基于肌筋膜链理论手法治疗退变性腰椎失稳的疗效观察

目的:探讨基于肌筋膜链理论推拿手法治疗退变性腰椎失稳的临床疗效。方法:对2018年1月至2019年12月收治的57例退变性腰椎失稳患者进行回顾性分析,均采用推拿手法治疗。其中基于肌筋膜链理论手法治疗组(肌筋膜链组)29例,男14例,女15例;年龄40～69(51.76±5.07)岁;病程(3.4±1.6)年。基于中医经络理论手法治疗组(中医经络组)28例,男12例,女16例;年龄42～70(52.48±4.31)岁;病程(3.3±1.7)年。分别于治疗前和治疗结束后、治疗结束后1和3个月采用视觉模拟疼痛评分(visual analogue scale,VAS)评价腰痛程度,并采用日本骨科协会(Japanese Orthopaedic Association,JOA)下腰痛评分及改良的Oswe stry功能障碍指数(Oswestry Disability Index,ODI)评价腰椎功能改善情况,腰部肌肉肌张力变化评价临床疗效。结果:两组治疗后VAS评分、JOA评分、改良ODI评分及腰部肌肉肌张力均较治疗前明显改善(P0.05)。肌筋膜链组治疗前及治疗结束后的VAS评分、JOA评分、改良ODI评分及腰部肌肉肌张力与中医经络组比较差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。但肌筋膜链组治疗结束后1和3个月VAS评分、JOA评分、改良ODI评分及腰部肌肉肌张力较中医经络组改善更为明显(P0.05)。结论:基于肌筋膜链理论手法治疗退变性腰椎失稳可有效缓解腰痛症状,改善腰椎功能,值得临床推广。     

手法对颈椎病患者颈肌力学性能及疲劳程度影响研究

目的:揭示手法治疗颈椎病患者颈部肌群作用机制。方法:2008年8月至2009年12月,将65例颈椎病患者随机分为手法组与牵引组,手法组32例,其中30例获得随访,男10例,女20例;年龄30～65岁,平均(42.31±13.23)岁;平均病程(12.40±6.23)个月;平均体重(61.21±10.23)kg。牵引组33例,其中30例获随访,男11例,女19例;年龄30～65岁,平均(45.54±14.35)岁;平均病程(13.25±6.06)个月;平均体重(62.31±10.45)kg。分别用Biodex Ⅲ system等速测试系统和TeleMyo2400T表面肌电图仪测试颈部肌群力学性能和疲劳程度,治疗前和疗程结束各测试1次。结果:颈部肌群力学性能:在60°/s角速度和120°/s角速度等速运动时,两组治疗前峰力矩(PT)、平均功率(AP)、屈肌峰力矩/伸肌峰力矩比值(F/E)比较无统计学差异(P>0.05),治疗后PT、AP、F/E、手法组优于牵引组(P<0.05);手法组治疗前后PT、AP、F/E、比较有统计学差异(P<0.05)。疲劳程度:两组治疗前左右两侧积分肌电(IEMG)、平均功率频率(MPF)比较无统计学差异(P>0.05),治疗后IEMG、MPF手法组优于牵引组(P<0.05);手法组治疗前后右侧IEMG、MPF比较有统计学差异(P<0.05),左侧有改善趋势。结论:手法可以改善颈椎病患者颈部肌群收缩力量、做功效率,改善颈部肌群屈肌群和伸肌群的协调能力,提高颈伸肌群的放电频率,有利于恢复颈椎病患者颈部肌群的力学性能和缓解颈部肌群的疲劳。     

手法复位小夹板联合中立板双重外固定治疗Colles骨折

Colles骨折是临床上最常见的骨折之一,多见于中老年人。保守治疗是Colles骨折的首选或主要治疗方法[1-2]。通过手法整复,绝大多数骨折可获得满意复位,但骨折满意复位后如何维持整复后骨折满意的位置(骨折的对位、对线)以及防止骨折再移位是非手术治疗Colles骨折成功的关键,也是临床上面临的棘手问题。自1999年7月至2011年6月采用手法复位小夹板联合中立板双重外固定治疗移位性Colles骨折162例,疗效满意,现总结报告如下。1临床资料本组162例,男51例,女111例;年龄20～82岁,平均     

手法治疗在青年股骨头缺血性坏死保髋术后的临床应用

目的研究关节松动牵拉手法在股骨头坏死保髋术后的临床疗效,寻求保髋术后理想的康复方法,提高保髋治疗效果。方法25例患者39髋纳入研究(青年股骨头坏死保髋术后,坏死灶已清除,术后1年以上,经X线检查股骨头内坏死已修复患者),给予关节松动牵拉手法治疗,15d为1个疗程,疗程间休息3～5d,连续治疗3个疗程;第1个疗程开始前1d和第3个疗程结束后第2d进行评分。观察25例患者39髋治疗前、后关节功能、痛疼程度、优良率,应用Harris评分标准分别对患者治疗前、后状况进行评价。结果治疗前、后患者疼痛指数、关节活动度评定得分间差别有显著性意义(P<0.01)。结论关节松动牵拉手法可改善股骨头坏死保髋术后患者的关节功能,加快肌力恢复,缩短康复疗程,提高保髋治疗效果及生存质量,可望延缓,甚至避免全髋人工关节置换。     

