When Treating Coexisting Low Back Pain and Hip Impairments, Focus on the Back: Adding Specific Hip Treatment Does Not Yield Additional Benefits-A Randomized Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether adding hip treatment to usual care for low back pain (LBP) improved disability and pain in individuals with LBP and a concurrent hip impairment. DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial. METHODS: Seventy-six participants (age, 18 years or older; Oswestry Disability Index, 20% or greater; numeric pain-rating scale, 2 or more points) with LBP and a concurrent hip impairment were randomly assigned to a group that received treatment to the lumbar spine only (LBO group) (n = 39) or to one that received both lumbar spine and hip treatments (LBH group) (n = 37). The individual treating clinicians decided which specific low back treatments to administer to the LBO group. Treatments aimed at the hip (LBH group) included manual therapy, exercise, and education, selected by the therapist from a predetermined set of treatments. Primary outcomes were disability and pain, measured by the Oswestry Disability Index and the numeric pain-rating scale, respectively, at baseline, 2 weeks, discharge, 6 months, and 12 months. The secondary outcomes were fear-avoidance beliefs (work and physical activity subscales of the Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire), global rating of change, the Patient Acceptable Symptom State, and physical activity level. We used mixed-model 2-by-3 analyses of variance to examine group-by-time interaction effects (intention-to-treat analysis). RESULTS: Data were available for 68 patients at discharge (LBH group, n = 33; LBO group, n = 35) and 48 at 12 months (n = 24 for both groups). There were no between-group differences in disability at discharge (-5.0; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -10.9, 0.89; P = .09), 12 months (-1.0; 95% CI: -4.44, 2.35; P = .54), and all other time points. There were no between-group differences in pain at discharge (-0.2; 95% CI: -1.03, 0.53; P = .53), 12 months (0.1; 95% CI: -0.53, 0.72; P = .76), and all other time points. There were no between-group differences in secondary outcomes, except for higher Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire (work subscale) scores in the LBH group at 2 weeks (-3.35; 95% CI: -6.58, -0.11; P = .04) and discharge (-3.45; 95% CI: - 6.30, -0.61; P = .02). CONCLUSION: Adding treatments aimed at the hip to usual low back physical therapy did not provide additional short- or long-term benefits in reducing disability and pain in individuals with LBP and a concurrent hip impairment. Clinicians may not need to include hip treatments to achieve reductions in low back disability and pain in individuals with LBP and a concurrent hip impairment. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2021;51(12):581-601. Epub 16 Nov 2021. 2021. doi:10.2519/jospt.2021.10593.

Proximity of the Carotid Bifurcation to the Laryngeal Prominence: Results of a Cadaver Study and Recommendations for Safe Pulse Palpation.

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE: The carotid bifurcation (CB) is the location of the carotid sinus and the baroreceptors and is also a major site for atherosclerotic plaque formation. Health care providers have therefore been cautioned to avoid the CB during carotid pulse palpation (CPP) to prevent triggering the baroreflex, occluding an artery, or propagating a thrombus. Potential risks of adverse events during CPP may be greater for older adults due to age-related vascular changes and increased risk of baroreceptor hypersensitivity. The exact location of the CB relative to easily identifiable landmarks has, however, not been well-studied. The purpose of this descriptive study was to identify the location of the CB relative to key landmarks in a cadaver sample and to make recommendations allowing clinicians to avoid the CB during CPP. METHODS: The CB and other regional landmarks in 17 male and 20 female cadavers were exposed by dissection and pins were placed at all landmarks. Digital calipers were then used to measure the distance between the CB and all landmarks. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: The mean vertical distance from the laryngeal prominence (LP) to the CB was 25.14 mm for females and 36.13 mm for males. No CBs were located below the LP. Ninety-four percent of female CBs and 100% of male CBs were located above the LP, and 74% of female subjects and 87% of male subjects had CBs greater than 20.00 mm superior to the LP. No clinically relevant relationships were found between the CB and any of the other measured landmarks. CONCLUSIONS: Based on this cadaver sample, CPP below the level of the LP in a supine individual would be unlikely to compress the CB and thus unlikely to trigger the baroreflex or occlude the region of greatest atherosclerotic buildup. If a pulse is not palpable below the LP, moving vertically up to 1 cm above the LP in a supine individual would be likely to compress the CB in only a small number of cases.