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

Martin Lavallière, Mathieu Tremblay, Etienne Ojardias, Maxime Turpin, Anaïck Perrochon, Philippe Rigoard, Lisa Goudman, Maarten Moens, Romain David, Maxime Billot

► To cite this version:

Martin Lavallière, Mathieu Tremblay, Etienne Ojardias, Maxime Turpin, Anaïck Perrochon, et al. Shoulder Musculoskeletal Disorder Rehabilitation Using a Robotic Device Based on Electromyography (EMG) Biofeedback: A Retrospective Cohort Study. Medicina, 2025, 61 (2), pp.272. 10.3390/medicina61020272. hal-05453541

HAL Id: hal-05453541

https://hal.science/hal-05453541v1

Submitted on 12 Jan 2026

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 - Attribution - International License
Article

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

Martin Lavallière<sup>1,2,* ID</sup>, Mathieu Tremblay<sup>3 ID</sup>, Etienne Ojardias<sup>4,5 ID</sup>, Maxime Turpin<sup>6</sup>, Anaïck Perrochon<sup>6,7 ID</sup>, Philippe Rigoard<sup>8,9,10 ID</sup>, Lisa Goudman<sup>11,12,13,14,15 ID</sup>, Maarten Moens<sup>11,12,13,14,16 ID</sup>, Romain David<sup>8,17 ID</sup> and Maxime Billot<sup>8,18 ID</sup>

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

check for
updates

Received: 12 November 2024

Revised: 22 January 2025

Accepted: 26 January 2025

Published: 5 February 2025

**Citation:** Lavallière, M.; Tremblay, M.; Ojardias, E.; Turpin, M.; Perrochon, A.; Rigoard, P.; Goudman, L.; Moens, M.; David, R.; Billot, M. Shoulder Musculoskeletal Disorder Rehabilitation Using a Robotic Device Based on Electromyography (EMG) Biofeedback: A Retrospective Cohort Study. *Medicina* **2025**, *61*, 272.
https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina61020272

**Copyright:** © 2025 by the authors.
Published by MDPI on behalf of the
Lithuanian University of Health
Sciences. Licensee MDPI, Basel,
Switzerland. This article is an open
access article distributed under the
terms and conditions of the Creative
Commons Attribution (CC BY) license
(https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

**Abstract:** *Background and Objectives:* 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. *Materials and Methods:* 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

<footnote n="1">1 Program of Kinesiology, Department of Health Sciences, Université du Québec à Chicoutimi (UQAC), Saguenay, QC G7H 2B1, Canada</footnote>

<footnote n="2">2 Laboratoire de Recherche Biomécanique & Neurophysiologique en Réadaptation Neuro-Musculo-Squelettique—Lab BioNR, Université du Québec à Chicoutimi (UQAC), Saguenay, QC G7H 2B1, Canada</footnote>

<footnote n="3">3 Program of Kinesiology, Department of Health Sciences, Université du Québec à Rimouski (UQAR), Rimouski, QC G5L 3A1, Canada</footnote>

<footnote n="4">4 Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Department, University Hospital of Saint-Etienne, 42100 Saint-Etienne, France</footnote>

<footnote n="5">5 Lyon Neuroscience Research Center, Trajectoires Team (Inserm UMR-S 1028, CNRS UMR 5292, Lyon1 & Saint-Etienne Universities), 42270 Saint-Etienne, France</footnote>

<footnote n="6">6 ILFOMER (Institut Limousin de Formation aux Métiers de la Réadaptation), Université de Limoges, 87000 Limoges, France; maximeturpin36@hotmail.fr (M.T.)</footnote>

<footnote n="7">7 HAVAE UR20217 (Handicap, Ageing, Autonomy, Environment), University of Limoges, 87000 Limoges, France</footnote>

<footnote n="8">8 CHU de Poitiers, PRISMATICS Lab (Predictive Research in Spine/Neuromodulation Management and Thoracic Innovation/Cardiac Surgery), 86000 Poitiers, France</footnote>

<footnote n="9">9 CHU de Poitiers, Department of Neurospine Surgery & Neuromodulation, 86000 Poitiers, France</footnote>

<footnote n="10">10 Prime Institute UPR 3346, CNRS, ISAE-ENSMA, Université de Poitiers, 86360 Chasseneuil-du-Poitou, France</footnote>

<footnote n="11">11 Department of Neurosurgery, Universitair Ziekenhuis Brussel, 1090 Jette, Belgium</footnote>

<footnote n="12">12 STIMULUS Consortium (Research and Teaching Neuromodulation VUB/UZ Brussel), Vrije Universiteit Brussel, 1090 Brussels, Belgium</footnote>

<footnote n="13">13 Center for Neurosciences (C4N), Vrije Universiteit Brussel, 1090 Brussels, Belgium</footnote>

<footnote n="14">14 Pain in Motion (PAIN) Research Group, Department of Physiotherapy, Human Physiology, and Anatomy, Faculty of Physical Education and Physiotherapy, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, 1090 Brussels, Belgium</footnote>

<footnote n="15">15 Research Foundation—Flanders (FWO), 1090 Brussels, Belgium</footnote>

<footnote n="16">16 Department of Radiology, Universitair Ziekenhuis Brussel, Laarbeeklaan 101, 1090 Brussels, Belgium</footnote>

<footnote n="17">17 Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine Unit, Poitiers University Hospital, University of Poitiers, 86021 Poitiers, France</footnote>

<footnote n="18">18 Centre de Recherche sur la Cognition et l'Apprentissage UMR7295, CNRS, Université de Poitiers, Université François Rabelais de Tours, 86000 Poitiers, France</footnote>

<footnote>* Correspondence: martin_lavalliere@uqac.ca</footnote>
visual biofeedback (RA-EMG group); both programs consisted of two sets of 20 repetitions at 60% of maximal capacity. **Results:** 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, *p* = 0.013) and for normalized strength (77.5 [51.3;119.1] % vs. 39.1 [16.6;89.2] %, U = 755, *p* = 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, *p* = 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, *p* = 0.046). **Conclusions:** 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.

