Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy最新文献

Objective: Describe the influence of maladaptive coping behaviors on the clinical presentation and management of an acute lumbar lateral shift.

Case description: A 39-year-old male sought chiropractic care for acute low back pain with an associated lumbar lateral shift of three days duration. The symptoms had remained refractory to chiropractic care and medication provided by visits to the emergency room and an orthopedist. In response to the severity of symptoms, heightened cognitive and emotional factors propagated passive coping that resulted in bed rest and work absenteeism.

Outcome: Providing an understanding of pain from a biopsychosocial perspective combined with self-management strategies involving the method of manual shift correction and graded exposure exercises decreased pain and catastrophizing in four visits over five days. The Revised Low Back Oswestry scored 82%, 0%, and 2% disability and the Yellow Flag Risk Form scored 96, 8, and 34 at intake, discharge and six months follow up.

Conclusion: The method of manual shift correction is discussed as a favorable biomedical procedure for lumbar lateral shifts, with little attribution to the multidimensional nature of low back pain. This case depicts the influence of maladaptive coping behaviors on a lumbar lateral shift.

Adhesive capsulitis (AC) is common in women aged 40-60, overlapping with the population at higher risk for breast cancer. Many breast cancer survivors develop shoulder dysfunction, including AC, due to cancer treatments such as surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation, leading to pain, limited mobility, altered biomechanics, and soft tissue contracture. Despite the prevalence of AC in this population, clinical guidelines for its management remain underexplored. Manual therapy can play a key role in improving quality of life for these individuals.Understanding the pain mechanisms - nociceptive, neuropathic, and nociplastic - can inform appropriate treatment strategies for breast cancer survivors with AC. This clinical perspective integrates manual therapy principles into the evaluation and management of AC in this population. As breast cancer cases continue to rise, clinicians must recognize the impact of cancer treatment sequelae on orthopedic conditions to optimize patient care.

Introduction: Despite the recommendations to use a bio-psycho-social framework, many physiotherapists still manage their patients mainly from a biomedical point of view. The purpose of this study is to analyze the impact of two different e-learning interventions on knowledge, attitudes, and clinical decision-making of physiotherapists managing low back pain (LBP) to increase guideline-consistent care.

Methods: Physiotherapists were allocated (1/1) either to an experimental or a traditional e-learning intervention. Baseline and post-intervention assessment included the Health Care Providers' Pain and Impairment Relationship Scale (HC-PAIRS), Back Pain Attitudes Questionnaire (Back-PAQ), Neurophysiology of Pain Questionnaire (NPQ), and a clinical vignette. Participants had 2 weeks to complete the post-intervention assessment. Statistics were processed using ANCOVA and Fisher's t-tests.

Results: Four hundred nineteen physiotherapists were included in the analysis. Mean scores of HC-PAIRS, Back-PAQ, and NPQ significantly improved post-intervention in both groups. There was a significant effect of the intervention type (experimental versus traditional) on the scores of HC-PAIRS (p < .001; η²_p = .243) and Back-PAQ (p < .001; η²_p = .135) but not on NPQ scores. Return to work, recommendations assessed with the clinical vignette were significantly more guideline-consistent in the experimental group (p < .001) post-intervention.

Conclusion: An interactive e-learning intervention which includes concrete clinical examples and focused on patient's reassurance, self-management, and importance of screening psycho-social factors had more impact than a traditional e-learning intervention to enhance physiotherapists' knowledge, attitudes, and clinical decision-making regarding LBP.

Objectives: The aim of this study was to determine whether a short-term online clinical mentoring program was more effective than asynchronous online lectures at improving physical therapists' (PT) practice and their patients' outcomes.

Methods: In this randomized controlled trial, 27 PTs were randomized with allocation concealment to 6 h of online clinical mentoring sessions (experimental group) or 6-h of asynchronous online lectures (control group). The primary patient outcome was function, assessed using the Patient-Specific Functional Scale (PSFS), evaluated at baseline (initial consultation) and 4-week follow-up. Secondary patient outcomes were the Functional Rating Index (FRI) and Global Rating of Change Scale (GRC). Clinician (PT) outcomes were the 'Clinician Confidence Questionnaire for Patients with Spinal Pain' and the 'Self-Reflection Insight Scale', which were evaluated before and after the professional development interventions by blinded assessors. Linear mixed model regression analysis was used to explore differences in patient outcomes. PT outcomes were analyzed using analyses of covariance to control for any baseline differences.

Results: Twenty-three PTs and 122 patients completed follow-up assessments. There were no between-group differences for any patient clinical outcomes (PSFS MD = 0.02, 95% CI -0.83, 0.79, p = 0.95; FRI MD = -3.01, 95% CI -10.71, 4.69, p = 0.42; Global Rating of Change MD = -0.08, 95% CI -1.09, 0.92, p = 0.86). There were also no differences between groups in terms of PTs confidence (MD = -2.17, 95% CI -9.11, 4.76, p = 0.52) or self-reflection insight (MD = 3.66, 95% CI -1.94, 9.27, p = 0.19).

Conclusion: A 6-h online clinical mentoring program did not significantly influence PT confidence, self-reflection nor the outcomes of their patients when compared to 6 h of asynchronous online lectures.

