cert MDT
References
1. Herbert RD et al. Outcomes Measures Measure Outcomes not Effects of
Intervention. Australian Journal of Physiotherapy .2005: 51:3-4.
2. Solway S, Beaton DE, McConnell S, Bombardier C. The DASH Outcome Measure
User Manual, Second Ed. Toronto: Institute for Work and Health, 2002.
3. McMullen J, Uhl T. A Kinetic Chain Approach for Shoulder Rehabilitation.
Journal of Athletic Training. 2000:35 (3):329-337.
4. Panjabi MM. The Stabilizing system of the spine. Part 1. Function,
dysfunction, adaptation, and enhancement. J Spinal Disord.1992:
5(4);383-389.
5. Kebaetse M, McClure P, Pratt N. Thoracic Position Effects on Shoulder
Range of Motion, Strength and Three-Dimensional Scapular Kinematics. Arch
Phys Med Rehabil. 1999: Vol 80; 945-950.
6. Sahrmann S. Diagnosis and Treatment of Movement Impairment
Syndromes.2002: St Louis, Mosby; p 219-220.
7. Janda V, Identification of the Upper and Lower Cross Syndromes. 1979
8. Hoppenfeld S. Physical Examination of the Spine and Extremities.1976:
Conn, Appleton-Century-Crofts; p 23.
9. Sherrington CS. On reciprocal innervation of antagonistic muscles.1907:
Proc R Soc Lond. 79B; 337.
|