Refine
Document Type
- Article (3)
- Conference Proceeding (1)
Language
- English (4)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (4)
Keywords
- manual therapy (4) (remove)
Institute
- Fakultät WiSo (4)
Currently, the treatment of musicians is an interprofessional approach. Playing-related health complaints may impact the performance of a musician. In Germany, a medical consulting hour for musicians exists, but those for athletes in sports medicine are not so common. The diagnosing and treatment procedure within the physiotherapy consultation for musicians follows a specific concept-b and requires knowledge of instruments and musician-specific complaints. Based on the consulting hour in a clinic in Osnabrueck, 614 case reports were part of this sample, of which 558 data sets were complete. The focus of the analysis is the instrument and the primary complaint. Also, the type of therapy is characterized, and the amount is calculated. Primary complaints of musicians, in general, are found most frequently in the spine and upper extremity. Musician complaints are different between instruments. Instrumentalists have a significantly higher chance to suffer from a primary complaint in the area of the upper extremity. Furthermore, the groups without an instrument (e.g., singing or dancing) are developing complaints in the anatomical area which they primarily use. Therefore, these types of therapy were used: physiotherapy, manual therapy, and osteopathy with an average of 5.9 treatment units. This study underpinned the importance of musician-specific physiotherapy as a profession to treat musicians. Also, an interdisciplinary approach is necessary to treat all aspects of complaints.
Objective:
To compare the short- and long-term effects of a structural-oriented (convential) with an activity-oriented physiotherapeutic treatment in patients with frozen shoulder.
Design:
Double-blinded, randomized, experimental study.
Setting:
Outpatient clinic.
Subjects:
We included patients diagnosed with a limited range of motion and pain in the shoulder region, who had received a prescription for physiotherapy treatment, without additional symptoms of dizziness, a case history of headaches, pain and/or limited range of motion in the cervical spine and/or temporomandibular joint.
Interventions:
The study group received treatment during the performance of activities. The comparison group was treated with manual therapy and proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation (conventional therapy). Both groups received 10 days of therapy, 30 minutes each day.
Main measures:
Range of motion, muscle function tests, McGill pain questionnaire and modified Upper Extremity Motor Activity Log were measured at baseline, after two weeks of intervention and after a three-month follow-up period without therapy.
Results:
A total of 66 patients were randomized into two groups: The activity-oriented group (n = 33, mean = 44 years, SD = 16 years) including 20 male (61%) and the structural-oriented group (n = 33, mean = 47 years, SD = 17 years) including 21 male (64%). The activity-oriented group revealed significantly greater improvements in the performance of daily life activities and functional and structural tests compared with the group treated with conventional therapy after 10 days of therapy and at the three-month follow-up (p < 0.05).
Conclusions:
Therapy based on performing activities seems to be more effective for pain reduction and the ability to perform daily life activities than conventional treatment methods.
The current narrative literature review aims to discuss clinical reasoning based on nociceptive pain mechanisms for determining the most appropriate assessment and therapeutic strategy and to identify/map the most updated scientific evidence in relation to physical therapy interventions for patients with temporomandibular disorders (TMDs). We will also propose an algorithm for clinical examination and treatment decisions and a pain model integrating current knowledge of pain neuroscience. The clinical examination of patients with TMDs should be based on nociceptive mechanisms and include the potential identification of the dominant, central, or peripheral sensitization driver. Additionally, the musculoskeletal drivers of these sensitization processes should be assessed with the aim of reproducing symptoms. Therapeutic strategies applied for managing TMDs can be grouped into tissue-based impairment treatments (bottom-up interventions) and strategies targeting the central nervous system (top-down interventions). Bottom-up strategies include joint-, soft tissue-, and nerve-targeting interventions, as well as needling therapies, whereas top-down strategies include exercises, grade motor imagery, and also pain neuroscience education. Evidence shows that the effectiveness of these interventions depends on the clinical reasoning applied, since not all strategies are equally effective for the different TMD subgroups. In fact, the presence or absence of a central sensitization driver could lead to different treatment outcomes. It seems that multimodal approaches are more effective and should be applied in patients with TMDs. The current paper also proposes a clinical decision algorithm integrating clinical diagnosis with nociceptive mechanisms for the application of the most appropriate treatment approach.