Impact: The results from this study may inform those designing or seeking professional development. Future online clinical mentoring should consider alternative program designs, target PTs with capacity to improve their patient outcomes, and evaluate effects on patients with chronic pain.

Trial registration: ACTRN12622000123741.

Objectives: To identify the effects of thoracic mobilization/manipulation on autonomic nervous system responses.

Methods: Four electronic databases were searched for controlled trials published before February 2024. Studies on mobilization/manipulation of the thoracic spine were included evaluating effects on the autonomic nervous system (ANS). Risk of bias was assessed by two independent assessors using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool 2, the RoB-2 tool for crossover studies or the ROBINS-I tool. Meta-analyses using random-effects models present the overall combined mean effects.

Results: 2139 articles were identified, 20 studies (863 participants) were included in the qualitative data analysis and 15 in meta-analyses. Four studies had a high risk of bias in one or more domains. Meta-analyses indicated no statistically significant effect of mobilization or manipulation on markers of the ANS. The ratio of low-frequency-to-high-frequency power did not significantly decrease after thoracic mobilization/manipulation compared to any type of control intervention (-0.28; 95% CI -0.59 to 0.04; p=0.09). Skin conductance and root mean square of successive RR interval differences as well as LFab (ms^2; absolute power of the low-frequency band) did not significantly increase after thoracic mobilization/manipulation. Subgroup and sensitivity-analyses indicated no significant effects.

Discussion: Methodological limitations and heterogeneity (I²=0-94%) in reported outcomes, reduce the level of evidence. Future studies with a rigorous methodological approach and studies on symptomatic participants with longer follow-ups are warranted.

Conclusion: No significant effects of mobilization/manipulation of the thoracic spine on ANS markers were found. The direction of changes towards increased or decreased sympathetic or parasympathetic nervous system activity was ambiguous.

Introduction: Neurological testing is commonly used in outpatient physical therapy (PT) for patients with suspected neurological involvement. However, limited data exist on the prevalence of abnormal neurological findings in patients without a peripheral neuropathic pain (PNP) diagnosis. Understanding the frequency of these findings may help refine screening practices and improve patient care. This study aimed to determine the prevalence of abnormal neurological findings in patients attending PT without a clinical PNP diagnosis.

Methods: This observational study included 104 adult patients attending PT for upper or lower quadrant pain. Each patient underwent a series of clinical neurologic tests (strength, sensation, and reflexes) and neurodynamic (ND) tests. Patients were categorized as having either a clinical PNP diagnosis or a non-PNP diagnosis based on physician and/or physical therapist assessment.

Results: Of the participants, 22% had a clinical PNP diagnosis. Among those without a PNP diagnosis, clinical neurologic test abnormalities were common, with 50.6% exhibiting abnormal reflexes, 48.1% showing strength deficits, and 21% having sensory impairments. ND test abnormalities were less frequent in this group, with 18.5% experiencing symptom reproduction during testing.

Discussion: These findings suggest that abnormal neurological test results are not exclusive to patients with a clinical PNP diagnosis. The high prevalence of clinical neurologic test abnormalities in patients without a PNP diagnosis raises questions about the sensitivity of current screening approaches.

Conclusion: Neurological abnormalities may be overlooked when screening is based solely on clinical diagnosis or reported symptoms. Expanding neurological testing to a broader patient population may enhance diagnostic accuracy and treatment planning. Further research is needed to determine the clinical significance of these findings and the potential benefits of routine neurological screening in outpatient PT.

Objective: Clinical guidelines recommend combining exercise with other interventions, including dry needling (DN), for chronic neck pain (NP). The aim was to compare the effects of adding DN, applied locally or distant to the myofascial trigger point (MTrP) site location, to home exercise (HE) on pain, disability, and pressure pain sensitivity for chronic mechanical NP.

Methods: A single-blind parallel randomized controlled trial was conducted, including 68 adults (78.7% females, mean age: 47 ± 8.2 years) with chronic NP. All participants were assigned to one of the four groups: local DN + HE; distant DN + HE; sham DN + HE; or HE alone. A 12-week HE program was combined with three DN sessions over 4 weeks. The primary outcome was pain intensity at rest in neutral position, highest pain during cervical rotation and in the last 24 h, and pain in the previous week. The arithmetic mean (overall pain) of these ratings was calculated. Secondary measures included neck disability, pressure pain thresholds (PPTs) at muscular and neural sites, and the global rating of change (GROC). Data were collected at baseline, 4 weeks, and at 3- and 6-months.

Results: A group-by-time interaction was found for pain intensity at rest in neutral position, and for PPTs at ulnar nerve (both sides) and median nerve, anterior scalene, and splenius cervicis (all, left side only; p < 0.05). Post hoc comparisons showed a decrease of overall pain intensity at 6-months in the local DN vs. sham DN groups: estimated ratio ± standard error, 0.55 ± 0.09, p = 0.017. There were no differences between local or distant DN, except for the GROC at discharge.

Conclusions: Combining DN with HE reduces pain intensity in the medium term compared with HE alone. There were no differences between DN site locations (whether local or distant to the MTrP).