Integrating Findings Across Shoulder, Hip, Knee, and Ankle to Identify Likely Impairments and Priorities

From Test Results to a Working Clinical Picture

This chapter focuses on synthesis: combining your findings (ROM behavior, end-feel, strength response, swelling/effusion, and function) into (1) a likely impairment category and (2) a short list of priorities and next actions. The goal is not a perfect diagnosis; it is a defensible hypothesis that guides what you treat first and what you re-test to confirm meaningful change.

Four Common Impairment Buckets (the “output” of synthesis)

• Mobility deficit: motion is limited primarily by joint/soft-tissue stiffness or pain-limited guarding; often shows a consistent restriction pattern and a firm/empty end-feel depending on irritability.
• Contractile pain: symptoms are driven by muscle-tendon unit involvement; strength testing provokes pain (with or without weakness), and ROM may be relatively preserved or painful in specific arcs.
• Effusion-driven inhibition: swelling/effusion is present and correlates with reduced activation, “giving way,” or protective weakness; ROM may be limited by pressure and discomfort, especially at end ranges.
• Motor control deficit: capacity exists (ROM/strength may test “okay”), but movement quality, timing, or load management is poor; symptoms appear with tasks rather than isolated tests.

Interpretation Algorithm: Linking Findings to Likely Impairments

Use the same sequence every time. It reduces missed information and makes your reasoning transparent.

Step 1: Compare AROM vs PROM

• AROM limited more than PROM: suspect contractile pain, motor control deficit, or pain inhibition. Next: look at strength pain/weakness pattern and functional movement quality.
• PROM limited similar to AROM: suspect mobility deficit (capsular/soft tissue) or effusion/irritability limiting both. Next: use end-feel and swelling/effusion presence to separate.
• PROM more limited than AROM (less common): consider protective guarding during PROM, high irritability, or measurement inconsistency; verify positioning, relaxation, and symptom behavior.

Step 2: Interpret End-Feel (as a “stiffness vs irritability” clue)

• Firm/hard with consistent limit: supports mobility deficit (capsular/arthrokinematic or tissue stiffness).
• Empty/pain-limited: supports high irritability; prioritize symptom modulation and graded exposure over aggressive stretching.
• Springy/boggy: supports intra-articular swelling/effusion limiting range.

Step 3: Strength Pattern (pain vs weakness)

Step 4: Swelling/Effusion Presence

• Present and clinically meaningful: treat as a “rate limiter.” Expect inhibition, altered mechanics, and reduced tolerance to end range and heavy loading.
• Absent/minimal: shift weighting toward mobility deficit, contractile pain, or motor control deficit based on other findings.

Step 5: Functional Limitations (task-specific clues)

Use function to decide what matters most now. Two people can have the same ROM deficit but different priorities based on their tasks.

• Symptoms mainly during tasks, tests relatively mild: motor control/load management is likely prominent.
• Symptoms reproduce strongly in isolated tests: mobility deficit or contractile pain may be primary.
• Task failure due to “giving way,” apprehension, or inability to accept load: consider inhibition (effusion/pain) and motor control.

Decision Map: Turning Inputs into an Impairment Hypothesis

1) AROM vs PROM difference?  → points to contractile/motor control vs mobility/effusion. 2) End-feel?               → stiffness (firm) vs irritability (empty) vs effusion (boggy). 3) Strength pain/weakness?  → contractile pain vs inhibition vs true weakness. 4) Swelling/effusion?       → if yes, treat as primary limiter early. 5) Function limitation?     → sets priority order and re-test targets. Output: choose primary impairment bucket + secondary contributors + top 2–3 priorities.

Common synthesis patterns (quick matches)

• Mobility deficit pattern: AROM ≈ PROM limited; firm end-feel; strength may be normal or mildly weak due to disuse; function limited at end-range tasks (reaching overhead, deep squat, stairs).
• Contractile pain pattern: AROM limited more than PROM or painful arc; strength testing reproduces pain; PROM may be near-normal or painful at specific ranges; function limited with resisted tasks (lifting, pushing, running acceleration).
• Effusion-driven inhibition pattern: visible/palpable swelling or effusion signs; springy/boggy end-feel; weakness disproportionate to pain; function limited by load acceptance and confidence (stairs, single-leg tasks).
• Motor control deficit pattern: ROM and strength may be adequate; symptoms appear with movement quality faults, speed, fatigue, or complex tasks; function limited by coordination/endurance (overhead work, cutting, landing).

Joint-Specific Examples: Prioritizing What to Treat First

Each example shows how the same algorithm leads to a clear “what first” plan and what to re-test.

Shoulder Example 1: Painful External Rotation Weakness (contractile pain priority)

Findings: AROM shoulder external rotation limited by pain; PROM external rotation closer to normal but uncomfortable at end range; end-feel is empty/pain-limited; resisted external rotation is weak and painful; no swelling; function limited with reaching behind head and lifting away from body.

