Wait…PT’s perform manipulations?!

Wait…PT’s perform manipulations?!

 

“Without the ability to match patients to specific interventions, clinicians are left without evidence or guidance for their decision-making”

 

This couldn’t be truer. If we believe that all patients with back pain are the same, then we will give all patients the same treatment. If not all patients respond to the same treatment, then we can say that not all back pain is the same. We have to be able to classify which patients are most likely to respond to a specific treatment; otherwise we are just throwing spaghetti at a wall and hoping that some sticks. When a patient walks into the clinic, I am forming hypotheses as soon as I see the patient get out of the chair in the waiting room. By watching a patient move from the chair to walking and from walking to sitting, we can start to assess pain response (facial expressions) and movement quality (upright versus bent forward or sideways in addition to stride length of the legs and how much rotation is happening with arm swing). We can also have a short chat with the patient to determine how the patient describes their symptoms. Some patients are okay with waiting until we get to the private area before telling their story and others just want to start unloading their story before I have pen to paper to write things down. These are all of the actions that I take into consideration before we even get to the room to assess the patient.

 

“Identifying methods for classifying patients with LBP has been identified as an important research priority”

 

Why do most things matter…MONEY! We as a country lose almost $100 billion per year on back pain. This is a lot of money. If we were to put in a dollar every second to pay for this, it would take 31 years to equal $1 billion! As you can see, LBP is an ailment that we have to figure out in order to keep healthcare solvent.

 

“The purpose of this study was to develop a clinical prediction rule for identifying patients with LBP likely to respond favorably to a specific manipulation technique.”

 

This is a derivation study, the first step of trying to come up with a clinical prediction rule. One must understand CPR’s prior to reading and implementing the research. Here is a quick link that has to do with the types of CPR (clinical prediction rules). Also, there is much controversy surrounding CPR’s from people such as Dr. Chad Cook, who I highly respect. I don’t know if I would go as far as he does in saying that Clinical Prediction Rules are dead, but they do have to be read thoroughly and criticized. They also have to be validated and placed into an environment in which they can be utilized in order to have an environmental impact. This has been done with diagnostic CPR’s such as the ankle or knee rules.

 

Me personally, I don’t believe that we should give up on a quest to determine which intervention works best for a specific set of the population. We can provide value to our customers by providing the best evidence based treatments that we have available. To kill off a method of prescribing treatment limits a therapist’s ability to confidently provide treatment.

“…patients with LBP at two outpatient facilities: Brooke Army Medical Center and Wilford Hall Air Force Medical Center…between the ages of 18 and 60 years…baseline Oswestry disability score had to be at least 30%”

 

This study is highly specific to a military crowd, with an average age of younger than 40. Now if this is not the patient that is being treated in my clinic, it is difficult for me to make the correlation from one population to another. The only thing that we can say for certain about the results of this study is that is pertains to the population that was involved in the study. The baseline Oswestry disability score (for more on the Oswestry see this link.

 

“After the manipulation, the therapist noted whether a cavitation was heard or felt by the therapist or patient.”

 

The cavitation is the audible pop that people think of when getting a fast manipulation. This is similar to popping your knuckles. This pop is not needed for a manipulation to occur, as the movement and speed instead of by the noise that occurs define the manipulation.

 

“A maximum of two attempts per side was permitted.”

 

This doesn’t make sense to me to perform multiple manipulations directed at the same region. The authors noted that if no cavitation was produced that another manipulation would be performed up to four maximum manipulations. We just covered that an audible pop is not needed, so I am unsure why two were allowed for the patient. Let’s just assume that a patient gets better from the manipulation, was it one manipulation or two manipulations that improved the patient? Is it possible that a patient could get better with one, but then get worse with the second…even though a cavitation is heard? There are too many variables that start to play into this study.   This is the landmark study for giving the prediction recommendations for spinal manipulation in PT. Which brings us to the next point.

 

“Two additional treatment components were included: 1) instruction in a supine pelvic tilt range of motion exercise…and 2)instruction to maintain usual activity level within the limits of pain.”
Now we have 3 possible variables introduced into this science experiment. Any scientist would look at this and say that there are too many independent variables, which can affect the outcome. The first is obviously the manipulation. The second is the pelvic tilt. The third is time.

 

“The mean OSW (Oswestry Disability Index) score at baseline was 42.4+/-11.7, and at study conclusion was 25.1 +/- 13.9.”

 

This means that the scores initially ranged from 31-53 and the final scores ranged from 11-39. A change of 10 can be considered significant, so there was a significant change overall for the better.

 

“Thirty-two patients (45%) were classified as treatment successes, and 39 (55%) were nonsuccesses”

 

A majority of patients didn’t respond to the intervention(s), but it was close to a coin flip. This indicates that if we manipulated everyone that came through the door, we would have a success (about 50% improvement in ability) in about half of the patients. This isn’t a bad ratio if it is only done in one visit.

 

“…duration of symptoms < 16 days, at least one hip with >35 degrees of internal rotation, hypomobility with lumbar spring testing, FABQ work subscale score <19, and no symptoms distal to the knee…were used to form the clinical prediction rule.”

 

Here it is! All students are expected to memorize this by the time that they graduate from PT school. All PT’s (at least those that work on backs) are expected to know these criteria for manipulation. There are of course some that will state that CPR’s aren’t very effective in practice, but this rule seems to have stood the test of time over many studies.

 

“…a subject with four or more variables present at baseline increases his or her probability of success with manipulation from 45% to 95%. If the criteria were changed to three of more variables present, the probability of success was only increased to 68%”

 

WHAAAT!? If someone has 4 of the 5 guidelines from above, the success was 95%! This is yuge. I’ll take those odds of success to the tables any day of the week. Now with this said, I have manipulated very few patients. Those that I have manipulated had immediate positive results and the pain was abolished…didn’t return upon follow-up over the course of 2 weeks. I may not be manipulating as many patients as I could, but I also give the patient the opportunity to independently manage and abolish before attempting to perform a manipulation. It’s a theory from another spine management system.

 

“In the present study, only one manipulation technique was used, and it is unknown whether other techniques would provide similar results.”

 

This is also very important to state. There was little research regarding manipulations in the physical therapy research. It must be said that not all manipulations are created equal and that performing a different technique may not have the same result. It may be better or worse. We can only extrapolate this study’s results to those that would match the type of patient treated in this study and the manipulation performed in this study.

