Effect of osteopathic manipulative treatment and Bio-Electro-Magnetic Energy Regulation (BEMER) therapy on generalized musculoskeletal neck pain in adults.

CONTEXT: General neck pain is a prevalent complaint made by patients to their physicians and is often of a suspected musculoskeletal origin. Osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT) is a form of manual therapy utilized by osteopathic physicians and some allopathic physicians to treat a broad variety of musculoskeletal ailments, including neck pain. Bio-Electro-Magnetic Energy Regulation (BEMER) is an emerging therapeutic modality that deploys a biorhythmically defined stimulus through a pulsed electromagnetic field and has been shown to reduce musculoskeletal pain. Studies on these treatments have independently yielded promising results. Therefore, it is possible that the utility of OMT and BEMER can produce an additive improvement in the treatment of neck pain. OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this study are to investigate the individual and combined effects of OMT and BEMER therapy on neck pain in adults. METHODS: Adults with nonspecific neck pain were recruited for the study. A total of 44 participants met the study inclusion criteria and were randomized into one of four study groups: OMT-only, BEMER-only, OMT+BEMER, or CONTROL (light touch and sham). Forty subjects completed the study, and data for 38 participants were included in our analyses. An OMT and BEMER protocol were specifically designed for this study under the guidance of a licensed osteopathic physician. Participants underwent intervention for a duration of 3 weeks. Data were obtained through baseline and postintervention assessments utilizing three surveys: Neck Disability Index (NDI), Visual Analog Scale (VAS), and Short Form 12-item Health Survey (SF-12, divided into Mental and Physical). One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) analysis was performed retrospectively on pre- and postintervention absolute means between study groups. Significance was set at p<0.05. RESULTS: One-way ANOVA analysis demonstrated a statistically significant difference in pre- vs. postintervention mean scores between BEMER and CONTROL (p<0.05), BEMER compared to OMT (p<0.005), and BEMER compared to BEMER+OMT (p<0.05), in the NDI. The OMT+BEMER group reported an average reduction in pain on the VAS of 21.3 (±29.3) points, or a 65.0 % reduction of pain. A similarly substantial decrease in pain was reported in the BEMER study group, which showed a 46.2 % reduction in pain from baseline. The OMT and CONTROL study groups only reported a 2.9 and 23.9 % decrease, respectively. The BEMER and OMT+BEMER study groups also demonstrated a reduction in subjective reporting on the NDI, by 53.8 and 26.3 %, respectively. The BEMER study group also achieved the most substantial improvement in mental and physical well-being as reported by the SF-12. CONCLUSIONS: Study arms that incorporated BEMER yielded improvements on the NDI, VAS, and SF-12, indicating benefits to BEMER regarding improved overall functionality in routine daily activities as well as a reduction in nonspecific neck pain. Perceived pain, as demonstrated on the VAS, was seemingly improved in an additive fashion from the BEMER group to the OMT+BEMER group, although the results did not achieve statistical significance. Further study with greater participation could provide additional insight.

A Comparison of Walking Gait Following Mechanical and Kinematic Alignment in Total Knee Joint Replacement.

BACKGROUND: Although previous studies have compared radiological, pain, and function scores in kinematically aligned (KA) and mechanically aligned (MA) total knee arthroplasty (TKA), no previous studies have undertaken a three-dimensional (3D) gait analysis in these groups. This study compared kinematic and kinetic variables recorded during level walking in patients at least 2 years post-surgery who underwent an MA or KA procedure. METHODS: Utilizing a 9-camera motion analysis system, gait analysis was undertaken on 29 patients (MA = 15, KA = 14). A 9-camera motion analysis system was used to collect 3D kinematic data of the involved and uninvolved limbs during walking at a self-selected speed. Additionally, 3D ground reaction forces and moments during the stance phase were recorded, and an inverse dynamics approach was utilized to analyze these data. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in spatial-temporal variables between MA and KA groups (P > .05). Local minima and maxima for knee joint angles were not significantly different (P > .05) across involved and uninvolved legs and MA/KA groups in any of the 3 planes of motion. Principal component analysis revealed a significant difference (P < .05) in the transverse plane moment in late stance. No other significant differences were observed for knee, hip, or ankle joint moments. CONCLUSION: Differences in gait parameters across the KA and MA groups at 2 years post-surgery were insufficient to support either one of the operative procedures over the other.