Musculoskeletal Manipulations

肌肉骨骼手法
  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    这项研究旨在研究手动治疗(MT)对健康年轻人呼吸功能的直接影响。这项研究包括104名参与者,由大学生组成(87名女性,17名男性,平均年龄20.1±2.2)。参与者被随机分配到MT(实验;n=52)和假MT(对照组;n=52)组。实验组进行了胸部操作和动员以及隔膜动员。在对照组中,手放在相同的区域,但没有具体的干预措施。所有参与者在干预前后均使用便携式肺活量计(PEF-峰值呼气流量;FEV1-1s内用力呼气量;FVC-用力肺活量和FEV1/FVC-Tiffeneau指数)进行呼吸功能测试。在实验组中,应用MT后平均PEF值从296.3±110.8显著增加至316.1±119.1(p=0.018).相反,对照组的平均PEF值从337.1±93.3略微下降至324.5±89.2(p=0.002).在FVC中没有观察到显著的变化,两组干预前后的FEV1或FEV1/FVC值。单个MT会话导致健康年轻人PEF的显着改善。需要进一步的研究来探索MT对呼吸功能的长期影响及其在临床实践中的潜在意义。试验注册ClinicalTrials.gov:NCT05934240(2023年6月7日)。
    This study aimed to investigate the immediate effects of manual therapy (MT) on the respiratory functions of healthy young individuals. The study included 104 participants, consisting of university students (87 females, 17 males, mean age 20.1 ± 2.2). Participants were randomly assigned to the MT (experimental; n = 52) and sham-MT (control; n = 52) groups. The experimental group underwent thoracic manipulations and mobilizations along with diaphragm mobilization. In the control group, the hands were placed on the same regions, but no specific intervention was applied. All participants underwent respiratory function testing before and after the intervention using a portable spirometer (PEF- Peak expiratory flow; FEV 1- Forced expiratory volume in 1 s; FVC- Forced vital capacity and FEV1/FVC- Tiffeneau index). In the experimental group, there was a significant increase in the mean PEF value following MT application from 296.3 ± 110.8 to 316.1 ± 119.1 (p = 0.018). Conversely, the mean PEF value in the control group showed a slight decrease from 337.1 ± 93.3 to 324.5 ± 89.2 (p = 0.002). No significant changes were observed in FVC, FEV1, or FEV1/FVC values pre- and post-intervention in either groups. A single MT session led to a significant improvement in PEF in healthy young individuals. Further research is needed to explore the long-term effects of MT on respiratory functions and its potential implications in clinical practice.Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT05934240 (06/07/2023).
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

       PDF(Pubmed)

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    在慢性下腰痛(CLBP)患者中纳入腰骨盆稳定核心和控制运动锻炼的重要性加强了通过减少生物医学假设来改善生物心理社会信念的策略的使用。然而,临床实践指南推荐结合运动和手动治疗(MT)的多模式方法,相反,孤立地拒绝应用kinsiotape(KT)。因此,本研究的目的是使用视觉模拟量表(VAS)分析12周运动联合MT或KT对CLBP(轻度残疾)中腹直肌和多裂肌肌电图(EMG)测量的感觉下腰痛的影响,并探讨干预后腹直肌和多裂比率与疼痛感知之间的关系.一个盲人,进行为期12周的随机对照试验(RCT),涉及三个平行的CLBP患者组。该研究已在Clinicaltrial.gov注册,并分配了标识号NCT05544890(19/09/22)。该试验进行了意向治疗分析。主要结果揭示了多模式治疗计划,辅以额外的治疗方法,如MT和KT,导致感觉下腰痛显著减少。对CLBP个体的主观评估表明,与MT或KT结合使用时,独家核心稳定性练习和控制运动训练之间没有明显区别。值得注意的是,我们的研究结果表明,在运动组中,右腹直肌的平均和峰值EMG值都发生了积极的变化,表明对肌肉激活的有益影响。这项研究的重点是评估躯干肌肉组织的激活水平,特别是腹直肌(RA)和多裂肌(MF),根据Oswestry残疾指数,CLBP表现出轻度残疾的个体。重要的是,观察到VAS值的改善与肌肉电活动的变化无关.
    The importance of incorporating lumbo-pelvic stability core and controlling motor exercises in patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP) reinforces the use of strategies to improve biopsychosocial beliefs by reducing biomedical postulations. However, clinical practice guidelines recommend multimodal approaches incorporating exercise and manual therapy (MT), and instead reject the application of kinesiotape (KT) in isolation. Therefore, the objectives of this study were to analyze the effects of 12 weeks of exercises combined with MT or KT on perceived low back pain using the visual analog scale (VAS) and muscle electric activity measured with electromyography (EMG) of the rectus abdominis and multifidus in CLBP (mild disability) and to explore the relationship between the rectus abdominis and multifidus ratios and pain perception after intervention. A blinded, 12-week randomized controlled trial (RCT) was carried out, involving three parallel groups of patients with CLBP. The study was registered at Clinicaltrial.gov and assigned the identification number NCT05544890 (19/09/22). The trial underwent an intention-to-treat analysis. The primary outcome revealed a multimodal treatment program supplemented by additional therapies such as MT and KT, resulting in significant reductions in perceived low back pain. The subjective assessment of individuals with CLBP indicated no discernible distinction between exclusive core stability exercises and control-motor training when combined with MT or KT. Notably, our findings demonstrated positive alterations in both the mean and peak EMG values of the right rectus abdominis in the exercise group, suggesting a beneficial impact on muscle activation. This study focused on assessing the activation levels of the trunk musculature, specifically the rectus abdominis (RA) and multifidus (MF), in individuals with CLBP exhibiting mild disability according to the Oswestry Disability Index. Importantly, improvements in the VAS values were observed independently of changes in muscle electrical activity.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

