Timothy W. Flynn

A clinical prediction rule for classifying patients with low back pain who demonstrate short-term improvement with spinal manipulation.

Study Design. A prospective, cohort study of patients with nonradicular low back pain referred to physical therapy. Objective. Develop a clinical prediction rule for identifying patients with low back pain who improve with spinal manipulation. Summary of Background Data. Development of clinical prediction rules for classifying patients with low back pain who are likely to respond to a particular intervention, such as manipulation, would improve clinical decision-making and research. Methods. Patients with nonradicular low back pain underwent a standardized examination and then underwent a standardized spinal manipulation treatment program. Success with treatment was determined using percent change in disability scores over three sessions and served as the reference standard for determining the accuracy of examination variables. Examination variables were first analyzed for univariate accuracy in predicting success and then combined into a multivariate clinical prediction rule. Results. Seventy-one patients participated. Thirty-two had success with the manipulation intervention. A clinical prediction rule with five variables (symptom duration, fear–avoidance beliefs, lumbar hypomobility, hip internal rotation range of motion, and no symptoms distal to the knee) was identified. The presence of four of five of these variables (positive likelihood ratio = 24.38) increased the probability of success with manipulation from 45% to 95%. Conclusion. It appears that patients with low back pain likely to respond to manipulation can be accurately identified before treatment.

A comparison between two physical therapy treatment programs for patients with lumbar spinal stenosis : A randomized clinical trial

Study Design. Multicenter randomized, controlled trial. Objective. To compare two physical therapy programs for patients with lumbar spinal stenosis. Summary of Background Data. Scant evidence exists regarding effectiveness of nonsurgical management programs for lumbar spinal stenosis. Methods. Fifty-eight patients with lumbar spinal stenosis were randomized to one of two 6-week physical therapy programs. One program included manual physical therapy, body weight supported treadmill walking, and exercise (Manual Physical Therapy, Exercise, and Walking Group), while the other included lumbar flexion exercises, a treadmill walking program, and subtherapeutic ultrasound (Flexion Exercise and Walking Group). Perceived recovery was assessed with a global rating of change scale. Secondary outcomes included: Oswestry, a numerical pain rating scale, a measure of satisfaction, and a treadmill test. Testing occurred at baseline, 6 weeks, and 1 year. Perceived recovery, pain, and other healthcare resources used were collected with a long-term follow-up questionnaire. Results. A greater proportion of patients in the manual physical therapy, exercise, and walking group reported recovery at 6 weeks compared with the flexion exercise and walking group (P = 0.0015), with a number needed to treat for perceived recovery of 2.6 (confidence interval, 1.8–7.8). At 1 year, 62% and 41% of the manual therapy, exercise, and walking group and the flexion exercise and walking group, respectively, still met the threshold for recovery. Improvements in disability, satisfaction, and treadmill walking tests favored the manual physical therapy, exercise, and walking group at all follow-up points. Conclusions. Patients with lumbar spinal stenosis can benefit from physical therapy. Additional gains may be realized with the inclusion of manual physical therapy interventions, exercise, and a progressive body-weight supported treadmill walking program.

Pragmatic application of a clinical prediction rule in primary care to identify patients with low back pain with a good prognosis following a brief spinal manipulation intervention

