Search

In musculoskeletal and sports medicine, pain has traditionally been linked to tissue injury, often assuming a linear correlation between tissue damage and pain intensity. However, modern pain science has illuminated the complexity of the human pain experience, incorporating psychosocial elements, nervous system sensitization, immune responses, and structural changes in the brain as factors. This contemporary understanding of pain has proven highly beneficial for both clinicians treating individuals in pain and those experiencing pain. Pain neuroscience education (PNE) provides individuals in pain with an understanding of the underlying neurobiology and neurophysiology of their pain experience, which has been shown to result in decreased self-reported pain, reduced disability, the alleviation of fear and fear-avoidance behaviors, diminished pain catastrophizing, and improved movement. Currently, research on PNE predominantly focuses on interventions with individuals with persistent or chronic pain conditions. However, those who experience acute, sub-acute, and perioperative pain also have the potential for elevated levels of fear, fear-avoidance, and pain catastrophizing, indicating potential benefits from PNE. This invited commentary seeks to inform readers about the latest advancements in pain science and propose a conceptual model for delivering PNE in acute pain experiences. Level of Evidence 5 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Uncertainty exists regarding the best method for teaching thrust joint manipulation (TJM) to student physical therapists. The purpose of this study was to compare the effectiveness of Peyton's 4-step (P4) approach with the "see one, do one" (S1D1) approach for teaching students to perform a lumbar spine TJM task in an academic setting. Secondary objectives were to compare the effects of each instructional approach on students' attitudes and beliefs toward spinal TJM and on their motivation to learn to perform lumbar spine TJM. Review of literature: The S1D1 approach is used in the health care professions for teaching clinical tasks to students. It is unclear whether the P4 approach may better prepare students to practice TJM. Subjects: Student physical therapists. Methods: Using a factorial quasi-experimental design, an equal number of students were assigned to a P4 or S1D1 instruction group for the TJM task. Students' performance accuracy, time, and outcome performing TJM in an academic setting were measured. Paper surveys were used to collect data about students' attitudes and beliefs toward spinal TJM and their motivation to learn TJM. A generalized estimating equations approach was used for data analysis. Results: Fifty-eight students (29 per group) completed the study. There was an interaction between the instruction group and time on task performance accuracy favoring the P4 approach (P = .03). There was no interaction between the instruction group and task performance time, task performance outcome, attitudes and beliefs toward spinal TJM, or motivation to learn TJM (all P > .19). Discussion and conclusion: The P4 approach more effectively improved student accuracy when performing the TJM task in an academic setting than the S1D1 approach. However, no differences between instruction were found for performance time or outcome. Students reported a favorable perception of learning lumbar spine TJM. These preliminary results suggest that instructors may use the P4 approach to improve students' TJM procedural knowledge before task practice. However, limitations of the study may affect the internal validity and generalizability of results. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

OBJECTIVE: To compare the short- and intermediate-term effects of dry needling to manual therapy on pain, disability, function, and patient-perceived improvement in patients with mechanical neck pain. DESIGN: A single (therapist) blinded randomized controlled trial. METHODS: Seventy-eight patients (mean ± SD age, 50.74 ± 13.81) were randomly assigned to one of the 2 groups: (1) dry needling and therapeutic exercises (DN + Exercises) and (2) manual therapy and therapeutic exercises (MT + Exercises). Both groups received 7 treatment sessions over a maximum of 6 weeks. Outcome measures, collected at baseline, 2 weeks, discharge (7th treatment session), and 3 months after discharge, were as follows: Neck Disability Index (NDI), numeric pain-rating scale (NPRS), Patient-Specific Functional Scale (PSFS), global rating of change (GROC), Fear-Avoidance Belief Questionnaire (FABQ), and Deep Neck Flexor Endurance Test (DNFET). Data were analyzed with mixed-model analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), using pretest scores as covariates, and a Mann-Whitney U test for GROC scores. RESULTS: The ANCOVA revealed significant group-by-time interaction for all variables. Significant between-group differences, favoring MT + Exercises, were observed at all 3 time points on the NDI (2 weeks: F1,446 = 172.68, P≤.001, ...; discharge: F1,446 = 254.15, P≤.001, ...; and 3 months: F1,446 = 339.40, P≤.001, ...). Results for the MT + Exercises group exceeded recommended minimal clinically important difference for all variables, at all follow-up points. CONCLUSION: MT + Exercises was more effective, both in the short term and intermediate term, than DN + Exercises in reducing pain, disability, and improving function in patients with mechanical neck pain. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Pain neuroscience education (PNE) and graded exposure have not been explored in occupational settings for low back pain (LBP). To pilot feasibility and assess preliminary effectiveness of PNE and graded exposure for LBP. A pilot study where workers were randomized to either PNE and graded exposure or Pilates and postural education. Both interventions consisted of weekly individual face-to-face sessions for 8 weeks (a total of 8 sessions). The primary outcome was pain intensity. Secondary outcomes were disability, catastrophizing, fear-avoidance, sleep, endurance of back extensor muscles, and patient's perceived impression of change. Seventeen participants entered the PNE and graded exposure group and 20 the Pilates and postural education group. PNE and graded exposure were feasible to implement. Between-group comparisons suggest higher improvements in the PNE group for extensor muscle endurance (p <.001, η2p =.29), pain catastrophizing (p <.001; η2p =.56) and fear-avoidance related to physical activity (p <.001; η2p =.48) and work (p <.001; η2p =.47). In the PNE group, at least 13 (76.5%) participants reported being at least "moderately better" against 6 (30%) participants in the Pilates group. PNE and graded exposure can be successfully implemented in an occupational context and is potentially more beneficial than Pilates and postural education for extensor muscle endurance, catastrophizing, and fear avoidance and similarly as beneficial for pain intensity and disability. Further studies are needed to confirm these results. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Thrust Joint Manipulation (TJM) is a widely used intervention in spinal care, however there are differences in its use between countries and spinal regions. This survey analyzes the frequency of use of TJM, examines the thoughts about the effectiveness of, and the perceptions of Dutch certified manual therapists regarding safety, comfort, use and barriers related to the application of spinal TJM techniques. The 19-question e-survey was based on a similar survey in the U.S. Since the Netherlands has a separate professional standard for the upper cervical spine, questions enabled differentiation between upper- and mid/lower cervical spine. The survey was launched during a national manual therapy congress and distributed via social media (April-July 2018). Descriptive analyses, MANOVA and qualitative analyses were used. From the 211 responses, 150 were male, with a mean age of 44.9 (±11.2) years, a mean clinical experience of 12.8 (±9.6) years as manual therapist, 87% had a master's degree and 97% worked in a private practice. Except for the upper cervical spine, more than 80% of the participants felt that TJM was safe, were comfortable performing TJM. Overall >80% of participants perform additional screening prior to TJM. Concerns about safety is the greatest barrier for upper cervical TJM. Findings indicate that overall Dutch manual therapists believe TJM to be safe and effective and are comfortable performing them, except for the upper cervical spine, where concerns exist regarding safety and acquiring written informed consent. 2b. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]