       PDF(Pubmed)

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    慢性非特异性颈痛(CNNP)的脊柱操作包括颈椎,颈胸交界处,和胸椎(CCT)操作以及上颈椎(UCS)操作。这项研究旨在比较UCS操作与CCT脊柱操作组合对疼痛强度的短期影响,残疾,CNNP患者的颈椎活动度(CROM)。在私人物理治疗诊所,186名CNNP参与者被随机分配到UCS(n=93)或CCT(n=93)操作组。颈部疼痛,残疾,在干预前和干预后一周测量CROM。两组之间在疼痛强度和CROM方面没有发现显着差异。然而,颈部残疾有统计学上的显著差异,CCT组的下降幅度稍大(CCT:16.9±3.8vs.UCS:19.5±6.8;p=0.01)。研究结果表明,与一周后的CNNP患者进行UCS操作相比,CCT脊柱操作的组合可导致自我感知的残疾减少。然而,两组间疼痛强度或CROM无统计学差异.
    Spinal manipulations for chronic non-specific neck pain (CNNP) include cervical, cervicothoracic junction, and thoracic spine (CCT) manipulations as well as upper cervical spine (UCS) manipulations. This study aimed to compare the short-term effects of UCS manipulation versus a combination of CCT spine manipulations on pain intensity, disability, and cervical range of motion (CROM) in CNNP patients. In a private physiotherapy clinic, 186 participants with CNNP were randomly assigned to either the UCS (n = 93) or CCT (n = 93) manipulation groups. Neck pain, disability, and CROM were measured before and one week after the intervention. No significant differences were found between the groups regarding pain intensity and CROM. However, there was a statistically significant difference in neck disability, with the CCT group showing a slightly greater decrease (CCT: 16.9 ± 3.8 vs. UCS: 19.5 ± 6.8; p = 0.01). The findings suggest that a combination of manipulations in the CCT spine results in a slightly more pronounced decrease in self-perceived disability compared to UCS manipulation in patients with CNNP after one week. However, no statistically significant differences were observed between the groups in terms of pain intensity or CROM.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

       PDF(Pubmed)

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    背景:机械下腰痛(MLBP)已采用各种治疗方式,但是它们功效的证据差异很大。Objectve:这项随机对照试验旨在评估Mulligan概念应用的结果,包括持续的自然突滑行(SNAGS)和自然突滑行(NAGS),在患有MLBP的肥胖患者中。
    方法:研究,2021年1月至2022年6月在一家三级医院进行,将患者随机分为两组。两组每隔一天进行六次伸展和加强锻炼。Mulligan组接受了SNAG和NAGS技术的额外干预。测量视觉模拟量表(VAS)评分,患者MLBP水平的Oswestry残疾指数(ODI)评分和活动范围(ROM)。
    结果:干预后,两组均表现出屈曲ROM的积极变化,扩展ROM,左右旋转ROM,左右外侧屈曲ROM,VAS评分,与干预前相比,ODI评分(两组和变量均p<0.001)。Mulligan组的ROM增加更高,VAS和ODI评分下降更明显。结论:Mulligan动员技术证明对增强各个方向的ROM有显著的好处,降低疼痛程度,减轻患有MLBP的肥胖者的残疾。
    BACKGROUND: Various treatment modalities have been employed for mechanical low back pain (MLBP), but evidence of their efficacy varies greatly. Objectıve: This randomized controlled trial aimed to assess the outcomes of Mulligan concept applications, including sustained natural apophyseal glides (SNAGS) and natural apophyseal glides (NAGS), in obese patients with MLBP.
    METHODS: The study, conducted between January 2021 and June 2022 at a tertiary hospital, involved randomizing patients into two groups. Both groups underwent six sessions of stretching and strengthening exercises every other day. The Mulligan group received additional intervention with SNAG and NAGS techniques. Measurements were made regarding the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) score, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) score and range of motion (ROM) for the patients\' MLBP level.
    RESULTS: Post-interventions, both groups exhibited positive changes in flexion ROM, extension ROM, right and left rotation ROM, right and left lateral flexion ROM, VAS score, and ODI score compared to pre-intervention (p < 0.001 for both groups and variables). The Mulligan group showed a higher increase in ROM and a more significant decrease in VAS and ODI scores. Conclusıons: Mulligan mobilization techniques prove significantly beneficial for enhancing ROM in all directions, reducing pain levels, and alleviating disability in obese individuals with MLBP.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

