909 resultados para Manipulative Therapy
Resumo:
Study Design. A multi-center assessor-blinded randomized clinical trial was conducted. Objectives. To investigate the relative effectiveness of interferential therapy and manipulative therapy for patients with acute low back pain when used as sole treatments and in combination. Summary of Background Data. Both manipulative therapy and interferential therapy are commonly used treatments for low back pain. Evidence for the effectiveness of manipulative therapy is available only for the short term. There is no evidence for interferential therapy and no study has investigated the effectiveness of interferential therapy combined with manipulative therapy. Methods. Consenting subjects (n=240) were randomly assigned to receive a copy of the Back Book and either manipulative therapy (MT; n=80), interferential therapy (IFT; n=80) or combined manipulative therapy and interferential therapy (CT; n=80). Follow-up outcome questionnaires were posted at discharge, 6 and 12 months. Results. The groups were balanced at baseline for low back pain and demographic characteristics. All interventions were found to significantly reduce functional disability and pain and increase quality of life at discharge and to maintain these improvements at 6 and 12 months. No significant differences were found between groups for reported LBP recurrence, work absenteeism, medication consumption, exercise participation and healthcare use at 12 months. Conclusions. For acute low back pain, interferential therapy whether used in isolation or in combination with manipulative therapy was as effective as manipulative therapy alone (in addition to the Back Book).
Resumo:
The majority of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of spinal manipulative therapy have not adequately de?ned 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 de?ned as any ‘mobilization’ (low velocity manual force without a thrust) or ‘manipulation’ (high velocity
thrust) techniques of the spine described by Maitland and Cyriax.
The 16 physiotherapists, all members of the Society of Orthopaedic Medicine, utilized three spinal manipulative therapy patterns in the RCT: Maitland Mobilization (40.4%, n=59), Maitland Mobilization/Cyriax Manipulation (40.4%, n=59) and Cyriax Manipulation (19.1%, n=28). There was a signi?cant difference between the MT and CT groups in their usage of spinal manipulative therapy techniques (w2=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 re?ect the postgraduate training of trial therapists.
Resumo:
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether treatment with spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) administered in addition to standard care is associated with clinically relevant early reductions in pain and analgesic consumption. METHODS: 104 patients with acute low back pain were randomly assigned to SMT in addition to standard care (n = 52) or standard care alone (n = 52). Standard care consisted of general advice and paracetamol, diclofenac or dihydrocodeine as required. Other analgesic drugs or non-pharmacological treatments were not allowed. Primary outcomes were pain intensity assessed on the 11-point box scale (BS-11) and analgesic use based on diclofenac equivalence doses during days 1-14. An extended follow-up was performed at 6 months. RESULTS: Pain reductions were similar in experimental and control groups, with the lower limit of the 95% CI excluding a relevant benefit of SMT (difference 0.5 on the BS-11, 95% CI -0.2 to 1.2, p = 0.13). Analgesic consumptions were also similar (difference -18 mg diclofenac equivalents, 95% CI -43 mg to 7 mg, p = 0.17), with small initial differences diminishing over time. There were no differences between groups in any of the secondary outcomes and stratified analyses provided no evidence for potential benefits of SMT in specific patient groups. The extended follow-up showed similar patterns. CONCLUSIONS: SMT is unlikely to result in relevant early pain reduction in patients with acute low back pain.
Resumo:
Cuando alguna de las estructuras que componen el hombro se ve alterada, se presentan múltiples patologías que alteran las actividades de la vida diaria debido a su importante acción dentro de la funcionalidad de los miembros superiores, en las cuales resulta difícil identificar la causa exacta, debido a la gran cantidad de estructuras involucradas en esta región y a la vecindad de las mismas. Es entonces, como a través de este proyecto de aplicación se hará una descripción del proceso de evaluación y tratamiento desarrollado desde la Terapia Manual en una patología específica de hombro, dando a conocer los resultados de esta forma especializada de tratamiento fisioterapéutico. Así mismo, se hará una pequeña recopilación teórica en cuanto a la anatomía, biomecánica y patología de hombro así como a los conceptos básicos de la Terapia Manual, necesarios para comprender el proceso desarrollado con el proyecto.
Resumo:
Pós-graduação em Ciências da Motricidade - IBRC
Resumo:
This paper presents an approach to rehabilitation of pain patients. The fundamental principles of the approach are (i) pain is an output of the brain that is produced whenever the brain concludes that body tissue is in danger and action is required, and (ii) pain is a multisystem output that is produced when an individual-specific cortical pain neuromatrix is activated. When pain becomes chronic, the efficacy of the pain neuromatrix is strengthened via nociceptive and non-nociceptive mechanisms, which means that less input, both nociceptive and non-nociceptive, is required to produce pain. The clinical approach focuses on decreasing all inputs that imply that body tissue is in danger and then on activating components of the pain neuromatrix without activating its output. Rehabilitation progresses to increase exposure to threatening input across sensory and non-sensory domains. (C) 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Resumo:
A systematic review of the literature on the effectiveness of physical interventions for lateral epicondylalgia ( tennis elbow) was carried out. Seventy six randomised controlled trials were identified, 28 of which satisfied the minimum criteria for meta-analysis. The evidence suggests that extracorporeal shock wave therapy is not beneficial in the treatment of tennis elbow. There is a lack of evidence for the long term benefit of physical interventions in general. However, further research with long term follow up into manipulation and exercise as treatments is indicated.
Resumo:
A recent randomized controlled trial tested the effectiveness of therapeutic exercise and manipulative therapy on 200 subjects with cervicogenic headache. Although treatments were efficacious, 25% of patients did not achieve a clinically acceptable outcome - 50% reduction in headache frequency This study aimed to identify predictors from variables in subjects' demographics and headache history which might identify those who did or did not achieve a 50-79% or 80-100% reduction in headache immediately after the active treatments and 12 months postintervention. The results revealed no consistent pattern of predictors, although the absence of light-headedness indicated higher odds of achieving either a 50-79% [odds ratio (OR) = 5.45) or 80-100% (OR = 5.7) reduction in headache frequency in the long term. Headaches of at least moderate intensity, the patient's age and chronicity of headache did not mitigate against a successful outcome from physiotherapy intervention.
Resumo:
Introduction: Orofacial pain and pain in the muscles of mastication are frequent symptoms of temporomandibular disorder. The masseter is the closet masticatory muscle to the surface and has the function of raising and retracting the mandible. This muscle has considerable strength and is one of the main muscles involved in the shredding of food It is therefore of utmost importance in the masticatory cycle and generally the most affected by pain and spasms. Objectives: The aim of the present study was to analyze the effect of manual therapy with transversal and circular movements on pain and spasm in the masseter muscle, using electromyography and a visual analogue pain scale (VAPS). Eight women who experienced pain upon palpation of the masseter greater than 6 on the VAPS were selected for participation in the study, which employed electromyography and a VAPS for assessment, followed by manual oral physiotherapy and reevaluation. Results: The statistical analysis revealed a reduction in pain, but there was no significant difference in electromyographic activity (p < 0.05). Conclusion: It was concluded that massage therapy was effective on pain symptoms, but was not capable of altering the electrical activity of the masseter muscle.