Studio di OSTEOPATIA, POSTUROLOGIA e MASSAGGIO
  • HOME
  • Osteopatia
    • Come lavora l'Osteopata?
    • OSTEOPATIA e SPORT
  • MASSAGGIO
    • Linfodrenaggio Manuale (pratica sanitaria)
    • Massaggio Terapeutico Base
    • Massaggio Sportivo
    • IDROTERAPIA
  • Curriculum
  • Acquista
  • Contatti
  • Prenota una visita
  • Blog (articoli)
  • Carte Credito e PayPal
seguici su

ARTICOLI e PUBBLICAZIONI Scientifiche

Commenta e Discutiamo insieme di articoli e pubblicazioni scientifiche in ambito tecnico (Neuroscienze, Medicina Integrativa, Fisiologia, Patologia ecc. ecc.) Invito tutti a segnalare articoli e pubblicazioni che possono essere utili in ambito di ricerca sulla salute. Ogni articolo proposto deve avere un riferimento ed una fonte.

Approccio Osteopatico alla gestione del dolore cronico (associato ad Ansia, Nervosismo, Disturbi muscolo scheletrici)

5/4/2017

1 Comment

 
An Osteopathic Approach to Chronic Pain Management
John A. Jerome, PhD
Author Notes
The Journal of the American Osteopathic Association, May 2017, Vol. 117, 306-314. doi:10.7556/jaoa.2017.05
​

AbstractChronic pain reduces quality of life and productivity, costing billions in health care dollars and lost revenue. Physicians routinely prescribe opioids, which has led to opioid addiction and overdose. The US surgeon general recommends nonpharmacologic treatment for patients with chronic pain. A paradigm shift is necessary for patients to partner with physicians to take control of their own health. This article outlines the cognitive behavioral approaches, nonopioid therapies, and nonpharmacologic therapies that osteopathic physicians can integrate in their treatment of patients with chronic pain.
1 Comment

Trattamento Manipolativo Osteopatico per il Mal di Schiena Lombare

3/6/2017

1 Comment

 