 

 

 

 

EXCERPT FROM:

Flynn T, Fritz J, Whitman J et al. A Clinical Prediction Rule for Classifying Patients with Low Back Pain Who Demonstrate Short-Term Improvement With Spinal Manipulation. Spine. 2002;27(24):2835-2843.

Call a spade a spade

  1. “Although numerous propositions have been put forward in the literature about how we might usefully subclassify low back pain (LBP), we must first consider the potential utility and futility of such aspirations and ask, “Will it change the outcomes of patients?”

 

This first statement in the paper is great. All therapist classify patients using either a sophisticated method (which will be spoken of in this paper) or a method that lacks sophistication (a patient’s education level, income level, etc). The big question that we have to ask is “does any of it really matter”.

 

  1. “Within this arena, there are two schools of though-nominalist and essentialist. Nominalists define a disease by its symptom profile (CLBP = back pain of duration > 3 months). Essentialists state that each specific disease has an underlying pathophysiology, implying treatment of the disease requires treatment of the pathology”

 

This is fun for me to read. I never though of it this way, but I guess that I would be a nominalist in most cases. Rarely do I believe that the underlying pathophysiology must be treated in order to resolve symptoms. Let me give you an example. For patients that have degenerative disc disease (this is a very common diagnosis in the clinic and most will have this over the course of the lifetime) there is nothing that I will do to regenerate the disc, but I may be able to teach the patient how to either shut off the pain or manage the pain. This would be the nominalist in me. The essentialist in me has another example, which is also a real example in the clinic. There was a patient coming to therapy for treatment of his shoulder. In the process of treating the shoulder he developed back pain (not while in the clinic with me). Anyway, he neglected to tell me about the back pain, but later in the course of care (all within a couple of weeks) went to an urologist for urinary issues. He never told his urologist about the back pain and was advised to use a catheter to urinate! Anyway, he told me about his catheter issues and I was curious. I asked if he was experiencing any back pain or leg pain and sure enough he was. I called a surgeon that I trust and the patient was in surgery within a day. He had an issue that required surgical correction of a pathological issue. In this case, I am an essentialist. Now that I think about it, I am not sure if one can root for only one team.

 

  1. “These classifications can broadly be divided into three groups: (1) those that consider clinical descriptors, (2) those that describe prognosis, and (3) those that consider response to treatment.”

 

I am credentialed in Mechanical Diagnosis and Therapy, formerly known as the McKenzie Method. In this respect I am a little biased and it is important that you guys know that I am biased towards one method before reading the rest of the article. MDT would be a patient response approach.

 

Other systems, such as the Treatment Based Classification System (TBCS), which wasn’t even considered in this article it looks like, is a system that is based on clinical prediction rules. This means that if you come in and say some key words and test positive on some key tests that it would dictate a specific category of treatment, which is completely different from a patient that speaks of different key words and test negative on key tests.

 

  1. “We identified 28 classification systems of CLBP (chronic low back pain)…systems that described subclasses based on pathoanatomy, pahtophysiology, or clinical signs and symptoms without attempting to predict outcome or direct treatment were labeled as ‘diagnostic’…systems attempting to predict outcome irrespective of treatment were termed ‘prognostic’…systems that suggested treatments for different subclasses were termed ‘treatment based’…16 diagnostic, seven prognostic, and five treatment-based classification systems for CLBP.”

 

Typically, when I am writing a blog post I go to the back of my library (actually a trunk in the crawlspace) and grab an article that I read years ago. (I know…I am a nerd because I keep research articles that I read years ago). Anyway, re-reading the highlights of this article is like reading the article for the first time. I forgot that there were this many classification systems out there. Typically only a few are spoken of in the clinic and these are: the movement impairment system, Quebec Task Force, Mechanical Diagnosis and Therapy, Treatment Based Classification System and the Canadian Back Institute Classification System.

 

I will have to read the highlights of the article again in order to figure out which system fits into which category.

 

  1. “The first description of a treatment based system was by McKenzie, who classified patients into three main syndromes based on physical signs, symptom behavior, and their relations to end-range lumbar test movements”

 

Is it wrong that I was pounding my chest when I was typing the above sentence? This reminds me that I will have to write a blog on the history of MDT. One can see the history of MDT in the book Against the Tide.

 

  1. “Riddle and Rothstein assessed 49 physical therapists with varying clinical experience, in their ability to classify 363 patients according to the McKenzie system. Their ability to agree at the subsyndrome level was poor…Agreement among examiners was only marginally improved for classification into the three main syndromes…Agreement among examiners was better in three studies that assessed physical therapists who completed a certification in the McKenzie method with percent agreement ranging from 74% to 91% for subsyndromes and 93% to 100% for main syndromes.”

 

This tells us a few things. First is that those certified in using a method are actually good at using the method and those that aren’t certified aren’t as good at using a method. I think that this thought process would hold true for many aspects of different professions. I actually had a discussion on FB about this topic and I don’t think that it is the magic of the certification that increases agreement, but the hours upon hours of studying that went into preparation for the test that increases therapist’s competency of using a method. When a therapist is certified though, the agreement is close to perfect.

 

  1. “Movement System Impairment classification…proposed by Van Dillen et al and includes five categories based on signs and symptoms elicited with direction-specific tests in the direction of lumbar flexion, extension, rotation, rotation with flexion, or rotation with extension…shown to be reliable in three different studies”

 

I’ll have to read more about this system because at a glance it sounds eerily similar to McKenzie’s method. Both appear to have a “directional preference” based treatment and avoidance (I’ll assume only temporarily) of the aggravating factors.

 

  1. “Canadian Back Institute Classification system…recognition of syndromes or patterns of pain with no direct reference to pathoanatomy…the classification was based on the location of dominant pain, whether the pain was constant or intermittent, and which movements or postures exacerbated or alleviated the symptoms…shown to be reliable in one study.”

 

Again…these systems are starting to sound familiar and similar to each other. Figure out the symptom location, what makes them worse, what makes them better, is it mechanical or chemical and then name it for what it is. This appears to be the same in the three classification systems.

 

  1. “Movement and Motor Control Impairment (MCI) classification system by O’Sullivan proposed treatment based on subgroups of patients with CLBP categorized by five distinct patterns based on a specific direction of MCI…flive categories included flexion pattern (loss of motor control into trunk flexion resulting in excessive abnormal flexion strain), flexion/lateral shifting pattern (MCI around the lumbar spine with a tendency to flex and laterally shift at the symptomatic segment), active extension pattern (MCI around the lumbar spine with a tendency to hold the lumbar spine actively into extension), passive extension pattern (loss of lumbar motor control around the lumbar spine with a tendency to passively overextend at the symptomatic segment), and multidirectional pattern (MCI around the lumbar spine in multiple directions)…The percent agreement was 70%.”