       PDF(Pubmed)

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    背景:在当代临床实践中,通常将手动疗法和处方锻炼一起或分开提供,以治疗肘部外侧疼痛的患者。
    目的:为了评估手法治疗的益处和危害,成人肘部外侧疼痛的规定锻炼或两者兼而有之。
    方法:我们搜索了CENTRAL数据库,MEDLINE和Embase,和试验登记处,直至2024年1月31日,不受语言或出版日期的限制。
    方法:我们纳入了随机或准随机试验。参与者是患有肘部外侧疼痛的成年人。干预是手动治疗,规定的练习或两者兼而有之。主要比较者为安慰剂或最小或无干预。我们还包括手动治疗和处方锻炼与单独干预的比较,有或没有糖皮质激素注射。排除是测试干预措施的单一应用或比较不同类型的手动治疗或规定锻炼的试验。
    方法:两位综述作者独立选择纳入研究,提取试验特征和数值数据,并使用GRADE评估研究的偏倚风险和证据的确定性。主要比较是手法治疗,与安慰剂治疗相比,规定的锻炼或两者兼而有之,很少或没有干预。主要结果是疼痛,残疾,与健康相关的生活质量,参与者报告的治疗成功,参与者退出,不良事件和严重不良事件。主要终点是疼痛干预结束,残疾,健康相关的生活质量和参与者报告的治疗成功以及不良事件和停药的最终时间点.
    结果:23项试验(1612名参与者)符合我们的纳入标准(平均年龄为38至52岁,47%是女性,70%的优势臂受到影响)。一项试验(23名参与者)将手动治疗与安慰剂手动治疗进行了比较,12项试验(1124名参与者)比较了手动治疗,规定的锻炼或两者兼而有之,以尽量减少或不干预,六项试验(228名参与者)比较了手动治疗和运动与单独运动,一项试验(60名参与者)比较了在规定的运动和糖皮质激素注射中增加手动治疗,四项试验(177名参与者)评估了手动治疗的增加,规定的运动或两者都注射糖皮质激素。没有安慰剂对照的21项试验容易受到性能和检测偏倚的影响,因为参与者没有对干预措施视而不见。其他偏见包括选择(九项试验,39%,包括两个准随机),减员(八项试验,35%)和选择性报告(15项试验,65%)的偏见。我们报告主要比较的结果。手动治疗与安慰剂手动治疗低确定性证据,基于一项试验(23名参与者),并由于间接性和不精确性而降级,表明手动治疗可以减少疼痛和肘部残疾在两到三周的治疗结束。安慰剂治疗结束时的平均疼痛为4.1分(0至10分),手动治疗为2.0分,MD-2.1点(95%CI-4.2至-0.1)。安慰剂的平均残疾为40分(0至100分),手动治疗为15分,MD-25点(95%CI-43至-7)。治疗结束后没有随访来显示这些效果是否持续,未报告其他主要结局.手动治疗,规定的锻炼或两者兼而有之,与最低限度的干预低确定性证据表明手动治疗,规定的锻炼或两者都可以在治疗结束时略微减轻疼痛和残疾,但是效果没有持续,与健康相关的生活质量或报告治疗成功的参与者数量可能几乎没有改善。由于所有试验的性能偏差和检测偏差的风险增加,我们降低了证据的评级,以及由于纳入试验的干预措施的多模态性质而导致的间接性。在四周到三个月的时间里,最小治疗和手动治疗的平均疼痛为5.10分,规定的运动或两者均可减少疼痛,MD为-0.53分(95%CI-0.92至-0.14,I2=43%;12项试验,1023名参与者)。在四周到三个月的时间里,平均残疾为63.8分,最少或没有治疗和手动治疗,规定的锻炼或两者都减少了-5.00点的MD(95%CI-9.22至-0.77,I2=63%;10项试验,732名参与者)。在四周到三个月的时间里,平均生活质量为73.04分,在0至100量表上进行最少的治疗,规定的运动使生活质量降低了-5.58分的MD(95%CI-10.29至-0.99;2项试验,113名参与者)。据报道,42%的参与者接受了少量治疗或不接受治疗,57.1%的参与者接受了手动治疗。规定的锻炼或两者兼而有之,RR1.36(95%CI0.96至1.93,I2=73%;6项试验,770名参与者)。我们不确定手动治疗是否,规定的锻炼或两者都会导致更多的提款或不良事件。有83/566参与者退出(147/1000)从最小或无干预组,和77/581(每1000人中有126人)来自手动治疗,规定的锻炼或两组,RR0.86(95%CI0.66至1.12,I2=0%;12项试验)。不良事件是轻度和短暂的,包括疼痛,瘀伤和胃肠道事件,未报告严重不良事件.最小治疗组的不良事件报告为19/224(85/1000),手动治疗组的不良事件报告为70/233(313/1000)。规定的锻炼或两组,RR3.69(95%CI0.98至13.97,I2=72%;6项试验)。
    结论:一项针对肘部外侧疼痛患者的单一试验的低确定性证据表明,与安慰剂相比,在治疗结束时,手动治疗可以在疼痛和残疾方面提供临床上有价值的益处,虽然95%的置信区间也包括了重要的改善和没有改善,和长期的结果是未知的。来自12项试验的低确定性证据表明,手动治疗和运动可能会在治疗结束时略微减轻疼痛和残疾。但这在临床上可能不值得,并且这些益处无法持续。虽然治疗后疼痛是手动治疗的不良事件,事件的数量太少,无法确定。
    Manual therapy and prescribed exercises are often provided together or separately in contemporary clinical practice to treat people with lateral elbow pain.
    To assess the benefits and harms of manual therapy, prescribed exercises or both for adults with lateral elbow pain.
    We searched the databases CENTRAL, MEDLINE and Embase, and trial registries until 31 January 2024, unrestricted by language or date of publication.
    We included randomised or quasi-randomised trials. Participants were adults with lateral elbow pain. Interventions were manual therapy, prescribed exercises or both. Primary comparators were placebo or minimal or no intervention. We also included comparisons of manual therapy and prescribed exercises with either intervention alone, with or without glucocorticoid injection. Exclusions were trials testing a single application of an intervention or comparison of different types of manual therapy or prescribed exercises.
    Two review authors independently selected studies for inclusion, extracted trial characteristics and numerical data, and assessed study risk of bias and certainty of evidence using GRADE. The main comparisons were manual therapy, prescribed exercises or both compared with placebo treatment, and with minimal or no intervention. Major outcomes were pain, disability, heath-related quality of life, participant-reported treatment success, participant withdrawals, adverse events and serious adverse events. The primary endpoint was end of intervention for pain, disability, health-related quality of life and participant-reported treatment success and final time point for adverse events and withdrawals.