Osteopathic manipulative treatment for low back pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials John C LicciardoneEmail author, Angela K Brimhall and Linda N King
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders20056:43 DOI: 10.1186/1471-2474-6-43 ©  Licciardone et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2005 Received: 08 November 2004 Accepted: 04 August 2005 Published: 04 August 2005 Open Peer Review reports Abstract Background Osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT) is a distinctive modality commonly used by osteopathic physicians to complement their conventional treatment of musculoskeletal disorders. Previous reviews and meta-analyses of spinal manipulation for low back pain have not specifically addressed OMT and generally have focused on spinal manipulation as an alternative to conventional treatment. The purpose of this study was to assess the efficacy of OMT as a complementary treatment for low back pain. Methods Computerized bibliographic searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, MANTIS, OSTMED, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were supplemented with additional database and manual searches of the literature. Six trials, involving eight OMT vs control treatment comparisons, were included because they were randomized controlled trials of OMT that involved blinded assessment of low back pain in ambulatory settings. Data on trial methodology, OMT and control treatments, and low back pain outcomes were abstracted by two independent reviewers. Effect sizes were computed using Cohen's d statistic and meta-analysis results were weighted by the inverse variance of individual comparisons. In addition to the overall meta-analysis, stratified meta-analyses were performed according to control treatment, country where the trial was conducted, and duration of follow-up. Sensitivity analyses were performed for both the overall and stratified meta-analyses. Results Overall, OMT significantly reduced low back pain (effect size, -0.30; 95% confidence interval, -0.47 – -0.13; P = .001). Stratified analyses demonstrated significant pain reductions in trials of OMT vs active treatment or placebo control and OMT vs no treatment control. There were significant pain reductions with OMT regardless of whether trials were performed in the United Kingdom or the United States. Significant pain reductions were also observed during short-, intermediate-, and long-term follow-up. Conclusion OMT significantly reduces low back pain. The level of pain reduction is greater than expected from placebo effects alone and persists for at least three months. Additional research is warranted to elucidate mechanistically how OMT exerts its effects, to determine if OMT benefits are long lasting, and to assess the cost-effectiveness of OMT as a complementary treatment for low back pain. Background Historically, low back pain has been the most common reason for visits to osteopathic physicians [1]. More recent data from the Osteopathic Survey of Health Care in America has confirmed that a majority of patients visiting osteopathic physicians continue to seek treatment for musculoskeletal conditions [2, 3]. A distinctive element of low back care provided by osteopathic physicians is osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT). A comprehensive evaluation of spinal manipulation for low back pain undertaken by the Agency for Health Care Policy and Research in the United States concluded that spinal manipulation can be helpful for patients with acute low back problems without radiculopathy when used within the first month of symptoms [4]. Nevertheless, because most studies of spinal manipulation involve chiropractic or physical therapy [5], it is unclear if such studies adequately reflect the efficacy of OMT for low back pain. Although the professional associations that represent osteopaths, chiropractors, and physiotherapists in the United Kingdom developed a spinal manipulation package consisting of three common manual elements for use in the UK Back pain Exercise and Manipulation (UK BEAM) trial [6], there are no between-profession comparisons of clinical outcomes [7, 8]. It is well known that OMT comprises a diversity of techniques [9] that are not adequately represented by the UK BEAM trial package. Professional differences in spinal manipulation are more pronounced in research studies, where chiropractors have focused almost exclusively on high-velocity-low-amplitude techniques [10]. For example, a major trial of chiropractic manipulation as adjunctive treatment for childhood asthma used a high-velocity-low-amplitude thrust as the active treatment [11]. The simulated treatment provided in the sham manipulation arm of this chiropractic trial, which ostensibly was thought to have no therapeutic effect, had a marked similarity to OMT [10, 12]. Further, because differences in professional background and training lend themselves to diverse manipulation approaches, clinicians have been warned about generalizing the findings of systematic reviews to practice [13]. In addition to professional differences in the manual techniques themselves, osteopathic physicians in the United States, unlike allopathic physicians, chiropractors, or physical therapists, can treat low back pain simultaneously using both conventional primary care approaches and complementary spinal manipulation. This represents a unique philosophical approach in the treatment of low back pain. Consequently, there is a need for empirical data that specifically address the efficacy of OMT for such conditions as low back pain [14]. The present study was undertaken to address this need by conducting a systematic review of the literature on OMT and performing a meta-analysis of all randomized controlled trials for low back pain performed in ambulatory settings. Methods Search A search of the English language literature was performed through August 2003 to identify reports of randomized controlled trials of OMT. We searched MEDLINE, OLDMEDLINE, EMBASE, MANTIS, OSTMED, Alt Health Watch, SciSearch, ClinicalTrials.gov, CRISP, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. A detailed description of the search strategy is provided in the Appendix [see Additional file 1]. Additionally, reports were sought from relevant reviews or meta-analyses of spinal manipulation [9, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20,21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32] and manual searches of reference citations in the reviewed literature sources. Selection The search bibliographies and relevant reports were reviewed by the authors to identify randomized controlled trials involving OMT in human subjects. To assess the efficacy of OMT in primary care, eligibility was limited to randomized controlled trials of OMT performed by osteopaths, osteopathic physicians, or osteopathic trainees that included blinded assessment of low back pain in ambulatory settings. Trials that involved manipulation under anesthesia, industrial settings, or hospitalized patients were not included. Because there is potential confusion regarding the type of manipulation performed in some trials [33], the reported methods in each trial were carefully reviewed to assess eligibility for the meta-analysis. Overall, seven studies known or purported to involve OMT for low back pain were reviewed and excluded for not meeting all eligibility criteria [34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40]. A subsequent source [41] indicated that an osteopathic manipulation technique was used in the Irvine study [42]. Although several of the six included OMT trials were identified in multiple bibliographic databases, five [42, 43, 44, 45, 46] were indexed in MEDLINE. The Cleary [47] trial was identified exclusively through the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Data extraction Each eligible trial was independently reviewed by two of us to abstract data on methodological characteristics, OMT and control treatments, and low back pain outcomes. Conflicting data were resolved by consensus. Trial characteristics As shown in Table 1, the six OMT trials were conducted between 1973 and 2001 in the United Kingdom or the United States [42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47]. Two of the six trials each included two control treatments [43, 46], thus providing eight OMT vs control treatment comparisons. The trials generally were comparable in their methodology, with the possible exception of the Cleary [47] trial. Twenty contrasts were reported in the six trials (a contrast refers to a within-trial comparison between OMT and a control treatment with respect to a low back pain outcome at a given point in time). Following randomization, nine contrasts were reported within one month (short-term outcomes), another seven contrasts were reported within three months (intermediate-term outcomes), and the remaining four contrasts were reported within 12 months (long-term outcomes).
Table 1 Summary of trials.
  Hoehler 1981 [42] Gibson 1985 [43] Cleary 1994 [47] Years conducted 1973–1979 ... 1991–1992
Country United States United Kingdom United Kingdom
Setting University clinic Hospital outpatient clinic Ambulatory clinic
No. of subjects randomized 95 109 30*
Comparison OMT vs soft tissue massage and sham manipulation OMT vs short-wave diathermy OMT vs detuned short-wave diathermy OMT vs sham manipulation
Subject characteristics
   Age, y    
Mean ± SD OMT, 30.1 ± 8.4 Controls, 32.1 ± 9.8 OMT, 34 ± 14 Short-wave diarthermy controls, 35 ± 16 Detuned short-wave diathermy controls, 40 ± 16 Overall age range, 50–60
   Sex    
% male OMT, 59 Controls, 59 OMT, 49 Detuned short-wave diathermy controls, 68 Short-wave diarthermy controls, 53 OMT, 0 Controls, 0
   Type of low back pain Referred patients with acute or chronic low back pain Referred patients with low back pain of greater than 2 months' and less than 12 months' duration Recruited subjects with chronic low back pain in conjunction with menopausal symptoms
OMT protocol
   Technique High-velocity, low-amplitude thrust only Variety of techniques Low-force techniques
   No. of treatments    
Mean ± SD OMT, 4.8 ± 2.7 Controls, 3.9 ± 2.5 4, per protocol 10, per protocol
