Orthopaedic Manual Physical Therapy: A Modern Definition and Description.

Currently, orthopaedic manual physical therapy (OMPT) lacks a description of practice that reflects contemporary thinking and embraces advances across the scientific, clinical, and educational arms of the profession. The absence of a clear definition of OMPT reduces understanding of the approach across health care professions and potentially limits OMPT from inclusion in scientific reviews and clinical practice guidelines. For example, it is often incorrectly classified as passive care or incorrectly contrasted with exercise-therapy approaches. This perspective aims to provide clinicians, researchers, and stakeholders a modern definition of OMPT that improves the understanding of this approach both inside and outside the physical therapist profession. The authors also aim to outline the unique and essential aspects of advanced OMPT training with the corresponding examination and treatment competencies. This definition of practice and illustration of its defining characteristics is necessary to improve the understanding of this approach and to help classify it correctly for study in the scientific literature. This perspective provides a current definition and conceptual model of OMPT, defining the distinguishing characteristics and key elements of this systematic and active patient-centered approach to improve understanding and help classify it correctly for study in the scientific literature.

Dry Needling Versus Manual Therapy for Patients With Mechanical Neck Pain: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the short- and intermediate-term effects of dry needling to manual therapy on pain, disability, function, and patient-perceived improvement in patients with mechanical neck pain. DESIGN: A single (therapist) blinded randomized controlled trial. METHODS: Seventy-eight patients (mean ± SD age, 50.74 ± 13.81) were randomly assigned to one of the 2 groups: (1) dry needling and therapeutic exercises (DN + Exercises) and (2) manual therapy and therapeutic exercises (MT + Exercises). Both groups received 7 treatment sessions over a maximum of 6 weeks. Outcome measures, collected at baseline, 2 weeks, discharge (7th treatment session), and 3 months after discharge, were as follows: Neck Disability Index (NDI), numeric pain-rating scale (NPRS), Patient-Specific Functional Scale (PSFS), global rating of change (GROC), Fear-Avoidance Belief Questionnaire (FABQ), and Deep Neck Flexor Endurance Test (DNFET). Data were analyzed with mixed-model analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), using pretest scores as covariates, and a Mann-Whitney U test for GROC scores. RESULTS: The ANCOVA revealed significant group-by-time interaction for all variables. Significant between-group differences, favoring MT + Exercises, were observed at all 3 time points on the NDI (2 weeks: F1,446 = 172.68, P≤.001, [Formula: see text] = .27; discharge: F1,446 = 254.15, P≤.001, [Formula: see text] = .36; and 3 months: F1,446 = 339.40, P≤.001, [Formula: see text] = .43). Results for the MT + Exercises group exceeded recommended minimal clinically important difference for all variables, at all follow-up points. CONCLUSION: MT + Exercises was more effective, both in the short term and intermediate term, than DN + Exercises in reducing pain, disability, and improving function in patients with mechanical neck pain. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2024;54(4):1-12. Epub 29 January 2024. doi:10.2519/jospt.2024.12091.

Operative Management for Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injury in Patients Over 40 Years Old Yields Increased Clinical Outcome: A Systematic Review.

PURPOSE: To evaluate outcomes of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) rupture in patients ≥40 years treated nonoperatively or with ACL reconstruction (ACLR). METHODS: A review of MEDLINE, CINAHL, SportDiscus, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases from inception to June 1, 2021, was performed to identify randomized controlled trials, prospective or retrospective cohorts, case controls, or case series that met the following criteria: English-language studies reporting at least one subjective and/or objective outcome measure in ACL rupture patients ≥40 years treated nonoperatively or by ACLR. No limits were placed on graft type, time-to-surgery/follow-up, or concomitant procedures. Variability in patient-reported outcome scores, including subjective IKDC score, Lysholm score, Tegner activity score, and Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, was assessed to evaluate the utility of applying previously established clinically meaningful thresholds to pooled outcome data. RESULTS: 12,605 citations were identified using screening criteria. Sixty studies satisfied criteria following full-text review. As previous systematic reviews reported on earlier literature evaluating ACLR outcomes in patients ≥40 years, studies in this review were limited to include only those published in the last 10 years (40 studies). An additional 16 studies were excluded based on aims of the review not identified during initial screen. Although preoperative to postoperative population-based improvements in Lysholm score, Tegner score, and IKDC score surpassed minimal clinically important differences (MCID) in at least 50% of studies, the variability present in the pooled data may limit its application. No studies evaluated nonoperative outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence supports operative management in patients ≥40 years, as studies generally demonstrated preoperative to postoperative improvements in clinical outcomes based on population-level changes. However, application of patient-level clinically relevant thresholds to pooled outcome data should be undertaken with caution as reporting of population-based outcome scores may not accurately reflect changes in individual patients. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Systematic review, IV.