 

It seems like this system is all about a loss of control at the lumbar spine. The agreement of classification isn’t bad at 70%. I struggle with this system because it does not appear to be a patient response based system. I’ll have to read more into this system. The first thing that I think of is “how do we know if we are doing the right thing and how long do we have to wait in order to determine if we are moving in the right category.

 

  1. “An RCT assessed the classification system by McKenzie by randomizing 260 patients into two groups: Group A was treated with the McKenzie method, and group B was treated with intensive dynamic strengthening training…tendency toward a difference in reduction of disability using the Low Back Pain Rating Scale in favor of the McKenzie group at the 2-month follow-up assessment, but no differences at the end of treatment (4 months) and at the 8-month follow-up evaluation.”

 

Some would look at this and say that MDT was no better than strengthening at 4 and 8 months. Others would look at it and say that MDT was better than strengthening at 2 months. If you were a patient, which would you rather have? Would you rather be better at 4 months or two months…knowing that you would be at the same place in 8-months? This study doesn’t seem too realistic in that once a patient is improved with MDT, then the treatment would transition towards a functional strengthening phase.

 

  1. “…overall strength of evidence …is High for the McKenzie and Movement Impairment Classification systems, especially when examiners have been extensively trained; Insufficient for the Canadian Back Institute Classification; and Moderate for the MCI Classification”

 

This sentence sums it up. MDT has moderate evidence to support that it is highly reliable. The Canadian Back Institute Classification system has low evidence to show that it is insufficiently reliable.

 

If I were a therapist going to learn a new method, I would have to start with MDT based on the volume of studies demonstrating reliability.

 

  1. “Once it is established that patients can be classified reliably, it then must be demonstrated that by directing a specific treatment at the subgroup, one can expect an improvement in treatment outcomes.”

 

This means that once we know what we are seeing…can we fix what we see? What is the purpose of classifying a patient into a group if the treatment for that group is ineffective?

 

  1. “This suggests that the ideal classification system should minimize the number of subgroups to ensure that the user can become confident (and competent) it its use with little training.”

 

Holy smoly do I disagree. We just said that the subgroups must lead to a specific treatment that performs better than other forms of treatment. If we minimize the number of subgroups, then we are minimizing the impact of subgrouping. For instance, if we state that there is only one subgroup, then what is the likelihood of the treatment for that one subgroup helping all of the patients? We already know that it’s pretty low…this is how we got into this mess to begin with. In the past, all low back pain was treated very similarly, with horrible effects. Now, if there is only one subgroup, we can be assured that most people would fit into this subgroup. Therefore, the therapists would be highly reliable in choosing the group in which to place the patient. THIS DOESN’T MEAN THAT IT WILL ACTUALLY BE EFFECTIVE TREATMENT!

Back pain is very costly in the US. We need to do a better job of minimizing the disability from LBP and educating the patients regarding back pain natural course and how to live and manage this ailment. There have been other systems created since this article was published in 2011 and we will see how these systems fair over time.

Excerpts from:

Fairbank J, Gwilym SE, France JC, et al. The Role of Classification of Chronic Low Back Pain. Spine. 2011;36(215):519-542.

 

link to article

 

 

  1. Lumbar spinal stenois (LSS)…defined by any narrowing of the spinal canal and/or nerve root canals…In patients with severe LSS, a space reduction of 67% has been found in the spinal canal.”

 

Spinal stenosis is the narrowing of the holes of the spine. The spine has 3 holes in it in the lumbar region. Each hole carries a nerve. It could either be the nerve of the spinal cord down the middle, and larger, hole. It could be the nerve roots out of the holes on the side of the spine. Each hole needs to be big enough so that it doesn’t irritate the nerve that it allows to pass through the hole. Picture a water pipe. If you put too much stuff in the pipe it will clog up. Sometimes there are tissues that can make their way into the holes of the spine to clog the holes. When the hole is clogged, the nerves don’t have as much room to do their job (transmitting signals to and from the brain). Now take that same pipe and come back and look at it over decades. There will be sludge and stuff built up around the pipe. This is essentially creating a smaller diameter on the inside of the pipe. This smaller diameter due to sludge is also creating a smaller hole. This could happen in the spine with severe arthritis or degenerative disc issues in which the hole gets smaller. A visual is much better so maybe this will help. image for spinal stenosis

 

  1. “…estimated the incidence of LSS in Denmark to 272 per one million inhabitants per year”

 

In other words, it is not very common in Denmark.

 

  1. “…it is important to discriminate between LSS and disc generated pain since these conditions have different prognoses and the range of evidence based treatments are different, as well.”

 

The treatment between the two issues, discogenic back pain and stenotic back pain, is very different. A thorough evaluation can start to correlate symptoms with either discogenic pain or non-discogenic pain. Many patients believe that an MRI will be the answer to why they have pain, but unfortunately this isn’t so.

 

  1. “a valid and reliable clinical assessment protocol for identifying LSS would be valuable in terms of choosing relevant treatment and informing the patient about the prognosis as early as possible.”

 

This article was written in 2009. The medical profession has existed for eons. There is still not a valid way to assess a patient in order to determine spinal stenosis. There are biologically plausible ways, meaning that when I assess you, I can make an educated guess from some of the findings in the history and physical, but it is not a valid (proven) way of coming to a conclusion.

 

  1. “The high sensitivity and specificity of MRI suggests this is a good test for ruling in and out the disease.”

 

The MRI does a great job of telling us what is abnormal, but it doesn’t do a great job of telling us if the abnormal finding is causing symptoms. As seen in the link above, there are abnormal findings in a population without symptoms. We have to take the imaging findings and see if they make sense after performing a physical exam.

 

  1. “…history will provide strong clues to the presence of spinal stenosis…more than 65 years of age…prolonged history of low back pain and intermittent radiating symptoms having developed gradually…limited walking capacity…Movements or positions involving flexion e.g. sitting or stooping, will often abolish symptoms…total loss of lumbar extension range is usually found, while flexion most often is well preserved.”

 

The typical patient with lumbar spinal stenosis will notice that the ability to walk has gradually reduced over time and there is a need to sit due to back or leg pain. Sitting will typically turn down or off the symptoms rapidly. This patient will have limited motion into extension (think of looking over your head to see the stars or bending backwards while standing).