Outcomes assessment Blinded Blinded Assessment independent of treatment, blinding not specified
No. of pain contrasts 3 6 (3 for each of the two OMT vs control treatment comparisons) 1
Type of pain outcome Dichotomous pain outcomes Dichotomous pain outcomes Dichotomous pain outcome
Timing of pain contrasts    
   Short-term First treatment and mean, 20–30 days following randomization 2 and 4 weeks ...
   Intermediate-term Mean, 41–51 days following randomization ... ...
   Long-term ... 12 weeks 15 weeks
  Andersson 1999 [44] Burton 2000 [45] Licciardone 2003 [46]
Years conducted 1992–1994 ... 2000–2001
Country United States United Kingdom United States
Setting Health maintenance organization Hospital orthopedic department University clinic
No. of subjects randomized 178 40 91
Comparison Usual care and OMT vs usual care only OMT vs chemonucleolysis Usual care and OMT vs usual care and sham manipulation Usual care and OMT vs usual care only
Subject characteristics    
   Age, y    
Mean ± SD OMT, 28.5 ± 10.6 Controls, 37.0 ± 11.0 Overall, 41.9 ± 10.6 Usual care and OMT, 49 ± 12 Usual care and sham manipulation controls, 52 ± 12 Usual care only controls, 49 ± 12
   Sex    
% male OMT, 41 Controls, 44 Overall, 48 Usual care and OMT, 31 Usual care and sham manipulation controls, 43 Usual care only controls, 35
   Type of low back pain Patients with low back pain of 3 or more weeks' and less than 6 months' duration Recruited patients with low back pain and sciatica; mean duration, 30 and 32 weeks in OMT and chemonucleolysis groups, respectively Recruited subjects with low back pain of at least 3 months' duration
OMT protocol    
   Technique Variety of techniques, individualized to patient Variety of techniques, individualized to patient Variety of techniques, individualized to subject
   No. of treatments    
Mean ± SD 8, per protocol Mean for OMT, 11; range 6–18 7, per protocol
Outcomes assessment Blinded Blinded Blinded
No. of pain contrasts 1 3 6 (3 for each of the two OMT vs control treatment comparisons)
Type of pain outcome Pain scale Pain scales Pain scales
Timing of pain contrasts    
   Short-term ... 2 weeks 1 month
   Intermediate-term 12 weeks 6 weeks 3 months
   Long-term ... 12 months 6 months OMT denotes osteopathic manipulative treatment. *A total of 30 subjects with menopausal symptoms were randomized; however, only 12 subjects had low back pain. The methodological quality of four of the OMT trials [42, 43, 44, 45] was independently confirmed in a recent systematic review that included a best evidence synthesis incorporating eight explicit quality criteria, including similarity of baseline characteristics of subjects or reporting of adjusted outcomes; concealment of treatment allocation; blinding of subjects; blinding of providers or other control for attention bias; blinded or unbiased outcomes assessment; subject dropouts reported and accounted for in the analysis; missing data reported and accounted for in the analysis; and intention-to-treat analysis or absence of differential co-interventions between groups in studies with full compliance [13]. The Cleary [47] trial was not eligible for this review because it did not include a sufficiently large number of subjects. Although the Licciardone [46] trial was not eligible for the review because it was published after the closing date of December 2002, it has been characterized as an innovative and important trial with many rigorous design features [48], and more recently has been identified as an evidence-based supplement relative to the previous review from the Cochrane Library [49]. Quantitative data synthesis We used the effect size, computed as Cohen's d statistic, to report all trial results [50]. A negative effect size represented a greater decrease in pain among OMT subjects relative to control treatment subjects. Dichotomous pain measures were transformed to effect sizes by first computing the relevant P-value and then determining the effect size and 95% confidence interval (CI) that would obtain under the assumption of a two-tailed t-test for measuring the standardized mean difference between OMT and control treatments in the relevant number of subjects [50]. The meta-analysis results were weighted by the inverse variance for each OMT vs control treatment comparison. The Q statistic was used to test the homogeneity of trials included in each analysis [51]. The overall meta-analysis included the eight OMT vs control treatment comparisons. Four of the six trials, involving six of the eight OMT vs control treatment comparisons, each reported three contrasts [42, 43, 45,46] (Table 1). The median contrast, as identified by the intermediate effect size among the three reported pain outcomes for a given OMT vs control treatment comparison, was used to represent the pain outcome for each of these six comparisons. These median contrasts were then combined with the lone contrasts reported in each of the two remaining OMT vs control treatment comparisons [44, 47]. Based on the similarity among trials (Table 1), a fixed-effects model initially was used to perform meta-analysis and the results were then compared with those of a random-effects model. A series of sensitivity analyses were then performed. First, to address the possibility of bias by using the median contrasts method, analyses were repeated using the best-case and worst-case scenarios for the six relevant OMT vs control treatment comparisons [42, 43, 45, 46]. Second, to address the possibility of bias by including comparisons involving the same OMT group vs two different control treatment groups in two trials [43, 46], analyses were repeated using only one OMT vs control treatment comparison for each of these trials. Each of the four possible combinations of contrasts was analyzed. Third, the analysis was repeated after excluding the Cleary [47] trial. Finally, an analysis was performed using all 20 low back pain contrasts. Similar analyses were performed after stratifying trials according to control treatment, country where the trial was performed, and duration of follow-up. As summarized in Table 2, there were 43 analyses performed, including the overall meta-analysis, seven stratified meta-analyses, and 35 sensitivity analyses. Meta-analysis was performed only when there were at least three contrasts available for data synthesis. Database management and analyses were performed using the Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software package (Version 1.0.23, Biostat, Inc, Englewood, NJ 07631, USA).
Table 2 Summary of analyses.* Meta-Analyses Sensitivity Analyses Overall Median Contrasts Best-case and worst-case scenarios 4 possible combinations of contrasts including one control treatment per trial Cleary [47] trial excluded All 20 contrasts
Stratified Median Contrasts
   A. Control Treatment  
1. Active treatment or placebo control Best-case and worst-case scenarios 2 possible combinations of contrasts including one control treatment per trial Cleary [47] trial excluded All 16 contrasts
2. No treatment  
   B. Country Where Trial was Performed  
3. United Kingdom Best-case and worst-case scenarios 2 possible combinations of contrasts including one control treatment per trial Cleary [47] trial excluded All 10 contrasts
4. United States Best-case and worst-case scenarios 2 possible combinations of contrasts including one control treatment per trial All 10 contrasts
   C. Duration of Follow-Up  
5. Short-term Best-case and worst-case scenarios All 9 contrasts
6. Intermediate-term 4 possible combinations of contrasts including one control treatment per trial
7. Long-term 2 possible combinations of contrasts including one control treatment per trial Cleary [47] trial excluded *There were insufficient contrasts to perform sensitivity analyses for the no treatment stratified analysis. For the short-term stratified analysis, the median contrast was defined to be that corresponding to the eighth combination when effect sizes for the 16 possible contrast combinations were rank ordered from least to greatest. For the intermediate-and long-term stratified analyses, the median contrasts defaulted to the all-contrasts analyses because there were no repeated measures within these time intervals in any trial. All possible contrast combinations were included in the sensitivity analyses for intermediate-and long-term follow-up because of the limited numbers of combinations for these analyses. Results Overall analyses The search for reports is summarized in Figure 1. A total of 525 subjects with low back pain were randomized in the eligible trials. The overall results are presented in Figure 2. There was a highly significant reduction in pain associated with OMT (effect size, -0.30; 95% CI, -0.47 – -0.13; P = .001). The Q statistic was non-significant, thus supporting the assumption of homogeneity among trials. The primary sensitivity analyses are presented in Table 3. Using a random-effects model, the results were virtually identical to those observed with a fixed-effects model. There were 729 (36 × 12) possible combinations of contrasts for analysis based on three contrasts for each of six OMT vs control treatment comparisons [42, 43, 45, 46] and one contrast for each of the two remaining OMT vs control treatment comparisons [44, 47]. The efficacy of OMT for low back pain was supported in both the best-case (effect size, -0.37; 95% CI, -0.55 – -0.20; P < .001) and worst-case (effect size, -0.18; 95% CI, -0.35 – 0.00; P = .046) scenarios. Similarly, when each trial was limited to one OMT vs control treatment comparison, OMT was found to be efficacious in each of the four analyses. OMT also demonstrated significantly greater low back pain reduction than control treatment in analyses with the Cleary [47] trial excluded and with all 20 contrasts included.
Figure 1 Flowchart of trials.
Figure 2 Effect size for low back pain. CI denotes confidence interval; OMT, osteopathic manipulative treatment. Overall effect size, -0.30; 95% CI, -0.47 – -0.13; P = .001.
Table 3 Overall results.
   No. of Subjects    
Model No. of Contrasts OMT Control Effect Size 95% CI P Median contrasts       
   Fixed-effects model* 8 318 231 -0.30 -0.47 – -0.13 .001
