Osteopathic medicine for fibromyalgia: a sham-controlled randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Patients with fibromyalgia (FM) frequently resort to osteopathic or chiropractic treatment, despite very weak supporting evidence. We aimed to assess the efficacy of osteopathic manipulation in FM in a properly controlled and powered randomized clinical trial. METHODS: Patients were randomized to osteopathic or sham treatment. Treatment was administered by experienced physical medicine physicians, and consisted of six sessions per patient, over 6 weeks. Treatment credibility and expectancy were repeatedly evaluated. Patients completed standardized questionnaires at baseline, during treatment, and at 6, 12, 24, and 52 weeks after randomization. The primary outcome was pain intensity (100-mm visual analog scale) during the treatment period. Secondary outcomes included fatigue, functioning, and health-related quality of life. We performed primarily intention-to-treat analyses adjusted for credibility, using multiple imputation for missing data. RESULTS: In total, 101 patients (94% women) were included. Osteopathic treatment did not significantly decrease pain relative to sham treatment (mean difference during treatment: -2.2 mm; 95% confidence interval, -9.1 to 4.6 mm). No significant differences were observed for secondary outcomes. No serious adverse events were observed, despite a likely rebound in pain and altered functioning at week 12 in patients treated by osteopathy. Patient expectancy was predictive of pain during treatment, with a decrease of 12.9 mm (4.4-21.5 mm) per 10 points on the 0-30 scale. Treatment credibility and expectancy were also predictive of several secondary outcomes. CONCLUSION: Osteopathy conferred no benefit over sham treatment for pain, fatigue, functioning, and quality of life in patients with FM. These findings do not support the use of osteopathy to treat these patients. More attention should be paid to the expectancy of patients in FM management.

Systematic review of manual therapies for nonspecific neck pain.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of manual therapies in the treatment of nonspecific neck pain. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Medline and the Cochrane Library were searched for randomized controlled trials of manual therapy or mobilization, used alone or with exercises to treat pain and functional impairment related to nonspecific neck pain. Cochrane Back Review Group criteria were used to assess the quality of the trials and the level of evidence (unclear, limited, moderate, or high) for short-, medium-, and long-term effects. RESULTS: Of 27 identified trials, 18 were of high quality. In acute neck pain, effective treatments were thoracic manipulation combined with electrothermal therapy in the short term and cervical manipulation in the long term. In chronic neck pain and neck pain of variable duration, both pain and function improved consistently at all follow-up time points. None of the manual therapies used alone or in combination was superior over the others. In the long term, exercises alone or combined with manual therapies were superior over manual therapies used alone. CONCLUSION: Manual therapies contribute usefully to the management of nonspecific neck pain. The level of evidence is moderate for short-term effects of upper thoracic manipulation in acute neck pain, limited for long-term effects of neck manipulation, and limited for all techniques and follow-up durations in chronic neck pain.

Prevention of post-coccygectomy infection in a series of 136 coccygectomies.

Postoperative infection is a regular complication in coccygectomy. The authors propose the use of a topical skin adhesive on the postoperative wound as a contribution to the prevention of this complication. It was used on the first 56 patients in this study. The rate of infection was 3.6% compared with the 14% rate of infection in a previous study. The 80 following patients had, in addition to the skin adhesive, two prophylactic antibiotics for 48 hours (cefamandole and ornidazole), a preoperative rectal enema, and closure of the incision in two layers. The rate of infection dropped to 0.0%. Topical skin adhesive constitutes a significant contribution in the prevention of infection after coccygectomy.

The treatment of chronic coccydynia with intrarectal manipulation: a randomized controlled study.

STUDY DESIGN: Randomized open study. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of intrarectal manual treatment of chronic coccydynia; and to determine the factors predictive of a good outcome. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: In 2 open uncontrolled studies, the success rate of intrarectal manipulation of the coccyx was around 25%. METHODS: Patients were randomized into 2 groups of 51 patients each: 1 group received three sessions of coccygeal manipulation, and the other low-power external physiotherapy. The manual treatment was guided by the findings on stress radiographs. Patients were assessed, at 1 month and 6 months, using a VAS and (modified) McGill Pain, Paris (functional coccydynia impact), and (modified) Dallas Pain questionnaires. RESULTS: At baseline, the 2 groups were similar regarding all parameters. At 1 month, all the median VAS and questionnaire values were modified by -34.7%, -36.0%, -20.0%, and -33.8%, respectively, in the manipulation group, versus -19.1%, -7.7%, 20.0%, and -15.7%, respectively, in the control (physiotherapy) group (P = 0.09 [borderline], 0.03, 0.02, and 0.02, respectively). Good results were twice as frequent in the manipulation group compared with the control group, at 1 month (36% vs. 20%, P = 0.075) and at 6 months (22% vs. 12%, P = 0.18). The main predictors of a good outcome were stable coccyx, shorter duration, traumatic etiology, and lower score in the affective parts of the McGill and Dallas questionnaires. CONCLUSIONS: We found a mild effectiveness of intrarectal manipulation in chronic coccydynia.