Zoekresultaten

Cervical dystonia: effectiveness of a standardized physical therapy program; study design and protocol of a single blind randomized controlled trial

Background: Cervical dystonia is characterized by involuntary muscle contractions of the neck and abnormal head positions that affect daily life activities and social life of patients. Patients are usually treated with botulinum toxin injections into affected neck muscles to relief pain and improve control of head postures. In addition, many patients are referred for physical therapy to improve their ability to perform activities of daily living. A recent review on allied health interventions in cervical dystonia showed a lack of randomized controlled intervention studies regarding the effectiveness of physical therapy interventions.Methods/design: The (cost-) effectiveness of a standardized physical therapy program compared to regular physical therapy, both as add-on treatment to botulinum toxin injections will be determined in a multi-centre, single blinded randomized controlled trial with 100 cervical dystonia patients. Primary outcomes are disability in daily functioning assessed with the disability subscale of the Toronto Western Spasmodic Torticollis Rating Scale. Secondary outcomes are pain, severity of dystonia, active range of motion of the head, quality of life, anxiety and depression. Data will be collected at baseline, after six months and one year by an independent blind assessor just prior to botulinum toxin injections. For the cost effectiveness, an additional economic evaluation will be performed with the costs per quality adjusted life-year as primary outcome parameter.Discussion: Our study will provide new evidence regarding the (cost-) effectiveness of a standardized, tailored physical therapy program for patients with cervical dystonia. It is widely felt that allied health interventions, including physical therapy, may offer a valuable supplement to the current therapeutic options. A positive outcome will lead to a greater use of the standardized physical therapy program. For the Dutch situation a positive outcome implies that the standardized physical therapy program forms the basis for a national treatment guideline for cervical dystonia.Trial registration: Number Dutch Trial registration (Nederlands Trial Register): NTR3437.

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

Clinical practice: evidence-based recommendations for the treatment of Cervical Dystonia with Botulinum Toxin

Cervical dystonia is the most frequent form of focal dystonia. Symptoms often result in pain and functional disability. Local injections of botulinum neurotoxin are currently the treatment of choice for cervical dystonia. Although this treatment has proven effective and is widely applied worldwide, many issues still remain open in the clinical practice. We performed a systematic review of the literature on botulinum toxin treatment for cervical dystonia based on a question-oriented approach, with the aim to provide practical recommendations for the treating clinicians. Key-questions from the clinical practice were explored. Results suggest that while the beneficial effect of botulinum toxin treatment on different aspects of cervical dystonia is well established, robust evidence is still missing concerning some practical aspects, such as doseequivalence between different formulations, optimal treatment intervals, treatment approaches, and the use of supportive techniques including electromyography (EMG) or ultrasounds. Established strategies to prevent or manage common side effects (including excessive muscle weakness, pain at injection site, dysphagia) and potential contraindications to this treatment (pregnancy and lactation, use of anticoagulants, neurological comorbidities) should also be further explored.

Implementation of the International IFOMPT Cervical Framework

BACKGROUND: Orthopaedic Manual Therapy (OMT) is a specialized area of physiotherapy for the management of neuromusculoskeletal conditions. Although rare, adverse events after OMT are reported in literature. In 2020, the International Framework for Examination of the Cervical Region for potential of vascular pathologies of the neck prior to OMT Intervention was presented.OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the knowledge and implementation status of OMT educational programmes regarding the 2020 International IFOMPT Cervical Framework.METHODS: An international survey with closed- and open-ended questions was conducted among all IFOMPT educational programmes using an online survey. Formal informed consent was requested at the beginning of the survey and all data were collected anonymously.RESULTS: Thirty-nine educational programmes filled in the survey. Twenty-four programmes (61.5%) had already implemented the new Framework. Four programmes (10.3%) answered that they will not implement the new Framework in their educational programme. Positional testing will be kept in about 54% of the programmes. Craniovertebral ligament testing will be kept in about 90% of the programmes. A considerable number of educational programmes still teach end range manipulations in the middle and lower cervical spine (33.3%) and upper cervical spine (25.5%).CONCLUSIONS: The dissemination and implementation of the International IFOMPT Cervical Framework among educational programmes has been successful. However, although positional testing and craniovertebral ligament testing are excluded from the Framework, most educational programmes will keep these tests in their curriculum, which raises some concern regarding the success and impact of international consensus frameworks.

Adverse events associated with the use of cervical spine manipulation or mobilization and patient characteristics

Cervical spinal manipulation (CSM) and cervical mobilization are frequently used in patients with neck pain and headache. Pre-manipulative cervical instability and arterial integrity tests appear to be unreliable in identifying patients at risk for adverse events. It would be valuable if patients at risk could be identified by specific characteristics during the preliminary screening.Objective was to identify characteristics of 1) patients, 2) practitioners, 3) treatment process and 4) adverse events (AE) occurring after CSM or cervical mobilization.A systematic search was performed in PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Web-of-science, AMED, and ICL (Index Chiropractic Literature) up to December 2014.Of the initial 1043 studies, 144 studies were included, containing 227 cases. 117 cases described male patients with a mean age of 45 (SD 12) and a mean age of 39 (SD 11) for females. Most patients were treated by chiropractors (66%). Manipulation was reported in 95% of the cases, and neck pain was the most frequent indication. Cervical arterial dissection (CAD) was reported in 57% (P = 0.21) of the cases and 45.8% had immediate onset symptoms. The overall distribution of gender for CAD is 55% (n = 71) for female and therefore opposite of the total AE.Patient characteristics were described poorly. No clear patient profile, related to the risk of AE after CSM, could be extracted. However, women seem more at risk for CAD. There seems to be under-reporting of cases. Further research should focus on a more uniform and complete registration of AE using standardized terminology.

Yes, we should abandon pre-treatment positional testing of the cervical spine

Although there seems to be no causality between cervical spine (CS) manipulation and major adverse events (MAE), it remains important that manual therapists try to prevent every potential MAE. Although the validity of positional testing for vertebrobasilar insufficiency (VBI) has been questioned, recently, the use of these tests was recommended. However, based on the low sensitivity of the VBI tests, which may result in too many false-negative results, the VBI tests seem to be less valuable in pre-manipulative screening. Moreover, because the VBI tests are unable to consistently produce a decreased blood flow in the contralateral vertebral artery in (healthy people), the underlying mechanism of the test may not be a valid construct. There are numerous cases reporting MAE after a negative VBI test, indicating that the VBI tests do not have a role in assessing the risk of serious neurovascular pathology, such as cervical arterial dissection, the most frequently described MAE after CS manipulation. Symptoms of VBI can be identified in the patient interview and should be considered as red flags or warning signs and require further medical investigation. VBI tests are not able to predict MAE and seem not to have any added value to the patient interview with regard to detecting VBI or another vascular pathology. Furthermore, a negative VBI test can be wrongly interpreted as 'safe to manipulate'. Therefore, the use of VBI tests cannot be recommended and should be abandoned.