   Random-effects model 8 318 231 -0.31 -0.49 – -0.13 .001
Best-case scenario 8 293 220 -0.37 -0.55 – -0.20 <.001
Worst-case scenario 8 298 221 -0.18 -0.35 – 0.00 .046
Median contrasts, one OMT vs control treatment comparison per trial       
   Gibson [43] active treatment control and Licciardone [46] placebo control 6 237 181 -0.30 -0.49 – -0.10 .003
   Gibson [43] active treatment control and Licciardone [46] no treatment control 6 247 179 -0.39 -0.59 – -0.20 <.001
   Gibson [43] placebo control and Licciardone [46] placebo control 6 238 187 -0.26 -0.45 – -0.06 .01
   Gibson [43] placebo control and Licciardone [46] no treatment control 6 248 185 -0.35 -0.54 – -0.15 <.001
Median contrasts, Cleary [47] trial excluded 7 310 227 -0.29 -0.47 – -0.12 .001
All contrasts 20 727 520 -0.29 -0.40 – -0.17 <.001 CI denotes confidence interval; OMT, osteopathic manipulative treatment. *Test for homogeneity, P = .37. Stratified analyses The results of stratified meta-analyses are presented in Table 4. There was a significant reduction in low back pain associated with OMT in trials vs active treatment or placebo control (effect size, -0.26; 95% CI, -0.48 – -0.05; P = .02), independent of fixed-effects or random-effects model specification. There were 243 (35 × 11) possible contrast combinations based on three contrasts for each of five OMT vs control treatment comparisons [42, 43, 45, 46] and one contrast for another remaining OMT vs control treatment comparison [47]. Both the best-case and worst-case scenarios demonstrated a greater reduction in pain with OMT than active treatment or placebo control, although the worst-case results did not achieve statistical significance. OMT was found to significantly reduce pain in the remaining analyses that limited OMT vs active treatment or placebo control comparisons to one per trial, excluded the Cleary [47] trial, and included all 16 contrasts. The OMT vs no treatment control comparisons were observed in trials in which all subjects received usual low back care in addition to their allocated treatment (ie, OMT and usual care vs only usual care) [44, 47]. For these trials, the all-contrasts model (ie, the only model with sufficient contrasts for data synthesis) demonstrated a highly significant reduction in pain with OMT.
Table 4 Stratified results.
   No. of Subjects     Model No. of Contrasts OMT Control Effect Size 95% CI P
OMT vs. Active Treatment or Placebo Control
Median contrasts       
   Fixed-effects model* 6 193 142 -0.26 -0.48 – -0.05 .02
   Random-effects model 6 193 142 -0.26 -0.48 – -0.05 .02
Best-case scenario 6 174 132 -0.34 -0.57 – -0.11 .004
Worst-case scenario 6 183 134 -0.07 -0.29 – 0.16 .54
Median contrasts, one OMT vs control treatment comparison per trial       
   Gibson [43] active treatment 5 154 109 -0.33 -0.58 – -0.08 .01
   Gibson [43] placebo control 5 155 115 -0.26 -0.51 – -0.02 .03
Median contrasts, Cleary [47] trial excluded 5 185 138 -0.24 -0.47 – -0.02 .03
All contrasts 16 534 400 -0.21 -0.34 – -0.08 .002
OMT vs. No Treatment Control
All contrasts 4 193 120 -0.53 -0.76 – -0.30 <.001
Trials Performed in the United Kingdom
Median contrasts       
   Fixed-effects model* 4 105 84 -0.29 -0.58 – 0.00 .050
   Random-effects model 4 105 84 -0.30 -0.63 – 0.02 .06
Best-case scenario 4 105 88 -0.36 -0.64 – -0.07 .01
Worst-case scenario 4 100 83 -0.11 -0.40 – 0.19 .48
Median contrasts, one OMT vs control treatment comparison per trial       
   Gibson [43] active treatment 3 66 51 -0.46 -0.83 – -0.09 .02
   Gibson [43] placebo control 3 67 57 -0.30 -0.66 – 0.05 .10
Median contrasts, Cleary [47] trial excluded 3 97 80 -0.26 -0.56 – 0.04 .09
All contrasts 10 294 247 -0.23 -0.40 – -0.06 .01
Trials Performed in the United States
Median contrasts       
   Fixed-effects model* 4 213 147 -0.31 -0.52 – -0.10 .004
   Random-effects model 4 213 147 -0.32 -0.57 – -0.06 .01
Best-case scenario 4 188 132 -0.38 -0.61 – -0.16 .001
Worst-case scenario 4 198 138 -0.22 -0.44 – 0.00 .050
Median contrasts, one OMT vs control treatment comparison per trial       
   Licciardone [46] placebo control 3 171 130 -0.24 -0.47 – -0.01 .04
   Licciardone [46] no treatment control 3 181 128 -0.36 -0.59 – -0.14 .002
All contrasts 10 433 273 -0.33 -0.48 – -0.18 <.001
Short-Term Follow-Up
Median contrasts       
   Fixed-effects model* 5 181 130 -0.28 -0.51 – -0.06 .01
   Random-effects model 5 181 130 -0.31 -0.61 – -0.01 .046
Best-case scenario 5 196 142 -0.41 -0.62 – -0.19 <.001
Worst-case scenario 5 181 136 -0.10 -0.32 – 0.12 .38
All contrasts 9 357 258 -0.23 -0.39 – -0.07 .01
Intermediate-Term Follow-Up
Median (all) contrasts       
   Fixed-effects model* 7 283 209 -0.33 -0.51 – -0.15 <.001
   Random-effects model 7 283 209 -0.36 -0.63 – -0.10 .01
Median contrasts, one OMT vs control treatment comparison per trial       
   Gibson [43] active treatment and Licciardone [46] placebo control 5 209 161 -0.31 -0.52 – -0.10 .004
   Gibson [43] active treatment and Licciardone [46] no treatment control 5 209 158 -0.45 -0.65 – -0.24 <.001
   Gibson [43] placebo control and Licciardone [46] placebo control 5 209 166 -0.25 -0.46 – -0.05 .02
   Gibson [43] placebo control and Licciardone [46] no treatment control 5 209 163 -0.39 -0.59 – -0.18 <.001
Long-Term Follow-Up
Median (all) contrasts       
   Fixed-effects model* 4 87 53 -0.40 -0.74 – -0.05 .03
   Random-effects model 4 87 53 -0.41 -0.82 – -0.01 .046
Median contrasts, one OMT vs control treatment comparison per trial       
   Licciardone [46] placebo control 3 55 38 -0.23 -0.65 – 0.19 .28
   Licciardone [46] no treatment control 3 55 34 -0.64 -1.08 – -0.20 .01
Median contrasts, Cleary [47] trial excluded 3 79 49 -0.36 -0.72 – 0.01 .054 CI denotes confidence interval; OMT, osteopathic manipulative treatment. *Tests of homogeneity, P = .45 and P = .06 for active treatment or placebo control, and no treatment control groups, respectively; P = .32 and P = .26 for trials in the United Kingdom and the United States, respectively; and P = .14, P = .06, and P = .28 for short-term, intermediate-term, and long-term follow-up, respectively. Trials in both the United Kingdom (effect size, -0.29; 95% CI, -0.58 – 0.00; P = .050) and the United States (effect size, -0.31; 95% CI, -0.52 – -0.10; P = .004) demonstrated significant reductions in low back pain associated with OMT. In the sensitivity analyses, effect sizes were generally of comparable magnitude in both countries, although results in American trials consistently achieved statistical significance as a consequence of the larger sample sizes in these trials (Table 4). There were significant reductions in low back pain associated with OMT during the short-term (effect size, -0.28; 95% CI, -0.51 – -0.06; P = .01), intermediate-term (effect size, -0.33; 95% CI, -0.51 – -0.15; P < .001), and long-term (effect size, -0.40; 95% CI, -0.74 – -0.05; P = .03) follow-up periods. Sensitivity analyses for temporal outcomes demonstrated that intermediate-term results consistently achieved statistical significance, generally because of the greater number of subjects in these analyses (Table 4). The results of the meta-analyses and sensitivity analyses are further summarized in Figure 3.
Figure 3 Summary of meta-analysis results. A denotes all-contrasts model; B, best-case scenario model; C, Cleary [47] trial excluded model; M, median contrasts model; NT, no treatment control; OMT, osteopathic manipulative treatment; W, worst-case scenario model. 1, 2, 3, and 4 indicate alternative models restricted to one OMT vs control treatment comparison per trial. A diamond indicates the inclusion of the relevant contrast or observation of the stated result. Sensitivity analyses are shaded in gray. Results are presented for each of the 43 analyses, including the overall meta-analysis, seven stratified meta-analyses, and 35 sensitivity analyses. Discussion Efficacy of osteopathic manipulative treatment The overall results clearly demonstrate a statistically significant reduction in low back pain with OMT (Figure2). Further, the meta-analysis results are quite robust as indicated by the comprehensive sensitivity analyses (Figure 3). Stratified meta-analyses to control for moderator variables demonstrated that OMT significantly reduced low back pain vs active treatment or placebo control and vs no treatment control. If it is assumed, as shown in a review [52], that the effect size is -0.27 for placebo control vs no treatment in trials involving continuous measures for pain, then the results of our study are highly congruent (ie, effect size for OMT vs no treatment [-0.53] = effect size for OMT vs active treatment or placebo control [-0.26] + effect size for placebo control vs no treatment [-0.27]). It has been suggested that the therapeutic benefits of spinal manipulation are largely due to placebo effects [53]. A preponderance of results from our sensitivity analyses supports the efficacy of OMT vs active treatment or placebo control and therefore indicates that low back pain reduction with OMT is attributable to the manipulation techniques, not merely placebo effects. Also, as indicated above, OMT vs no treatment control demonstrated pain reductions twice as great as previously observed in clinical trials of placebo vs no treatment control [52]. Thus, OMT may eliminate or reduce the need for drugs that can have serious adverse effects [44]. Because osteopathic physicians provide OMT to complement conventional treatment for low back pain, they tend to avoid substantial additional costs that would otherwise be incurred by referring patients to chiropractors or other practitioners [54]. With respect to back pain, osteopathic physicians make fewer referrals to other physicians and admit a lower percentage of patients to hospitals than allopathic physicians [1], while also treating back pain episodes with substantially fewer visits than chiropractors [55]. Although osteopathic family physicians are less likely to order radiographs or prescribe nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, aspirin, muscle relaxants, sedatives, and narcotic analgesics for low back pain than their allopathic counterparts, osteopathic physicians have a substantially higher proportion of patients returning for follow-up