Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Article (30) (remove)
Language
- English (30) (remove)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (30)
Keywords
- Neurodynamics (2)
- Ultrasound (2)
- manual therapy (2)
- temporomandibular disorders (2)
- Alar ligaments (1)
- Ankle injuries (1)
- Cervical (1)
- Cervical lateral glide (1)
- Cervical range of motion (1)
- Cervical spine (1)
Institute
- Fakultät WiSo (29)
Introduction
Observations show that foam rolling improves joint movements. Likewise, it can be stated that a vibration stimulation of the tissue leads to improved joint mobility.
Method
This study investigates whether the combination of foam rolling and vibrations (31 Hz) can influence the sliding of the thoracolumbar fascia more effectively than normal foam rolling. 45 subjects participated in the study and were divided into a foam roll with additional vibration group (FRV), a foam roll group (FR) and a control group (CG). The intervention groups rolled out the gluteal muscles, the lateral trunk and the upper and lower back. Mobility measures were taken pre and post the respective intervention. Subsequent cross correlation software analysis quantified the sliding of the fascia and calculated its shear strain mobility (SSM).
Results
The sliding of the thoracolumbar fascia improved significantly within the FRV by 2.83 mm (SD ± 1.08/p < .001), in the FR by 0.96 mm (SD ± 0.43/p < .001) and in the CG decreased the sliding by 0.1401 mm (SD ± 0.28/p = .076). The fascia/fascia SSM increased in the FRV by 22.61% (SD ± 15.64/p < .001), in the FR by 11.41% (SD ± 20.38/p = .056) and in the CG decreased the SSM by 0.9473% (SD ± 11.35/p < .751). The lumbar movement increased in both intervention groups, but showed no significant result.
Conclusion
The use of a foam roll with additional vibration and standard intervention have increased thoracolumbar fascia sliding and lumbar movements. The improved shear strain mobility can be attributed to the multi-activity of mechanoreceptors, such as Pacini- and Ruffini-Bodies.
The management of patients experiencing chronic orofacial pain is a great challenge, due to the complexity of chronic pain itself, combined with an increased peripheral sensitization in the craniofacial itself. Therefore, patients with orofacial pain may present a clear distortion of the somatorepresentation after some time. In this review, the authors develop a neurophysiological explanation of orofacial distortion, as well as propose assessment and treatment options, based on scarcely available scientific evidence and their own clinical experience. The assessments of facial somatosensory, cognitive-affective and motor dysfunctions are crucial to establish the most accurate treatment; the assessment tools are described in the article. Two-point discrimination, laterality recognition and emotion recognition are altered in patients with orofacial pain. Other sensorimotor assessment tools, such as motor acuity and auditory acuity, are also explained. Finally, the authors review their treatment proposals, based on the integration of brain training techniques and biobehavioral interventions. Somatosensory reintegration (tactile acuity training), facial emotion recognition, movement representation techniques, orofacial motor training and therapeutic patient education are explained in detail, and this may challenge new directions in rehabilitation and research.
BACKGROUND: The Craniofacial Pain and Disability Inventory (CF-PDI) is a cross-culturally adapted instrument designed from a biopsychosocial perspective to measure pain, disability, and function in orofacial head and neck pain with shown psychometric properties; however, the German cross-cultural adaption is lacking.
OBJECTIVES: To carry out a transcultural translation of CF-PDI into German and assess its psychometric properties in patients with painful temporomandibular disorders (TMD) with respect to construct and clinical validity, internal consistency and reproducibility.
STUDY DESIGN: Multicenter, prospective, cross-sectional design.
SETTING: Patients (n = 398) were recruited from dental and physical therapy clinics in middle and south Germany.
METHODS: Structural validity was assessed using exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). We investigated know-group validity by means of the scale’s potential to discriminate between affected and unaffected subjects. Multiple linear regression analysis was used to estimate convergent validity. We tested test-retest reliability by the intraclass correlation coefficient and the Internal consistency by Cronbach’s alpha, or each dimension separately, and the total score. Multiple linear regression analysis was used to estimate convergent validity.
RESULTS: Two hundred forty-six heterogeneous chronic craniofacial pain patients and 152 patients without complaints were recruited from the middle and south of Germany. The German version CF-PDI-G presents 21 items, 4 factors, and adequate psychometric properties. The test-retest reliability and internal consistency of the CF-PDI-G were both excellent for the entire instrument and also for all sub-scales (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] > 0.90) except for the comorbidities and interference with work which was acceptable (ICC = 0.69). Standard error of the measurement (SEM) and minimal detectable change values are sufficiently low. Assessment of clinical validity shows good potential of discrimination and classification into categories “no,” “mild,” “moderate,” and “severe.” The multiple linear regression model showed a strong association between neck disability index, Visual Analog Scale, and anamnestic questionnaire (supporting the scale’s convergent validity).
