Manual therapy
-
Clinical Trial
Diagnosis of sacroiliac joint pain: validity of individual provocation tests and composites of tests.
Previous research indicates that physical examination cannot diagnose sacroiliac joint (SIJ) pathology. Earlier studies have not reported sensitivities and specificities of composites of provocation tests known to have acceptable inter-examiner reliability. This study examined the diagnostic power of pain provocation SIJ tests singly and in various combinations, in relation to an accepted criterion standard. ⋯ In conclusion, composites of provocation SIJ tests are of value in clinical diagnosis of symptomatic SIJ. Three or more out of six tests or any two of four selected tests have the best predictive power in relation to results of intra-articular anaesthetic block injections. When all six provocation tests do not provoke familiar pain, the SIJ can be ruled out as a source of current LBP.
-
The combined extended and rotated cervical spine position has been postulated to affect vertebral artery blood flow by primarily causing a narrowing of the vessel lumen, usually within the artery contralateral to the side of head rotation. The production of brainstem symptoms during the manoeuvre has generally been considered to be a positive test result. ⋯ This paper considers and discusses the usefulness of functional pre-manipulation testing for clinical scenarios, involving dissection, spasm or stenosis of the vertebral artery, and makes the following recommendations: (1) Practitioners must assess the patient thoroughly, through careful history taking and physical examination, for the possibility of vertebral artery dissection. It is important to note that vertebral artery dissection (VAD) may present as pain only, and may not be associated with symptoms and signs of brainstem ischaemia. (2) If there is a strong likelihood of VAD, provocative pre-manipulation tests should not be performed, and the patient must be referred appropriately. (3) In the patient presenting with symptoms of brainstem ischaemia due to non-dissection stenotic vertebral artery pathologies, provocative testing is very unlikely to provide any useful additional diagnostic information. (4) In the patient with unapparent vertebral artery pathology, where spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) is considered as the treatment of choice, provocative testing is very unlikely to provide any useful information in assessing the probability of manipulation induced vertebral artery injury.
-
Randomized Controlled Trial Clinical Trial
A descriptive study of the usage of spinal manipulative therapy techniques within a randomized clinical trial in acute low back pain.
The majority of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of spinal manipulative therapy have not adequately defined the terms 'mobilization' and 'manipulation', nor distinguished between these terms in reporting the trial interventions. The purpose of this study was to describe the spinal manipulative therapy techniques utilized within a RCT of manipulative therapy (MT; n = 80), interferential therapy (IFT; n = 80), and a combination of both (CT; n = 80) for people with acute low back pain (LBP). Spinal manipulative therapy was defined as any 'mobilization' (low velocity manual force without a thrust) or 'manipulation' (high velocity thrust) techniques of the spine described by Maitland and Cyriax. ⋯ There was a significant difference between the MT and CT groups in their usage of spinal manipulative therapy techniques (chi2 = 9.178; df = 2; P = 0.01); subjects randomized to the CT group received three times more Cyriax Manipulation (29.2%, n = 21/72) than those randomized to the MT group (9.5%, n = 7/74; df = 1; P = 0.003). The use of mobilization techniques within the trial was comparable with their usage by the general population of physiotherapists in Britain and Ireland for LBP management. However, the usage of manipulation techniques was considerably higher than reported in physiotherapy surveys and may reflect the postgraduate training of trial therapists.