back care than allopathic physicians [56]. In the United Kingdom, where general practitioners may refer patients with spinal pain to osteopaths for manipulation, it has been shown that OMT improved physical and psychological outcomes at little extra cost [57]. In our study, the effect sizes for OMT in the United Kingdom, where osteopaths are not licensed physicians, were generally comparable to those in the United States, where OMT is provided by licensed physicians. This consistency suggests that the results truly reflect the effects of OMT itself, and not other elements of low back care. It is not surprising that osteopaths in the United Kingdom achieved pain reduction with OMT similar to that of their physician counterparts in the United States. The training of osteopaths in the United Kingdom is highly focused on OMT, whereas osteopathic physicians undertake a medical curriculum that necessarily relegates OMT to one of many therapeutic approaches, albeit a fundamental one for osteopathic practitioners. Regardless of the career training path of the provider, it appears that OMT achieves clinically important reductions in low back pain. Potential limitations There are several potential limitations of this study that should be addressed. First, as with any meta-analysis, the individual trials varied somewhat with respect to methodology, including trial setting, subject characteristics, OMT and control treatment interventions, and pain measures (Table 1). Such heterogeneity has been commonly observed in previous meta-analyses of spinal manipulation, including a recent meta-analysis performed in collaboration with the Cochrane Back Review Group [31]. The latter study addressed potential heterogeneity by presenting stratified results according to chronicity of low back pain, type of control group, and duration of follow-up. This approach is analogous to the methods used in our study. Further, it should be noted that the assumption of homogeneity among trials was not rejected statistically in any of our eight overall or stratified median contrasts meta-analyses. Second, because five trials each included repeated pain measures and two trials each included two control treatments, there was no unique set of independent outcomes for meta-analysis. Such interdependencies were noted to be a problem in an early meta-analysis of spinal manipulation [15]. We used the median contrasts method to address this problem because the median outcome represents an observed outcome that is easy to compute and is less vulnerable to extreme observations than other measures of central tendency. Further, sensitivity analysis was used to assess the range of possible combinations of outcomes. Thus, for the overall meta-analysis, there were 729 potential contrast combinations. Of these, both the best-case and worst-case scenarios demonstrated statistically significant results favoring OMT, thereby providing unequivocal evidence for the efficacy of OMT. Robust findings were also observed for trials performed in the United States and for intermediate-term outcomes. Third, because there were a relatively small number of eligible trials, there were not sufficient contrasts for certain analyses and some results were imprecise. The latter phenomenon likely obviated the statistical significance of some results. Nevertheless, it is important to note that the direction of results favored OMT in each of the 43 meta-analyses and sensitivity analyses presented herein (Figure 3). Fourth, there exists the possibility that the results of unpublished trials of OMT for low back pain may have altered significantly the conclusions of this study. To address this issue, we performed file drawer analysis by computing the fail-safe N [58]. This represents the number of unpublished trials of OMT for low back pain that would have met our inclusion criteria, and that also would have demonstrated an effect size averaging ≥ -0.10, which is assumed to reflect clinically insignificant levels of pain reduction. A total of 16 unpublished trials (assuming one control group per trial) with, in the aggregate, clinically insignificant pain reduction outcomes would have been needed to obviate the significance of our results. Only recently has government funding for research in the area of complementary and alternative medicine become more widely available, in response to the public's interest in such treatments. Historically, it is highly unlikely that 16 trials of OMT for low back pain would have been sponsored, conducted, and subsequently not published. Finally, this study focused only on the efficacy of OMT with respect to pain outcomes. Generic health status, back-specific function, work disability, and back-specific patient satisfaction are other recommended outcome domains [59] that were not assessed because the included OMT trials did not consistently report these data. Conclusion The present study indicates that OMT is a distinctive modality that significantly reduces low back pain. The level of pain reduction is greater than expected from placebo effects alone and persists for at least three months. Additional research is warranted to elucidate mechanistically how OMT exerts its effects, to determine if OMT benefits are long lasting, and to assess the cost-effectiveness of OMT as a complementary treatment for low back pain. Declarations Acknowledgements This research was supported in part by a grant (No. D56HP00170) from the Health Resources and Services Administration, United States Department of Health and Human Services. The funding organization had no role in the design, conduct, and reporting of this study. Electronic supplementary material 12891_2004_156_MOESM1_ESM.doc Additional File 1: this file provides the timetable, databases, and search terms used to identify relevant studies for the meta-analysis. (DOC 32 KB)
Below are the links to the authors’ original submitted files for images.
12891_2004_156_MOESM2_ESM.doc Authors’ original file for figure 1
12891_2004_156_MOESM3_ESM.doc Authors’ original file for figure 2
12891_2004_156_MOESM4_ESM.doc Authors’ original file for figure 3 Competing interests The author(s) declare that they have no competing interests. Authors' contributions JCL, AKB, and LNK conceived and designed the study. LNK performed the literature searches. JCL and AKB extracted the data. JCL performed the statistical analyses. JCL, AKB, and LNK interpreted the data and drafted the manuscript. JCL will act as guarantor for the paper. The guarantor accepts full responsibility for the conduct of the study, had access to the data, and controlled the decision to publish. All authors approved the final manuscript. References Pre-publication history The pre-publication history for this paper can be accessed here:http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2474/6/43/prepub Cypress BK: Characteristics of physician visits for back symptoms: a national perspective. Am J Public Health. 1983, 73: 389-395.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar Licciardone JC, Herron KM: Characteristics, satisfaction, and perceptions of patients receiving ambulatory healthcare from osteopathic physicians: a comparative national survey. J Am Osteopath Assoc. 2001, 101: 374-385.PubMedGoogle Scholar Licciardone JC: Awareness and use of osteopathic physicians in the United States: results of the Second Osteopathic Survey of Health Care in America (OSTEOSURV-II). J Am Osteopath Assoc. 2003, 103: 281-289.PubMedGoogle Scholar Agency for Health Care Policy and Research [AHCPR]: Acute low back problems in adults. Clinical Practice Guideline 14. 1994, Rockville, MD, US Department of Health and Human ServicesGoogle Scholar Kuchera ML, DiGiovanna EL, Greenspan PE: Efficacy and complications. Foundations for Osteopathic Medicine. Edited by: Ward RC. 2003, Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 1143-1152. 2Google Scholar Harvey E, Burton AK, Moffett JK, Breen A: Spinal manipulation for low-back pain: a treatment package agreed by the UK chiropractic, osteopathy and physiotherapy professional associations. Man Ther. 2003, 8: 46-51. 10.1054/math.2002.0472.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar UK BEAM Trial Team: United Kingdom back pain exercise and manipulation (UK BEAM) randomised trial: effectiveness of physical treatments for back pain in primary care. BMJ. 2004, 329: 1377-10.1136/bmj.38282.669225.AE. doi:10.1136/bmj.38282.669225.AE.View ArticlePubMed CentralGoogle Scholar UK BEAM Trial Team: United Kingdom back pain exercise and manipulation (UK BEAM) randomised trial: cost effectiveness of physical treatments for back pain in primary care. BMJ. 2004, 329: 1381-10.1136/bmj.38282.607859.AE. doi:10.1136/bmj.38282.607859.AE.View ArticlePubMed CentralGoogle Scholar Lesho EP: An overview of osteopathic medicine. Arch Fam Med. 1999, 8: 477-484. 10.1001/archfami.8.6.477.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar Mein EA, Greenman PE, McMillin DL, Richards DG, Nelson CD: Manual medicine diversity: research pitfalls and the emerging medical paradigm. J Am Osteopath Assoc. 2001, 101: 441-444.PubMedGoogle Scholar Balon J, Aker PD, Crowther ER, Danielson C, Cox PG, O'Shaughnessy D, Walker C, Goldsmith CH, Duku E, Sears MR: A comparison of active and simulated chiropractic manipulation as adjunctive treatment for childhood asthma. N Engl J Med. 1998, 339: 1013-20. 10.1056/NEJM199810083391501.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar Nelson CD, McMillin DL, Richards DG, Mein EA, Redwood D: Manual healing diversity and other challenges to chiropractic integration. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2000, 23: 202-207. 10.1016/S0161-4754(00)90250-1.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar Bronfort G, Haas M, Evans RL, Bouter LM: Efficacy of spinal manipulation and mobilization for low back pain and neck pain: a systematic review and best evidence synthesis. Spine J. 2004, 4: 335-356. 10.1016/j.spinee.2003.06.002.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar Howell JD: The paradox of osteopathy. N Engl J Med. 1999, 341: 1465-1468. 10.1056/NEJM199911043411910.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar Ottenbacher K, DiFabio RP: Efficacy of spinal manipulation/mobilization therapy: a meta-analysis. Spine. 