RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Mechanical diagnosis and therapy (MDT) aims to assess and classify patients into theoretically mutually exclusive subgroups, in order to direct treatment. However, the latest evidence for biopsychosocial influence-central sensitization (CS) and psychological distress-have not been assessed in conjunction with MDT. OBJECTIVES: (1) Determine the percentage of patients categorized into the MDT subgroups; (2) characterize the biopsychosocial clinical profile (presence of CS and psychological distress); and (3) identify associations between pain, disability, and biopsychosocial influences among this cohort. METHODS: Eighty four patients with chronic neck pain were recruited by 10 certified MDT therapists using a convenience (consecutive) sampling method. Patients were evaluated using MDT principles and also completed an online survey to measure CS (using the Central Sensitization Inventory [CSI]), pain catastrophizing and kinesiophobia. RESULTS: The proportions of the subgroups derangement (DER), dysfunction, postural and 'other' were 74.4, 2.4, 1.2, 20.7%, respectively. CS was observed in 62% of our sample (CSI score ≥ 40). CS was also observed in 64.7% of patients of the DER subgroup. Almost half of our sample (47.8%) demonstrated the co-occurrence of CS and DER, while 38% presented with DER syndrome, CS, and kinesiophobia. CONCLUSION: The majority of our patients were classified as DER; they also presented with high levels of CS and/or psychological distress. This suggests that MDT mechanical subgroups, particularly DER, can present with co-occurring biopsychosocial influences. Without assessing CS and psychological distress, MDT therapists may miss crucial information. Further research is required to determine the optimal management of patients presenting with mechanical and non-mechanical drivers of pain.
RESUMO
Study Design Literature review with meta-analysis. Background The McKenzie Method of Mechanical Diagnosis and Therapy (MDT), a classification-based system, was designed to classify patients into homogeneous subgroups to direct treatment. Objectives To examine the effectiveness of MDT for improving pain and disability in patients with either acute (less than 12 weeks in duration) or chronic (greater than 12 weeks in duration) low back pain (LBP). Methods Randomized controlled trials examining MDT in patients with LBP were identified from 6 databases. Independent investigators assessed the studies for exclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. The standardized mean difference (SMD) and 95% confidence interval were calculated to compare the effects of MDT to those of other interventions in patients with acute or chronic LBP. Results Of the 17 studies that met the inclusion criteria, 11 yielded valid data for analysis. In patients with acute LBP, there was no significant difference in pain resolution (P = .11) and disability (P = .61) between MDT and other interventions. In patients with chronic LBP, there was a significant difference in disability (SMD, -0.45), with results favoring MDT compared to exercise alone. There were no significant differences between MDT and manual therapy plus exercise (P>.05) for pain and disability outcomes. Conclusion There is moderate- to high-quality evidence that MDT is not superior to other rehabilitation interventions for reducing pain and disability in patients with acute LBP. In patients with chronic LBP, there is moderate- to high-quality evidence that MDT is superior to other rehabilitation interventions for reducing pain and disability; however, this depends on the type of intervention being compared to MDT. Level of Evidence Therapy, level 1a. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2018;48(6):476-490. Epub 30 Mar 2018. doi:10.2519/jospt.2018.7562.