    Twenty-three trials (1612 participants) met our inclusion criteria (mean age ranged from 38 to 52 years, 47% female, 70% dominant arm affected). One trial (23 participants) compared manual therapy to placebo manual therapy, 12 trials (1124 participants) compared manual therapy, prescribed exercises or both to minimal or no intervention, six trials (228 participants) compared manual therapy and exercise to exercise alone, one trial (60 participants) compared the addition of manual therapy to prescribed exercises and glucocorticoid injection, and four trials (177 participants) assessed the addition of manual therapy, prescribed exercises or both to glucocorticoid injection. Twenty-one trials without placebo control were susceptible to performance and detection bias as participants were not blinded to the intervention. Other biases included selection (nine trials, 39%, including two quasi-randomised), attrition (eight trials, 35%) and selective reporting (15 trials, 65%) biases. We report the results of the main comparisons. Manual therapy versus placebo manual therapy Low-certainty evidence, based upon a single trial (23 participants) and downgraded due to indirectness and imprecision, indicates manual therapy may reduce pain and elbow disability at the end of two to three weeks of treatment. Mean pain at the end of treatment was 4.1 points with placebo (0 to 10 scale) and 2.0 points with manual therapy, MD -2.1 points (95% CI -4.2 to -0.1). Mean disability was 40 points with placebo (0 to 100 scale) and 15 points with manual therapy, MD -25 points (95% CI -43 to -7). There was no follow-up beyond the end of treatment to show if these effects were sustained, and no other major outcomes were reported. Manual therapy, prescribed exercises or both versus minimal intervention Low-certainty evidence indicates manual therapy, prescribed exercises or both may slightly reduce pain and disability at the end of treatment, but the effects were not sustained, and there may be little to no improvement in health-related quality of life or number of participants reporting treatment success. We downgraded the evidence due to increased risk of performance bias and detection bias across all the trials, and indirectness due to the multimodal nature of the interventions included in the trials. At four weeks to three months, mean pain was 5.10 points with minimal treatment and manual therapy, prescribed exercises or both reduced pain by a MD of -0.53 points (95% CI -0.92 to -0.14, I2 = 43%; 12 trials, 1023 participants). At four weeks to three months, mean disability was 63.8 points with minimal or no treatment and manual therapy, prescribed exercises or both reduced disability by a MD of -5.00 points (95% CI -9.22 to -0.77, I2 = 63%; 10 trials, 732 participants). At four weeks to three months, mean quality of life was 73.04 points with minimal treatment on a 0 to 100 scale and prescribed exercises reduced quality of life by a MD of -5.58 points (95% CI -10.29 to -0.99; 2 trials, 113 participants). Treatment success was reported by 42% of participants with minimal or no treatment and 57.1% of participants with manual therapy, prescribed exercises or both, RR 1.36 (95% CI 0.96 to 1.93, I2 = 73%; 6 trials, 770 participants). We are uncertain if manual therapy, prescribed exercises or both results in more withdrawals or adverse events. There were 83/566 participant withdrawals (147 per 1000) from the minimal or no intervention group, and 77/581 (126 per 1000) from the manual therapy, prescribed exercises or both groups, RR 0.86 (95% CI 0.66 to 1.12, I2 = 0%; 12 trials). Adverse events were mild and transient and included pain, bruising and gastrointestinal events, and no serious adverse events were reported. Adverse events were reported by 19/224 (85 per 1000) in the minimal treatment group and 70/233 (313 per 1000) in the manual therapy, prescribed exercises or both groups, RR 3.69 (95% CI 0.98 to 13.97, I2 = 72%; 6 trials).
    Low-certainty evidence from a single trial in people with lateral elbow pain indicates that, compared with placebo, manual therapy may provide a clinically worthwhile benefit in terms of pain and disability at the end of treatment, although the 95% confidence interval also includes both an important improvement and no improvement, and the longer-term outcomes are unknown. Low-certainty evidence from 12 trials indicates that manual therapy and exercise may slightly reduce pain and disability at the end of treatment, but this may not be clinically worthwhile and these benefits are not sustained. While pain after treatment was an adverse event from manual therapy, the number of events was too small to be certain.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