**Keywords:** rehabilitation; shoulder; electromyography feedback; visual biofeedback; assistive robot; musculoskeletal disorder

# 1. Introduction

Shoulder injuries, such as tendinopathies, subacromial pain syndrome and rotator cuff-related shoulder pain [1], represent the most widely encountered musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) in physical therapy [2]. Physical work condition has been identified as one of the major causes of MSDs [3,4], especially at the shoulder [2,4]. While shoulder MSDs result in functional discomfort associated with pain [4–6] and impact quality of life and work productivity [7], management ranging from a surgical approach [7–10] to conservative treatment such as rest periods, analgesics, pharmacological therapy and physical therapy are still debated [11,12].

To date, surgery does not appear to be more effective than physical therapy for subacromial pain syndrome [7–9,12], and of course, it is more invasive and expensive. A recent systematic review and meta-analysis reported that five treatments (acupuncture, exercise, exercise plus manual therapy, laser therapy and Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation (TENS)) had a high effect size (surface under the cumulative ranking curve values >50%) for management of pain and functional outcomes in subacromial shoulder conditions at short-term follow-up (2–6 weeks) [13]. In addition, exercise therapy has been shown to improve the active range of motion, overall shoulder function and pain scores at short- and long-term follow-up in patients presenting with subacromial pain syndrome [5,13–18]. Despite these promising benefits, there is no strong evidence to delineate the contour of dose–response efficacy, including number of repetitions, frequency and level of effort [19]. Attempting to help clinicians provide a standardized and safe approach, muscle strengthening machines have undergone major technological changes, leading to the appearance of a generation of machines integrating computerization, automation and robotic assistance.

In this context, robot-assisted training has been developed in neuro-rehabilitation [20–27]. A meta-analysis by Chen et al. [20] showed that robot-assisted training provided better outcomes for motor impairment disability than therapist-assisted training and no inferior outcomes for upper limb capacity, activity of daily living and social participation after stroke. Other studies using robotic-assisted devices for the rehabilitation of humerus [28,29] or radius fractures [30] have shown promising results. To reinforce the benefits of a robotic-assisted program for the upper limbs [31], electromyography (EMG) activity biofeedback has been
combined to help patients reach a target through visual feedback and to adjust the level
of assistance [32]. Using a robotic-assisted device combined with EMG biofeedback in
an 8-week rehabilitation program (3 sessions a week), Bui et al. [33] showed significant
improvement in maximal voluntary isometric flexion and abduction contraction of the left
and right shoulders in a healthy population (n = 7). A robotic-assisted program combined
with the EMG biofeedback approach has yet to be evaluated in the rehabilitation of patients
presenting with shoulder MSDs.

The objective of this study was to determine the efficacy of an 8-week rehabilitation program using a robotic-assisted device combined with EMG biofeedback (RA-EMG group) compared to a conventional program (CONV group) in patients presenting with shoulder MSDs after occupational injury. We hypothesized that a robotic-assisted device combined with EMG biofeedback would add value to conventional training programs in patients with MSDs.

## 2. Materials and Methods

2.1. *Participants*

This study is a retrospective cohort study including data from 2010 to 2013. Patients were initially involved in a physical rehabilitation program in a private clinic in Chicoutimi (Canada). To be included in this study, the participants had to be diagnosed with shoulder MSDs (i.e., subacromial pain syndrome, shoulder dislocation, adhesive capsulitis, etc.) following an occupational injury; be referred by a health professional (medical doctor, or-thopedic physician or physiotherapist); able to practice physical activities without medical contraindications; have completed 3 training sessions a week during 8 weeks; and have completed the training with the robotic-assisted device combined with EMG-FB (RA-EMG group) or the conventional training program (CONV group) (Figure 1). The exclusion crite-ria were patients with behavioral (cognitive and/or psychiatric) disability. Patients were allocated to RA-EMG or CONV groups based on clinical practice, without randomization. All of the subjects gave their informed consent to participate in the study. The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and was approved by the Ethics Committee of Research of the Université du Québec à Chicoutimi (602-545-01).

