Search

Contains fulltext : 168492.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Closed access) OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of Manual Therapy Utrecht (MTU) plus education in patients with cervicogenic somatosensory tinnitus (CeT). STUDY DESIGN: Pretest-posttest design. METHOD: Five hundred and six patients were referred or referred themselves. A subgroup of patients was identified with CeT, and within this a subgroup with tinnitus sensitization (TS). Two CeT groups were created based on the presence or absence of TS. Both groups underwent manual therapy combined with tinnitus education. Tinnitus intensity (VAS-tin 0-100 mm) was the primary outcome measure. Number of treatments and adverse effects were the secondary outcome measures. RESULTS: A total of 122 patients with CeT (24.1%) were included (average age 53.3 years [+/-9.8], female 38.5% and duration of tinnitus 7.3 years [+/-8.9]). Patients were divided into two groups: 55 patients (45.1%) with TS (CeT + TS group) and 67 patients (54.9%) without TS (CeT - TS group). Pretest to posttest differences on the VAS-tin were statistically significant within both groups (CeT - TS group: difference VAS-tin 5.9 [p = 0.01]; CeT + TS group: difference VAS-tin 18.2 [p = 0.00]), and between the groups in favor of the CeT + TS group (difference VAS-tin 12.3 [p = 0.01]). Pretest to posttest differences were clinically significant for the CeT + TS group (difference VAS-tin 18.2 [MCIC = >/=10 mm VAS-tin]) and between the groups (difference VAS-tin 12.3 in favor of the CeT + TS group). The average number of treatment sessions was 9.6 (+/-2.6) for the CeT - TS group and 10.3 (+/-2.5) for the CeT + TS group, a non-significant difference. There were no adverse effects in either group. CONCLUSIONS: Despite its limitations, this study provides valuable information on both the characteristics of patients with CeT and TS in a Dutch primary care manual therapy practice and on the potential effectiveness of MTU combined with tinnitus education for the subgroup of CeT + TS patients.

Contains fulltext : 89481.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Closed access) Central sensitization plays an important role in the pathophysiology of numerous musculoskeletal pain disorders, yet it remains unclear how manual therapists can recognize this condition. Therefore, mechanism based clinical guidelines for the recognition of central sensitization in patients with musculoskeletal pain are provided. By using our current understanding of central sensitization during the clinical assessment of patients with musculoskeletal pain, manual therapists can apply the science of nociceptive and pain processing neurophysiology to the practice of manual therapy. The diagnosis/assessment of central sensitization in individual patients with musculoskeletal pain is not straightforward, however manual therapists can use information obtained from the medical diagnosis, combined with the medical history of the patient, as well as the clinical examination and the analysis of the treatment response in order to recognize central sensitization. The clinical examination used to recognize central sensitization entails the distinction between primary and secondary hyperalgesia. 01 april 2010

SUMMARY. The pressure pain threshold (PPT), i.e. the least stimulus intensity at which a subject perceives pain, was studied in 30 patients with chronic unilateral pain in the shoulder and arm region.Fourteen trigger points were investigated on both sides of the body using pressure algometry. Eight paravertebral points and six points in the shoulder and arm region were evaluated. Each location was examined twice. The patients were tested by one examiner.The intraobserver reliability of PPT measurements was considered to be good. The Intraclass Correlation Coefficients of reliability (ICC), based on two repeated PPT measurements varied between 0.64 and 0.96. The painful side of the body was found to be more sensitive than the non-painful side, although there was not always a significant difference at the 0.05 level. The PPT was found to be higher in males than in females (P < 0.05). Females demonstrated lower PPTs than males at each trigger point. It was established that pressure tenderness varies over individual trigger points. Significant regional differences in PPT values were observed (P < 0.05). PPT values decreased in a cranial direction in the spine and in a caudal direction in the upper limb.Although the authors expected to find segmentally reduced PPT values on the painful side of the body, a generalized reduction of PPT values was present at all peripheral and spinal segmental sites. Some correlations between segmentally related trigger points were found by factor analysis. Copyright 1996 Harcourt Publishers Ltd.