       PDF(Pubmed)

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    目的:为了确定在非特异性慢性颈痛(NSCNP)中,4周的手动治疗治疗是否恢复了中枢疼痛处理机制的正常功能,以及疼痛处理机制的变化与临床结果之间可能存在的关系。
    方法:队列研究。
    方法:63例NSCNP患者,79%是女性,平均年龄为45.8岁(标准差:14.3),接受四次治疗(每周一次)的手动治疗,包括关节被动动员,软组织动员和触发点治疗。压力疼痛阈值(PPTs),在基线和治疗完成后评估条件性疼痛调节(CPM)和疼痛时间总和(TSP).使用全球变化量表(GROC)测量治疗结果,颈部残疾指数(NDI),过去24小时的疼痛强度,运动恐惧症坦帕量表(TSK)和疼痛突变量表(PCS)。采用两组具有高斯反应和身份链接的广义线性混合模型来评估干预对临床的影响,心理和心理物理测量以及心理物理和临床结果之间的关联。
    结果:治疗后,发现CPM反应增加(系数:0.89;95%可信度区间=0.14至1.65;P=.99)和TSP减弱(系数:-0.63;95%可信度区间=-0.82至-0.43;P=1.00),随着疼痛的改善和临床状态的改善。治疗后颈部疼痛一侧的斜方肌的PPTs增加(系数:0.22;95%可信区间=0.03至0.42;P=.98),但不是对侧斜方肌和胫骨前肌。在TSP/CPM的正常化与临床结果的测量之间仅发现微小的关联。
    结论:在NSCNP患者中,手动治疗后的临床改善伴随着CPM和TSP反应恢复至正常水平。中枢疼痛处理的变化与临床结果之间仅存在微小的关联,这表明在NSCNP中手动治疗的多种作用机制。
    OBJECTIVE: To determine if a 4-week manual therapy treatment restores normal functioning of central pain processing mechanisms in non-specific chronic neck pain (NSCNP), as well as the existence of a possible relationship between changes in pain processing mechanisms and clinical outcome.
    METHODS: Cohort study.
    METHODS: Sixty-three patients with NSCNP, comprising 79% female, with a mean age of 45.8 years (standard deviation: 14.3), received four treatment sessions (once a week) of manual therapy including articular passive mobilizations, soft tissue mobilization and trigger point treatment. Pressure pain thresholds (PPTs), conditioned pain modulation (CPM) and temporal summation of pain (TSP) were evaluated at baseline and after treatment completion. Therapy outcome was measured using the Global Rating of Change Scale (GROC), the Neck disability Index (NDI), intensity of pain during the last 24 hours, Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia (TSK) and Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS). Two sets of generalized linear mixed models with Gaussian response and the identity link were employed to evaluate the effect of the intervention on clinical, psychological and psychophysical measures and the association between psychophysical and clinical outcomes.
    RESULTS: Following treatment, an increased CPM response (Coefficient: 0.89; 95% credibility interval = 0.14 to 1.65; P = .99) and attenuated TSP (Coefficient: -0.63; 95% credibility interval = -0.82 to -0.43; P = 1.00) were found, along with amelioration of pain and improved clinical status. PPTs at trapezius muscle on the side of neck pain were increased after therapy (Coefficient: 0.22; 95% credibility interval = 0.03 to 0.42; P = .98), but not those on the contralateral trapezius and tibialis anterior muscles. Only minor associations were found between normalization of TSP/CPM and measures of clinical outcome.
    CONCLUSIONS: Clinical improvement after manual therapy is accompanied by restoration of CPM and TSP responses to normal levels in NSCNP patients. The existence of only minor associations between changes in central pain processing and clinical outcome suggests multiple mechanisms of action of manual therapy in NSCNP.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

