When Treating Coexisting Low Back Pain and Hip Impairments, Focus on the Back: Adding Specific Hip Treatment Does Not Yield Additional Benefits-A Randomized Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether adding hip treatment to usual care for low back pain (LBP) improved disability and pain in individuals with LBP and a concurrent hip impairment. DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial. METHODS: Seventy-six participants (age, 18 years or older; Oswestry Disability Index, 20% or greater; numeric pain-rating scale, 2 or more points) with LBP and a concurrent hip impairment were randomly assigned to a group that received treatment to the lumbar spine only (LBO group) (n = 39) or to one that received both lumbar spine and hip treatments (LBH group) (n = 37). The individual treating clinicians decided which specific low back treatments to administer to the LBO group. Treatments aimed at the hip (LBH group) included manual therapy, exercise, and education, selected by the therapist from a predetermined set of treatments. Primary outcomes were disability and pain, measured by the Oswestry Disability Index and the numeric pain-rating scale, respectively, at baseline, 2 weeks, discharge, 6 months, and 12 months. The secondary outcomes were fear-avoidance beliefs (work and physical activity subscales of the Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire), global rating of change, the Patient Acceptable Symptom State, and physical activity level. We used mixed-model 2-by-3 analyses of variance to examine group-by-time interaction effects (intention-to-treat analysis). RESULTS: Data were available for 68 patients at discharge (LBH group, n = 33; LBO group, n = 35) and 48 at 12 months (n = 24 for both groups). There were no between-group differences in disability at discharge (-5.0; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -10.9, 0.89; P = .09), 12 months (-1.0; 95% CI: -4.44, 2.35; P = .54), and all other time points. There were no between-group differences in pain at discharge (-0.2; 95% CI: -1.03, 0.53; P = .53), 12 months (0.1; 95% CI: -0.53, 0.72; P = .76), and all other time points. There were no between-group differences in secondary outcomes, except for higher Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire (work subscale) scores in the LBH group at 2 weeks (-3.35; 95% CI: -6.58, -0.11; P = .04) and discharge (-3.45; 95% CI: - 6.30, -0.61; P = .02). CONCLUSION: Adding treatments aimed at the hip to usual low back physical therapy did not provide additional short- or long-term benefits in reducing disability and pain in individuals with LBP and a concurrent hip impairment. Clinicians may not need to include hip treatments to achieve reductions in low back disability and pain in individuals with LBP and a concurrent hip impairment. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2021;51(12):581-601. Epub 16 Nov 2021. 2021. doi:10.2519/jospt.2021.10593.

Variables Describing Individuals With Improved Pain and Function With a Primary Complaint of Low Back Pain: A Secondary Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to identify descriptive factors in individuals with a primary complaint of low back pain (LBP) associated with improved pain and function after receiving physical therapy for LBP with or without manual therapy and exercise directed at the femoroacetabular joints. METHODS: Participants were enrolled in a randomized clinical trial investigating physical therapy interventions for their LBP, with or without interventions directed at the femoroacetabular joints (hips). A participant was deemed recovered if all of the following were met: Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NPRS) score of ≤2 points, ≤10% on the modified Oswestry Disability Index at discharge, and a global rating of change score of +4 at both 2 weeks and discharge. Logistic regression modelling determined descriptor variables that best predicted treatment recovery. RESULTS: Data from 90 participants were included in the analysis, with 44% (n = 40) achieving recovery by discharge from physical therapy (average 7.95 [±4.68]) visits. The variables of concurrent hip problems, lower body mass index ≤25.4, an irritable condition, and a baseline NPRS score of 4 points or less were retained in the final model (R2 = .384). Having a concurrent hip problem had the highest odds of achieving recovery in the model (odds ratio: 5.34, 95 % confidence interval: 1.31-21.8). CONCLUSIONS: The findings for the patients in this study suggest that those with a concurrent hip problem, a lower body mass index, irritable symptoms, and a baseline NPRS score of 4 points or less were associated with greater odds of achieving recovery with multimodal physical therapy interventions. Further research should continue to investigate the interplay between the lumbar spine and hip joints.

Cervicothoracic Manual Therapy Plus Exercise Therapy Versus Exercise Therapy Alone in the Management of Individuals With Shoulder Pain: A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial.

Study Design Multicenter randomized controlled trial. Background Cervicothoracic manual therapy has been shown to improve pain and disability in individuals with shoulder pain, but the incremental effects of manual therapy in addition to exercise therapy have not been investigated in a randomized controlled trial. Objectives To compare the effects of cervicothoracic manual therapy and exercise therapy to those of exercise therapy alone in individuals with shoulder pain. Methods Individuals (n = 140) with shoulder pain were randomly assigned to receive 2 sessions of cervicothoracic range-of-motion exercises plus 6 sessions of exercise therapy, or 2 sessions of high-dose cervicothoracic manual therapy and range-of-motion exercises plus 6 sessions of exercise therapy (manual therapy plus exercise). Pain and disability were assessed at baseline, 1 week, 4 weeks, and 6 months. The primary aim (treatment group by time) was examined using linear mixed-model analyses and the repeated measure of time for the Shoulder Pain and Disability Index (SPADI), the numeric pain-rating scale, and the shortened version of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand questionnaire (QuickDASH). Patient-perceived success was assessed and analyzed using the global rating of change (GROC) and the Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS), using chi-square tests of independence. Results There were no significant 2-way interactions of group by time or main effects by group for pain or disability. Both groups improved significantly on the SPADI, numeric pain-rating scale, and QuickDASH. Secondary outcomes of success on the GROC and PASS significantly favored the manual therapy-plus-exercise group at 4 weeks (P = .03 and P<.01, respectively) and on the GROC at 6 months (P = .04). Conclusion Adding 2 sessions of high-dose cervicothoracic manual therapy to an exercise program did not improve pain or disability in patients with shoulder pain, but did improve patient-perceived success at 4 weeks and 6 months and acceptability of symptoms at 4 weeks. More research is needed on the use of cervicothoracic manual therapy for treating shoulder pain. Level of Evidence Therapy, level 1b. Prospectively registered March 30, 2012 at www.ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01571674). J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2016;46(8):617-628. doi:10.2519/jospt.2016.6319.