1985, 10: 833-837.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar Koes BW, Assendelft WJJ, van der Heijden GJMG, Bouter LM, Knipschild PG: Spinal manipulation and mobilisation for back and neck pain: a blinded review. BMJ. 1991, 303: 1298-1303.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar Abenhaim L, Bergeron AM: Twenty years of randomized clinical trials of manipulative therapy for back pain: a review. Clin Invest Med. 1992, 15: 527-535.PubMedGoogle Scholar Anderson R, Meeker WC, Wirick BE, Mootz RD, Kirk DH, Adams A: A meta-analysis of clinical trials of spinal manipulation. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 1992, 15: 181-194.PubMedGoogle Scholar DiFabio RP: Efficacy of manual therapy. Phys Ther. 1992, 72: 853-864.Google Scholar Shekelle PG, Adams AH, Chassin MR, Hurwitz EL, Brook RH: Spinal manipulation for low-back pain. Ann Intern Med. 1992, 117: 590-598.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar Scheer SJ, Radack KL, O'Brien DR: Randomized controlled trials in industrial low back pain relating to return to work. Part 1. Acute interventions. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1995, 76: 966-973. 10.1016/S0003-9993(95)80076-X.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar Koes BW, Assendelft WJJ, van der Heijden GJMG, Bouter LM: Spinal manipulation for low back pain: an updated systematic review of randomized clinical trials. Spine. 1996, 21: 2860-2873. 10.1097/00007632-199612150-00013.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar Scheer SJ, Radack KL, O'Brien DR: Randomized controlled trials in industrial low back pain relating to return to work. Part 2. Discogenic low back pain. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1996, 77: 1189-1197. 10.1016/S0003-9993(96)90147-1.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar Scheer SJ, Watanabe TK, Radack KL: Randomized controlled trials in industrial low back pain. Part 3. Subacute/chronic pain interventions. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1997, 78: 414-423. 10.1016/S0003-9993(97)90235-5.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar van der Weide WE, Verbeek JHAM, van Tulder MW: Vocational outcome of intervention for low-back pain. Scand J Work Environ Health. 1997, 23: 165-178.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar van Tulder MW, Koes BW, Bouter LM: Conservative treatment of acute and chronic nonspecific low back pain: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials of the most common interventions. Spine. 1997, 22: 2128-2156. 10.1097/00007632-199709150-00012.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar Bronfort G: Spinal manipulation: current state of research and its indications. Neurol Clin. 1999, 17: 91-111. 10.1016/S0733-8619(05)70116-X.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar Ernst E, Harkness E: Spinal manipulation: a systematic review of sham-controlled, double-blind, randomized clinical trials. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2001, 22: 879-889. 10.1016/S0885-3924(01)00337-2.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar Ferreira ML, Ferreira PH, Latimer J, Herbert R, Maher CG: Does spinal manipulative therapy help people with chronic low back pain?. Aust J Physiother. 2002, 48: 277-284.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar Pengel HM, Maher CG, Refshauge KM: Systematic review of conservative interventions for subacute low back pain. Clin Rehabil. 2002, 16: 811-820. 10.1191/0269215502cr562oa.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar Assendelft WJJ, Morton SC, Yu EI, Suttorp MJ, Shekelle PG: Spinal manipulative therapy for low back pain: a meta-analysis of effectiveness relative to other therapies. Ann Intern Med. 2003, 138: 871-881.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar Cherkin DC, Sherman KJ, Deyo RA, Shekelle PG: A review of the evidence for the effectiveness, safety, and cost of acupuncture, massage therapy, and spinal manipulation for back pain. Ann Intern Med. 2003, 138: 898-906.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar Haldeman S, Hooper PD, Phillips RB, Scaringe JG, Traina AD: Spinal manipulative therapy. The Adult Spine: Principles and Practice. Edited by: Frymoyer JW. 1997, Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott-Raven Publishers, 1837-1861. 2Google Scholar Siehl D, Olson DR, Ross HE, Rockwood EE: Manipulation of the lumbar spine with the patient under general anesthesia: evaluation by electromyography and clinical-neurologic examination of its use for lumbar nerve root compression syndrome. J Am Osteopath Assoc. 1971, 70: 433-440.PubMedGoogle Scholar Doran DML, Newell DJ: Manipulation in treatment of low back pain: a multicentre study. Br Med J. 1975, 2: 161-164.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar Hadler NM, Curtis P, Gillings DB, Stinnett S: A benefit of spinal manipulation as adjunctive therapy for acute low-back pain: a stratified controlled trial. Spine. 1987, 12: 703-706.View ArticleGoogle Scholar Ellestad SM, Nagle RV, Boesler DR, Kilmore MA: Electromyographic and skin resistance responses to osteopathic manipulative treatment for low-back pain. J Am Osteopath Assoc. 1988, 88: 991-997.PubMedGoogle Scholar MacDonald RS, Bell CMJ: An open controlled assessment of osteopathic manipulation in nonspecific low-back pain. Spine. 1990, 15: 364-370.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar Boesler D, Warner M, Alpers A, Finnerty EP, Kilmore MA: Efficacy of high-velocity low-amplitude manipulative technique in subjects with low-back pain during menstrual cramping. J Am Osteopath Assoc. 1993, 93: 203-214.PubMedGoogle Scholar Hoffman KS, Hoffman LL: Effects of adding sacral base leveling to osteopathic manipulative treatment of back pain: a pilot study. J Am Osteopath Assoc. 1994, 94: 217-226.PubMedGoogle Scholar Patterson MM: Foundations for osteopathic medical research. Foundations for Osteopathic Medicine. Edited by: Ward RC. 2003, Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 1167-1187. 2Google Scholar Hoehler FK, Tobis JS, Buerger AA: Spinal manipulation for low back pain. JAMA. 1981, 245: 1835-1838. 10.1001/jama.245.18.1835.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar Gibson T, Grahame R, Harkness J, Woo P, Blagrave P, Hills R: Controlled comparison of short-wave diathermy treatment with osteopathic treatment in non-specific low back pain. Lancet. 1985, 1: 1258-1261. 10.1016/S0140-6736(85)92323-2.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar Andersson GBJ, Lucente T, Davis AM, Kappler RE, Lipton JA, Leurgans S: A comparison of osteopathic spinal manipulation with standard care for patients with low back pain. N Engl J Med. 1999, 341: 1426-1431. 10.1056/NEJM199911043411903.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar Burton AK, Tillotson KM, Cleary J: Single-blind randomised controlled trial of chemonucleolysis and manipulation in the treatment of symptomatic lumbar disc herniation. Eur Spine J. 2000, 9: 202-207. 10.1007/s005869900113.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar Licciardone JC, Stoll ST, Fulda KG, Russo DP, Siu J, Winn W, Swift J: Osteopathic manipulative treatment for chronic low back pain: a randomized controlled trial. Spine. 2003, 28: 1355-1362. 10.1097/00007632-200307010-00002.PubMedGoogle Scholar Cleary C, Fox JP: Menopausal symptoms: an osteopathic investigation. Complement Ther Med. 1994, 2: 181-186. 10.1016/0965-2299(94)90017-5.View ArticleGoogle Scholar Ernst E: Another negative trial of manipulative treatment for back pain. Focus Altern Complement Ther. 2004, 9: 43-44.Google Scholar Margo K: Cochrane for clinicians: putting evidence into practice. Spinal manipulative therapy for low back pain. Am Fam Physician. 2005, 71: 464-465.PubMedGoogle Scholar Rosenthal R: Parametric measures of effect size. The Handbook of Research Synthesis. Edited by: Cooper H, Hedges LV. 1994, New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation, 231-244.Google Scholar Hedges LV, Olkin I: Statistical Methods for Meta-Analysis. 1985, Boston, MA: Academic PressGoogle Scholar Hróbjartsson A, Gøtzsche PC: Is the placebo powerless? An analysis of clinical trials comparing placebo with no treatment. N Engl J Med. 2001, 344: 1594-1602. 10.1056/NEJM200105243442106.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar Ernst E: Does spinal manipulation have specific treatment effects?. Fam Pract. 2000, 17: 554-556. 10.1093/fampra/17.6.554.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar Reilly BM, Hart A, Evans AT: Part II. Evidence-based medicine: a passing fancy or the future of primary care?. Dis Mon. 1998, 44: 370-399. 10.1016/S0011-5029(98)90006-2.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar Shekelle PG, Markovich M, Louie R: Factors associated with choosing a chiropractor for episodes of back pain care. Med Care. 1995, 33: 842-850.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar Hart LG, Deyo RA, Cherkin DC: Physician office visits for low back pain: frequency, clinical evaluation, and treatment patterns from a U.S. national survey. Spine. 1995, 20: 11-19.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar Williams NH, Wilkinson C, Russell I, Edwards RT, Hibbs R, Linck P, Muntz R: Randomized osteopathic manipulation study (ROMANS): pragmatic trial for spinal pain in primary care. Fam Pract. 2003, 20: 662-669. 10.1093/fampra/cmg607.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar Wolf FM: Meta-analysis: quantitative methods for research synthesis. Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences. Edited by: Lewis-Beck MS (Series). 1986, Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, no. 07–059Google Scholar Bombardier C: Outcome assessments in the evaluation of treatment of spinal disorders: summary and general recommendations. Spine. 2000, 25: 3100-3103. 10.1097/00007632-200012150-00003.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar Copyright © Licciardone et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2005
This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Download PDF Export citations Table of Contents

