Effect of slit lamp table design on neck position and the prevalence of neck pain in eye care professionals.

BACKGROUND: Ophthalmologists/Optometrists have a high incidence of neck pain. Little research has been conducted on specific equipment that predisposes these professionals to cervical discomfort. OBJECTIVE: Primary purpose: to determine if neck position is altered by slit lamp table design. Secondary purpose: to confirm the prevalence of neck pain in eye care professionals. METHODS: A survey of work-related pain was administered to 36 subjects (8 ophthalmologist, 2 optometrists, 26 technicians). The craniovertebral (CV) angle was measured in each subject in three separate positions (resting posture, best posture, slit lamp posture) between two different slit lamps/tables: slit lamp-deep and slit lamp-shallow. RESULTS: 79% of subjects reported neck pain in the last 6 months. The mean CV angle of all subjects at resting posture, best posture, and both slit lamp postures differed significantly. There was also a difference in CV angle between slit lamps. CONCLUSION: Neck pain is more prevalent in eye professionals than in the general population. The use of slit lamps promotes a forward head posture which decreases the CV angle, putting the user at risk for neck pain. By altering slit lamp table design, the CV angle of eye care professionals can be increased, reducing the risk for neck injury.

Soft tissue mobilization techniques in treating chronic abdominal scar tissue: A quasi-experimental single subject design.

INTRODUCTION: Roughly 17 million abdominal surgeries are performed annually in the U.S. Up to 17% of those may be readmitted for adhesion related problems. This study evaluated the effectiveness of soft tissue mobilization (STM) techniques at improving chronic pain, mobility restrictions and functional deficits following complex abdominal surgery. METHODS: Subjects Two females aged 51 and 65. DESIGN: Single subject quasi-experimental A-B-A. INTERVENTION: Four 30-min treatment sessions of abdominal tissue mobilizations. Outcome measures Pain pressure threshold (PPT) and average scar mobility (ASM), Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NPRS), and the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). RESULTS: Subject 1 ASM and PPT of the abdomen improved significantly and exceeded the established standard error of measurement (SEM). PPT of the scar decreased during the second baseline. This decrease exceeded the SEM for PPT but was not statistically significant. The changes in NPRS did not reach the minimal clinically important difference (MCID). Subject 2 abdominal PPT and ASM showed statistically significant improvements that exceeded their SEMs. Scar PPT showed improvement during the repeat baseline, however, this reached neither statistical significance nor the SEM. CONCLUSIONS: Scar mobility and abdominal PPT improved both statistically and clinically in both subjects after only 4 sessions of STM. Scar pain measured by NPRS and PPT did not show significant improvement. This study demonstrated that STM can be an effective way to treat chronic abdominal scars by increasing scar mobility and reducing abdominal sensitivity to pressure. It is non-invasive, and is a less costly alternative to laparoscopic adhesiolysis.

Effect of soft tissue mobilization techniques on adhesion-related pain and function in the abdomen: A systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the effects of soft tissue mobilization (STM) on both surgical and non-surgical abdominal adhesion-related symptoms. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic Review. BACKGROUND: It is known that abdominal adhesions can cause a variety of symptoms with one of the most common being abdominal pain. To date, there is no known systematic review that documents the effects of STM on adhesion-related abdominal symptoms. METHODS AND MEASURES: A systematic review of literature was indexed in the following databases: PubMed, Cochrane, Google Scholar, OVID, and EBSCO. The quality of the studies was assessed using the MINORS scale. RESULTS: Nine studies satisfied the eligibility criteria for this systematic review. The studies' population age ranged from 10.7 to 89.4 years. Four articles were nonrandomized and had scores ranging from 3 to 14 out of 16 total on the MINORS scale. Five articles were randomized controlled trials or comparative studies and scores ranged from 16 to 23 out of 24 total on the MINORS scale. There were five articles that used pain as an objective measure and all of them reported a decrease in pain after treatment. Two studies looked at quality of life and function and both saw objective improvements following abdominal adhesion treatment. Collectively, there were also improvements seen in scar mobility, infertility, posture, a reduction in medication, increased pressure tolerance and decreased postoperative ileus. CONCLUSION: The results of this review indicate preliminary strong evidence for the benefits of STM on symptoms relating to acute post-surgical adhesions, preliminary moderate evidence for the benefits of STM on symptoms relating to chronic non-surgical related adhesions (fertility and SBO) and moderate evidence for the benefits of STM on symptoms relating to chronic post-surgical adhesions.

