Effectiveness of translational manipulation under interscalene block for the treatment of adhesive capsulitis of the shoulder: A nonrandomized clinical trial.

Study Design: Nonrandomized controlled trial. Objective: To determine whether translational manipulation under anesthesia/local block (TMUA) adds to the benefit of mobilization and range of motion exercise for improving pain and functional status among patients with adhesive capsulitis of the shoulder (AC). Background: TMUA has been shown to improve pain and dysfunction in patients with AC. This intervention has not been directly compared to physical therapy treatment without TMUA in a prospective trial. Methods: Sixteen consecutive patients with a primary diagnosis of AC were divided into two groups. Patients in the first (TMUA) group received a session of translational manipulation under interscalene block, followed by six sessions of manipulation and exercise. Patients in the comparison group received seven sessions of manipulation and exercise. Outcome measures taken at baseline and 3, 6, 12 months and 4 years included Shoulder Pain and Disability Index (SPADI) scores. Four-year outcomes included percent of normal ratings, medication use, and activity limitations. Results: Both groups showed improved SPADI scores across all follow-up times compared to baseline. The TMUA group showed a greater improvement in SPADI scores than the comparison group at 3 weeks, with no significant differences in SPADI scores at other time points. However, at 4 years, significantly more subjects in the comparison group (5 of 8) had activity limitations versus subjects in the TMUA group (1 of 8). No subject experienced a complication from either intervention protocol. Conclusion: Physical therapy consisting of manual therapy and exercise provides benefit for patients with AC. Translational manipulation under local block may be a useful adjunct to manual therapy and exercise for patients with AC.

A clinical prediction rule to identify patients with low back pain most likely to benefit from spinal manipulation: a validation study.

BACKGROUND: Conflicting evidence exists about the effectiveness of spinal manipulation. OBJECTIVE: To validate a manipulation clinical prediction rule. DESIGN: Multicenter randomized, controlled trial. SETTING: Physical therapy clinics. PATIENTS: 131 consecutive patients with low back pain, 18 to 60 years of age, who were referred to physical therapy. INTERVENTION: Patients were randomly assigned to receive manipulation plus exercise or exercise alone by a physical therapist for 4 weeks. MEASUREMENTS: Patients were examined according to the clinical prediction rule criteria (symptom duration, symptom location, fear-avoidance beliefs, lumbar mobility, and hip rotation range of motion). Disability and pain at 1 and 4 weeks and 6 months were assessed. RESULTS: Outcome from spinal manipulation depends on a patient's status on the prediction rule. Treatment effects are greatest for the subgroup of patients who were positive on the rule (at least 4 of 5 criteria met); health care utilization among this subgroup was decreased at 6 months. Compared with patients who were negative on the rule and received exercise, the odds of a successful outcome among patients who were positive on the rule and received manipulation were 60.8 (95% CI, 5.2 to 704.7). The odds were 2.4 (CI, 0.83 to 6.9) among patients who were negative on the rule and received manipulation and 1.0 (CI, 0.28 to 3.6) among patients who were positive on the rule and received exercise. A patient who was positive on the rule and received manipulation has a 92% chance of a successful outcome, with an associated number needed to treat for benefit at 4 weeks of 1.9 (CI, 1.4 to 3.5). LIMITATIONS: The response rate for the 6-month follow-up resulted in inadequate power to detect statistically significant differences for some comparisons. CONCLUSIONS: The spinal manipulation clinical prediction rule can be used to improve decision making for patients with low back pain.