Musculoskeletal Science and Practice最新文献

Background

Treatment for edema involves multiple approaches, with Kinesiotaping having recently emerged as an option for edema reduction.

Objective

To systematically summarize current evidence on the effects of Kinesiotaping on edema reduction on any type of edema.

Methods

A systematic review was performed including randomized clinical trials that compared the effects of Kinesiotaping to any other intervention or no intervention on edema. Screening, assessment of methodological quality (PEDro scale) of studies, and confidence of evidence (GRADE) were analyzed by two independent reviewers. A quantitative summary is presented through meta-analyses.

Results

A total of 3750 studies were identified, of which 70 were included in this review, and were organized by body region (face, upper limbs and lower limbs) and by treatment time (short and long term). It was observed that Kinesiotaping was superior to comparison groups in the short-term for face edema (Standardized mean difference [SMD] −1.07; 95%CI -1.48 to −0.65) and lower limbs (SMD -0.55; 95%CI -1.06 to −0.05). Also, Kinesiotaping was superior to comparison group in the long-term for lower limbs (SMD -0.72; 95%CI -1.25 to −0.18). Kinesiotaping was not superior to the comparison groups for upper limbs in both the short (SMD -0.05; 95%CI -0.89 to 0.80) and long-term (SMD -0.04; 95%CI -0.31 to 0.24) protocols.

Conclusion

Kinesiotaping seems to be an effective intervention to reduce acute edema around the face and potentially in the lower limbs in both short and long-term protocols, although the quality of evidence is very low. However, these positive results were not observed for the upper limbs.

Background

Patellofemoral pain (PFP) affects physical and psychosocial health; however, it is unclear if unilateral and bilateral PFP induce similar levels of impairments.

Objectives

We aimed to compare physical activity (PA), pain self-efficacy, and disability between individuals with unilateral and bilateral PFP, and to compare these groups against pain-free controls.

Design

Cross-sectional case-control.

Method

Sixty-two individuals with PFP (25 unilateral and 37 bilateral) and 20 pain-free controls completed the PA assessment using an accelerometer by daily steps, light PA, and moderate-to-vigorous PA (MVPA). We also calculated variability in each PA variable. Pain self-efficacy and disability were measured using the Pain Self-Efficacy Questionnaire and Anterior Knee Pain Scale, respectively.

Results

Individuals with bilateral PFP took fewer daily steps compared to pain-free controls (9568.1 ± 3827.0 vs. 12,285.8 ± 2821.2 steps/day; P = 0.018, Cohen d = 0.79), whereas individuals with unilateral PFP did not (11,099.2 ± 3547.1 steps/day; P = 0.503, Cohen d = 0.37). Individuals with bilateral PFP showed greater variability in MVPA compared to individuals with unilateral PFP (42.9 ± 23.1 vs. 29.0 ± 15.9; P = 0.011, Cohen d = 0.91) and pain-free controls (42.9 ± 23.1 vs. 17.6 ± 6.1; P < 0.001, Cohen d = 1.21). Individuals with unilateral and bilateral PFP similarly exhibited less time spent in MVPA, greater variability in daily steps, lower pain self-efficacy, and greater disability compared to pain-free controls (P < 0.001, Cohen d = 1.14–3.89).

Conclusions

Versus pain-free controls, individuals with bilateral PFP displayed greater variability in MVPA than individuals with unilateral PFP. However, it is important to note that unilateral PFP influenced time spent in MVPA, variability in daily steps, pain self-efficacy, and disability at similar levels to bilateral PFP.

Background

Myofascial pain syndrome (MPS) is a chronic condition caused by sensitive pressure regions within the muscles known as myofascial trigger points (MTrPs).

Objective

The purpose of this randomized controlled trial (RCT) was to assess the effectiveness of adding dry needling (DN) to activate MTrPs in the upper trapezius muscle compared with usual physiotherapy among individuals with chronic neck pain.

Methods

Thirty participants were recruited from a private clinic in Saudi Arabia. Their mean age was 29.7 ± 4.4 years. The subjects were randomized into two groups: the experimental group (application of DN to the MTrPs coupled with usual physiotherapy (n = 15)) and the control group (usual physiotherapy alone (n = 15)). The primary outcomes were pain (assessed using the visual analog scale) and disability (Neck Disability Index), and the secondary outcomes were neck active range of motion (AROM; assessed using cervical ROM) and depression (Beck's Depression Inventory).

Results

Significant between-group difference in pain intensity was observed immediately post-intervention. Participants in the experimental group had significantly higher pain (mean difference = 1.27, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.20, 2.33, p = 0.022, Cohen's d = 0.889) than those in the control group. There was no significant difference between both groups in pain intensity during the follow-up. There were no between-group differences in disability immediately post-intervention. However, there was a between-group difference in disability at follow-up; participants in the experimental group had significantly lower disability (mean difference = −3.13, 95%CI -5.07, −1.20, p = 0.003, Cohen's d = 1.211) than those in the control group. Immediately post-intervention, the experimental group showed greater flexion AROM compared to the control group, with no differences in other AROM measures. At follow-up, the experimental group exhibited significantly higher neck AROM in extension, flexion, right and left side bending, and lower depression, while no differences were observed in right- and left-rotation AROMs between groups.