 

  1. “…stenosis from zygapophyseal joint hypertrophy, ligament thickening or other degenerative changes, it cannot be expected that physical exercise or manual treatment will create a lasting change in the degree of space reduction in the spinal canal or intervertebral foramina”

 

In the presence of physical changes to the bones, ligaments or loss of disc height, there is nothing that a PT can do to change these back to the way that they were previously. These have been described as wrinkles on the inside. If we look at your face we can start to see how much age you have based on the wrinkles in the face. This is also done on the inside in that some “degenerative” changes are normal. Wrinkles are normal; they are not symptoms of anything sinister. The same can be said for physical changes on the inside. They don’t have to be pain generators. It takes a physical exam to determine how your symptoms respond and whether or not this matches the images on an MRI or X-ray. Even then, we can’t say that movement won’t help, only that we won’t change the physical “inside wrinkles”.

 

  1. “The main purpose of this pilot study is to evaluate the validity and intertester reliability of an algorithm of physical examination tests, in relation to identifying symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis.”

 

This is good. A pilot study is like a pilot for a t.v. show. This is done to see if additional episodes should be done. This study will conclude if additional studies on this topic should be done.   What it hopes to find is a reliable (consistent) way of determining validity (actually seeing what the test hopes to see) in testing for lumbar spinal stenosis. A test that is both reliable and valid should be able to test for spinal stenosis regardless of who is performing the test and who is measuring the test.

 

  1. “Two patients were classified as “LSS” and five patients “Not LSS”, meaning a 29% prevalence of “LSS” Intertester agreement for overall diagnostic conclusion was 100%”

 

There are so few patients that this study will likely not yield any results that are actionable. The interesting thing is that the examiners agreed 100% of the time. This is not common in the medical field to have 100% agreement on near anything.

 

  1. “…the algorithm in its present form can not be used as a screening test to rule out LSS, although it may be able to diagnose the condition.”

 

There were so few people in the study that it is hard for any clinician to put it to use in the clinic. It may be able to diagnose the condition in that it demonstrated a specificity of 1.0, which is really good.

 

 

Excerpts taken from:

 

Lengsoe L, Lyhne S, Melbye M. An algorithm for clinical identification of spinal stenosis-a pilot study of validity and intertester reliability. International J of MDT. 2009;4(2):21-28.

 

Can’t find the abstract to the study, but it is listed under the author’s CV http://pure.au.dk/portal/en/persons/martin-melbye(ed4ee688-2d9e-4c17-b0b1-44a5b4b59ada)/publications/an-algorithm-for-clinical-identification-of-spinal-stenosis–a-pilot-study-of-validity-and-intertester-reliability(6d714ee0-d910-11de-9e3b-000ea68e967b).html

 

 

 

 

What should you avoid if you have back pain?

 

  1. “ Low back pain (LBP) is though to occur in almost 80% of adults at some point in their lives”

 

This is an article from the 1980’s. It’s been over 20 years since this article was written and these statistics still hold true over time. As much as we have advanced technologically, it doesn’t really seem to be helping the prevalence of back pain. I’ve seen in places where this is called the common cold of musculoskeletal issues because it will affect so many people over the course of a lifetime.

 

  1. “…back problems are the most frequent cause of limitation of activity (work, housekeeping, or school) in persons younger than 45 years.”

 

This is a problem. If I have to take time off of work because of back pain, then there is less food on my table. I’m sure that this holds true for many of those reading this blog. We have to do better. Back pain doesn’t have to disable a person. We need to do a better job of educating the public regarding back pain. There was a recent article that notes that people should try drug-free options first for low back pain. PT is one of those “drug-free” options.

 

Every day about 1,000 people are treated in the emergency department for misuse of opioids. About 40 people per day die of opioid overdose. These numbers are staggering! It doesn’t have to be so.

 

stats on opioids

 

  1. “Only routine examination, postoperative checkups, and upper respiratory tract symptoms surpass back problems as a cause of office visits to physicians.”

 

This may have changed in the past 20 years. I read recently that back pain accounts for more visits than all other issues except for respiratory tract symptoms (i.e. the common cold). This is a lot of people with back problems. Not many patients are referred to PT. There is an article that reports about 7% of patients seek out PT. When they do get referred, not all PT’s practice with the same treatment parameters. Do your research as to what clinic you are attending, because they are not all the same in regards to cost and effectiveness.

 

  1. “A variety of exercise regimens for LBP has been advocated. The three most commonly recommended regimens are (1_ hyperextension exercises to strength paravertebral muscles; (2) general “mobilizing exercises” to improve overall spinal range of motion; and (3) isometric flexion exercises designed to strengthen both abdominal and lumbar muscles, creating a “corset of muscles.”

 

Lots has changed in the research, but unfortunately not a lot has changed in practice from my point of view. I still see the same “core stability” training done on many patients even though the research doesn’t support one type of “core training” over another. There have been more interventions added to the research and application, such as thrust manipulations, directional preference based exercises, cognitive behavioral therapy and others just to name a few.

 

  1. “Several trials shoed no advantage of traction over alternative treatments, but statistical power was not reported.”

 

This article is over 20 years old! The advice at that time is similar to the current stance based on the research. The problem with this is that there are still many therapists using traction. Saying this differently, there are still some therapists that frequently use traction. This could only be for one of two reasons:

  1. Ignorance. As much as I would love to say that all therapists are reading journal articles at home, we know that this is not the case. Based on some research, there are therapists that don’t even know how to find the research and if they can find it, they won’t take the time out of their day to read it. This is a problem because it is our profession. I never stop wearing the hat of physical therapist, in the same light as I never stop wearing the hat of husband and father.
  2. Greed. A therapist doesn’t need to spend much time with the patient while they are on traction. Traction is paid whether the therapist is by your side or not. In this fashion, the therapist can spend time with another patient and charge that other patient for his/her time while the therapist is charging you for traction.

 

Don’t get me wrong; there are cases in which to use traction. When it is the last viable option to try to get a patient better or to keep the patient from an unwanted surgery. In other words, it is used as a last case scenario. You can see a previous post on traction if you are interested.

 

  1. “For these reasons, its (bed rest) value for patients with typical findings of a herniated disk is not disputed…Thus, there is suggestive evidence for the efficacy of strict bed rest for some patients without sciatica…”

 

Wholly Moley! This has changed dramatically. Bed rest is rarely recommended for anything. The repercussions of spending hours to days in bed far outweigh standing with benign low back pain. This article summarizes the negative effects.