BackgroundPatients with low back pain are frequently encountered in primary care. Although a specific diagnosis cannot be made for most patients, it is likely that sub-groups exist within the larger entity of nonspecific low back pain. One sub-group that has been identified is patients who respond rapidly to spinal manipulation. The purpose of this study was to examine the association between two factors (duration and distribution of symptoms) and prognosis following a spinal manipulation intervention.MethodsData were taken from two previously published studies. Patients with low back pain underwent a standardized examination, including assessment of duration of the current symptoms in days, and the distal-most distribution of symptoms. Based on prior research, patients with symptoms of <16 days duration and no symptoms distal to the knee were considered to have a good prognosis following manipulation. All patients underwent up to two sessions of spinal manipulation treatment and a range of motion exercise. Oswestry disability scores were recorded before and after treatment. If ≥ 50% improvement on the Oswestry was achieved, the intervention was considered a success. Sensitivity, specificity, and positive likelihood ratio were calculated for the association of the two criteria with the outcome of the treatment.Results141 patients (49% female, mean age = 35.5 (± 11.1) years) participated. Mean pre- and post-treatment Oswestry scores were 41.9 (± 10.9) and 24.1 (± 14.2) respectively. Sixty-three subjects (45%) had successful treatment outcomes. The sensitivity of the two criteria was 0.56 (95% CI: 0.43, 0.67), specificity was 0.92 (95% CI: 0.84, 0.96), and the positive likelihood ratio was 7.2 (95% CI: 3.2, 16.1).ConclusionThe results of this study demonstrate that two factors; symptom duration of less than 16 days, and no symptoms extending distal to the knee, were associated with a good outcome with spinal manipulation.

The Audible Pop Is Not Necessary for Successful Spinal High-Velocity Thrust Manipulation in Individuals With Low Back Pain

OBJECTIVE To determine the relationship between an audible pop and symptomatic improvement with spinal manipulation in patients with low back pain (LBP). DESIGN A prospective cohort study. SETTING Two outpatient physical therapy clinics located in military medical centers. PARTICIPANTS A cohort of 71 patients with nonradicular LBP referred to physical therapy. INTERVENTIONS Participants underwent a standardized examination and standardized spinal manipulation treatment program. All patients were treated with a sacroiliac (SI) region manipulative technique and the presence or absence of an audible pop was noted. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Subjects were reassessed 48 hours after the manipulation for changes in range of motion (ROM), numeric pain rating scale (PRS) scores, and modified Oswestry Disability Questionnaire (ODQ) scores. RESULTS An audible pop occurred in 50 of the 71 subjects during the manipulative procedure. Both groups-those who had an audible pop and those who did not-improved over time in flexion ROM, PRS scores, and modified ODQ scores; however, there were no differences between groups (P>.05). Nineteen of the 71 (27%) patients improved dramatically (mean drop in modified ODQ, 67.6%). In 14 of the 19 dramatic responders, an audible pop occurred. However, the odds ratio (1.2; 95% confidence interval, 0.38-4.04) suggested that the occurrence of a manipulative pop would not improve the odds of achieving a dramatic reduction in symptoms after the manipulation. CONCLUSION There is no relationship between an audible pop during SI region manipulation and improvement in ROM, pain, or disability in individuals with nonradicular LBP. Additionally, the occurrence of a pop did not improve the odds of a dramatic improvement with manipulation treatment.

Manual Physical Therapy and Exercise Versus Electrophysical Agents and Exercise in the Management of Plantar Heel Pain: A Multicenter Randomized Clinical Trial

STUDY DESIGN Randomized clinical trial. OBJECTIVE To compare the effectiveness of 2 different conservative management approaches in the treatment of plantar heel pain. BACKGROUND There is insufficient evidence to establish the optimal physical therapy management strategies for patients with heel pain, and little evidence of long-term effects. METHODS Patients with a primary report of plantar heel pain underwent a standard evaluation and completed a number of patient self-report questionnaires, including the Lower Extremity Functional Scale (LEFS), the Foot and Ankle Ability Measure (FAAM), and the Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NPRS). Patients were randomly assigned to be treated with either an electrophysical agents and exercise (EPAX) or a manual physical therapy and exercise (MTEX) approach. Outcomes of interest were captured at baseline and at 4-week and 6-month follow-ups. The primary aim (effects of treatment on pain and disability) was examined with a mixed-model analysis of variance (ANOVA). The hypothesis of interest was the 2-way interaction (group by time). RESULTS Sixty subjects (mean [SD] age, 48.4 [8.7] years) satisfied the eligibility criteria, agreed to participate, and were randomized into the EPAX (n = 30) or MTEX group (n = 30). The overall group-by-time interaction for the ANOVA was statistically significant for the LEFS (P = .002), FAAM (P = .005), and pain (P = .043). Between-group differences favored the MTEX group at both 4-week (difference in LEFS, 13.5; 95% CI: 6.3, 20.8) and 6-month (9.9; 95% CI: 1.2, 18.6) follow-ups. CONCLUSION The results of this study provide evidence that MTEX is a superior management approach over an EPAX approach in the management of individuals with plantar heel pain at both the short- and long-term follow-ups. Future studies should examine the contribution of the different components of the exercise and manual physical therapy programs. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE Therapy, level 1b.