## 2.2. *Experimental Protocol*

Before and after the training program, all patients performed pre- and post-test mea-
surements of shoulder flexion strength with a voluntary maximal isometric contraction with
the shoulder positioned at 5° of flexion (0° corresponding to reference anatomical position)
and with the elbow in full extension. Strength measurements were carried out with the
robotic-assisted device AME (Appareil Multifonctionnel d'Entraînement—multifunctional
training device) (CEME, Saguenay, QC, Canada) (American Certificate US.8.262.541,
US.8.187.152; Canadian certificate CA 2714914) (Figure 2) for the RA-EMG group and
with a dynamometer for the CONV group. Active shoulder flexion range of motion was
collected using a manual goniometer. Thereafter, the patients completed a training pro-
gram, with the conventional approach or with the robotic-assisted device combined with
EMG biofeedback, during 8 consecutive weeks of 3 sessions a week. Each training session
started with a 10 min warm-up period of aerobic exercise (treadmill, cycle ergometer or
stair climber machine) at low to moderate intensity (rated 1 to 4 on the modified Borg
scale) to attain a steady state [34]. To complete the warm-up, a 5 min exercise consisting
of voluntary shoulder movement was adjusted to individual functional limitations in the
frontal, sagittal and transversal planes without any external intervention. After this, each
group performed specific training with the AME or conventional approach.
<figure><img src="image_3.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 1.** Study design and flow chart. RA-EMG group: robotic-assisted with electromyography feedback (AME: Appareil Multifonctionnel d'Entraînement—multifunctional training device); CONV group: conventional training.</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 2.** The AME device (Appareil Multifonctionnel d'Entraînement—multifunctional training device): a patient is conducting an abduction exercise with the placement of surface EMG electrodes on the shoulder.</figcaption></figure>
## 2.3. Training Programs

### 2.3.1. RA-EMG Group

The RA-EMG group carried out an 8-week rehabilitation reinforcement training program using the AME device with 2 sets of 20 repetitions for 3 sessions a week. A 1 min 30 s rest period was observed between sets [35].

The patient was seated, and the axis of shoulder rotation aligned with the axis of rotation of the AME device. The position parameters were stored in the device interface, which reproduced settings between sessions [36]. Surface EMG electrodes (Thought Technology Ltd., Montréal, QC, Canada) were placed on the anterior deltoid [37,38]. A two-channel Myotrac Infinity Encoder (Thought Technology Ltd., Montréal, QC, Canada) monitored the EMG activity during training sessions. Data acquisition was performed at a frequency of 2048 Hz and collected by the internal computer of the AME device.

Maximal isometric shoulder flexion was performed before starting each training session to determine the maximal EMG activity. The exercises included performing shoulder flexion and extension from 0–30° to a maximum of 90°. Movements were performed at a level of 60% of the maximal EMG activity displayed on a screen in front of the patient. The speed control system of the AME device adjusted the load based on the EMG activity.

### 2.3.2. CONV Group

The CONV group performed an 8-week strength training program using dumbbell weights consisting of 2 sets of 20 repetitions with a rest period of 1 min 30 s between sets, for 3 sessions a week. Dumbbell weight loads were adjusted based on patient capacity throughout the program based on 60% of the maximal capacity. The two shoulders were randomly trained. The exercises were elbow flexion, shoulder anteflexion, shoulder abduction and shoulder elevation.

## 2.4. Outcomes

### 2.4.1. Absolute and Normalized Shoulder Flexion Strength Gain

Absolute shoulder flexion strength gain was assessed with a voluntary maximal isometric contraction of shoulder flexion. Absolute strength gain was calculated between the pre- and post-session (Absolute Strength gain (kg) = Post strength – Pre-test strength).

The normalized shoulder flexion strength gain is a percentage from the pre-test session. (Normalized strength gain (%) = (Absolute strength gain/Pre-test strength × 100)). This variable compensates for an amplitude of strength produced by each person and refers to a percentage increase of strength produced at the end of the program.

### 2.4.2. Absolute and Normalized Shoulder Flexion Range of Motion Gain (ROM)

The absolute shoulder flexion ROM gain of each patient was calculated with the help of a manual goniometer. The amplitude gain was estimated between the program's first and last session: ROM gain = Post-test ROM – Pre-test ROM.

To calculate the normalized shoulder flexion ROM gain, we divided the absolute amplitude by the maximum absolute amplitude at the pretest and multiplied by 100 (Normalized ROM gain = (Absolute ROM gain/Pre-test ROM × 100)).

## 2.5. Statistical Analysis

Groups are presented using mean values and standard deviations for quantitative variables and by numbers and percentages for qualitative variables. The t test for independent measure was performed for demographic characteristics. The statistical analysis assessed the effects of two 8-week strength rehabilitation programs (CONV versus RA-EMG) on strength gain and ROM in patients presenting with shoulder MSDs (SigmaPlot,
version 12.5, Systat Software Inc., Palo Alto, CA, USA). The Shapiro-Wilk test tested normality of the data. The Mann-Whitney test was performed for strength and amplitude outcomes. Data were expressed as the median and the Interquartile Range (IQR). The t test for independent measure was performed for demographic characteristics. *p* < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

## 3. Results

### 3.1. Population Characteristics

Strength data were missing for two participants in the RA-EMG group and 30 participants in the CONV Group. Similarly, data for ROM were missing for one participant in the RA-EMG group and one participant in the CONV Group (Figure 1). Seventy-three participants (50 males and 23 females) aged 27-72 years (47.7 ± 9.1 years) were allocated to the RA-EMG group, while 44 participants (28 males and 16 females) aged 32-61 years (45.3 ± 7.2 years) were in the CONV group (Table 1). The RA-EMG group performed 19.0 ± 4.3 training sessions in 51.0 ± 13.9 days, and the CONV group performed 20.6 ± 4.7 conventional training sessions in 55.8 ± 25.5 days. At baseline, subacromial pain syndrome was diagnosed in 81.8% and 81.9% of the CONV and RA-EMG groups, respectively. No significant difference (*p* > 0.05) was observed comparing age, training duration and number of sessions between groups (Table 1).