 

  1. “Spinal manipulation remains highly controversial, partly because in the United States it is often equated with the practice of chiropractic.”

 

Physical Therapists are able to manipulate the spine and other areas of the body. No one profession owns this treatment. Chiropractors have done a much better job of educating the public about the treatments that they perform. Don’t be surprised if your therapist wants to perform a manipulation. Lot’s has changed in 20 years.

 

  1. “This study did serve to demonstrate that placebo effects with a nonfunctioning stimulator are common”

 

This is interesting that the thought of TENS (a form of treatment in which pads are placed on a specific body part and an electrical current is introduced throughout the pads in order to reduce pain) 20 years ago was that it could also be the placebo effect that is creating the change. Patients seem to like it in the short-term, but there is major controversy over this intervention. So much so that medicare questions its effectiveness for back pain.

 

  1. “The use of corsets, TNS (TENS), and conventional traction are not yet supported by any rigorous trials.”

 

This was stated 20 years ago! I believe that if you walked into any physical therapy clinic that you would still see these interventions applied to the patient…because insurance companies continue to pay for them. Although there is much research to indicate that these interventions have little to no place in therapy, many times their use is due to the two reasons given above. If you are in a place in which these are the treatments that take up a majority of your sessions, question your therapists. This is the advice given by the professional organization of physical therapists, the APTA.

 

Excerpts taken from:

 

Deyo R. Conservative Therapy for Low Back Pain: Distinguishing Useful From Useless Therapy. JAMA. 1983;250(8):1057-1062.

 

What do pigs and humans have in common?

“The majority of in vitro research has examined repeated axial loading with the spine in a neutral position from which observed herniations are extremely rare.”

 

This means that loading much weight onto your shoulders doesn’t appear to affect the disc negatively, aside from compressing it. Picture the people doing strongman, powerlifting, Olympic weightlifting or Crossfit. All of these sports are safe regardless of how much weight is being used, as long as technique remains good, while under the weight.

 

“The most consistent development of disc herniation with repeated loading conditions was achieved by Gordon et al. In vitro human lumbar motion segments were flexed from a neutral posture to 7 degrees of flexion with a small axial twist motion. All 14 of the motion segments examined failed with herniations of the Intervertebral disc (either nuclear protrusion or extrusion) with an average of 40,000 loading cycles to failure. It appears that load, motion, degenerative condition, and repetition require further investigation as prerequisites to disc herniation.”

 

Stu is one of the great gurus of back pain. He states in his papers that he does not endorse a specific number of flexion cycles to create a herniation. This is individual for each person. Also of note is that the above experiment is not done on a live person, but on a cadaver. This means that there is little compensatory motion that can occur, which may occur in real life. For example, there is one paper (don’t have it currently, but I will find it for later) that postulates that the posterior longitudinal ligament (a strong ligament on the back of the spine) may be a protective mechanism for back pain, which would then work to prevent a disc herniation by absorbing some of the flexion load. It’s just an idea though and is no more right or wrong than the number of loading cycles found in the above quote.

 

“The cervical spines of 26 porcine specimens were obtained immediately following death. Pig cervical spines have been shown to be the section closest to human lumbar spines for anatomical and biomechanical characteristics.”

 

The authors make is sound so humane that they waited until the pigs died, but then went on to say that the mean age was 6 months. They died for science. What is most important though is that this study was performed on pig spines! The results can be correlated to humans, but again this will not be precise because the subjects aren’t real live humans.

 

“The remains of any soft tissue and discs were dissected from the cranial and caudal endplates.”

 

The muscles were removed. The muscles, tendons and ligaments provide active and passive support to the joint. Without this support, we are only looking at how the spine joint moves in a vacuum. This again makes it hard to take the results of this study and apply them to humans. We can though take the idea of the study and generalize it to another spine.

“Herniation occurred with modest levels of compression and flexion/extension movements but with a high number of motion cycles. Specimens tested in the lowest compressive force group had nuclei that were intact after 86,400 flexion cycles…All herniations that were created during testing occurred in the posterior or posterior-lateral areas of the annulus.”

 

The first thing to take from this is that the spinal segment is strong. It can withstand over 80,000 cycles of flexion/extension, without resting, and some were able to withstand the force without significant anatomical changes. All herniations were posterior or posterior lateral. This is consistent with what we see in the clinic. Very rarely is there an anterior herniation, but in real life there is also a very strong ligament on the anterior portion of the spine, which would impede a herniation in this direction.

 

“…highly repetitive flexion/extension motions and modest flexion/extension moments, even with relatively low magnitude compression joint forces, consistently resulted in Intervertebral disc herniations. Larger axial compressive force resulted in more frequent and more severe disc injuries…there is no doubt that disc herniation is a cumulative process that can result with modest forces if sufficient flexion/extension cycles are applied.”

 

This is a mouthful. Let’s start by saying that if you spend a lot of time in a flexed (slouched posture position), this may lead to a posterior disc herniation. It’s kind of like the straw that broke the camel’s back. It may not happen the first time, but the more often one spends in flexion the more that the nucleus (the pudding substance inside the disc) will travel towards the border of the disc (annulus). This article doesn’t state what happens to the disc when we rest and stop spending time in a flexed position. For instance, what is not stated is that if we flexion for an entire day, but then move in the opposite direction (extension), do we then counteract the effects of flexion? This article doesn’t say this, but one would have to infer if we could create a herniation that we can reduce a herniation with movement. More to come in future posts.

 

“While there may be a tendency to identify an event that ‘caused’ an intervertebral disc herniation, this work together with our other experiments have led us to form the opinion that this is only a culminating event and that the real cause had already occurred.”

 

This quote says it best and I will leave it at that.

 

Thanks for reading. If you would like to learn more about a topic, feel free to ask a question on here or at my Facebook page @movementthinker. I love reading research and if I can read something that may help you specifically then it is more functional than just reading stuff that I enjoy.

 

Callaghan JP, McGill SM. Intervertebral disc herniation: studies on a porcine model exposed to highly repetitive flexion/extension motion with compression force. Clinical Biomechanics. 2001;16:28-37.