Continue in our app.

• Listen to the audio with the screen off.
• Earn a certificate upon completion.
• Over 5000 courses for you to explore!

Or continue reading below...

Download the app

Synthesis: AROM < PROM + empty end-feel + painful weakness suggests contractile pain with irritability (primary) with secondary protective stiffness.

Priorities:

• First: reduce provocation while maintaining capacity (movement modification: avoid repeated end-range ER under load; adjust sleeping/overhead volume).
• Second: graded isometrics for external rotators in tolerable ranges (multiple short holds, submaximal, symptom-guided).
• Third: restore controlled ER range with low-load active-assisted and scapular control, then progress to isotonic loading.

Re-test to confirm change: pain rating during resisted ER, AROM ER range, and a functional reach/lift task that previously reproduced symptoms.

Shoulder Example 2: Stiff PROM with Firm End-Feel (mobility deficit priority)

Findings: AROM and PROM both limited in a consistent direction; firm end-feel; strength largely non-painful but reduced at end range; function limited with overhead reach and dressing.

Synthesis: AROM ≈ PROM + firm end-feel supports mobility deficit as primary, with secondary weakness from limited excursion.

Priorities:

• First: targeted mobility work (dose based on irritability) emphasizing the most function-limiting direction.
• Second: strength through newly available range (light resistance, controlled tempo).
• Third: task practice (overhead reach mechanics, progressive load).

Re-test: PROM in the restricted direction, AROM overhead reach, and a simple functional task (hand-behind-head/hand-behind-back as appropriate).

Hip Example 1: ROM-Limited, Firm End-Feel, Non-painful Weakness (mobility deficit + secondary weakness)

Findings: AROM hip internal rotation and extension limited; PROM similarly limited with firm end-feel; strength tests mostly non-painful but show reduced hip extension/abduction force; no swelling; function limited with stride length, stairs, and prolonged walking.

Synthesis: AROM ≈ PROM + firm end-feel indicates mobility deficit (primary). Non-painful weakness suggests secondary deconditioning and altered mechanics.

Priorities:

• First: restore the mobility direction most tied to function (often extension for gait, internal rotation for turning/squatting mechanics).
• Second: strengthen hip extensors/abductors with emphasis on alignment and range you can control.
• Third: integrate into gait/stair drills (step-ups, split-stance control) with symptom monitoring.

Re-test: hip PROM extension/internal rotation, step-up tolerance, and walking stride comfort.

Hip Example 2: Good PROM, Painful Resisted Flexion, Task Pain with Stairs (contractile pain priority)

Findings: PROM near-normal; AROM flexion painful near end; resisted hip flexion reproduces pain with mild weakness; no swelling; function limited with stair ascent and getting into a car.

Synthesis: PROM preserved + painful resisted flexion suggests contractile pain (primary) rather than mobility deficit.

Priorities:

• First: reduce provocative compressive positions/loads temporarily (modify stair strategy, reduce high-step demands).
• Second: graded isometrics for hip flexors in mid-range; progress to controlled isotonic loading.
• Third: reintroduce functional hip flexion tasks with improved control (step height progression).

Re-test: pain with resisted hip flexion, stair step-up pain, and AROM flexion symptom response.

Knee Example 1: Effusion + Extension Loss + Quadriceps Inhibition (effusion-driven inhibition priority)

Findings: visible swelling/effusion; AROM knee extension limited; PROM extension also limited with springy/boggy end-feel; quadriceps strength is weak and may be minimally painful; function limited with gait (lack of terminal extension), stairs, and sit-to-stand.

Synthesis: swelling/effusion + boggy end-feel + disproportionate weakness indicates effusion-driven inhibition (primary) with secondary mobility deficit into extension.

Priority rule: restore knee extension before heavy strengthening because extension loss and effusion impair gait mechanics and quad activation, and heavy loading often flares symptoms.

Priorities:

• First: effusion management strategies and gentle motion (frequent low-load ROM, symptom-guided activity modification).
• Second: regain terminal extension (low-load prolonged positioning, active quad sets in comfortable extension).
• Third: progressive quadriceps activation (short-arc, then closed-chain as swelling and extension improve).

Re-test: effusion measure/signs, extension AROM/PROM, quad activation quality, and gait terminal knee extension.

Knee Example 2: No Effusion, PROM Full, AROM Painful with Loaded Tasks (motor control/load management priority)

Findings: ROM full; end-feel normal; strength tests acceptable and not strongly painful; no swelling; pain appears with step-downs, running, or repeated squats; movement shows dynamic valgus or poor trunk/hip control.

Synthesis: normal isolated tests + task-provoked symptoms + quality deficits suggest motor control deficit (primary) with possible load intolerance.

Priorities:

• First: adjust volume/intensity of provoking tasks (dose management) while keeping activity.
• Second: retrain mechanics with targeted cues (knee tracking, hip hinge, trunk control) using tolerable step-down/squat variations.
• Third: build capacity (progressive strengthening/endurance) once movement quality is stable under submaximal load.