<table><caption>**Table 1.** Baseline characteristics for the RA-EMG and CONV groups.</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>RA-EMG Group<br>N = 73</th><th>CONV Group<br>N = 44</th><th><i>p</i> Value<br>[t Value]</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Sex, N (%)</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Men</td><td>50 (68.5)</td><td>28 (63.6)</td><td>0.940</td></tr><tr><td>Women</td><td>23 (31.5)</td><td>16 (36.4)</td><td>0.169</td></tr><tr><td>Age in years (mean ± SD)</td><td>47.7 ± 9.1</td><td>45.3 ± 7.2</td><td>0.092 [1.700]</td></tr><tr><td>Training duration in days (mean ± SD)</td><td>51.0 ± 13.9</td><td>55.8 ± 25.5</td><td>0.188 [1.324]</td></tr><tr><td>Number of sessions in days (mean ± SD)</td><td>19.0 ± 4.3</td><td>20.6 ± 4.7</td><td>0.064 [1.872]</td></tr><tr><td>Classification of diseases, n (%)</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Subacromial pain syndrome</td><td>59 (81.9)</td><td>36 (81.8)</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>Shoulder dislocation</td><td>4 (5.6)</td><td>5 (11.3)</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>Other shoulder MSDs</td><td>9 (12.5)</td><td>3 (6.8)</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>Flexion shoulder strength, kg (mean ± SD)</td><td>6.2 ± 3.5</td><td>7.6 ± 3.9</td><td>0.41</td></tr><tr><td>Range of motion, degrees (mean ± SD)</td><td>141.8 ± 31.2</td><td>138.3 ± 34.6</td><td>0.62</td></tr></tbody></table>

MSDs: musculoskeletal disorders; SD: Standard Deviation.

### 3.2. Absolute and Normalized Shoulder Flexion Strength Gain

The RA-EMG group showed significantly greater absolute strength gain than the CONV group after the training program (4.45 [2.6;6.15] kg vs. 2.3 [0.90;4.775] kg, U = 761, *p* = 0.013) (Figure 3, upper panel). In addition, significantly greater benefit for normalized strength was observed in the RA-EMG group (77.5 [51.3;119.1] %) in comparison with the CONV group (39.1 [16.6;89.2] %, U = 755, *p* = 0.016) (Figure 3, lower panel).
<figure><img src="image_5.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 3.** Box plots of the shoulder flexion strength gain expressed in kg (**upper panel**) and percentage (**lower panel**) for the RA-EMG group (blue) and the CONV group (yellow).</figcaption></figure>

### 3.3. *Absolute and Normalized Shoulder Flexion ROM Gain*

After the training program, 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, *p* = 0.067) (Figure 4, upper panel). In addition, 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, *p* = 0.046) (Figure 4, lower panel).
<figure><img src="image_6.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 4.** Box plots of the shoulder ROM gain expressed in degrees (**upper panel**) and percentage (**lower panel**) for the RA-EMG group (blue) and the CONV group (yellow).</figcaption></figure>

**4. Discussion**

This study showed that a robotic-assisted training program combined with EMG biofeedback led to greater gain of shoulder flexion strength and a trend in range of motion compared to a conventional strength program. This study provides promising results, showing the added value of a robotic-assisted program combined with an EMG biofeedback device in an MSD population.

By using a similar device in an 8-week strength program (three sessions/week) in healthy adults, Bui et al. [33] reported up to 26% strength gain in both right and left shoulder flexion. While relative gain was reported in healthy adults, our study showed that a robotic-assisted device combined with EMG biofeedback in an MSD population provided
up to 77.5% strength gain compared to the 39.1% observed with conventional rehabilitation. In a recent systematic review, Argut et al. [32] indicated that EMG biofeedback can effectively help improve quadriceps strength. While the pain associated with MSD [4,5] may contribute to decreased corticospinal excitability [39,40], EMG biofeedback has been shown to enhance motivation, enabling patients to achieve desired levels of muscular contraction and improving treatment adherence [32,41]. Gumaa and Rehan Youssef [42] showed in their literature review that evidence of the effectiveness of virtual reality or augmented environments is promising for shoulder impingement syndrome, creating a distraction from the painful region [43] and supporting the idea that more playful and personalized rehabilitation is beneficial for the patient. In addition, telerehabilitation might be considered to improve MSD management [44], helping to increase the number of rehabilitation sessions outside the clinical environment.

Associated with strength, ROM has been identified as a critical component in MSD shoulder rehabilitation [19,45]. In a systematic review and meta-analysis, Steuri et al. [19] determined the effectiveness of conservative interventions for range of motion in 6093 adults with shoulder impingement through 113 trials. This study reported that specific exercise therapy was superior to non-specific exercise and that manual therapy plus exercise was superior to exercise only. The literature has failed to report any superiority of the EMG biofeedback approach to manage ROM compared to conventional approaches [32]. In line with these findings, our results showed that a specific guided exercise rehabilitation program provided a trend of higher ROM outcomes than conventional therapy. While the AME device was specifically dedicated to recording and displaying muscular activity, ROM would be less sensitive to EMG biofeedback. The AME device might present only a slight added value for managing ROM in patients with MSD syndrome and might be enhanced by combination with manual therapy.