 

link to article

Post 84: Mckenzie (MDT) as a variable for back pain improvement

“Therapists using the McKenzie method classify patients based on repeated end-range trunk movement tests into 1 of 3 main syndromes: derangement, dysfunction and posture.” 
There is a lot here even though they summarized it very succinctly. By the by, one of the authors, Jason Ward, has an awesome podcast called the Mechanical Care Forum that you guys should all check out. He delves into the topics of Mechanical Diagnosis and Therapy mostly, but also has other guests on the show such as Stu McGill, Mulligan (no need for a first name) and others.

 
MDT is a systematic assessment process in order to classify patients into one of three categories. The derangement category has the hallmark sign of centralization and peripheralization. This is being taught in schools with much evidence to support it for good outcomes. RANT: When I was in school this was barely touched upon and MDT was only one of the methods that a person may be exposed to upon graduation. I recently visited Governors State University and was pleased to see that they have added centralization/peripheralization, directional preference and repeated movement exams into the curriculum. The derangement syndrome is classified by rapid change, for better or worse, either symptomatically or mechanically (range of motion, reflex, strength change, sensation changes). The derangement syndrome is the most prevalent syndrome classification in MDT.
 
The second most common syndrome is the dysfunction syndrome. This is further subclassified into two parts: articular dysfunction and contractile dysfunction. Starting with a contractile dysfunction, it is as simple as the name denotes. It is a dysfunction of some of the contractile tissues of the body and is named for the direction of dysfunction. For instance, if there is a “muscle strain” of the shoulder flexors, the patient would demonstrate with pain during contraction of the muscle with pain increasing with increasing load and also pain during the stretch of this muscle. This is a contractile dysfunction into shoulder flexion.
 
One could also have an articular dysfunction, which is a dysfunction of non-contractile tissues. This could be any structure that doesn’t contract, but the joint capsule is one of the structures typically referred to. A deficit in the non-contractile structures should cause a joint to be limited in its range, but not with regards to its strength. The hallmarks of the dysfunction syndrome are both a lack of dramatic change and consistency with regards to the limitation.
 
“The patient may also be categorized ino an “other” category (eg, chronic pain syndrome, surgery, mechanically inconclusive, spinal stenosis, spondylolisthesis, hip, sacroiliac joint dysfunction, and other)if the patient cannot be successfully classified into 1 of the 3 main McKenzie syndromes”
 
I wrote a case series a couple years back that I am working to get published regarding cancer causing back pain. This would be an “other” category. It doesn’t fit one of the 3 presentations and would have to be classified as other and wouldn’t fit into the treatment paradigm for MDT.
 
“Within the McKenzie classification system, evidence supports the prognostic relevance and discriminative utility of 2 pain-pattern classification criteria: centralization and directional preference…Briefly, centralization is characterized by spinal pain and referred spinal symptoms that are progressively abolished in a distal-to-proximal direction in response to therapeutic movement strategies. Directional preference has been defined as a specific movement or posture that decreases the patient’s pain, with or without the pain having changed location, and/or increases the patient’s lumbar range of motion”
 
Where to start? Centralization…there has been much work by Werneke and Hart regarding centralization’s prognostic value for both positive and negative. Also, Skytte 2005ish has an article that reveals that a lack of centralization leads to a 600% increase in the need for invasive procedures. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15928538
 
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=wernecke+centralization&gbv=2&oq=wernecke+centralization&gs_l=heirloom-hp.3…484.4320.0.4535.23.15.0.8.0.0.100.1014.14j1.15.0&#8230;.0…1ac.1.34.heirloom-hp..9.14.961.viHMXlkcfYc
 
If you don’t know the story behind Mr. Smith, I will tell it to the best of my recollection. Robin McKenzie, the founder of MDT, had a patient come into the clinic in New Zealand in the 1950’s with back pain that radiated into the leg. Mind you, patients at this time were only performing flexion based exercises (knees-to-chest or chest-to-knees) and extension based exercises (back bends or press-ups) were thought to sever the nerves of the spine if one performed the exercises too aggressively. Hence, they were avoided. Walks in Mr. Smith. Robin was a great therapist and thus he was also a very busy therapist. Robin told Mr. Smith to go into the room and lie down on his belly, forgetting that he had the table positioned in such a manner that the head of the bed was elevated. What this means is that when Mr. Smith was on the table, he was in extension. Robin was so busy in the clinic that he was unable to get to Mr. Smith immediately. In essence, Mr. Smith spent a prolonged period of time in extension. His symptoms rapidly abolished in his leg and he only had back pain remaining. Robin saw this and made an attempt to understand the phenomenon. This lead to 50 years of studying pain patterns until the dynamic disc theory was finally being confirmed in the research. Mr. Smith and Robin effectively changed the way that spines are treated and because of this, Robin was ranked the most influential therapists in the 1900’s by the orthopedic section of the APTA.
 
Directional preference was termed by Dr. Ron Donelson, also author of Rapidly Reversible Back Pain (a good read, but at times boring). A person can have a directional preference in the absence of centralization. There may be a change in mechanical responses prior to a report of centralization, also there are studies documenting directional preferences in joints outside of the spine.
 
“…retrospective analysis of a longitudinal, observational cohort was conducted”
 
This is fancy speak, but the words are important. This means that the researchers observed what happened over the course of time (observational longitudinal), but the information is from a time period prior to actually initiating the study (retrospective). The reason why it’s important is because patient consent is not needed for this type of study, since the treatment was unchanged from what a therapist would do compared to an interventional study in which a person is trying to prove or disprove something is effective.
 
“Patients were classified at intake into the subgroups of centralization, noncentralization, or not classified…using a body diagram”
 
Not all patients will centralize at the time of the initial evaluation. If they do centralize and remain centralized, this is a great sign, but some patients may require up to 7 days in order to centralize, as noted by one of the Werneke studies.
 
“Treatment processes were guided by the patient’s symptomatic and mechanical responses to continual assessments of repeated movements, positioning, and/or manual techniques. If centralization or directional preference was observed, treatment was standardized following MDT assessment and treatment methods.”
 
The problem with this system is that it is elusively easy to use. If during the session, we find movements, positions, or postures that make your symptoms worse, we educate you to discontinue or avoid those positions TEMPORARILY. When we see a directional preference or centralization, we tell you to go forth and do those movements that cause good things to happen. That’s it. For someone well trained, we can find a directional preference in most patients. For those that aren’t trained…well…the system may not work, which is a bummer for the patient because it’s not the systems fault.
 
