(1/54) Conservative treatment for repetitive strain injury.

Various conservative treatment options for repetitive strain injury are widely used, despite questionable evidence of their effectiveness. This systematic review evaluates the effectiveness of these treatment options for relieving symptoms of repetitive strain injury and improving activities of daily living. Searches in Medline and Embase, with additional reference checking resulted in 15 eligible trials for this review. Methodological quality was assessed, and data-extraction was performed. With the use of a "best-evidence synthesis", no strong evidence was found for the effectiveness of any of the treatment options. There is limited evidence that multidisciplinary rehabilitation, ergonomic intervention measures, exercises, and spinal manipulation combined with soft tissue therapy are effective in providing symptom relief or improving activities of daily living. There is conflicting evidence for the effectiveness of behavioral therapy. In conclusion, little is known about the effectiveness of conservative treatment options for repetitive strain injury. To establish strong evidence, more high-quality trials are needed.  (+info)

(2/54) A randomized trial of chiropractic manipulation and mobilization for patients with neck pain: clinical outcomes from the UCLA neck-pain study.

OBJECTIVES: This study compared the relative effectiveness of cervical spine manipulation and mobilization for neck pain. METHODS: Neck-pain patients were randomized to the following conditions: manipulation with or without heat, manipulation with or without electrical muscle stimulation, mobilization with or without heat, and mobilization with or without electrical muscle stimulation. RESULTS: Of 960 eligible patients, 336 enrolled in the study. Mean reductions in pain and disability were similar in the manipulation and mobilization groups through 6 months. CONCLUSIONS: Cervical spine manipulation and mobilization yield comparable clinical outcomes.  (+info)

(3/54) Manipulation of the wrist for management of lateral epicondylitis: a randomized pilot study.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Lateral epicondylitis ("tennis elbow") is a common entity. Several nonoperative interventions, with varying success rates, have been described. The aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness of 2 protocols for the management of lateral epicondylitis: (1) manipulation of the wrist and (2) ultrasound, friction massage, and muscle stretching and strengthening exercises. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Thirty-one subjects with a history and examination results consistent with lateral epicondylitis participated in the study. The subjects were randomly assigned to either a group that received manipulation of the wrist (group 1) or a group that received ultrasound, friction massage, and muscle stretching and strengthening exercises (group 2). Three subjects were lost to follow-up, leaving 28 subjects for analysis. Follow-up was at 3 and 6 weeks. The primary outcome measure was a global measure of improvement, as assessed on a 6-point scale. Analysis was performed using independent t tests, Mann-Whitney U tests, and Fisher exact tests. RESULTS: Differences were found for 2 outcome measures: success rate at 3 weeks and decrease in pain at 6 weeks. Both findings indicated manipulation was more effective than the other protocol. After 3 weeks of intervention, the success rate in group 1 was 62%, as compared with 20% in group 2. After 6 weeks of intervention, improvement in pain as measured on an 11-point numeric scale was 5.2 (SD=2.4) in group 1, as compared with 3.2 (SD=2.1) in group 2. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: Manipulation of the wrist appeared to be more effective than ultrasound, friction massage, and muscle stretching and strengthening exercises for the management of lateral epicondylitis when there was a short-term follow-up. However, replication of our results is needed in a large-scale randomized clinical trial with a control group and a longer-term follow-up.  (+info)

(4/54) Scoliosis treatment using a combination of manipulative and rehabilitative therapy: a retrospective case series.

BACKGROUND: The combination of spinal manipulation and various physiotherapeutic procedures used to correct the curvatures associated with scoliosis have been largely unsuccessful. Typically, the goals of these procedures are often to relax, strengthen, or stretch musculotendinous and/or ligamentous structures. In this study, we investigate the possible benefits of combining spinal manipulation, positional traction, and neuromuscular reeducation in the treatment of idiopathic scoliosis. METHODS: A total of 22 patient files were selected to participate in the protocol. Of these, 19 met the study criterion required for analysis of treatment benefits. Anteroposterior radiographs were taken of each subject prior to treatment intervention and 4-6 weeks following the intervention. A Cobb angle was drawn and analyzed on each radiograph, so pre and post comparisons could be made. RESULTS: After 4-6 weeks of treatment, the treatment group averaged a 17 degrees reduction in their Cobb angle measurements. None of the patients' Cobb angles increased. A total of 3 subjects were dismissed from the study for noncompliance relating to home care instructions, leaving 19 subjects to be evaluated post-intervention. CONCLUSIONS: The combined use of spinal manipulation and postural therapy appeared to significantly reduce the severity of the Cobb angle in all 19 subjects. These results warrant further testing of this protocol.  (+info)

(5/54) A randomized clinical trial and subgroup analysis to compare flexion-distraction with active exercise for chronic low back pain.

