Cost-effectiveness of specialised manual therapy versus orthopaedic care for musculoskeletal disorders: long-term follow-up and health economic model.

Background: Physiotherapy is usually the first line of treatment for musculoskeletal disorders. If pain persists, an appointment with an orthopaedic surgeon is indicated, but many disorders for which patients are placed on orthopaedic waiting lists cannot be treated in an orthopaedic clinic. Specialised manual therapy, although not mainstream, can be an effective alternative to orthopaedic care, although its cost-effectiveness beyond 12 months is unknown. Objectives: To perform an 8-year follow-up of the quality of life and costs of specialised manual therapy versus standard orthopaedic care for working-age patients with common nonsurgical musculoskeletal disorders referred to orthopaedic surgeons and to develop a health economic model. Design: Cost-effectiveness study using Markov modelling. Methods: The index group of a previously published pragmatic randomised controlled trial received a maximum of five treatment sessions of specialised manual therapy, while the control group received orthopaedic 'care as usual'. At 3, 6, 12 and 96 months, Health-Related Quality of Life and costs were measured with Short Form Health Survey 36, Short Form Health Survey 6D and Diagnostic Related Groups. An incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was calculated, a Markov model was developed and a sensitivity analysis was performed. Results: Overall, 95% (n = 75) of the participants completed the 8-year follow-up. Recovery rates during the first 3 months ('per protocol') in the index and control group were 69% and 58%, respectively. The index group had 0.159 more gains in quality-adjusted life years and cost 40,270 SEK (€4027) less per patient over 8 years. The sensitivity analysis results were consistent with the main results. Conclusion: Specialised manual therapy dominated standard care after 8 years. The results of this small but very first study are promising; therefore, further exploration within other health care professions, clinics and/or countries is required. Our study raises questions about the triaging of orthopaedic outpatients, cost-effectiveness and resource allocation. Registration: Not applicable per the information provided by ClinicalTrials.gov. Plain Language Summary: Specialised manual therapy is more cost-effective than 'care as usual' for working-age patients referred to an orthopaedist. This study provides an 8-year follow-up of the cost effects and quality of life of a previously published trial. Why was this study conducted? The standard care for musculoskeletal pain consists of exercises with a physiotherapist in primary care. If the pain persists, a referral to an orthopaedic clinic is often made. Many of these referrals are inappropriate because they concern pain from muscles and joints that do not benefit from surgery or the resources available in an orthopaedic clinic. There is a gap in competence and treatment between primary and specialised care that is costly, time- and resource-consuming and causes prolonged patient suffering. Although specialised manual therapy (MT) is effective, its use is not mainstream. Costs and effects after more than 12 months of treatment that may shorten waiting lists have never been evaluated. What did the researchers do? Quality of life and costs were compared in 75 patients with nonsurgical disorders referred to orthopaedic surgeons at 8 years after treatment with specialised MT or standard orthopaedic care. A health economics model for the probability of recovery was also developed and tested. What did the researchers find? Compared with the control group, the study participants treated with specialised MT had a better quality of life, required fewer health care interventions, underwent less surgery, incurred significantly lower costs and demonstrated an increased probability of recovery. What do these findings mean? It seems probable that using specialised MT for an old, well-known structural problem may yield better treatment effects at a significantly lower cost. Our study findings suggest that policy recommendations should focus on costs and effects rather than resource utilisation alone. The study is small and requires expansion using its economic health model.

Naprapathy versus orthopaedic standard care for common musculoskeletal disorders: an 8-year follow-up of a pragmatic randomized controlled trial in Sweden.