“The primary findings suggest that (1) classifying patients with lumbar impairments at intake by either McKenzie or pain-pattern classification methods my slightly (around 3%) improve explanatory power in robust risk-adjusted rehabilitations models predicting discharge FS outcomes”
 
Classifying a patient demonstrates improved results compared to not classifying patients. Although this may be a small improvement over other factors that could predict outcome, it is still better than not classifying. When you go to see a therapist as a patient, you want to know how they are classifying you. As a student, you want to know how sophisticated the clinical instructors classification system is. A therapist that is performing interventions because of tradition is not using a good classification system.
 
“…therapists with the highest level of McKenzie training (diploma in MDT) achieved significantly better FS (functional) outcomes compared to therapists who did not have a diploma in MDT”
 
This won’t offend me. I don’t have a Diploma in MDT and personally know many therapists that have earned this distinction. It takes time to complete, a lot of money and time off of work/away from family in order to complete the diploma. If one has access to a therapist with this distinction…please go forth and get assessed.
 
Look…there are a lot of therapists that say that they “use McKenzie” in their treatment. Be wary of these therapists. McKenzie is not a treatment intervention, but an assessment process. If the therapist doesn’t have the initials denoting passing a certification exam or diploma exam, he/she is not using MDT at even a competent level.
 
Excerpts taken from:
Werneke MW, Edmond S, Deutscher D, et al. Effect of Adding McKenzie Syndrome, Centralization, Directional Preference, and Psychosocial Classification Variables to a Risk-Adjusted Model Predicting Functional Status Outcomes for Patients with Lumbar Impairments. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2016;46(9):726-741.

Post 79: Movement Impairment System and hip pain

Post 79: Hip pain
“Hip pain is a common complaint for which people are referred to physical therapy. The prevalence of hip pain in adults over the age of 60 ranges from 9.7% to 19.2%”

Hip pain…think of a pain that is around the groin region that radiates down to the knee (but on the front/inner part of the thigh). Sometimes pain in the buttock could come from the hip, but other areas that could cause buttock pain should be ruled out first. For instance, the SI joint can also cause buttock pain, but if the person is elderly it is probably not the cause. The spine could also cause buttock pain, and in a majority of “pains in the asses” that I see are coming from a spinal referral.

Hip pain is not the most common ailment that I see in the clinic, but it is not rare either. There are a lot of structures surrounding the hip that are innervated (have a nerve source), which means that there are a lot of structures surrounding the hip that could cause pain. I don’t think that our job as therapists is to find the exact tissue that is causing pain (although there are some patients that just need to know), but our job is to classify the symptoms and place the symptoms into a puzzle that makes sense for us. We do this mostly by pattern recognition (at least for therapists that have seen patterns over his/her careers), but we may also have to do this by using the HOAC method (smart way of saying: “give it a shot and see if it works”).

“Abnormal or excessive loading of the hip has recently been recognized as a potential cause of anterior hip pain and subtle hip instability”
I partly agree with this. For those that don’t know me well, I am certified in Mechanical Diagnosis and Therapy, which was proposed by Robin McKenzie in the 1960’s. He proposed a syndrome called the postural syndrome, in which healthy tissue, abnormally loaded, will create pain with the possibility of becoming a dysfunctional tissue over time. In short, I agree with the above statement.

“Femoracetabular impingement is present in 10% to 15% of the population…symptoms are commonly manifested as insidious groin pain.”

I had to look up the three different types of FAI (the long words from above). This means that the ball and socket portion of the hip is not working appropriately. When thinking of a hip, think of a golf ball and tee. The ball is the ball portion at the top of the thigh. When it is round like a ball, it can spin on the tee without falling off. Now imagine that your tee is a little deeper and larger and can encompass the ball. This portion that would encompass the ball is the acetabulum. It is a piece of cartilage that makes the tee deeper so that the ball can sit in without falling off the tee (think dislocated hip if the ball falls off of the tee). So one type of impingement is if the ball is no longer round, but shaped in a different fashion that makes the ball a little bigger on one side. This would cause the ball to pinch on the acetabulum with certain movements (more on this later).

Another type of impingement is when the tee is malformed. This could cause the tee to pinch on the ball, also causing pain.

Either way, groin pain is the chief complaint typically seen in the clinic.

“Combined hip flexion, adduction, and internal rotation movements (FADIR) along with maximal hip flexion most commonly replicates the pain…catching, clicking and feeling of ‘giving way’.”

Picture a little kid doing the “W” sit. This is what the above sentence describes as FADIR. I know…you’re thinking I can’t do that any more…GOOD! That’s not good for you anyway. Now close your eyes and imagine yourself going up stairs. When you go up stairs, do your knees collapse inwards? Don’t answer yet! Imagine yourself slowly sitting down onto a soft couch (you know what I mean…the ones that you sink down into). Did your knees cave in? DON’T ANSWER YET!! Finally, imagine that you are getting up off of the toilet. Do you have to lean far forward or better yet, rock forward and backwards a couple of times in order to get up off of the toilet? Now you can answer. Did you answer yes to any of these? If you don’t know, that’s alright, my imagination sucks also. Go try it. If you have these things happening, YOU HAVE A PROBLEM!

The first step is simply admitting that you have a problem. Unless you admit that you have a problem, you’ll never get to asking for forgiveness from your hips and knees. I thought that the analogy was good.

Anyway, when the knees cave in, this is a poor position for the knee and the hip when in a hip flexed (knee closer to chest) position.

“Hip joint forces are altered by hip joint positions and changes in muscle force contribution”

“I love it when a plan comes together” Hannibal Smith from the A-TEAM.

This describes another of MDT’s syndromes: the derangement syndrome. This is simply a change in the normal resting position of a joint. It may cause muscle inhibition. This a lay term for “shutting down”. On a side note, there has been major debate on Facebook for the terms used to educate society. For instance, in Supple Leopard, Dr. Kelly Starrett describes a muscle as turning off (he means that it is not working to its fullest potential), but some therapists have a hard time with this phrase. This is why I used the phrase “shutting down”. Maybe they won’t have a as hard of a time with this terminology. I don’t know, but if you don’t get the point…please ask.

When a joint’s position is changed then the muscles that act on the joint will change also. Quick example: my dad used to take me out to plant trees in the forest every year. We would tie the tree down using 3 stakes in order to ensure that the tree grew straight. Now imagine if we used the same 3 stakes, but before driving them in, we placed the tree at a 45 degree angle to the ground. (Think leaning tower of Pisa/Pizza). If we pull on the strings in each scenario, there will be a different outcome on the tree. In one, it will be stabilized and in the other it will fall over even further. This is what happens when a joint is altered in its position. When the muscles contract (the strings are pulled), the joints movement will be altered from normal.