Conclusions

The addition of DN to standard physiotherapy effectively improved disability, AROM (extension, flexion, and side bending), and depression among patients with chronic neck pain.

Background

Individuals living with intra-articular temporomandibular disorders (IA-TMDs) often report limitations with mouth opening activities. While clinical measures such as active range of motion (AROM) and movement quality are often used to assess mouth opening function, it is unclear if and how these relate to patient-reported limitations and whether other factors such as kinesiophobia influence mouth opening activities in those with IA-TMDs.

Objectives

Compare clinical measures of mouth opening function in those with IA-TMDs to asymptomatic controls. In those with an IA/TMD, explore relationships between patient-reported mouth opening limitations, and mouth opening function and kinesiophobia.

Design

Cross-sectional study.

Method

Clinical mouth opening function (AROM, movement quality, pain on movement/10, stiffness on movement/10) was compared between groups (n = 30 IA-TMD, n = 30 controls). Within the IA-TMD group, correlations between patient-reported mouth opening limitations (Patient specific functional scale), kinesiophobia (Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia for Temporomandibular Disorders) and clinical measures of mouth opening function were explored.

Results

Impairments in AROM (-4 mm, p = 0.04, d = 0.5), movement quality (p < 0.01, φ = 0.6), pain on movement (p < 0.01, d = 0.8) and stiffness on movement (p < 0.01, d = 1.6) were observed in the IA-TMD group compared to controls. Patient-reported mouth opening limitations and kinesiophobia were significantly correlated (r = −0.48, p < 0.01); no correlation was found between patient-reported limitations and clinical mouth opening measures (r < 0.3, p > 0.05).

Conclusions

Mouth opening function is impaired in IA-TMD. However, kinesiophobia appears more related to patient-reported mouth opening limitations than clinical impairments. Consideration of clinical, kinesiophobia and patient-reported limitation measures are necessary to direct management of IA-TMD in those presenting for care.

Background

Subjective pain intensity can be measured using instruments like the Faces Pain Scale-Revised (FPS-R), Verbal Rating Scale (VRS), Numerical Pain Rating Scale (NPRS), and Visual Analogue Scale (VAS). However, information on physiotherapists' and patients' knowledge and preference for these tools is scarce.

Objective

We investigated the knowledge and preference of physiotherapists and participants with musculoskeletal pain (MP) regarding the pain intensity measurement scales.

Methods

This cross-sectional study consisted of physiotherapists and participants with MP. Physiotherapists were recruited via social media for an online open survey, gathering sociodemographic, professional data, and their knowledge and preferences for pain intensity scales. Participants over 18 with MP, participated in interviews focusing on their familiarity and preferences for pain intensity scales. Data was analyzed descriptively, and Chi-squared test evaluated scale preferences.

Results

We included 352 physiotherapists (mean experience = 10.5 years) and 94 participants with MP. Of the physiotherapists, 94.3% were familiar with pain scales, but 30.4% struggled to differentiate them. The NPRS was the most used (56.3%) and preferred scale (52.4%). Among participants with MP, unfamiliarity was noted with all scales. After instruction, 46% preferred FPS-R, with preference varying by income and education levels (p < 0.001).

Conclusion

We found a knowledge gap among physiotherapists in identifying pain intensity scales, with a preference for the NPRS among those familiar with the scales. Participants with MP had limited familiarity with these scales. After instructions, these participants preferred the FPS-R, particularly those with lower income and education levels.

Background

Person-centred care underscores the therapeutic alliance (TA) as fundamental, fostering positive treatment outcomes through collaborative patient-clinician interactions. Biobehavioural synchrony within the TA, essential for effective care, reflects an adaptive process where organisms align responses during interactions. Enactivism and active inference provide profound insights into human perception, reshaping musculoskeletal care understanding. Touch and verbal communication, integral to the TA, foster synchrony and alignment of personal beliefs.

Aim

This study aimed to identify the tools used by manual therapists in musculoskeletal care to establish a TA with patients. Furthermore, it endeavours to evaluate the alignment of these strategies with current literature and their correlation with biobehavioural synchrony, enactivism, and the role of touch in active inference.

Methods

The methodology followed rigorous qualitative research principles, particularly Grounded Theory and interpretative-constructivist principles, conducting eleven semi-structured interviews with open-ended questions.

Results

The core category identified in the study is elucidated as follows: "Interwoven Connection: The Fabric of Therapeutic Synchrony." The interviews unveiled three main categories, each comprising sub-categories: (1) Creating a meaningful dialogue; (2) Promoting active patient participation; (3) Synchronisation.

Conclusion

Fostering meaningful dialogue, patient involvement, and therapeutic synchrony is crucial for a robust therapeutic alliance in musculoskeletal care. This underscores the importance of establishing a deep connection between clinicians and patients, central to effective person-centred care. Clinicians must prioritise two-way communication, empathy, and patient collaboration in defining personalised goals. Emphasizing touch and seeking patient feedback are also pivotal. Further research is needed to explore these elements and their impact.