In addition to potentiating strength and ROM rehabilitation, EMG biofeedback was used to ensure adequate activation of the muscle involved in a given exercise [46–51]. The AME device adjusted the level of resistance force until total passive movement [52], to provide constant EMG activity [53], allowing us to take into account fatigue components during a training session. Thus, maximal EMG activity was determined before each training session considering the current strength capacity and achievement over the training period program in compliance with the recommendations of active and progressive rehabilitation for shoulder MSDs [13,54,55]. Previous studies have argued that EMG biofeedback increases patient motivation [43,44] and facilitates patient compliance by modulating muscular activity in real time 48]. In line with this finding, the AME device and EMG activity feedback (i.e., a standardized measurement protocol) contributed to individualization, person-centered care and a participative rehabilitation approach [56–61].

## Limitations

Even though our study presented evidence favoring RA-EMG in management of shoulder MSDs, some concerns should be considered. First, only strength and ROM were clinically assessed, while it has been recommended to evaluate pain and functional disability [19]. Similarly, abduction and external rotation should be treated to restore and involve agonist and antagonist muscles. In addition, strength measurement was performed using two different systems: the AME dynamometer for the RA-EMG group and a conventional dynamometer for the CONV group. Both devices employ similar technology, relying on a Wheatstone bridge to assess strength. The reliability of strength measurement with the AME device has been established in patents (US patents [US.8.262.541] and [US.8.187.152]; Canadian patent [CA 2714914]). While we cannot entirely exclude slight differences between device measurements, it is reasonable to assume that these differences
did not significantly impact our results. While the final goal is to return to work [62], the rehabilitation period before returning to work could also be considered a key endpoint. While our study included various MSD pathologies, direct comparisons between different populations were not conducted due to the overrepresentation of subacromial impingement syndrome (81.8%). Nevertheless, our findings suggest that a robotic-assisted training program combined with EMG biofeedback may be beneficial for individuals with diverse MSD pathologies. Thus, care should be taken when generalizing the current results to patients not having subacromial impingement syndrome. Finally, the cost and size of the device may limit its accessibility and adoption in rehabilitation centers. Future prospective randomized controlled trials should be conducted to strengthen the level of evidence, particularly by comparing the efficacy of rehabilitation interventions across various MSD pathologies.

**5. Conclusions**

The current retrospective cohort study showed that a robotic-assisted device combined with EMG biofeedback provided greater strength and a trend of improvement of range of motion shoulder flexion after an 8-week rehabilitation period compared to a conventional approach in patients with shoulder MSDs. EMG activity as biofeedback offered a tailored rehabilitation program with constant effort by automatically adjusting the level of resistance based on a specific EMG target and may have enhanced patient motivation. Future research with a randomized controlled design should determine the potential added value of a robotic-assisted device combined with EMG biofeedback on abduction and external rotation.

**Author Contributions:** Conceptualization, M.L.; methodology, M.L., M.T. (Mathieu Tremblay) and M.B.; writing—original draft preparation, M.L., M.T. (Mathieu Tremblay) and M.B.; writing—review and editing, M.L., M.T. (Mathieu Tremblay), E.O., M.T. (Maxime Turpin), A.P., P.R., L.G., M.M., R.D. and M.B.; supervision, M.L. and M.B. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

**Funding:** This research received no external funding.

**Institutional Review Board Statement:** The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Institutional Review Board (or Ethics Committee) of UQAC (protocol code 602-545-01, 26 November 2016).

**Informed Consent Statement:** Informed consent was waived because of the retrospective nature of the study, and the analysis used anonymous clinical data. An information letter and a non-opposition form was sent to all patients.

**Data Availability Statement:** Data are contained within the article.

**Acknowledgments:** We thank Jeffrey Arsham for his proofreading of the manuscript and his suggestions regarding medical writing.

**Conflicts of Interest:** The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

**References**

1. Scott, A.; Squier, K.; Alfredson, H.; Bahr, R.; Cook, J.L.; Coombes, B.; de Vos, R.-J.; Fu, S.N.; Grimaldi, A.; Lewis, J.S.; et al. ICON 2019: International Scientific Tendinopathy Symposium Consensus: Clinical Terminology. *Br. J. Sports Med.* **2020**, *54*, 260–262.
[CrossRef]

2. Michel, C.; Arcand, R.; Crevier, H.; Dovonou, N.; Martin, R.; Pelletier, P.; Phaneuf, R. *Portrait National des Troubles Musculosquelettiques (TMS) 1998–2007: TMS Sous Surveillance*; Direction des Risques Biologiques et de la santé au Travail; Institut National de Santé Publique Québec: Montréal, QC, Canada, 2010; ISBN 978-2-550-59984-5.

3. Tissot, F.; Stock, S.; Nicolakakis, N.; Sassine, M.-P. *Portrait des Troubles Musculo-Squelettiques D'origine non Traumatique Liés au Travail: Résultats de l'Enquête Québécoise sur la Santé de la Population, 2014–2015*; Institut National de Santé Publique du Québec: Montréal, QC, Canada, 2020; ISBN 978-2-550-85737-2.
4. Ellenbecker, T.S.; Cools, A. Rehabilitation of shoulder impingement syndrome and rotator cuff injuries: An evidence-based review. *Br. J. Sports Med.* **2010**, *44*, 319-327. [CrossRef]

5. Diercks, R.; Bron, C.; Dorrestijn, O.; Meskers, C.; Naber, R.; de Ruiter, T.; Willems, J.; Winters, J.; van der Woude, H.J. Dutch Orthopaedic Association Guideline for diagnosis and treatment of subacromial pain syndrome: A multidisciplinary review by the Dutch Orthopaedic Association. *Acta Orthop.* **2014**, *85*, 314-322. [CrossRef]

6. 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*, 279-301. [PubMed]