       PDF(Pubmed)

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    背景:肌肉骨骼疾病是全球残疾和健康负担的主要原因。临床指南中通常推荐手动治疗(MT)干预措施,并用于肌肉骨骼疾病的管理。传统的手动治疗系统(TMT),包括物理治疗,骨病,脊椎按摩疗法,软组织治疗建立在以临床医生为中心的评估等原则基础上,病理解剖推理,和技术特异性。这些历史原则没有得到当前证据的支持。然而,临床试验的数据支持手动治疗作为肌肉骨骼疾病干预的临床和成本效益,当用作护理包的一部分时。
    目的:本文的目的是为MT的教学和实践提出一个现代的证据指导框架,避免参考和依赖TMT的过时原则。该框架基于医疗保健各个方面常见的三个基本人文维度:安全、comfort,和效率。这些实践元素是通过积极的沟通来实现的,协作环境,和以人为本的护理。该框架促进了最佳实践,推理,和沟通,这里用两个案例研究来举例说明。
    方法:由一种新的手动疗法教学方法激发的文献综述,反映当代证据,正在英国教育学院试用。一群经验丰富的人,国际学者,临床医生,并召集了来自人工治疗领域的研究人员。通过对当代文学的评论和迭代过程中的讨论,得出了观点。向多学科小组作了公开介绍,并纳入了反馈。通过反复讨论相关要素达成了共识。
    结论:手动治疗干预应包括被动和主动,个人赋权干预措施,如锻炼,教育,和生活方式的适应。这些应该在一个背景的治疗环境中与一个发达的人-从业者治疗联盟一起提供。教学手工疗法应遵循这种模式。
    BACKGROUND: Musculoskeletal conditions are the leading contributor to global disability and health burden. Manual therapy (MT) interventions are commonly recommended in clinical guidelines and used in the management of musculoskeletal conditions. Traditional systems of manual therapy (TMT), including physiotherapy, osteopathy, chiropractic, and soft tissue therapy have been built on principles such as clinician-centred assessment, patho-anatomical reasoning, and technique specificity. These historical principles are not supported by current evidence. However, data from clinical trials support the clinical and cost effectiveness of manual therapy as an intervention for musculoskeletal conditions, when used as part of a package of care.
    OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this paper is to propose a modern evidence-guided framework for the teaching and practice of MT which avoids reference to and reliance on the outdated principles of TMT. This framework is based on three fundamental humanistic dimensions common in all aspects of healthcare: safety, comfort, and efficiency. These practical elements are contextualised by positive communication, a collaborative context, and person-centred care. The framework facilitates best-practice, reasoning, and communication and is exemplified here with two case studies.
    METHODS: A literature review stimulated by a new method of teaching manual therapy, reflecting contemporary evidence, being trialled at a United Kingdom education institute. A group of experienced, internationally-based academics, clinicians, and researchers from across the spectrum of manual therapy was convened. Perspectives were elicited through reviews of contemporary literature and discussions in an iterative process. Public presentations were made to multidisciplinary groups and feedback was incorporated. Consensus was achieved through repeated discussion of relevant elements.
    CONCLUSIONS: Manual therapy interventions should include both passive and active, person-empowering interventions such as exercise, education, and lifestyle adaptations. These should be delivered in a contextualised healing environment with a well-developed person-practitioner therapeutic alliance. Teaching manual therapy should follow this model.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

       PDF(Pubmed)