LIMITATIONS: Our sample has a higher prevalence of women and the sample was not recruited consecutively, which may lead to a biased estimation of psychometric properties.
CONCLUSIONS: The CF-PDI-G represents valid and reliable instrument to assess pain and disability in patients with orofacial pain and headache suitable for research and clinical practice.
Objectives:
The purpose of this study was to determine the motor function of the abdominal muscles in singers with and without functional voice disorders and to examine them for possible differences. Additionally, the breathing behaviour and posture control was investigated.
Study Design
Observational study.
Methods:
Female subjects (n = 20) with differing levels of professional competence were used to provide the data for analysis. By using the Singing Voice Handicap Index (SVHI) the grade of dysphonia could be measured, and the subjects were organized in groups. The change of muscle thickness of the M. transversus abdominis (TVA) and the M. obliquus internus abdominis (OIA) during different singing tasks was measured by using ultrasound. The subjects were then asked to perform the Abdominal Hollowing Test (AHT) with the STABILIZER. Finally, the subjects were all filmed while singing. The videos recordings of the singing sessions were analysed by an independent clinical expert regarding breathing and secondary motor activities (SMA). For the statistical analysis, the Mann-Whitney-U Test and the Chi-Square-Test was mainly used.
Results:
The results showed a significantly thinner TVA in the group with dysphonia in comparison to the group without dysphonia. Ultrasound measurements showed significantly higher changes of muscle thickness of the TVA during singing tasks in the group with dysphonia. Regarding the AHT there was a significant difference between the two groups. The group with dysphonia was not able to increase the pressure by 15mmHg. Furthermore, the healthy subjects demonstrated abdominal breathing, while the group with dysphonia present with thoracic breathing. Additionally, it was noted that the subjects with dysphonia showed a higher level of associated movements especially at and/or on the lumbar spine, cervical spine and the left arm and shoulder.
Conclusion:
Differences in TVA-recruitment, breathing behaviour and secondary motor activities while singing were found. This study sparks new ideas for neuromusculoskeletal assessments and therapy.
Key Words
Transversus abdominis, Abdominal muscles, Dysphonia, Ultrasound, Singing voice, Singers
Objectives
The aim of this Delphi survey was to establish an international consensus on the most useful outcome measures for research on the effectiveness of non-pharmacological interventions for migraine. This is important, since guidelines for pharmacological trials recommend measuring the frequency of headaches with 50% reduction considered a clinically meaningful effect. It is unclear whether the same recommendations apply to complementary (or adjunct) non-pharmacological approaches, whether the same cut-off levels need to be considered for effectiveness when used as an adjunct or stand-alone intervention, and what is meaningful to patients.
Setting
University-initiated international survey.
Participants
The expert panel was chosen based on publications on non-pharmacological interventions in migraine populations and from personal contacts. 35 eligible researchers were contacted, 12 agreed to participate and 10 completed all 3 rounds of the survey. To further explore how migraine patients viewed potential outcome measures, four migraine patients were interviewed and presented with the same measurement tools as the researchers.
Procedures
The initial Delphi round was based on a systematic search of the literature for outcome measures used in non-pharmacological interventions for headache. Suggested outcome measures were rated by each expert, blinded towards the other members of the panel, for its usefulness on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from definitely not useful to extremely useful. Results were combined using median values and IQRs. Tools rated overall as definitely or probably not useful were excluded from subsequent rounds. Experts further suggested additional outcome measures that were presented to the panel in subsequent rounds. Additionally, experts were asked to rank the most useful tools and provide information on feasible cut-off levels for effectiveness for the three highest ranked tools.
Results
Results suggest the use of the Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS), Headache Impact Test (HIT-6) and headache frequency as primary outcome measures. Patient experts suggested the inclusion of a measure of quality of life and evaluation of associated symptoms and fear of attacks.
Conclusions
Recommendations are for the use of the MIDAS, the HIT-6 and headache frequency, in combination with an outcome measure for quality of life. Associated symptoms and fear of attacks should also be considered as secondary outcomes, if relevant for the individual target population. The cut-off level for effectiveness should be lower for non-pharmacological interventions, especially when used as an adjunct to medication.
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.
Objective
To identify assessment tools used to evaluate patients with temporomandibular disorders (TMD) considered to be clinically most useful by a panel of international experts in TMD physical therapy (PT).
Methods
A Delphi survey method administered to a panel of international experts in TMD PT was conducted over three rounds from October 2017 to June 2018. The initial contact was made by email. Participation was voluntary. An e-survey, according to the Checklist for Reporting Results of Internet E-Surveys (CHERRIES), was posted using SurveyMonkey for each round. Percentages of responses were analysed for each question from each round of the Delphi survey administrations.