Reliability of modified adheremeter and digital pressure algometer in measuring normal abdominal tissue and C-section scars.

OBJECTIVE: This study tested inter- and intrarater reliability of the digital pressure algometer and modified adheremeter and concurrent validity in the algometer in both normal abdominal tissue and in chronically painful C-section scars. STUDY DESIGN: Correlational Reliability/Validity. BACKGROUND: The algometer is used to measure pressure-pain threshold (PPT). The adheremeter is a tool to measure tissue extensibility. Painful abdominal scars are being treated successfully with soft-tissue techniques yet reliable measurement tools for this tissue have not been reported. METHODS AND MEASURES: 59 subjects with normal abdominal tissue were marked at a point 2 inches inferolateral to the umbilicus. Two separate testers measured PPT twice with an algometer and tissue extensibility in superior/left/inferior/right directions with a modified adheremeter. 29 subjects with painful C-section scars were marked at 2.5 cm intervals along the scar. A total of 115 points were measured in the same manner as above. C-section subjects also were asked to rate their pain using the numeric pain rating scale (NPRS). Each tester was blinded to all other measurements. RESULTS: For PPT, intraclass correlations (ICC's) ranged from 0.814 to 0.933 with a standard error of measurement (SEM) ranging from 1.65N to 5.9 N. For tissue mobility, ICC's ranged from 0.430 to 0.914; SEM ranging from 1.67 mm to 3.7 mm. All but 2 measures had ICCs that were good-excellent. Inferior glide in C-section tissues showed the least and multi-directional measurement the strongest reliability. The PPT had a moderate negative correlation (r = -0.551) with the NPRS. CONCLUSIONS: The algometer showed excellent inter- and intra-rater reliability on normal abdominal tissue and C-section scars. It showed moderate criterion validity when compared against the NPRS. The modified adheremeter showed good-excellent inter- and intra-rater reliability on both normal abdominal tissue and C-section scars. Both measures have clinical and research applications for women's health practitioners.

Chronic caesarian section scar pain treated with fascial scar release techniques: A case series.

OBJECTIVE: To describe outcomes of two subjects with chronically painful Caesarian section (C-section) scars following an intervention of specific myofascial scar release techniques. STUDY DESIGN: Case series. BACKGROUND: Over 1.3 million C-sections are performed annually in the US. Anywhere from 7 to 18% of those will develop chronic scar pain. Although anecdotal evidence supporting the use of fascial release in reducing surgical scar pain exists, almost no research has been published. METHODS AND MEASURES: Two subjects who both underwent two C-sections resulting in chronic discomfort of 6-9 years duration participated in this study. Both reported premenstrual pain, pain upon pressure to the lower abdomen, and pain during bowel movements. Subject 1 also reported sharp pain with bed mobility. Four, 30-min treatment sessions over a period of two weeks consisted of stretching the scar until a release in tissue tension was felt by the treating therapist. Outcome measures included pain and pressure tolerance using a Pressure Algometer, measurements of scar flexibility using an Adheremeter, and the Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NPRS). These measures were collected at baseline, five days after the final treatment and at four weeks. RESULTS: Both subjects demonstrated improvements in all outcome measures. At four weeks, pressure tolerance at all point improved as much as 79% (p < 0.0001) and scar mobility increased in all directions at all points as much as 200% (p < 0.0001). Following treatment, both subjects rated their premenstrual pain for all previously painful activities at 0/10 for the first time since their surgeries. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that scar release techniques may help reduce chronic scar pain in women who have had C-section surgery.