The effect of direction specific thoracic spine manipulation on the cervical spine: a randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the difference on neck outcomes with directional manipulation to the thoracic spine. There is evidence that thoracic spine manipulation is effective in treating patients with neck pain. However, there is no research that determines if the assessment of directional hypomobility and the selection of thrust direction offer improved outcomes. METHODS: A total of 69 patients with cervical spine pain were randomly assigned to receive either a manipulation that was consistent with their thoracic spine motion loss (matched) or opposite their motion loss (unmatched). The patient was given care consistent with the orthopedic section guidelines for neck pain and the physical therapist's clinical reasoning. Baseline outcome measures (NPRS, NDI, GROC) were taken and reassessed two days and two weeks after treatment. RESULTS: Both groups had positive results when pain, neck disability index, and global rating of change were assessed. There was no difference between the matched and unmatched groups. DISCUSSION: Directional manipulation of hypomobile thoracic spine segments may not be required to improved outcomes in patients with neck pain. Future studies should assess a variety of factors when determining the best available treatment, including manual therapy procedures, exercise, and patient selection. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 1b.

Addressing Health Care Access Disparities Through A Public Health Approach to Physical Therapist Practice.

As the field evolves as a doctoring profession, the role and scope of physical therapist practice must also grow to meet important and urgent public health needs. Scalable, population-level interventions must be prioritized to the same degree as tailored, individual level care. Drawing from public health frameworks, this Perspective proposes an approach to population-level physical therapist care delivery that aims to mitigate disease and disability and improve health outcomes by expanding access, decreasing cost, and improving quality of care for those facing the greatest health disparities. Application of these frameworks prompts the development of novel approaches to rehabilitation service delivery to advance twin goals of promoting access to care and reducing health disparities. This paper describes how a population health framework and public health approach can be used to support necessary evolution and innovation within the field of physical therapy and to improve rehabilitation service delivery. Rapid developments in the digital and virtual health space have created a unique opportunity for physical therapists to lean into a new vision of their role as clinicians within the broader health ecosystem. This paper will provide clinicians with a broader perspective of physical therapist expertise and describe opportunities for the development and application of a physical therapist skill set towards driving population health outcomes. Real-world examples will guide clinicians to consider opportunities in their own practice for implementing this public health approach and potentially addressing various contributors to persistent health disparities.

A comparison of treatment signatures of high and low performing physical therapists for patients with lower back pain: analysis of spine care from a physical therapy outcomes registry.

INTRODUCTION: Lower back pain (LBP) is the most common orthopedic complaint in the United States. Physical therapy is recommended as a conservative, non-pharmacological intervention for LBP. While it is thought that skill level and effectiveness of physical therapists differ, there is little understanding regarding characteristics that distinguish high and low performing physical therapists. The purpose of this study was to compare differences in care delivery, termed treatment signatures, between high and low performing physical therapists previously differentiated by a risk-adjusted performance measure. METHODS: Using previously published methodology, 1,240 physical therapists were classified as "outperforming", "meeting expectations", or "underperforming" relative to predicted change in Modified Low Back Pain Disability Questionnaire (MDQ) across patients receiving care for LBP. Patients were divided into quartiles of baseline disability per initial MDQ. Two-way analyses of variance were used to compare billed (1) active, exercise-based units per visit (UPV), (2) manual therapy UPV, (3) modality UPV, and (4) the combination of active and manual therapy UPV (broadly termed skilled UPV) by performance cohort and baseline patient disability quartile among physical therapists deemed "outperforming" and "underperforming". Tukey's post hoc tests established mean differences with 95% confidence intervals. RESULTS: Physical therapists that "outperformed" (n=120; 17,404 patients) used more active UPV (mean difference (diff) = 0.1, p<.001), manual therapy UPV (mean diff = 0.2, p<.001), and skilled UPV (mean diff = 0.3, p<.001), and less modality UPV (mean diff = 0.1, P < 0.001) than those that "underperformed" (n=139; 21,800 patients). Tukey's post hoc tests showed that while differences in care were negligible in patients with low baseline disability, the highest performing PT cohort delivered skilled (0.4 UPV), active (0.2 UPV), and manual therapy (0.2 UPV) UPV at a significantly higher mean rate in patients with the highest baseline disability. CONCLUSIONS: Clinically effective physical therapists incorporated a treatment signature that included a consistent blend of skilled active and manual therapy interventions that was distinct from lower performing physical therapists. While group mean differences were relatively small, a consistent pattern emerged in which high performing physical therapists maintained a high level of skilled, one-on-one interventions across their entire caseload-while their lower performing counterparts significantly decreased use of the same interventions as baseline disability increased. These differences highlighted a treatment signature that was associated with clinically important improvements for patients with greater baseline disability. Future guideline recommendations should consider the importance of baseline disability and the consistent application of skilled active and manual therapy interventions.