7. Hallman, D.M.; Holtermann, A.; Dencker-Larsen, S.; Birk Jørgensen, M.; Nørregaard Rasmussen, C.D. Are trajectories of neck-shoulder pain associated with sick leave and work ability in workers? A 1-year prospective study. *BMJ Open* **2019**, *9*, e022006. [CrossRef]

8. Beard, D.J.; Rees, J.L.; Cook, J.A.; Rombach, I.; Cooper, C.; Merritt, N.; Shirkey, B.A.; Donovan, J.L.; Gwilym, S.; Savulescu, J.; et al. Arthroscopic subacromial decompression for subacromial shoulder pain (CSAW): A multicentre, pragmatic, parallel group, placebo-controlled, three-group, randomised surgical trial. *Lancet* **2018**, *391*, 329-338. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

9. Challoumas, D.; Clifford, C.; Kirwan, P.; Millar, N.L. How does surgery compare to sham surgery or physiotherapy as a treatment for tendinopathy? A systematic review of randomised trials. *BMJ Open Sport. Exerc. Med.* **2019**, *5*, e000528. [CrossRef]

10. Ketola, S.; Lehtinen, J.T.; Arnala, I. Arthroscopic decompression not recommended in the treatment of rotator cuff tendinopathy. *Bone Jt. J.* **2017**, *99*, 799-805. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

11. Littlewood, C.; May, S.; Walters, S. A Review of Systematic Reviews of the Effectiveness of Conservative Interventions for Rotator Cuff Tendinopathy. *Shoulder Elb.* **2013**, *5*, 151-167. [CrossRef]

12. 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*, e0227688. [CrossRef]

13. Babatunde, O.O.; Ensor, J.; Littlewood, C.; Chesterton, L.; Jordan, J.L.; Corp, N.; Wynne-Jones, G.; Roddy, E.; Foster, N.E.; van der Windt, D.A. Comparative effectiveness of treatment options for subacromial shoulder conditions: A systematic review and network meta-analysis. *Ther. Adv. Musculoskelet. Dis.* **2021**, *13*, 1759720X211037530. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

14. Khan, M.; Alolabi, B.; Horner, N.; Bedi, A.; Ayeni, O.R.; Bhandari, M. Surgery for shoulder impingement: A systematic review and meta-analysis of controlled clinical trials. *CMAJ Open* **2019**, *7*, E149-E158. [CrossRef]

15. Desmeules, F.; Boudreault, J.; Dionne, C.E.; Frémont, P.; Lowry, V.; MacDermid, J.C.; Roy, J.-S. Efficacy of exercise therapy in workers with rotator cuff tendinopathy: A systematic review. *J. Occup. Health* **2016**, *58*, 389-403. [CrossRef]

16. Jeanfavre, M.; Husted, S.; Leff, G. Exercise therapy in the non-operative treatment of full-thickness rotator cuff tears: A systematic review. *Int. J. Sports Phys. Ther.* **2018**, *13*, 335-378. [CrossRef]

17. Littlewood, C.; Ashton, J.; Chance-Larsen, K.; May, S.; Sturrock, B. Exercise for rotator cuff tendinopathy: A systematic review. *Physiotherapy* **2012**, *98*, 101-109. [CrossRef]

18. Pieters, L.; Lewis, J.; Kuppens, K.; Jochems, J.; Bruijstens, T.; Joossens, L.; Struyf, F. An Update of Systematic Reviews Examining the Effectiveness of Conservative Physical Therapy Interventions for Subacromial Shoulder Pain. *J. Orthop. Sports Phys. Ther.* **2020**, *50*, 131-141. [CrossRef]

19. Steuri, R.; Sattelmayer, M.; Elsig, S.; Kolly, C.; Tal, A.; Taeymans, J.; Hilfiker, R. Effectiveness of conservative interventions including exercise, manual therapy and medical management in adults with shoulder impingement: A systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs. *Br. J. Sports Med.* **2017**, *51*, 1340-1347. [CrossRef]

20. Chen, Z.; Wang, C.; Fan, W.; Gu, M.; Yasin, G.; Xiao, S.; Huang, J.; Huang, X. Robot-Assisted Arm Training versus Therapist-Mediated Training after Stroke: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. *J. Healthc. Eng.* **2020**, *2020*, 8810867. [CrossRef]

21. Chien, W.-T.; Chong, Y.-Y.; Tse, M.-K.; Chien, C.-W.; Cheng, H.-Y. Robot-assisted therapy for upper-limb rehabilitation in subacute stroke patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis. *Brain Behav.* **2020**, *10*, e01742. [CrossRef]

22. Feys, P.; Coninx, K.; Kerkhofs, L.; Weyer, T.; Truyens, V.; Maris, A.; Lamers, I. Robot-supported upper limb training in a virtual learning environment: A pilot randomized controlled trial in persons with MS. *J. Neuroeng. Rehabil.* **2015**, *12*, 60. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

23. Veerbeek, J.M.; Langbroek-Amersfoort, A.C.; van Wegen, E.E.H.; Meskers, C.G.M.; Kwakkel, G. Effects of Robot-Assisted Therapy for the Upper Limb After Stroke. *Neurorehabil. Neural Repair* **2017**, *31*, 107-121. [CrossRef]

24. Yozbatiran, N.; Francisco, G.E. Robot-assisted Therapy for the Upper Limb after Cervical Spinal Cord Injury. *Phys. Med. Rehabil. Clin. N. Am.* **2019**, *30*, 367-384. [CrossRef]