Primary Care Referral of Patients With Low Back Pain to Physical Therapy Impact on Future Health Care Utilization and Costs

Study Design. A retrospective cohort. Objective. To describe physical therapy utilization following primary care consultation for low back pain (LBP) and evaluate associations between the timing and content of physical therapy and subsequent health care utilization and costs. Summary of Background Data. Primary care management of LBP is highly variable and the implications for subsequent costs are not well understood. The importance of referring patients from primary care to physical therapy has been debated, and information on how the timing and content of physical therapy impact subsequent costs and utilization is needed. Methods. Data were extracted from a national database of employer-sponsored health plans. A total of 32,070 patients with a new primary care LBP consultation were identified and categorized on the basis of the use of physical therapy within 90 days. Patients utilizing physical therapy were further categorized based on timing (early [within 14 d] or delayed)] and content (guideline adherent or nonadherent). LBP-related health care costs and utilization in the 18-months following primary care consultation were examined. Results. Physical therapy utilization was 7.0% with significant geographic variability. Early physical therapy timing was associated with decreased risk of advanced imaging (odds ratio [OR] = 0.34, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.29, 0.41), additional physician visits (OR = 0.26, 95% CI: 0.21, 0.32), surgery (OR = 0.45, 95% CI: 0.32, 0.64), injections (OR = 0.42, 95% CI: 0.32, 0.64), and opioid medications (OR = 0.78, 95% CI: 0.66, 0.93) compared with delayed physical therapy. Total medical costs for LBP were

Implications of early and guideline adherent physical therapy for low back pain on utilization and costs

2736.23 lower (95% CI: 1810.67, 3661.78) for patients receiving early physical therapy. Physical therapy content showed weaker associations with subsequent care. Conclusion. Early physical therapy following a new primary care consultation was associated with reduced risk of subsequent health care compared with delayed physical therapy. Further research is needed to clarify exactly which patients with LBP should be referred to physical therapy; however, if referral is to be made, delaying the initiation of physical therapy may increase risk for additional health care consumption and costs.

Fluoroscopic video to identify aberrant lumbar motion.

BackgroundInitial management decisions following a new episode of low back pain (LBP) are thought to have profound implications for health care utilization and costs. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of early and guideline adherent physical therapy for low back pain on utilization and costs within the Military Health System (MHS).MethodsPatients presenting to a primary care setting with a new complaint of LBP from January 1, 2007 to December 31, 2009 were identified from the MHS Management Analysis and Reporting Tool. Descriptive statistics, utilization, and costs were examined on the basis of timing of referral to physical therapy and adherence to practice guidelines over a 2-year period. Utilization outcomes (advanced imaging, lumbar injections or surgery, and opioid use) were compared using adjusted odds ratios with 99% confidence intervals. Total LBP-related health care costs over the 2-year follow-up were compared using linear regression models.Results753,450 eligible patients with a primary care visit for LBP between 18–60 years of age were considered. Physical therapy was utilized by 16.3% (n = 122,723) of patients, with 24.0% (n = 17,175) of those receiving early physical therapy that was adherent to recommendations for active treatment. Early referral to guideline adherent physical therapy was associated with significantly lower utilization for all outcomes and 60% lower total LBP-related costs.ConclusionsThe potential for cost savings in the MHS from early guideline adherent physical therapy may be substantial. These results also extend the findings from similar studies in civilian settings by demonstrating an association between early guideline adherent care and utilization and costs in a single payer health system. Future research is necessary to examine which patients with LBP benefit early physical therapy and determine strategies for providing early guideline adherent care.