Re-test: step-down quality and pain, repeated squat tolerance, and next-day symptom response (irritability check).

Ankle Example 1: Limited Dorsiflexion AROM and PROM with Firm End-Feel (mobility deficit priority)

Findings: dorsiflexion AROM limited; PROM similarly limited with firm end-feel; strength largely fine; minimal swelling; function limited with squat depth, stairs, and gait (early heel rise).

Synthesis: AROM ≈ PROM + firm end-feel indicates mobility deficit (primary), often affecting functional mechanics.

Priorities:

• First: restore dorsiflexion mobility with symptom-appropriate loading and frequent practice.
• Second: integrate dorsiflexion into functional patterns (split squat, step-down) emphasizing heel contact and control.
• Third: progress to higher-demand tasks (hopping, running) once mechanics normalize.

Re-test: dorsiflexion ROM (same method each time), squat/step-down depth and quality, and gait heel rise timing.

Ankle Example 2: Swelling After Sprain + Weak Eversion + Apprehension (effusion/inhibition + motor control priority)

Findings: swelling present; AROM limited by discomfort; PROM may be limited with a springy feel; eversion strength weak (may be non-painful or mildly painful); function limited with single-leg balance and direction changes; apprehension with inversion positions.

Synthesis: swelling suggests inhibition contributing to weakness; task apprehension and balance deficits indicate motor control deficit as a key secondary driver.

Priorities:

• First: manage swelling and restore comfortable ROM.
• Second: re-establish peroneal activation (graded isometrics/isotonics) and foot-ankle control in supported positions.
• Third: progress balance and reactive stability (single-leg stance progressions, perturbations, change-of-direction drills) as swelling resolves.

Re-test: swelling measures, eversion strength, single-leg balance time/quality, and a controlled lateral step task.

How to Set Priorities When Multiple Impairments Coexist

Most presentations include a primary impairment plus one or two secondary contributors. Use these prioritization rules:

• Rule 1: Treat the rate limiter first. Effusion/high irritability often limits everything else; address it before aggressive mobility or heavy loading.
• Rule 2: Restore the “gateway motion” for function. Examples: knee extension for gait; ankle dorsiflexion for squat/stairs; shoulder elevation/ER for overhead reach; hip extension for gait.
• Rule 3: Build capacity only after access + tolerance exist. Strengthening is most effective when the joint can move into the needed range without high symptom cost.
• Rule 4: If tests are fine but tasks fail, prioritize motor control and dosing. Don’t chase small ROM/strength differences if the main limitation is coordination, confidence, or fatigue.

Standardized Summary Format (Use This After Every Assessment)

Document and communicate your synthesis in a consistent template. This improves clarity and makes re-testing straightforward.

1) Key Positives / Negatives

• Positives (what was clearly abnormal): AROM vs PROM differences, specific painful arcs, end-feel type, strength pain/weakness pattern, swelling/effusion presence, functional task failures.
• Negatives (what was notably normal/absent): full PROM, no swelling, non-painful strength, stable single-leg control, etc.

2) Primary Impairment Hypothesis (and Secondary Contributors)

Choose one primary bucket and list secondary factors.

• Primary: mobility deficit OR contractile pain OR effusion-driven inhibition OR motor control deficit.
• Secondary: e.g., “secondary weakness due to disuse,” “secondary stiffness due to guarding,” “load management issue.”

3) Prioritized Goals (Top 2–4)

• Goal 1 (rate limiter): e.g., reduce effusion, reduce pain with resisted test, restore tolerance to end range.
• Goal 2 (gateway motion): e.g., regain knee extension to 0°, improve ankle dorsiflexion to support squat.
• Goal 3 (capacity): e.g., improve specific strength/endurance without symptom flare.
• Goal 4 (function): e.g., step-down without pain/valgus, overhead reach with controlled scapular motion.

4) What to Re-test (to Confirm Change)

Pick 2–5 measures that directly reflect your hypothesis and goals.

• Impairment re-tests: the most limited ROM direction, the most symptomatic resisted test, swelling/effusion sign/measure, activation quality.
• Functional re-tests: one task that mattered to the patient (stairs, squat, overhead lift, single-leg balance) and one tolerance metric (reps, time, next-day response).

Example summary format:

Key positives: PROM/AROM knee extension limited; boggy end-feel; effusion present; quad weak (minimal pain); gait lacks terminal extension. Key negatives: flexion near full; no focal tendon pain. Primary hypothesis: effusion-driven inhibition with secondary extension mobility deficit. Prioritized goals: (1) reduce effusion/irritability, (2) restore terminal extension, (3) improve quad activation, (4) normalize gait/stairs. Re-test: effusion sign/measure, extension AROM/PROM, quad set quality, gait terminal extension, step-up tolerance.