The healthcare buffet: preferences in the clinical decision-making process for patients with musculoskeletal pain.

The preferences a person has for care are associated with outcomes for patients presenting with musculoskeletal pain conditions. These include preferences for differing levels of involvement in the decision-making process, preferences for the provider attributes, and preferences for particular interventions. In this paper, we discuss these various forms of preference, as well as how they influence clinical care within shared decision-making frameworks. We also present a conceptual framing for how patient preferences can be incorporated in clinical decision-making by orthopedic manual physical therapists. Finally, research implications for interpreting findings from clinical studies are discussed.

Integrating Motivational Interviewing in Pain Neuroscience Education for People With Chronic Pain: A Practical Guide for Clinicians.

Pain neuroscience education (PNE) and motivational interviewing (MI) have been widely implemented and tested in the field of chronic pain management, and both strategies have been shown to be effective in the short term (small effect sizes) for the management of chronic pain. PNE uses contemporary pain science to educate patients about the biopsychosocial nature of the chronicity of their pain experience. The goal of PNE is to optimize patients' pain beliefs/perceptions to facilitate the acquisition of adaptive pain-coping strategies. MI, on the other hand, is a patient-centered communication style for eliciting and enhancing motivation for behavior change by shifting the patient away from a state of indecision or uncertainty. Conceptually, PNE and MI appear to be complementary interventions, with complementary rather than overlapping effects; MI primarily improves cognitive and behavioral awareness and, potentially, adherence to treatment principles, whereas PNE potentially increases pain knowledge/beliefs, awareness, and willingness to explore psychological factors that are potentially associated with pain. Therefore, combining PNE with MI might lead to improved outcomes with larger and longer-lasting effect sizes. The combined use of PNE and MI in patients having chronic pain is introduced here, along with a description of how clinicians might be able to integrate PNE and MI in the treatment of patients experiencing chronic pain. Clinical trials are needed to examine whether combining PNE with MI is superior to PNE or MI alone for improving pain and quality of life in patients having chronic pain.

The immediate effects of soft tissue mobilization versus therapeutic ultrasound for patients with neck and arm pain with evidence of neural mechanosensitivity: a randomized clinical trial.

STUDY DESIGN: Randomized clinical trial. OBJECTIVES: To investigate the immediate effects of soft tissue mobilization (STM) versus therapeutic ultrasound (US) in patients with neck and arm pain who demonstrate neural mechanical sensitivity. BACKGROUND: While experts have suggested that individuals with neck and arm pain associated with neural tissue mechanical sensitivity may benefit from STM, there has been little research to investigate this hypothesis. METHODS: Twenty-three patients with neck and arm pain and a positive upper limb neurodynamic test (ULNT) were randomly assigned to receive STM or therapeutic US during a single session. Outcome measures were collected immediately before and after treatment, and at 2-4 day follow-up. Primary outcomes were the Global Rating of Change (GROC), range of motion (ROM) during the ULNT, and pain rating during the ULNT. Secondary measures included the Neck Disability Index (NDI), Patient-Specific Functional Scale (PSFS), Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NPRS), and active range of shoulder abduction motion combined with the wrist neutral or wrist extension. RESULTS: A greater proportion of patients in the STM group reported a significant improvement on the GROC immediately after treatment (P = 0·003, STM = 75%, US = 9%), and at 2-4 day follow-up (P = 0·027, STM = 58%, US = 9%). Patients who received STM demonstrated greater improvements in ROM during ULNT (P = 0·026), PSFS (P = 0·007), and shoulder active ROM combined with wrist extension (P = 0·028). Improvements in Numeric Pain Rating Scale and pain during the ULNT were observed only in the STM group. There was no difference between groups for the NDI or shoulder abduction ROM with wrist neutral. CONCLUSION: Patients with neck and arm pain demonstrated greater improvements in ULNT ROM, GROC, and PSFS, and pain following STM than after receiving therapeutic US. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapy, level 1b.

Regional interdependence and manual therapy directed at the thoracic spine.

Thoracic spine manipulation is commonly used by physical therapists for the management of patients with upper quarter pain syndromes. The theoretical construct for using thoracic manipulation for upper quarter conditions is a mainstay of a regional interdependence (RI) approach. The RI concept is likely much more complex and is perhaps driven by a neurophysiological response including those related to peripheral, spinal cord and supraspinal mechanisms. Recent evidence suggests that thoracic spine manipulation results in neurophysiological changes, which may lead to improved pain and outcomes in individuals with musculoskeletal disorders. The intent of this narrative review is to describe the research supporting the RI concept and its application to the treatment of individuals with neck and/or shoulder pain. Treatment utilizing both thrust and non-thrust thoracic manipulation has been shown to result in improvements in pain, range of motion and disability in patients with upper quarter conditions. Research has yet to determine optimal dosage, techniques or patient populations to which the RI approach should be applied; however, emerging evidence supporting a neurophysiological effect for thoracic spine manipulation may negate the need to fully answer this question. Certainly, there is a need for further research examining both the clinical efficacy and effectiveness of manual therapy interventions utilized in the RI model as well as the neurophysiological effects resulting from this intervention.