The immediate effect of atlanto-axial high velocity thrust techniques on blood flow in the vertebral artery: A randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: High velocity thrust (HVT) cervical techniques have been associated with serious vertebral artery (VA) trauma. Despite numerous studies, the nature of this association is uncertain. Previous studies have failed to demonstrate haemodynamic effects on the VA in simulated pre-thrust positions. No study has investigated haemodynamic affects during or immediately following HVT, nor sufficiently controlled for the influence of the thrust. OBJECTIVES: To investigate the immediate effects of HVT of the atlanto-axial joint upon haemodynamics in the sub-occipital portion of the vertebral artery (VA3). DESIGN: Randomized Controlled Trial. METHOD: Twenty-three healthy participants (14 women, 9 men; mean age 40, range 27-69 years of age) were randomly assigned to two groups: an intervention group (MANIP, n = 11) received HVT to the atlanto-axial segment whilst a control group (CG, n = 12) was held in the pre-manipulative hold position. Colour-flow Doppler ultrasound was used to measure VA3 haemodynamics. Primary outcome measures were peak systolic (PSV) and end diastolic velocities (EDV) of three cardiac cycles measured at neutral (N1), pre-HVT (PreMH), post-HVT (PostMH), post-HVT-neutral (N2) positions. RESULTS: Test-retest reliability for the Doppler measures demonstrated intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) of 0.99 (95% CI 0.98-1.0) for PSV and 0.91 (95% CI 0.84-0.96) for EDV. Visually, EDV were lower in the MANIP group than in the CONTROL group across the four measurements. However, there were no significantly different changes (at p ≤ 0.01) between the MANIP and CONTROL groups for any measurement variable. CONCLUSIONS: HVT to the atlanto-axial joint segment does not affect the haemodynamics of the sub-occipital portion of the vertebral artery during or immediately following HVT in healthy subjects.

Ankle work and dynamic joint stiffness in high- compared to low-arched athletes during a barefoot running task.

UNLABELLED: High- (HA) and low-arched (LA) athletes have an exaggerated risk of injury. Ankle joint stiffness is a potential underlying mechanism for the greater rate of injury within these two functionally different groups. An alternative candidate mechanism of injury in HA and LA athletes pertains to the efficacy of the foot as a rigid lever during propulsion. The purpose of this study was to quantify the differences in ankle dynamic joint stiffness, and ankle braking work and ankle propulsive work during stance phase of running. METHODS: Ten HA and ten LA athletes performed five barefoot running trials while ground reaction forces and three-dimensional kinematics were recorded. Ankle dynamic joint stiffness was calculated as the slope of the ankle joint moment-ankle joint angle plot during load attenuation. Ankle braking and propulsive work values were calculated for the stance phase. RESULTS: HA athletes had significantly greater ankle dynamic joint stiffness and significantly smaller ankle net and propulsive work than LA athletes. CONCLUSIONS: These data demonstrate that HA and LA athletes exhibit unique biomechanical patterns during running. These patterns may be related to lower extremity injury.