RESUMO
OBJECTIVES: To investigate the relationship between clinical outcome and the types of end range procedures used to achieve centralization in a sample of patients with low back pain (LBP) and/or peripheral symptoms. METHODS: Small sample retrospective analysis of an observational cohort. Patients with LBP who centralized during initial visit at two physical therapy clinics were recruited to participate. The types of end range procedures used to achieve centralization were documented during each office visit and a chart review was performed after 4 weeks. Outcomes were determined by improvement in the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) score after 4 weeks. Statistical analysis determined the association between the types of end range procedures and outcomes. RESULTS: Thirty-one patients gave consent to participate. Nineteen patients met inclusion criteria and were included in data analysis. After 4 weeks, the improvement in mean ODI scores was 15.89 ± 16.28. Differing end range procedures were used to achieve centralization within this cohort. The types of end range procedures used to achieve centralization were not significantly associated with outcomes. DISCUSSION: The results observed in this study promote exhausting many different types of end range procedures to determine if centralization can be achieved. Limiting the end range procedures used to assess centralization may fail to identify patients who can achieve centralization and subsequently have positive clinical outcomes. Larger cohort studies investigating relationships between outcomes and the types of end range procedures used to achieve centralization would contribute to management of people with LBP. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4.
RESUMO
Mechanical neck pain is a common occurrence in the general population resulting in a considerable economic burden. Often physical therapists will incorporate manual therapies directed at the cervical spine including joint mobilization and manipulation into the management of patients with cervical pain. Although the effectiveness of mobilization and manipulation of the cervical spine has been well documented, the small inherent risks associated with these techniques has led clinicians to frequently utilize manipulation directed at the thoracic spine in this patient population. It is hypothesized that thoracic spine manipulation may elicit similar therapeutic benefits as cervical spine manipulation while minimizing the magnitude of risk associated with the cervical technique. The purpose of this randomized clinical trial was to investigate the immediate effects of thoracic spine manipulation on perceived pain levels in patients presenting with neck pain. The results suggest that thoracic spine manipulation results in immediate analgesic effects in patients with mechanical neck pain. Further studies are needed to determine the effects of thoracic spine manipulation in patients with neck pain on long-term outcomes including function and disability.
Assuntos
Manipulação Ortopédica/métodos , Cervicalgia/terapia , Amplitude de Movimento Articular , Vértebras Torácicas/fisiopatologia , Adulto , Análise de Variância , Feminino , Humanos , Masculino , Avaliação de Resultados em Cuidados de Saúde , Medição da Dor , Satisfação do Paciente , Projetos de Pesquisa , Índice de Gravidade de Doença , Resultado do TratamentoRESUMO
STUDY DESIGN: Resident's case problem. BACKGROUND: Acute back pain most often presents as musculoskeletal in nature; however, less frequently it may be the result of an underlying, or coexisting, systemic pathology. When present, the signs and symptoms of systemic pathology can mimic, or be masked by, musculoskeletal back pain, which may pose a diagnostic challenge during the clinical evaluation. The purpose of this resident's case problem is to describe the clinical reasoning process leading to a medical referral for a patient who presented to physical therapy with debilitating low back pain. DIAGNOSIS: The patient in this resident's case problem was a 67-year-old male referred to physical therapy with a 2-week history of severe low back pain and muscle spasms. The patient history and physical examination were suggestive of musculoskeletal back pain and physical therapy treatment was initiated. Abdominal pain was elicited during an introductory therapeutic exercise, which was recognized by the therapist as a potential sign of abdominal pathology. The therapist performed an additional review of systems and an abdominal screening examination, which established the necessity of an immediate medical referral. At the emergency department, ominous abdominal pathology was safely ruled out through diagnostic imaging and the patient was treated for secondary gastrointestinal effects of opioid analgesic medications. DISCUSSION: This resident's case problem provides an opportunity to discuss the clinical reasoning process leading to the suspicion of abdominal pathology. Specifically, this case reinforces the importance of recognizing potential signs of systemic pathology, executing an appropriate physical examination, including screening of the involved anatomical region, and providing an appropriate medical referral when indicated.