BACKGROUND: Musculoskeletal pain is among the most common reasons for seeking care, specialist competence for its treatment in primary care limited and waiting lists for orthopaedics often amongst the longest. Many referrals to orthopaedics do not concern disorders that benefit from surgery. Manual therapy is effective, yet not integrated in national health care systems, and there is a lack of research on other than neck and low back pain, and a lack of long-term follow-ups. The present study evaluates the long-term effects of a manual therapy (naprapathy) for common orthopaedic disorders. METHODS: An 8-year follow-up (96 months) of a pragmatic randomized controlled trial of naprapathy (experimental group) versus standard orthopaedic care (control group) for non-surgical patients of working age with the most common musculoskeletal disorders on the waiting lists (n = 78). Bodily pain, physical function (SF36), Quality of life (QoL; SF6D), and data on health care utilization were collected. The treatments lasted from January 2007 to November 2007. RESULTS: N = 75 participants in the original study sample completed the 8-year follow-up. The differences in bodily pain (21.7 (95% CI: 9.1-34.3)), physical function (17.6 (6.7-28.4)), and QoLs (0.823 (95% CI: 0.785-0.862) compared with 0.713 (95% CI: 0.668-0.758)) were statistically significantly in favor of the experimental group (p-values < 0.01). After sensitivity analysis the experimental group had altogether 260 health care visits compared with 1161 in the control group. CONCLUSIONS: Naprapathy is a continuously effective treatment. Together with earlier research our study suggests that specialized manual therapy should be considered when triaging patients with common non-surgical musculoskeletal disorders in national health care systems. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Not applicable, as per information given by ClinicalTrials.gov.

Musculoskeletal injuries in young ballet dancers.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to examine the incidence of musculoskeletal injuries, site and type of injury, and the most common injury diagnoses in young ballet dancers at the Royal Swedish Ballet School, a public school in Stockholm. METHODS: This retrospective study of 476 students (297 girls and 179 boys) aged 10-21 years was based on medical records for the period August 1988 to June 1995. Data on diagnosis, site of injury and type of injury were collected, and the injuries were classified as traumatic or due to overuse. RESULTS: In total, 438 injuries were recorded. The injury incidence rate was 0.8 per 1,000 dance hours in both female and male dancers and tended to increase with increasing age. Most injuries occurred as the result of overuse. Seventy-six per cent of all injuries occurred in the lower extremities. Ankle sprain was the most common traumatic diagnosis, while the most common overuse-related diagnosis was tendinosis pedis. A few gender differences were noted. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this study suggest that there is a need to apply primary injury prevention in young ballet dancers. Future studies could aim to identify (1) injury risk factors and (2) injury prevention programmes that are effective at reducing injury rates in young dancers.

Naprapathic manual therapy or conventional orthopedic care for outpatients on orthopedic waiting lists?: A pragmatic randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: Traditionally, orthopedic outpatient waiting lists are long, and many referrals are for conditions that do not respond to interventions available at an orthopedic outpatient department. The overall objective of this trial was to investigate whether it is possible to reduce orthopedic waiting lists through integrative medicine. Specific aims were to compare the effects of naprapathic manual therapy to conventional orthopedic care for outpatients with nonurgent musculoskeletal disorders unlikely to benefit from surgery regarding pain, physical function, and perceived recovery. METHODS: Seventy-eight patients referred to an orthopedic outpatient department in Sweden were included in this pragmatic randomized controlled trial. The 2 interventions compared were naprapathic manual therapy (index group) and conventional orthopedic care (control group). Pain, physical function, and perceived recovery were measured by questionnaires at baseline and after 12, 24, and 52 weeks. The number of patients being discharged from the waiting lists and the level of agreement concerning management decisions between the naprapath and the orthopedists were also estimated. RESULTS: After 52 weeks, statistically significant differences between the groups were found regarding impairment in pain, increased physical function, and regarding perceived recovery, favoring the index group. Sixty-two percent of the patients in the index group agreed to be discharged from the waiting list. The level of agreement concerning the management decisions was 80%. DISCUSSION: The trial suggests that naprapathic manual therapy may be an alternative to consider for orthopedic outpatients with disorders unlikely to benefit from surgery.