Zoekresultaten

Response to adverse events associated with the use of cervical spine manipulation or mobilization and patient characteristics

Corrigendum to “Adverse events associated with the use of cervical spine manipulation or mobilization and patient characteristics: A systematic review” (S246878121730019X) (10.1016/j.msksp.2017.01.008))

The authors regret that during a recent review of this work, an erroneous calculation was uncovered. In our discussion we estimated the number of VAD patients annually with recent manipulation in the U.S. If the annual rate of VAD patients in the U.S. population was approximately (318,857,056 × 1.0/100.000) 3188, and of those patients 6.9% received a cervical manipulation, the correct number should be (3188 × 0.069) 220. This had been accidentally calculated as 220,011 instead of 220. Although it does not change the overall conclusions or discussion of the paper, the authors would like to thank dr. Clum for his attentiveness and apologize for any inconvenience caused.

Pressure ulcers in trauma patients with suspected spine injury: a prospective cohort study with emphasis on device-related pressure ulcers

Of all patients in a hospital environment, trauma patients may be particularly at risk for developing (device-related) pressure ulcers (PUs), because of their traumatic injuries, immobility, and exposure to immobilizing and medical devices. Studies on device-related PUs are scarce. With this study, the incidence and characteristics of PUs and the proportion of PUs that are related to devices in adult trauma patients with suspected spinal injury were described. From January–December 2013, 254 trauma patients were visited every 2 days for skin assessment. The overall incidence of PUs was 28⋅3% (n = 72/254 patients). The incidence of device-related PUs was 20⋅1% (n = 51), and 13% (n = 33) developed solely device-related PUs. We observed 145 PUs in total of which 60⋅7% were related to devices (88/145). Device-related PUs were detected 16 different locations on the front and back of the body. These results show that the incidence of PUs and the proportion of device-related PUs is very high in trauma patients

Knowledge, beliefs, and attitudes of spinal manipulation

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: High-velocity low-amplitude thrust spinal manipulation (SM) is a recommended and commonly used manual therapy intervention in physiotherapy. Beliefs surrounding the safety and effectiveness of SM have challenged its use, and even advocated for its abandonment. Our study aimed to investigate the knowledge and beliefs surrounding SM by Italian physiotherapists compared with similar practitioners in other countries.METHODS: An online survey with 41 questions was adapted from previous surveys and was distributed via a mailing list of the Italian Physiotherapists Association (March 22-26, 2020). The questionnaire was divided into 4 sections to capture information on participant demographics, utilization, potential barriers, and knowledge about SM. Questions were differentiated between spinal regions. Attitudes towards different spinal regions, attributes associated with beliefs, and the influence of previous educational background were each evaluated.RESULTS: Of the 7398 registered physiotherapists, 575 (7.8%) completed the survey and were included for analysis. The majority of respondents perceived SM as safe and effective when applied to the thoracic (74.1%) and lumbar (72.2%) spines; whereas, a smaller proportion viewed SM to the upper cervical spine (56.8%) as safe and effective. Respondents reported they were less likely to provide and feel comfortable with upper cervical SM (respectively, 27.5% and 48.5%) compared to the thoracic (respectively, 52.2% and 74.8%) and lumbar spines (respectively, 46.3% and 74.3%). Most physiotherapists (70.4%) agreed they would perform additional screening prior to upper cervical SM compared to other spinal regions. Respondents who were aware of clinical prediction rules were more likely to report being comfortable with SM (OR 2.38-3.69) and to perceive it as safe (OR 1.75-3.12). Finally, physiotherapists without musculoskeletal specialization, especially those with a traditional manual therapy background, were more likely to perform additional screening prior to SM, use SM less frequently, report being less comfortable performing SM, and report upper cervical SM as less safe (p < 0.001).DISCUSSION: The beliefs and attitudes of physiotherapists surrounding the use of SM are significantly different when comparing the upper cervical spine to other spinal regions. An educational background in traditional manual therapy significantly influences beliefs and attitudes. We propose an updated framework on evidence-based SM.

Patient outcomes before and after implementation of a selective pre-hospital spinal immobilization protocol

Background: A new selective preventive spinal immobilization (PSI) protocol was introduced in the Netherlands. This may have led to an increase in non-immobilized spinal fractures (NISFs) and consequently adverse patient outcomes. Aim: A pilot study was conducted to describe the adverse patient outcomes in NISF of the PSI protocol change and assess the feasibility of a larger effect study. Methods: Retrospective comparative cohort pilot study including records of trauma patients with a presumed spinal injury who were presented at the emergency department of a level 2 trauma center by the emergency medical service (EMS). The pre-period 2013-2014 (strict PSI protocol), was compared to the post-period 2017-2018 (selective PSI protocol). Primary outcomes were the percentage of records with a NISF who had an adverse patient outcome such as neurological injuries and mortality before and after the protocol change. Secondary outcomes were the sample size calculation for a larger study and the feasibility of data collection. Results: 1,147 records were included; 442 pre-period, and 705 post-period. The NISF-prevalence was 10% (95% CI 7-16, n = 19) and 8% (95% CI 6-11, n = 33), respectively. In both periods, no neurological injuries or mortality due to NISF were found, by which calculating a sample size is impossible. Data collection showed to be feasible. Conclusions: No neurological injuries or mortality due to NISF were found in a strict and a selective PSI protocol. Therefore, a larger study is discouraged. Future studies should focus on which patients really profit from PSI and which patients do not.

Assessing Vascular Function in Patients With Neck Pain, Headache, and/or Orofacial Pain

SYNOPSIS: Vascular serious adverse events can occur after examining, manipulating, mobilizing, and prescribing exercise for the cervical spine. Patients presenting with neck pain and headache who develop a vascular serious adverse event during or after treatment may have vascular flow limitations that go unrecognized and are aggravated by treatment. Patients with neck pain and headache-the first nonischemic symptoms of arterial dissection-frequently access physical therapists as first-point providers, not all of whom have specialist training in orthopaedic manual physical therapy. All physical therapists, irrespective of their training, who are helping patients manage neck pain, headache, and/or facial symptoms must feel confident to identify potential vascular flow limitations of the neck prior to providing treatment. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2021;51(9):418-421. Epub 10 May 2021. doi:10.2519/jospt.2021.10408.