A preliminary study comparing the use of cervical/upper thoracic mobilization and manipulation for individuals with mechanical neck pain.

OBJECTIVES: Neck pain is routinely managed using manual therapy (MT) to the cervical and thoracic spines. While both mobilizations and manipulations to these areas have been shown to reduce neck pain, increase cervical range of motion, and reduce disability, the most effective option remains elusive. The purpose of this preliminary trial was to compare the pragmatic use of cervical and thoracic mobilizations vs. manipulation for mechanical neck pain. METHODS: This trial included 20 patients with mechanical neck pain. Each patient was randomized to receive either mobilization or manipulation to both the cervical and thoracic spines during their plan of care. Within-group analyses were made with Wilcoxon signed-rank tests and between-group analyses were made with Mann-Whitney U. RESULTS: There were no between-group differences for any of the dependent variables including cervical active range of motion (CAROM) (P = 0.18), deep cervical flexion (DCF) endurance (P = 0.06), numerical pain rating scale (NPRS) (P = 0.26), the neck disability index (NDI, P = 0.33), patient-specific functional scale (PSFS, P = 0.20), or the global rating of change (GROC) scale (P = 0.94). Within-group results were significant for all outcome variables (P<0.001) from initial evaluation to discharge for both groups. DISCUSSION: These findings were consistent with other trials previously conducted that applied the MT techniques in a pragmatic fashion, but varied from previous trials where the treatment was standardized. A larger experimental study is necessary to further examine the differences between mobilization and manipulation for neck pain.

Assessing dimensionality and responsiveness of outcomes measures for patients with low back pain.

OBJECTIVE: To provide a systematic literature review of the responsiveness of patient-reported health outcomes measures for the evaluation of low back pain (LBP). METHODS AND DESIGN: Searches of MEDLINE and EMBASE were performed for articles published in English through June 29, 2009 using the search terms "back pain" or "low back pain" and "questionnaires" or "instrument" or "survey" or "measure" or "patient report outcome." Information on responsiveness was gathered through additional measure-specific searches that included the measure name, first author of the original paper, and "respons*" or "sensit*." Responsiveness was determined based on use of a receiver operating characteristics curve or effect size statistics. RESULTS: Of 43 identified measures, 31 were reported as being responsive to treatment or clinical change, 25 of which were evaluated for responsiveness using methods considered adequate. When considering both the responsiveness evaluation and the underlying factor structure, 13 measures were identified as being adequately validated for use in evaluating responsiveness in the research or clinical practice setting. The majority of the LBP outcome assessment studies were comprised of patients undergoing physical and interventional therapies from clinical practice and clinical trials. The Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire and the Oswestry Disability Index were the most comprehensively validated measures with respect to responsiveness. CONCLUSIONS: We identified 13 measures of LBP that can be used to evaluate responsiveness to change. Choice of a measure warrants careful evaluation of its construct and responsiveness properties in order to maximize the observed impact on pain and functional improvement in subjects with LBP.

Patient expectations of benefit from common interventions for low back pain and effects on outcome: secondary analysis of a clinical trial of manual therapy interventions.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this secondary analysis was 1) to examine patient expectations related to a variety of common interventions for low back pain (LBP) and 2) to determine the influence that specific expectations about spinal manipulation might have had on self-report of disability. METHODS: We collected patients' expectations about the benefit of specific interventions for low back pain. We also collected patients' general expectations about treatment and tested the relationships among the expectation of benefit from an intervention, receiving that intervention and disability-related outcomes. RESULTS: Patients expected exercise and manual therapy interventions to provide more benefit than surgery and medication. There was a statistical association between expecting relief from thrust techniques and receiving thrust techniques, related to meeting the general expectation for treatment (chi-square: 15.5, P  =  0.008). This was not the case for patients who expected relief from thrust techniques but did not receive it (chi-square: 6.9, P  = 0.4). Logistic regression modeling was used to predict change in disability at treatment visit 5. When controlling for whether the general expectations for treatment were met, intervention assignment and the interaction between intervention assignment and expectations regarding thrust techniques, the parsimonious model only included intervention as the significant contributor to the model (P < 0.001). The adjusted odds ratio of success comparing thrust techniques to non-thrust in this study was 41.2 (11.0, 201.7). DISCUSSION: The findings of this secondary analysis indicate that patients seeking intervention for LBP expect active interventions and manual therapy to significantly help improve their pain more than interventions like traction, rest, surgery, or medication. Additionally, in patients who meet the clinical prediction rule for good prognosis when managed with thrust techniques, treating with thrust techniques is more important than matching treatment to patient expectation.