  • 文章类型: Case Reports
    发育性髋关节发育不良(DDH)是新生儿常见的肌肉骨骼疾病,从轻度发育不良到完全脱位。早期发现和干预对于治疗DDH至关重要。然而,在某些情况下,标准的矫形治疗,如Pavlik线束失败,需要替代方法。我们的研究探索了手动治疗的可能性,特别是Mézières-Bertelè方法(MBM),在对常规治疗有抗性的DDH病例中可能是有益的。
    我们介绍了一例20个月大的女性,她患有持续性DDH(左侧为Graf的IIIC型),疼痛和跛行,尽管以前有常规治疗方法,包括Pavlik线束.患者每天接受MBM治疗六个月,然后每两个月进行一次维护。
    接受MBM治疗后,患者表现出临床改善,如正常的神经运动发育和恢复的髋关节参数。我们观察到正常的步行和跑步能力,X射线参数恢复到正常水平。患者在7岁之前的长期随访中保持了积极的结果。
    MBM手动疗法用于治疗对常规治疗有抵抗力的DDH的挑战性病例。该病例报告表明,手动治疗与抗性DDH改善结果之间可能存在相关性,并强调了解决该疾病固有的肌肉骨骼成分的潜在相关性。
    UNASSIGNED: Developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH) is a common musculoskeletal disorder in newborns, ranging from mild dysplasia to complete dislocation. Early detection and intervention are crucial for managing DDH. However, in some cases, standard orthopedic treatments such as the Pavlik harness fail, and alternative approaches are needed. Our study explores the possibility that manual therapy, specifically the Mézières-Bertelè Method (MBM), could be beneficial in cases of DDH that are resistant to conventional treatments.
    UNASSIGNED: We present a case of a 20-month-old female who had been suffering from persistent DDH (Graf\'s type IIIC on the left), pain and limping, despite previous conventional treatments, including the Pavlik harness. The patient received daily MBM sessions for six months, followed by maintenance sessions every two months.
    UNASSIGNED: After undergoing the MBM treatment, the patient showed clinical improvements, such as normal neuromotor development and restored hip joint parameters. We observed normal walking and running abilities, and X-ray parameters returned to normal levels. The patient sustained positive outcomes during long-term follow-up until the age of 7.
    UNASSIGNED: The MBM manual therapy was used to treat a challenging case of DDH resistant to conventional treatment. This case report suggests a possible correlation between manual therapy and improved outcomes in resistant DDH and highlights the potential relevance of addressing the inherent musculoskeletal components of the condition.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

       PDF(Pubmed)

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    骶髂关节功能障碍(SIJD),虽然是腰痛的主要原因,仍然被忽视并被视为腰痛。Mulligan的运动动员(MWM)技术和核心稳定性练习(CSE)通常用于治疗腰痛。没有太多证据表明它在SIJD中有效。评价CSE联合MWM(CSE+MWM)治疗SIJD的疗效。
    招募39名SIJD患者,并随机分为以下不同的组:对照组(n=13),CSE组(n=13)和CSE+MWM组(n=13)。疼痛数字评分量表(NPRS),罗兰·莫里斯残疾问卷(RMDQ),运动范围(ROM),使用压力疼痛阈值(PPT)和矢状面骨盆倾斜角不对称比(PTAR)来衡量干预前(M0)和干预后(M1)的成功。对所有实验数据进行统计分析。
    根据NPRS和RMDQ的测定,CSE+MWM组和CSE组的SIJ相关疼痛指标在M0和M1之间均显著降低。在M0和M1之间,CSE组的左轴旋转ROM和腰椎屈曲ROM明显减少。CSEMWM组的伸展ROM和左侧屈ROM在M0和M1之间均显着增加。在差异变量(M1-M0)中,CSEMWM组在左侧屈ROM中的表现明显优于对照组,在左轴旋转ROM中的表现明显优于CSE组。
    在患有SIJD的个人中,CSE+MWM有利于减轻疼痛,残疾,和功能。用CSE和MWM方法治疗SIJ似乎可以提高这种疗效。
    UNASSIGNED: Sacroiliac joint dysfunction (SIJD), while being the primary contributor to low back pain, is still disregarded and treated as low back pain. Mulligan\'s Mobilization with Movement (MWM) Techniques and Core Stability Exercises (CSE) are often used to treat low back pain. There is not much evidence that it is effective in SIJD. To evaluate the effectiveness of CSE coupled with MWM (CSE + MWM) in the treatment of SIJD.
    UNASSIGNED: 39 patients with SIJD were recruited and randomly divided into distinct groups as follows: control group (n = 13), CSE group (n = 13) and CSE + MWM group (n = 13). The Numerical Pain Rating Scale (NPRS), the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ), the Range of Motion (ROM), the Pressure Pain Threshold (PPT) and the pelvic tilt angle asymmetry ratio in the sagittal plane (PTAR) were used to gauge the intervention\'s success both before (M0) and after (M1) it. All experimental data were statistically analyzed.
    UNASSIGNED: The SIJ-related pain metric significantly decreased in both the CSE + MWM group and the CSE group between M0 and M1, as determined by the NPRS and RMDQ. Between M0 and M1, The CSE group\'s left axial rotation ROM and lumbar flexion ROM were significantly decreased. The CSE + MWM group\'s extension ROM and left lateral flexion ROM both significantly increased between M0 and M1. In the difference variable (M1-M0), the CSE + MWM group substantially outperformed control group in the left lateral flexion ROM and outperformed the CSE group in the left axial rotation ROM.
    UNASSIGNED: In individuals with SIJD, CSE + MWM is beneficial in lowering pain, disability, and function. Treatment with CSE and MWM approaches for SIJ appears to boost this efficacy.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

       PDF(Pubmed)