Impact of Spinal Manipulation on Lower Extremity Motor Control in Lumbar Spinal Stenosis Patients: A Small-Scale Assessor-Blind Randomized Clinical Trial

ObjectiveThe purpose of this study was to quantify the impact of a single lumbar spinal manipulation (SM) intervention on the leg movement performance of degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) patients in a small-scale registered randomized clinical trial.MethodsParticipants with LSS (n = 14) were tested at baseline for pain, lumbar range of motion, and behavioral or kinematic motor performance (using an established Fitts’ Law foot-pointing task), then underwent covariate adaptive randomization to receive SM or no intervention. Postintervention all dependent measures were repeated. Experimenters were blinded to patient group allocation. University ethics board approval was attained.ResultsFor the primary outcome movement time, there was no significant difference between groups. As predicted by Fitts’ Law, all participants had longer movement times as task difficulty increased. Secondary kinematic outcomes yielded no significant between-group differences. Consistent with Fitts’ Law, kinematic measures changed significantly with task difficulty. Pairwise comparisons revealed the kinematic variables were more adversely affected by greater movement amplitudes than target size changes. No exploratory differences in pain or lumbar range of motion were observed.ConclusionChanges in motor performance were not observed in this chronic pain population after a single SM intervention compared with a control group. Given the sample size, the study may have been underpowered to detect meaningful differences. Fitts’ Law was observed for the lower extremity–pointing task for an LSS population and may provide an objective measure of motor performance.     

Use of muscle energy technique amongst a nationally representative sample of Australian osteopaths

IntroductionMuscle energy technique (MET) is a therapeutic technique involving active muscle contraction by the patient. The selection of particular techniques by osteopaths is underexplored. The aim of the study was to explore the practice profile of those Australian osteopaths who use MET often in their practice compared to those who do not use the technique often.MethodsA secondary analysis of data collected from 922 participants by a practice-based research network (PBRN) for the Australian osteopathy profession was performed. Frequency of use of MET on a 4 point scale: never, rarely, sometimes, and often were binary coded as less often and often. Inferential statistics were used to explore the associations between individual practice characteristics and the frequency of MET use. Adjusted odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) and p-values were calculated from regression modelling.ResultsDichotomising participant responses resulted in less often (203, 20.5%) and often (788, 79.4%). There was a significantly greater proportion of male practitioners using MET compared to those practitioners who did not often use the technique (OR = 0.46; CI = 0.33, 0.63; p < 0.01). Australian osteopaths who often used MET were younger (36.3 vs 44.6 years old) and had fewer years in practice (9.9 vs 17.3 years) compared to osteopaths who used the technique less often.ConclusionOsteopaths who reported that they often used MET were more likely to be male, often use counterstrain and more likely to use orthopaedic testing in patient examination. The study provides an insight into how Australian osteopaths practice, particularly their use of MET.Implications for practice

• •When the responses of 922 Australian osteopaths who participated in a practice-based research network were dichotomized according to usage of MET, the majority reported they use MET frequently.
• •MET and counterstrain appear to be used in combination for musculoskeletal patient care by Australian osteopaths.
• •Australian osteopaths who reported often using MET were more likely to see patients for low back pain, perform orthopaedic testing, use neurological cranial nerve testing, and refer for diagnostic imaging.
• •The practice characteristics of osteopaths who use MET often compared to those who do not reveal insight into different practice styles within the osteopathic profession.

     

Spinal Manipulation for Subacute and Chronic Lumbar Radiculopathy: A Randomized Controlled Trial

ObjectiveWe evaluated the efficacy of spinal manipulation for the management of nonacute lumbar radiculopathy.MethodsIn a university hospital we performed a randomized controlled trial with 2 parallel arms. Patients (n = 44) with unilateral radicular low back pain lasting more than 4 weeks were randomly allocated to manipulation and control groups. The primary outcome was the intensity of the low back pain on a visual analog scale. The secondary outcome was the Oswestry Disability Questionnaire score. We also measured spinal ranges of motion. The assessments were carried out at the baseline, immediately after intervention, and at 3 months’ follow-up. All patients underwent physiotherapy. The manipulation group received three sessions of manipulation therapy 1 week apart. For manipulation, we used Robert Maigne's technique.ResultsBoth groups experienced a decrease in back and leg pain significantly (all P ≤ 0.003). However, only the manipulation group showed significantly favorable results in the Oswestry scores (P < 0.001), and the straight leg raise test (P = 0.001). All ranges of motion increased significantly with manipulation (all P < 0.001), but the control group showed favorable results only in right and left rotations and in extension (all P < 0.001). Between-group analyses showed significantly better outcomes for manipulation in all measurements (all P ≤ 0.009) with large effect sizes.ConclusionSpinal manipulation improves the results of physiotherapy over a period of 3 months for patients with subacute or chronic lumbar radiculopathy.