Many clinical trials on chiropractic management of low back pain have neglected to include specific forms of care. This study compared two well-defined treatment protocols. The objective was to compare the outcome of flexion-distraction (FD) procedures performed by chiropractors with an active trunk exercise protocol (ATEP) performed by physical therapists. A randomized clinical trial study design was used. Subjects, 18 years of age and older, with a primary complaint of low back pain (>3 months) were recruited. A 100 mm visual analogue scale (VAS) for perceived pain, the Roland Morris (RM) Questionnaire for low back function, and the SF-36 for overall health status served as primary outcome measures. Subjects were randomly allocated to receive either FD or ATEP. The FD intervention consisted of the application of flexion and traction applied to specific regions in the low back, with the aid of a specially designed manipulation table. The ATEP intervention included stabilizing and flexibility exercises, the use of modalities, and cardiovascular training. A total of 235 subjects met the inclusion/exclusion criteria and signed the informed consent. Of these, 123 were randomly allocated to FD and 112 to the ATEP. Study patients perceived significantly less pain and better function after intervention, regardless of which group they were allocated to (P<0.01). Subjects randomly allocated to the flexion-distraction group had significantly greater relief from pain than those allocated to the exercise program (P=0.01). Subgroup analysis indicated that subjects categorized as chronic, with moderate to severe symptoms, improved most with the flexion-distraction protocol. Subjects categorized with recurrent pain and moderate to severe symptoms improved most with the exercise program. Patients with radiculopathy did significantly better with FD. There were no significant differences between groups on the Roland Morris and SF-36 outcome measures. Overall, flexion-distraction provided more pain relief than active exercise; however, these results varied based on stratification of patients with and without radiculopathy and with and without recurrent symptoms. The subgroup analysis provides a possible explanation for contrasting results among randomized clinical trials of chronic low back pain treatments and these results also provide guidance for future work in the treatment of chronic low back pain.  (+info)

(6/54) Vertebral artery dissection and cerebellar infarction following chiropractic manipulation.

Vertebral artery dissection (VAD) associated with chiropractic cervical manipulation is a rare but potentially disabling condition. In this report, we present a young patient manifesting with repeated vertigo. Owing to the initial misdiagnosis, the patient later developed cerebellar stroke with inability to stand or walk. Vertigo and disequilibrium are the usual presenting symptoms of this condition, which can result from inner ear or vestibular nerve dysfunction, vertebrobasilar insufficiency, and even lethal cerebellar infarction or haemorrhage; these last two, although rarely seen in young adults, can be caused by traumatic or spontaneous arterial injury, including injury secondary to chiropractic cervical manipulation. A number of cases of VAD associated with chiropractic cervical manipulation have been reported, but rarely in the emergency medicine literature. We present a case of this rare occurrence, and discuss the diagnostic pitfalls.  (+info)

(7/54) A non-surgical approach to the management of lumbar spinal stenosis: a prospective observational cohort study.

BACKGROUND: While it is widely held that non-surgical management should be the first line of approach in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS), little is known about the efficacy of non-surgical treatments for this condition. Data are needed to determine the most efficacious and safe non-surgical treatment options for patients with LSS. The purpose of this paper is to describe the clinical outcomes of a novel approach to patients with LSS that focuses on distraction manipulation (DM) and neural mobilization (NM). METHODS: This is a prospective consecutive case series with long term follow up (FU) of fifty-seven consecutive patients who were diagnosed with LSS. Two were excluded because of absence of baseline data or failure to remain in treatment to FU. Disability was measured using the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RM) and pain intensity was measured using the Three Level Numerical Rating Scale (NRS). Patients were also asked to rate their perceived percentage improvement. RESULTS: The mean patient-rated percentage improvement from baseline to the end to treatment was 65.1%. The mean improvement in disability from baseline to the end of treatment was 5.1 points. This was considered to be clinically meaningful. Clinically meaningful improvement in disability from baseline to the end of treatment was seen in 66.7% of patients. The mean improvement in "on average" pain intensity was 1.6 points. This did not reach the threshold for clinical meaningfulness. The mean improvement in "at worst" pain was 3.1 points. This was considered to be clinically meaningful. The mean duration of FU was 16.5 months. The mean patient-rated percentage improvement from baseline to long term FU was 75.6%. The mean improvement in disability was 5.2 points. This was considered to be clinically meaningful. Clinically meaningful improvement in disability was seen in 73.2% of patients. The mean improvement in "on average" pain intensity from baseline to long term FU was 3.0 points. This was considered to be clinically meaningful. The mean improvement in "at worst" pain was 4.2 points. This was considered to be clinically meaningful. Only two patients went on to require surgery. No major complications to treatment were noted. CONCLUSION: A treatment approach focusing on DM and NM may be useful in bringing about clinically meaningful improvement in disability in patients with LSS.  (+info)

(8/54) A systematic review of the effectiveness of physical therapy interventions for temporomandibular disorders.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The purpose of this qualitative systematic review was to assess the evidence concerning the effectiveness of physical therapy interventions in the management of temporomandibular disorders. METHODS: A literature search of published and unpublished articles resulted in the retrieval of 36 potential articles. RESULTS: Twelve studies met all selection criteria for inclusion in the review: 4 studies addressed the use of therapeutic exercise interventions, 2 studies examined the use of acupuncture, and 6 studies examined electrophysical modalities. Two studies provided evidence in support of postural exercises to reduce pain and to improve function and oral opening. One study provided evidence for the use of manual therapy in combination with active exercises to reduce pain and to improve oral opening. One study provided evidence in support of acupuncture to reduce pain when compared with no treatment; however, in another study no significant differences in pain outcomes were found between acupuncture and sham acupuncture. Significant improvements in oral opening were found with muscular awareness relaxation therapy, biofeedback training, and low-level laser therapy treatment. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: Most of the studies included in this review were of very poor methodological quality; therefore, the findings should be interpreted with caution.  (+info)