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    背景和目的:慢性非特异性下腰痛(CNLBP)持续超过12周。建议用于CNLBP的手动治疗显示出短期疗效。疼痛神经科学教育(PNE)教导患者通过解释来修改疼痛感知,隐喻,和例子,针对大脑再教育。动机性访谈(MI)增强了行为改变的动机,引导患者远离矛盾和不确定性。这些方法共同解决了CNLBP有效管理的多面性。这项研究的目的是探讨手动治疗干预联合PNE与MI的疼痛,压力痛阈值(PPT),残疾,运动恐惧症,灾难,经历CNLBP的个体的低背部功能能力。材料与方法:将60例CNLBP成人随机分为3组(每组20例)。第一组接受手动治疗和PNE合并MI(联合治疗组),第二组只接受手法治疗(手法治疗组),第三组遵循一般在家锻炼计划(对照组)。使用数字疼痛评定量表(NPRS)评估最后24小时的疼痛,使用罗兰-莫里斯残疾问卷(RMDQ)的功能能力,通过压力测量在腰椎区域的PPT,运动恐惧症的坦帕量表(TSK),用疼痛灾难量表(PCS)进行灾难化,和使用基线时的后向性能标度(BPS)的性能,在第四个星期,干预后六个月。结果:干预组与对照组在第4周测量和6个月随访中均有统计学差异,如NPRS和RMDQ得分所示,以及测试的PPTs的总值(p<0.05)。两个干预组之间也观察到差异,在两个时间点(第4周和6个月随访),联合治疗组的统计学改善更大(p<0.05)。关于第四周的TSK和PCS成绩,与对照组相比,两个干预组之间的差异具有统计学意义,以及两个干预组之间(p<0.05)。然而,在六个月的随访中,仅联合治疗组与其他两组之间存在统计学上的显着差异,联合治疗组显着改善(p<0.05)。关于BPS,在第4周,与对照组相比,两个干预组均表现出统计学上的显着差异,两个干预组之间没有任何显着差异。然而,在六个月的随访中,联合治疗组与其他两组之间存在显着差异(p<0.05),联合治疗显示出更大的改善。结论:PNE与综合MI的添加增强了手动治疗干预在所有结局指标中的积极作用。与单独应用手动治疗相比,手动治疗加PNE与整合MI的组合似乎提供了更大的改善。这些改进也持续了更长时间。这些短期和长期的积极影响可能归因于PNE与综合MI的结合,这有助于提高治疗的有效性。需要进一步的研究来研究CNLBP个体中手动治疗和合并MI的PNE的最佳剂量。
    Background and Objectives: Chronic non-specific low back pain (CNLBP) persists beyond 12 weeks. Manual therapy recommended for CNLBP demonstrates short-term efficacy. Pain Neuroscience Education (PNE) teaches patients to modify pain perception through explanations, metaphors, and examples, targeting brain re-education. Motivational Interviewing (MI) enhances motivation for behavioral change, steering patients away from ambivalence and uncertainty. These approaches collectively address the multifaceted nature of CNLBP for effective management. The aim of this study was to investigate a manual therapy intervention combined with PNE with MI on pain, pressure pain threshold (PPT), disability, kinesiophobia, catastrophizing, and low back functional ability in individuals experiencing CNLBP. Materials and Methods: Sixty adults with CNLBP were randomly divided into three equal groups (each n = 20). The first group received manual therapy and PNE with integrated MI (combined therapy group), the second group underwent only manual therapy (manual therapy group), and the third group followed a general exercise program at home (control group). Pain in the last 24 h was assessed using the Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NPRS), functional ability with the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ), PPT in the lumbar region through pressure algometry, kinesiophobia with the Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia (TSK), catastrophizing with the Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS), and performance using the Back Performance Scale (BPS) at baseline, in the fourth week, and six months post-intervention. Results: Statistically significant differences between the intervention groups and the control group were found in both the fourth-week measurement and the six-month follow-up, as evident in the NPRS and RMDQ scores, as well as in the total values of tested PPTs (p < 0.05). Differences were also observed between the two intervention groups, with a statistically greater improvement in the combined therapy group at both time points (fourth week and six-month follow-up) (p < 0.05). Regarding the TSK and PCS scores in the fourth week, statistically significant differences were observed between the two intervention groups compared to the control group, as well as between the two intervention groups (p < 0.05). However, in the six-month follow-up, statistically significant differences were found only between the combined therapy group and the other two groups, with the combined therapy group showing significant improvements (p < 0.05). In relation to BPS, both intervention groups exhibited statistically significant differences compared to the control group in the fourth week, without any significant differences between the two intervention groups. However, in the six-month follow-up, significant differences were noted between the combined therapy group and the other two groups (p < 0.05), with combined therapy demonstrating greater improvement. Conclusions: The addition of PNE with integrated MI enhanced the positive effects of a manual therapy intervention in all outcome measures. The combination of manual therapy plus PNE with integrated MI appeared to provide greater improvements compared to the isolated application of manual therapy, and these improvements also lasted longer. These short- and long-term positive effects are likely attributed to the combination of PNE with integrated MI, which contributed to increasing the effectiveness of the treatment. Further studies are required to investigate the optimum dosage of manual therapy and PNE with integrated MI in individuals with CNLBP.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

       PDF(Pubmed)

公众号