Background

Due to their high prevalence, long-term disability, work absenteeism, and low productivity capacity they often lead to, nociplastic and chronic pain are a major public health and social concern. Although high-level literature recommends the Biopsychosocial model, the traditional Biomedical approach is still very diffuse in clinical practise. It is recognized that the beliefs and attitudes of clinicians have an impact on those of patients. The Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) was used to validate the Italian version of the PABS-MSK questionnaire.

Objectives

The aim of this study was to translate the original PABS-MSK items into Italian and then assess the construct validity of the new Italian version of the PABS-MSK questionnaire, addressed to physiotherapists, to gain knowledge about physiotherapists’ attitudes and beliefs toward the management of chronic musculoskeletal pain and to correlate them with individual characteristics.

Methods

An EFA was performed to validate the modified-Italian-PABS-MSK questionnaire. Furthermore, multivariable regression models were implemented to assess any statistically significant differences in the total score of the two dimensions for sociodemographic and occupational characteristics.

Results

The sample consisted of 563 subjects who are members of the order of physiotherapists.

The Parallel Analysis suggested extracting two factors, and the EFA showed that the first scale (which we called Biopsychosocial) had higher factor loadings values, while two items (7 and 19) did not adequately represent the other scale (Biomedical).

Moreover, the regression models showed that younger and freelance clinicians are more prone to adhere to the Biopsychosocial model.

Conclusions

The modified-Italian-PABS-MSK questionnaire appears to measure two factors related to the Biopsychosocial and Biomedical beliefs of physiotherapists in the management of chronic musculoskeletal pain. The results suggest that professional training based on the evidence and recommendations of international guidelines is necessary to improve the adherence of physiotherapists to the Biopsychosocial model. However, additional studies are needed to further validate the scales, and assess the test-retest reliability, responsiveness, and construct validity.

Background

Motor control exercise is commonly applied in people with chronic low back pain (CLBP), but possibly not all people with CLBP have motor control impairments. We suggest movement precision as measure to identify motor control impairments. Movement precision has been operationalized as trunk movement variability (TMV) and as trunk tracking error(s) (TTE). Objectives: To compare the known-group validity and the responsiveness of TMV and TTE.

Design

We used a case-control comparison (Healthy controls (n = 30) vs CLBP (n = 60)) to assess the known-group validity. A cohort study, (measurements in week 3 and week 12 of treatment), was used to assess responsiveness.

Methods

TMV (temporal (CyclSD) and spatial (MeanSD)) was analyzed during standing, repetitive flexion and rotation tasks (35x). TTE was measured during movement target tracking tasks, again in flexion and rotation. Participants with CLBP followed a multidisciplinary intervention and both measures were assessed in week 3 and week 12 of treatment. 2-way MANOVA and 2-way ANOVA were used to assess the effect of Group (CLBP vs healthy controls) and direction (flexion vs rotation) on TMV and TTE. For responsiveness, 2-way MANOVA and 2-way ANOVA were used to assess the effect of treatment and direction on both measures.

Findings

At baseline, TMV was not different between groups, while TTE was higher in the people with CLBP (p = 0.005, n_p² = 0.09). Treatment strongly decreased temporal TMV (p = 0.025, n_p² = 0.33) and TTE (p < 0.001, n_p² = 0.844).

Conclusions

These results demonstrate that TTE is more sensitive to CLBP and more responsive to treatment than TMV.

Objective

The aim of this experimental study was to determine which manual therapy approach is more effective in addressing health status by improving symptoms (sensory, cognitive, emotional, and social) in patients with fibromyalgia.

Material and methods

A quasi-randomized clinical trial with 3-month follow-up was conducted in 52 female patients (age 52.5 ± 8.1 years) affected by rheumatologist-diagnosed Fibromyalgia and evaluated at the Asociación de Fibromialgia y Síndrome de Fatiga Crónica (AFINSYFACRO) in Móstoles and AFIBROM, Madrid, Spain. Two manual therapy approaches were applied: the myofascial technique approach (MTA) and Maitland Mobilization Approach (MMA). The study examined the following outcomes: Widespread Pain, Symptom Severity, Impact on Quality of Life, Perceived Pain, Sensitization-Associated Pain, Sleep Quality, Physical Activity, and Psychological, Cognitive, and Emotional Factors. Patient Satisfaction was also assessed.

Results

No significant differences were found between groups over time for most variables. However, the MTA group showed significant improvements in pain intensity, central sensitization, general health, sleep quality, and anxiety compared with the MMA group.

Conclusions

Despite the lack of between-group differences in all variables over time, MTA may be useful in the treatment of fibromyalgia, reducing pain, central sensitization, and negative emotional symptoms, as well as improving general health and sleep quality. Due to problems during the study, randomization was abandoned. This problem becomes a virtue by taking advantage of the situation to apply statistical compensation methods, which will serve as a guide for future research that suffers from this problem. We suggest the inclusion of longer follow-up periods in future studies.