25. Payedimarri, A.B.; Ratti, M.; Rescinito, R.; Vanhaecht, K.; Panella, M. Effectiveness of Platform-Based Robot-Assisted Rehabilitation for Musculoskeletal or Neurologic Injuries: A Systematic Review. *Bioengineering* **2022**, *9*, 129. [CrossRef]

26. Kiyono, K.; Tanabe, S.; Hirano, S.; Ii, T.; Nakagawa, Y.; Tan, K.; Saitoh, E.; Otaka, Y. Effectiveness of Robotic Devices for Medical Rehabilitation: An Umbrella Review. *J. Clin. Med.* **2024**, *13*, 6616. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

27. Banyai, A.D.; Brişan, C. Robotics in Physical Rehabilitation: Systematic Review. *Healthcare* **2024**, *12*, 1720. [CrossRef]
28. Kröger, I.; Nerz, C.; Schwickert, L.; Schölch, S.; Müßig, J.A.; Studier-Fischer, S.; Nolte, P.-C.; Becker, C.; Augat, P. Robot-assisted training after proximal humeral fracture: A randomised controlled multicentre intervention trial. *Clin. Rehabil.* **2021**, *35*, 242–252.
[CrossRef]

29. Nerz, C.; Schwickert, L.; Becker, C.; Studier-Fischer, S.; Müßig, J.A.; Augat, P. Effectiveness of robot-assisted training added to conventional rehabilitation in patients with humeral fracture early after surgical treatment: Protocol of a randomised, controlled, multicentre trial. *Trials* **2017**, *18*, 589. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

30. Picelli, A.; Munari, D.; Modenese, A.; Filippetti, M.; Saggioro, G.; Gandolfi, M.; Corain, M.; Smania, N. Robot-assisted arm training for treating adult patients with distal radius fracture: A proof-of-concept pilot study. *Eur. J. Phys. Rehabil. Med.* **2020**, *56*, 444–450. [CrossRef]

31. 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. [CrossRef]

32. Karaborklu Argut, S.; Celik, D.; Yasacı, Z. Effectiveness of therapeutic electromyographic biofeedback after orthopedic knee surgeries: A systematic review. *Disabil. Rehabil. 2021*, *44*, 3364–3372. [CrossRef]

33. Bui, H.T.; Duchesne, S.; Desjardins, P.; Comtois, A.S.; Leone, M. A novel shoulder training/rehabilitation device based on the concept of percentage of muscular activation (PMA). In Proceedings of the 16th European College of Sport Science (ECSS) Annual Congress, Liverpool, UK, 6–9 July 2011.

34. Borg, G. Psychophysical bases of perceived exertion. *Med. Sci. Sports Exerc.* **1982**, *14*, 377–381. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

35. Grgic, J.; Schoenfeld, B.J.; Skrepnik, M.; Davies, T.B.; Mikulic, P. Effects of Rest Interval Duration in Resistance Training on Measures of Muscular Strength: A Systematic Review. *Sports Med.* **2018**, *48*, 137–151. [CrossRef]

36. Cools, A.M.; De Wilde, L.; Van Tongel, A.; Ceyssens, C.; Ryckewaert, R.; Cambier, D.C. 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*, 1454–1461. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

37. Hecker, A.; Aguirre, J.; Eichenberger, U.; Rosner, J.; Schubert, M.; Sutter, R.; Wieser, K.; Bouaicha, S. Deltoid muscle contribution to shoulder flexion and abduction strength—An experimental approach. *J. Shoulder Elbow Surg.* **2020**, *30*, e60–e68. [CrossRef]

38. Hermens, H.J.; Freriks, B.; Disselhorst-Klug, C.; Rau, G. Development of recommendations for SEMG sensors and sensor placement procedures. *J. Electromyogr. Kinesiol.* **2000**, *10*, 361–374. [CrossRef]

39. Rohel, A.; Bouffard, J.; Patricio, P.; Mavromatis, N.; Billot, M.; Roy, J.-S.; Bouyer, L.; Mercier, C.; Masse-Alarie, H. The effect of experimental pain on the excitability of the corticospinal tract in humans: A systematic review and meta-analysis. *Eur. J. Pain* **2021**, *25*, 1209–1226. [CrossRef]

40. Billot, M.; Neige, C.; Gagné, M.; Mercier, C.; Bouyer, L.J. Effect of Cutaneous Heat Pain on Corticospinal Excitability of the Tibialis Anterior at Rest and during Submaximal Contraction. *Neural Plasticity* **2018**, *2018*, 8713218. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

41. 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*, 379–396. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

42. Gumaa, M.; Rehan Youssef, A. Is Virtual Reality Effective in Orthopedic Rehabilitation? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. *Phys. Ther.* **2019**, *99*, 1304–1325. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

43. Goudman, L.; Jansen, J.; Billot, M.; Vets, A.; De Smedt, A.; Roulaud, M.; Rigoard, P.; Moens, M. Virtual Reality in patients experiencing chronic pain: A systematic review and meta-analysis. *J. Med. Internet Res. Serious Games* **2022**, *10*, 2.