1 Comment

Intrappolamento Nervo Toracico Lungo e Scapola Alata 

2/11/2017

1 Comment

 
(source: The Journal of the American Osteopathic Association, February 2017, Vol. 117, 133-137. doi:10.7556/jaoa.2017.025)
​
AbstractScapular winging represents a rare phenomenon that most commonly results from nerve damage to either the long thoracic nerve, spinal accessory nerve, or, less commonly, the dorsal scapular nerve. This injury results in an abnormal scapulohumeral interaction during kinetic motion known as scapular dyskinesis. In this case report, the patient presented with scapular dyskinesis and medial scapular winging caused by overhead weight-lifting exercises, and a long thoracic nerve injury was diagnosed. Physicians are encouraged to consider long thoracic nerve damage in a patient with a history of repetitive overhead movements who presents with scapular dyskinesis and the corresponding restriction of overhead arm motions. Potential mechanisms of injury and treatment options are also discussed.

Keywords: long thoracic nerve injury, scapular dyskinesis, scapular winging

Scapular winging can markedly hinder the function of the upper extremity. Nerve damage represents the most common cause, most often to the long thoracic nerve or the spinal accessory nerve.1 Additional causes of scapular winging include direct trauma to the scapulothoracic muscles or structural abnormalities that result in shoulder instability. Medial winging of the scapula manifests with damage to the long thoracic nerve, and lateral winging occurs with damage to the spinal accessory nerve or the dorsal scapular nerve, although the latter is less common. Serratus anterior paralysis is not a common comorbidity, with 1 case of long thoracic nerve damage among 38,500 patients with this condition.2 
Seventeen different muscles attach to the scapula. The serratus anterior and lower trapezius muscles are the major contributors to the stabilization of the scapula during arm movement.3 This stability plays an integral role in abduction of the arm: until 30° to 60°, the proportion of humeral elevation to scapular elevation is approximately 8:1, and then it continues in a 2:1 ratio of glenohumeral to scapulothoracic motion for the rest of the abduction arc.4 Hence, scapular winging can substantially hinder overhead arm movements. 
Scapular dyskinesis refers to any alteration of the typical kinematics of the scapula during scapulohumeral movements. Nerve damage represents one of the many causes of this condition.5 Scapular dyskinesis seems to be most prevalent in athletes who routinely perform overhead motions, such as volleyball players and baseball players.6 The current patient presented with scapular dyskinesis and medial scapular winging caused by overhead weight-lifting exercises. 
Report of Case
A physically fit 26-year-old man presented for evaluation of right shoulder weakness and instability. His symptoms began after starting a weight-lifting program 2 months before presentation. Exercises included repetitive military presses and leverage incline chest presses with high resistance. He initially noticed “aching and burning” at the superior and posterior aspect of the right shoulder, which gradually progressed to include shoulder weakness with overhead motion and instability. His pain interfered with sleep and was worse at the end of the day. After 4 to 6 weeks, the pain resolved, but the patient continued to have weakness and instability of his shoulder. He reported occasional faint aching and tingling sensations radiating into the proximal arm but not distal to the elbow. 
Initial examination of the musculoskeletal system revealed postural deficiency with forward-positioned head and anteriorly rolled shoulders, normal muscle bulk and tone, and no tenderness on palpation to the cervical, thoracic, or lumbar regions. Tissue texture changes and taut bands were present along the right medial border of the scapula. Examination of the right shoulder revealed a painless restricted range of motion of flexion and abduction to approximately 145° in the sagittal and coronal planes, respectively. Scapula assessment with SICK (scapular malposition, inferior medial border prominence, coracoid pain/malposition, and dyskinesis of movement) demonstrated scapular dyskinesis and prominent medial winging (Figure 1, eVideo). A positive scapular assist maneuver eased the action of full overhead abduction. Serratus anterior function, which is the primary scapular protractor, can be adequately assessed with the wall push-up.7 In the present case, a wall push-up further demonstrated medial scapular winging with marked prominence of the medial scapular border (Figure 2, eVideo). Neurologic examination demonstrated 5/5 strength throughout the major muscle groups of the upper extremity, including the rotator cuff. The remainder of the physical examination demonstrated grossly intact sensation to light touch, negative Spurling maneuver bilaterally, negative Hoffman test bilaterally, and grossly intact cranial nerves II through XII. 

Figure 1.
Scapula assessment with SICK (scapular malposition, inferior medial border prominence, coracoid pain/malposition, and dyskinesis of movement) demonstrated scapular dyskinesis and prominent medial winging in a patient with long thoracic nerve injury caused by overhead weight lifting.

View Original  |  Slide (.ppt)

Figure 2.
Wall push-up demonstrated medial scapular winging with marked prominence of the medial scapular border in a patient with long thoracic nerve injury caused by overhead weight lifting.