“The 2014 clinical practice guideline on nonarthritic hip joint pain recommends interventions such as patient education, manual therapy, therapeutic exercise, and neuromuscular education, but the strength of the evidence for all of the recommended interventions are at the level of expert opinion”
This is important for all of the PT students that may read this blog. We have entered a world with buzzwords such as evidenced based practice/medicine. We are supposed to be using the highest form of evidence or using “best practice” when treating patients. For this ailment, nonarthritic hip pain, the best we got is a bunch of people coming together to give us an opinion. Granted, the people are really smart, but for a profession that is trying to sell itself as “movement specialists”, we should have more than opinions to sell to patients.

“However, Byrd and Jones report that FAI is not necessarily a cause of hip pain; it is simply a morphological variant…”

Wait… You mean to tell me that having a problem on an image, such as an x-ray or MRI does not correlate to having symptoms?! Obviously I jest. An image alone does not indicate a problem for most musculoskeletal problems. The image must be correlated with clinical signs and symptoms. A person without signs and symptoms is healthy, as some problems noted on an image are correlated with age related deformities. Think of this as a wrinkle. For instance, as we age our muscles go from the texture of filet to the texture of beef jerky. Things start wearing down. We are the ultimate machine, but we have yet to figure out how to keep the machine from breaking down.

“While physical therapists can not change the morphology of the hip joint, they can address movement impairments, muscle strength deficits, and certain aspects of joint range of motion to decrease stresses on the anterior hip joint”

I will not make your bones longer or shorter. I will not change the depth of your joint capsule. I will not make you into something that you’re not. But what we can do is address the issues that you have at that point in time, that aren’t structurally unchangeable. Here’s an experiment I want you do: squeeze yourself into the smallest suitcase that you have and I want you to hang out there for 5 hours and then try to get out. It doesn’t feel so good. I didn’t change any of your structures, but I probably created symptoms. Not all symptoms are related to the structural change, and not all structural changes related to symptoms.

“…movement system impairment syndromes described by Shirley Sahrmann,PT, PhD. The movement system impairment approach places less emphasis on identifying the source of the symptoms and more on identifying the pathomechanical cause.”

I’m always reminded of an old research study, I don’t remember the author, when we give you a diagnosis based on pathoanatomy, we (medical professionals) are right 10% of the time. I can’t specifically tell you which structure is causing your symptoms. What I can tell you is you have symptoms when you move. Maybe if we move a different way your symptoms all go away. It’s my job as a therapist to understand the different ways that movements may affect your symptoms.

“27-year old female…left anterior hip pain July 2014 after doing Miri-directional lunges…continued despite pain…after one week discontinued the multi-directional lunge but continued with deadlifts, squats to 90 degrees…sprinting/walking interval training prior to her injury…discontinued in August due to pain. Before July…she was pain-free…did have clicking, snapping and pinching in both hips…main goal was to return to lifting weights while doing squatting and lunging movements without pain.”
The biggest thing to take from the above is that the patient is active. She is not a couch potato.. This patient is the perfect patient to come into the clinic. I love trying to help these patients get back to their active lifestyles. This is the patient that I am going to go over and above in order to return them back to the gym. I AM A MEATHEAD. I see that as a term of endearment.

“…stood with swayback posture and displayed increased hip medial rotation on the left compared to the right… Had increased pronation bilaterally as well as a positive “too many toes” sign… Range of motion of the lumbar spine was normal and pain-free… Adequate hip flexion range of motion during forward bending but the majority of the motion came from the thoracic and lumbar spine… positive Trendelenburg sign bilaterally.”

 Essentially, description is that of a person with poor usage of the hip muscles and a lazy stance. Could indicate some tightness and she stands with the swayback, but it also may mean that she needs better motor control and a better understanding of what appropriate standing posture actually is. Just from the above description, she seems like many of the females that I see in practice.

“During single leg stance, the patient displayed contralateral hip drop during single leg stance bilaterally, increased hip medial rotation on the left, and decreased balance on the left… Able to squat just passed 90° of hip flexion, but displayed increased forward trunk flexion and reported pain at and range. Hip flexion range of motion at her and range squad was 104° in the flexion range of motion was 92°.”

What this is describing is a partial squat. She is unable to go to full depth because of pain. She also has significant weakness in her hip muscles as noted during single leg stance. If you stand on 1 foot, and you notice your opposite pocket falls significantly compared to when you’re standing on both feet, then you probably have a problem in your hip ability to generate force. Sometimes we’ll see this when a person, specifically female, is walking away from us. This looks like that infamous hip wiggle. Not that I’ve ever watched! I love you babe.

“patient displayed overall hypermobility throughout the exam and had 8/9 Bieghton score for increased ligamentous laxity.”
This is otherwise known as the contortionist scale. If you could dislocate your joints at will, they probably aren’t very stable.

The intervention was actually pretty good. The authors describe meso and microcycles for endurance and strength training. This takes me back to my days as a personal trainer through the International Sports Science Association. I have yet to hear physical therapists discuss mesocycles, until this article. Essentially, they placed the patient on a progressive 2 week cycle that built upon itself over the course of 6 weeks emphasizing core stability, endurance exercises, and the addition of plyometrics.

“At the end of 6 weeks, a second reassessment was conducted. The patient stated she was now able to perform a full squat.”

Nuff said!

This is a good article because it describes that patients can improve rather quickly from functional limitations and pain when issued the appropriate interventions. One thing to note from the article is that although it took 6 weeks to improve, the patient was not treated frequently due to her schedule. The idea that a patient needs to be seen three times per week for four weeks is a tradition that needs to be questioned. As a therapist, I must place my patient’s values and health above my own needs. This is one of the core values of our profession. When I start treating you like a dollar sign, then I no longer am treating the patient according to their needs. Don’t get me wrong, some patients may need to be seen 3 times in a week, but these are few and far between in our clinic.

If you have an questions, comments, concerns or good jokes please feel free to let them fly. I can be reached through comments on this blog, @movementthinker on Facebook or at my personal page on Facebook.

Vince Gutierrez, PT, DPT, cert. MDT

Excerpts taken from:

Smith A, Brewer W. Management of Anterior Hip Pain Using a Movement System Impairment Approach: A Case Report. Orthopaedic Physical Therapy Practice. 2016;28(4):226-235.