The Audible Pop from Thoracic Spine Thrust Manipulation and Its Relation to Short-Term Outcomes in Patients with Neck Pain

Study Design. A prospective, case-control design. Objectives. To develop a kinematic model that characterizes frequently observed movement patterns in patients with low back pain (LBP). Summary of Background Data. Understanding arthrokinematics of lumbar motion in those with LBP may provide further understanding of this condition. Methods. Digital fluoroscopic video (DFV) was used to quantify the magnitude and rate of attainment of sagittal plane intersegmental angular and linear displacement from 20 individuals with LBP and 20 healthy control subjects during lumbar flexion and extension. Three fellowship-trained spine surgeons subsequently qualitatively analyzed the DFVs to determine normality of movement. Final classification was based on agreement between their symptom and motion status (11 with LBP and aberrant motion and 14 healthy controls without aberrant motion). Independent t tests, receiver operator characteristic curves, and accuracy statistics were calculated to determine the most parsimonious set of kinematic variables able to distinguish patients with LBP. Results. Eight kinematic variables had a positive likelihood ratio ≥2.5 and entered the model. Six of the variables described a disruption in the rate of attainment of angular or linear displacement during midrange postures. When 4 or more of these variables were present, the positive likelihood ratio was 14.0 (confidence interval 3.2–78.5), resulting in accurately identifying 96% of participants. Conclusions. DFV was useful for discriminating between individuals with and without LBP based on kinematic parameters. Disruptions in how the motion occurred during midrange motions were more diagnostic for LBP than range of motion variables. Cross validation of the model is required.

International framework for examination of the cervical region for potential of Cervical Arterial Dysfunction prior to Orthopaedic Manual Therapy intervention

Abstract Clinicians routinely consider the success of a thrust manipulation technique based on the presence or absence of an audible pop despite the lack of evidence suggesting that this pop is associated with improved outcomes. The purpose of this study was to determine the relationship between the number of audible pops with thoracic spinal manipulation and improvement in pain and function in patients with mechanical neck pain. In this prospective cohort study, 78 patients referred to physical therapy with mechanical neck pain underwent a standardized examination and thoracic spine manipulation treatment protocol. All patients were treated with a total of 6 thrust manipulation techniques directed to the thoracic spine followed by a basic cervical range of motion exercise. The treating clinician recorded the presence or absence of a pop during each manipulation. Outcomes were assessed at a 2-4 day follow-up with an 11-point numeric pain rating (NPRS), the Neck Disability Index, the patient Global Rating of Change (GROC), and measurements of cervical range of motion (CROM). The relationship between the number of pops and change scores for pain, disability, and CROM was first examined using Pearson correlation coefficients. Individuals were then categorized as having received ≤3 or >3 pops. Repeated measures analyses of variance were used to examine whether achievement of >3 pops resulted in improved outcome. Seventy-eight patients with a mean age of 42 (SD 11.3) years participated in the study. Pearson correlation coefficients revealed no significant correlation existed between the number of pops and outcomes with the exception of 3 of the 6 CROM measurements, which were inversely related. There was no significant interaction for group X time for any of the dependent measures (P>0.05). The odds ratio for patients experiencing dramatic improvement was in favor of the group experiencing ≤3 pops but this was not clinically meaningful (1.3: 95% CI 0.46, 3.7). The results of this analysis provide preliminary evidence for the hypothesis that there is no relationship between the number of audible pops during thoracic spine thrust manipulation and clinically meaningful improvements in pain, disability, or CROM in patients with mechanical neck pain. Additionally, a greater number of audible pops experienced was not associated with a dramatic improvement with manipulation treatment.