View Original  |  Slide (.ppt)
The leading differential diagnosis was mononeuropathy of the long thoracic nerve secondary to overhead weight lifting. The expanded differential diagnosis included rotator cuff tear, SICK scapula, glenohumeral instability, SLAP (superior labral from anterior to posterior) tear, acromioclavicular disease, biceps tendonitis, Parsonage Turner syndrome (brachial neuritis, neuralgic amyotrophy), and scapular osteochondroma. Right upper extremity electromyography (EMG) and a nerve conduction study (NCS) were ordered to assess the long thoracic nerve and periscapular musculature, and standard radiographic imaging of the shoulder and scapula were ordered to rule out osseous abnormality. 
The EMG found evidence of a right long thoracic nerve injury by increased insertional activity with positive sharp waves and fibrillations in the serratus anterior on the right, which indicated active denervation. The remainder of muscles tested demonstrated normal insertional activity and motor unit action potential configuration. Results of motor NCSs of the right long thoracic, median, and ulnar nerves as well as the left long thoracic nerve were normal. No electrodiagnostic evidence of cervical radiculopathy, brachial plexopathy, or peripheral neuropathy was found in the right upper extremity. The shoulder/scapular radiographs revealed no remarkable findings. The results confirmed the diagnosis of long thoracic nerve injury resulting in scapular dyskinesis. 
A conservative treatment plan was initiated and included an active scapular physical therapy program focusing on strengthening the serratus anterior, lower-middle trapezius, and rhomboid muscles, with a focus on functional tasks with proper scapular positioning and integration of closed kinetic chain exercises. The program also included stretching of the anterior chain, specifically the pectoralis minor muscle, education on home exercises, and rib mobilization. A follow-up appointment was scheduled at 6 weeks. 
Discussion
In athletes, damage to the long thoracic nerve commonly occurs when there is traction on the arm in the overhead position with the neck turned to the contralateral direction.8 Actions such as throwing a baseball or taking a breath during freestyle swimming may increase the risk of damage to the long thoracic nerve. The current patient’s weight-lifting program included repetitive military presses and leverage incline chest presses. Military presses require an overhead lift of weight, and it can be varied to incorporate both arms simultaneously or 1 at a time. Depending on the height of the incline, the leverage incline press can also incorporate a press movement greater than 90° from the trunk of the body. Both actions can injure the long thoracic nerve. The type of nerve injury in the current patient was classified as axonotmesis because denervation potentials were found on needle examination. However, some motor axons were still intact, indicated by a compound motor action potential found during the NCS. This finding led us to believe that the patient had a good prognosis, owing to the intact perineurium and epineurium. A good prognosis is implied with an axonotmesis nerve injury as long as the distance between the lesion site and end organ is not too long.9 
A few key factors explain how we arrived at the diagnosis of long thoracic nerve injury despite the normal results on motor NCS. The EMG showed increased insertional activity with positive sharp waves and fibrillation potentials in the serratus anterior muscle. These findings are indicative of active denervation. During the NCS, the long thoracic nerve was assessed by stimulating the Erb point and recording over the serratus anterior with surface electrodes. The serratus anterior is a large muscle spanning multiple intercostal levels; therefore, it is possible that the electrodes were placed over intact endplate zones and not directly over an area of denervation. We determined that the data collected during the EMG portion of the study provided compelling evidence to confirm denervation of the long thoracic nerve, as there is no other physiologic basis for the presence of positive sharp waves and fibrillation potentials within the serratus anterior muscle. Therefore, further NCSs were deemed unnecessary for confirmation of the diagnosis. 
The long thoracic nerve originates from C5-C7. Cervical vertebrae 5-6 nerve branches pass through the scalenus medius and merge with C7 nerve branches, which travel anterior to the scalenus medius.10-12 The path continues to pass over the first rib and then enters a fascial sheath and travels down the lateral component of the thoracic wall to the serratus anterior.10,12,13 This long course, averaging a total length of 24 cm, is hypothesized to be a reason for an increased susceptibility to mechanical damage.14 Although it is difficult to establish a consensus on where the lesion typically occurs, one mechanism suggests a traction injury, which occurs when the long thoracic nerve exits the fascial sheath that encompasses it along the thoracic wall.13 Another plausible mechanism involves chronic and repetitive overhead arm raising that ends up lengthening and potentially fraying the long thoracic nerve. One study demonstrated doubling of the length of the long thoracic nerve in cadavers by putting the cadavers’ arms overhead with the head simultaneously tilted laterally away from the involved shoulder.1 An additional mechanism involves the scalenus medius going into spasm, compressing the long thoracic nerve, and reducing conduction.1 
Initial treatment should involve a conservative, nonsurgical approach.8 The general consensus is to allow 6 to 24 months of conservative treatment, because most cases spontaneously resolve during this time.10,15 Axonal regeneration is typically estimated to occur at a rate of 1 mm per day, but it can vary. A lack of improvement after 24 months may indicate that paralysis is permanent; in that case, surgical intervention is the best course of action.10,15 
Rehabilitation, as in the current case, should focus on alleviating the scapular dyskinesis with proper strengthening exercises for the muscles that stabilize the scapula. Patients should also be encouraged to undergo osteopathic manipulative treatment, including correction of somatic dysfunction in the cervical, thoracic, rib, and upper extremity regions. Rib motion should be assessed with suspected exhalation dysfunction of ribs 6 to 9 (normal bucket handle motion), which could result from the impaired activation of the serratus anterior. Additional techniques include inhibition of myofascial tenderpoints along the right medial scapular border and scapular mobilization, supine pectoral traction, and thoracic mobilization to facilitate correction of postural derangement. 
Consistent follow-up with patients who have long thoracic nerve injury is necessary during the therapeutic process to maximize the potential for functional recovery. 
  
Medial Scapular Winging Due to Overhead Weight Lifting
eVideo. Repetitive overhead arm movements could predispose individuals to injury. A patient who presented with medial scapular winging was found to have nerve damage caused by weight-lifting exercises.
Conclusion
Although it is a rare phenomenon, an injury to the long thoracic nerve should be included in the differential diagnosis for a patient with scapular dyskinesis and medial scapular winging. If the patient also has a history of participating in activities that require repetitive motions of the arm in the overhead position, the likelihood of damage to the long thoracic nerve is greater. 
References
1.
Martin RM, Fish DE. Scapular winging: anatomical review, diagnosis, and treatments.Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med. 2008;1(1):1-11. doi:10.1007/s12178-007-9000-5[CrossRef] [PubMed]
2.
Overpeck DO, Ghormley RK. Paralysis of the serratus magnus muscle caused by lesion of the long thoracic nerve. JAMA. 1940;114:1994-1996.
3.
Kibler WB, Sciascia A. Current concepts: scapular dyskinesis. Br J Sports Med. 2010;44(5):300-305. doi:10.1136/bjsm.2009.058834 [CrossRef] [PubMed]
4.
McQuade KJ, Smidt GL. Dynamic scapulohumeral rhythm: the effects of external resistance during elevation of the arm in the scapular plane. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 1998;27(2):125-133. doi:10.2519/jospt.1998.27.2.125 [CrossRef] [PubMed]
5.
Kibler WB, McMullen J. Scapular dyskinesis and its relation to shoulder pain. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2003;11:142-151. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
6.
Woods S, Chimes GP, Burnett T. Comprehensive approach to the management of scapular dyskinesia in the overhand throwing athlete. UPMC Rehab Grand Rounds. Fall 2012:1-8.
7.
Hoppenfeld S. Physical Examination of the Spine & Extremities. Upper Saddler River, NJ: Prentice Hall; 1976:30.
8.
Aval SM, Durand PJr, Shankwiler JA. Neurovascular injuries to the athlete’s shoulder: part I [review]. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2007;15(4):249-256. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
9.
Dumitru D, Amato AA, Zwarts J. Electrodiagnostic Medicine. 2nd ed. Philadelphia, PA: Hanley & Belfus; 2002:125.
10.
Gregg JR, Labosky D, Harty M, et al Serratus anterior paralysis in the young athlete. J Bone Joint Surg. 1979;61(6A):825-832. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
11.
Wiater JM, Flatow EL. Long thoracic nerve injury. Clin Orthop Relat Res.1999;368:17-27.
12.
Hester P, Caborn DN, Nyland J. Cause of long thoracic nerve palsy: a possible dynamic fascial sling cause. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2000;9(1):31-35. [CrossRef][PubMed]
13.
Ebraheim NA, Lu J, Porshinsky B, Heck BE, Yeasting RA. Vulnerability of the long thoracic nerve: an anatomic study. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 1998;7(5):458-461.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
14.
Teboul F, Bizot P, Kakkar R, Sedel L. Surgical management of trapezius palsy. J Bone Joint Surg. 2004;86A(9):1884-1890. [CrossRef]
15.
Foo CL, Swann M. Isolated paralysis of the serratus anterior: a report of 20 cases. J Bone Joint Surg. 1983;65(5):552-556. [PubMed]
1 Comment

I Benefici del Massaggio nella Stimolazione del Sistema Immunitario

3/31/2016

0 Comments

 
0 Comments

Ruolo dei riflessi Nocicettivi nel modello Neurologico di una disfunzione somatica

2/17/2016

1 Comment

 
1 Comment

    Alessandro Tamma, Osteopata D.O.
    Resp. Dip. Ricerca International Osteopathic Academy - Lugano (CH)

    Moderatore

    Archives

    Maggio 2017
    Marzo 2017
    Febbraio 2017
    Marzo 2016
    Febbraio 2016

    Categorie

    Tutto

    Feed RSS

Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.
  • HOME
  • Osteopatia
    • Come lavora l'Osteopata?
    • OSTEOPATIA e SPORT
  • MASSAGGIO
    • Linfodrenaggio Manuale (pratica sanitaria)
    • Massaggio Terapeutico Base
    • Massaggio Sportivo
    • IDROTERAPIA
  • Curriculum
  • Acquista
  • Contatti
  • Prenota una visita
  • Blog (articoli)
  • Carte Credito e PayPal