44. Mihai, E.E.; Popescu, M.N.; Beiu, C.; Gheorghe, L.; Berteanu, M. Tele-Rehabilitation Strategies for a Patient With Post-stroke Spasticity: A Powerful Tool Amid the COVID-19 Pandemic. *Cureus* **2021**, *13*, e19201. [CrossRef]

45. Namdari, S.; Yagnik, G.; Ebaugh, D.D.; Nagda, S.; Ramsey, M.L.; Williams, G.R.; Mehta, S. Defining functional shoulder range of motion for activities of daily living. *J. Shoulder Elbow Surg.* **2012**, *21*, 1177–1183. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

46. Gaffney, B.M.; Maluf, K.S.; Davidson, B.S. Evaluation of Novel EMG Biofeedback for Postural Correction During Computer Use. *Appl. Psychophysiol. Biofeedback* **2016**, *41*, 181–189. [CrossRef]

47. Huang, H.-Y.; Lin, J.-J.; Guo, Y.L.; Wang, W.T.-J.; Chen, Y.-J. EMG biofeedback effectiveness to alter muscle activity pattern and scapular kinematics in subjects with and without shoulder impingement. *J. Electromyogr. Kinesiol.* **2013**, *23*, 267–274. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

48. Juul-Kristensen, B.; Larsen, C.M.; Eshoj, H.; Clemmensen, T.; Hansen, A.; Bo Jensen, P.; Boyle, E.; Søgaard, K. Positive effects of neuromuscular shoulder exercises with or without EMG-biofeedback, on pain and function in participants with subacromial pain syndrome—A randomised controlled trial. *J. Electromyogr. Kinesiol.* **2019**, *48*, 161–168. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

49. Larsen, C.M.; Juul-Kristensen, B.; Olsen, H.B.; Holtermann, A.; Søgaard, K. Selective activation of intra-muscular compartments within the trapezius muscle in subjects with Subacromial Impingement Syndrome. A case-control study. *J. Electromyogr. Kinesiol.* **2014**, *24*, 58–64. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

50. Lim, O.-B.; Kim, J.-A.; Song, S.-J.; Cynn, H.-S.; Yi, C.-H. Effect of Selective Muscle Training Using Visual EMG Biofeedback on Infraspinatus and Posterior Deltoid. *J. Hum. Kinet.* **2014**, *44*, 83–90. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
51. Riek, L.M.; Pfohl, K.; Zajac, J. Using biofeedback to optimize scapular muscle activation ratios during a seated resisted scaption exercise. *J. Electromyogr. Kinesiol.* **2022**, *63*, 102647. [CrossRef]

52. 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. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

53. Bouisset, S.; Maton, B. Quantitative relationship between surface EMG and intramuscular electromyographic activity in voluntary movement. *Am. J. Phys. Med.* **1972**, *51*, 285–295. [PubMed]

54. Desmeules, F.; Roy, J.-S.; Dyer, J.-O.; Frémont, P.; Dionne, C.; MacDermid, J.C.; Tousignant, M.; Rochette, A. *Les Lésions Professionnelles de la Coiffe des Rotateurs de L'épaule: Optimiser la Prise en Charge des Travailleurs et Favoriser le Retour au Travail*; Institut de Recherche Robert-Sauvé en Santé et en Sécurité du Travail: Montréal, QC, Canada, 2021.

55. Littlewood, C.; Bateman, M.; Connor, C.; Gibson, J.; Horsley, I.; Jaggi, A.; Jones, V.; Meakins, A.; Scott, M. Physiotherapists' recommendations for examination and treatment of rotator cuff related shoulder pain: A consensus exercise. *Physiother. Pract. Res.* **2019**, *40*, 87–94. [CrossRef]

56. San Juan, J.G.; Gunderson, S.R.; Kane-Ronning, K.; Suprak, D.N. Scapular kinematic is altered after electromyography biofeedback training. *J. Biomech.* **2016**, *49*, 1881–1886. [CrossRef]

57. Gamecho, B.; Silva, H.; Guerreiro, J.; Gardeazabal, L.; Abascal, J. A Context-Aware Application to Increase Elderly Users Compliance with Physical Rehabilitation Exercises at Home via Animatronic Biofeedback. *J. Med. Syst.* **2015**, *39*, 135. [CrossRef]

58. Lucca, J.A.; Recchiuti, S.J. Effect of electromyographic biofeedback on an isometric strengthening program. *Phys. Ther.* **1983**, *63*, 200–203. [CrossRef]

59. Tate, J.J.; Milner, C.E. Real-time kinematic, temporospatial, and kinetic biofeedback during gait retraining in patients: A systematic review. *Phys. Ther.* **2010**, *90*, 1123–1134. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

60. Cardoso, J.R.; Teixeira, E.C.; Moreira, M.D.; Fávero, F.M.; Fontes, S.V.; Bulle de Oliveira, A.S. Effects of exercises on Bell's palsy: Systematic review of randomized controlled trials. *Otol. Neurotol.* **2008**, *29*, 557–560. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

61. Lin, I.; Wiles, L.; Waller, R.; Goucke, R.; Nagree, Y.; Gibberd, M.; Straker, L.; Maher, C.G.; O'Sullivan, P.P.B. 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.* **2020**, *54*, 79–86. [CrossRef]

62. Lafrance, S.; Charron, M.; Roy, J.-S.; Dyer, J.-O.; Frémont, P.; Dionne, C.E.; MacDermid, J.C.; Tousignant, M.; Rochette, A.; Doiron-Cadrin, P.; et al. Diagnosing, Managing and Supporting Return to Work of Adults with Rotator Cuff Disorders: A Clinical Practice Guideline. *J. Orthop. Sports Phys. Ther.* **2022**, *52*, 647–664. [CrossRef]

**Disclaimer/Publisher's Note:** The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.