Results
Twenty-three experts (completion rate: 23/25) completed all three rounds of the survey for three clinical test categories: 1) questionnaires, 2) pain screening tools and 3) physical examination tests. The following was the consensus-based decision regarding the identification of the clinically most useful assessments. (1) Four of 9 questionnaires were identified: Jaw Functional Limitation (JFL-8), Mandibular Function Impairment Questionnaire (MFIQ), Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia for Temporomandibular disorders (TSK/TMD) and the neck disability index (NDI). (2) Three of 8 identified pain screening tests: visual analog scale (VAS), numeric pain rating scale (NRS) and pain during mandibular movements. (3) Eight of 18 identified physical examination tests: physiological temporomandibular joint (TMJ) movements, trigger point (TrP) palpation of the masticatory muscles, TrP palpation away from the masticatory system, accessory movements, articular palpation, noise detection during movement, manual screening of the cervical spine and the Neck Flexor Muscle Endurance Test.
Conclusion
After three rounds in this Delphi survey, the results of the most used assessment tools by TMD PT experts were established. They proved to be founded on test construct, test psychometric properties (reliability/validity) and expert preference for test clusters. A concordance with the screening tools of the diagnostic criteria of TMD consortium was noted. Findings may be used to guide policymaking purposes and future diagnostic research.
Objectives
To develop a time-efficient motor control (MC) test battery while maximising diagnostic accuracy of both a two-level and three-level classification system for patients with non-specific low back pain (LBP).
Design
Case–control study.
Setting
Four private physiotherapy practices in northern Germany.
Participants
Consecutive males and females presenting to a physiotherapy clinic with non-specific LBP (n=65) were compared with 66 healthy-matched controls.
Primary outcome measures
Accuracy (sensitivity, specificity, Youden index, positive/negative likelihood ratio, area under the curve (AUC)) of a clinically driven consensus-based test battery including the ideal number of test items as well as threshold values and most accurate items.
Results
For both the two and three-level categorisation system, the ideal number of test items was 10. With increasing number of failed tests, the probability of having LBP increases. The overall discrimination potential for the two-level categorisation system of the test is good (AUC=0.85) with an optimal cut-off of three failed tests. The overall discrimination potential of the three-level categorisation system is fair (volume under the surface=0.52). The optimal cut-off for the 10-item test battery for categorisation into none, mild/moderate and severe MC impairment is three and six failed tests, respectively.
Conclusion
A 10-item test battery is recommended for both the two-level (impairment or not) and three-level (none, mild, moderate/severe) categorisation of patients with non-specific LBP.
Aim
Manual cranial bone tissue techniques (CBTT) are used by physiotherapists as a tool for assessment and treatment of complaints in the craniocervical, face, and head regions. The goal of this study was to determine whether CBTT were able to discriminate between subjects with cervical and/or temporomandibular disorders (TMD) and a healthy group. In addition, the inter-rater reliability when applying CBTT was also investigated.
Methods
A cross-sectional study was conducted and included 60 participants. Six standardized passive techniques were applied and judged for resistance, compliance, and sensory answer. In order to evaluate the inter-rater reliability of these techniques a cohort of participants was measured twice (by two evaluators) prospectively. A logistic regression model and Receiver Operating Curve (ROC) analyses were used to determining the discriminative validity of these techniques.
Results
Logistic regression identified a significant difference for five techniques for resistance and/or compliance and/or the sensory answer between the groups. Based on the Area Under the Curve (AUC) analysis, the discriminative ability of the temporal rotation to distinguish between the groups was fair to good (for resistance AUC = 0.7775 and for compliance AUC = 0.8065). The highest agreement between the two assessors was for the resistance with occipital compression (73%) technique.
Conclusion
This study highlights that some of the CBTT could be potentially useful in distinguishing subjects with cervical and/or TMD from healthy subjects. Inter-rater reliability was moderate. CBTT could be potentially integrated in the examination of participants with complaints in the craniofacial region.
Introduction
Tests to evaluate the integrity of the alar ligaments are important clinical tools for manual therapists, but there is limited research regarding their validity.
Method
A single blinded examiner assessed alar ligament integrity using the lateral shear test (LST), rotation stress test (RST) and side-bending stress test (SBST) on a sample of convenience comprising 7 subjects with MRI confirmed alar ligament lesions and 11 healthy people. Alar ligament lesions were identified using both supine and high-field strength upright MRI.
Results
The RST had a sensitivity of 80% and a specificity of 69.2%. The SBST and the LST both showed a sensitivity of 80% and a specificity of 76.9%. In cases where all three tests were positive, the specificity increased to 84.6%.
Discussion
Tests of manual examination of alar ligament integrity have some diagnostic utility; however, these findings require further corroboration in a larger sample.