Physiotherapy assessment and treatment of patients with tibial external fixator: a systematic scoping review.

PURPOSE: To map evidence regarding physiotherapy assessment and treatment of patients with tibial external fixator (EF), and to point out literature gaps for further research. METHODS: Systematic scoping review conducted in four databases. We included both experimental and non-experimental studies involving patients with tibial EF and outcomes of interest. We recorded study design, population, sample size, sample age, reason for EF use, type of surgery, type of EF used, instruments used for assessing function, pain, quality of life, satisfaction, psychosocial aspects, and physiotherapy treatment descriptions from included studies. We categorised data accordingly to outcomes assessed and physiotherapy treatments description. RESULTS: Eighty-six studies were included involving 3070 patients. Causes of fixator use were traumatic conditions, acquired and congenital deformities, and non-traumatic conditions, like compartmental osteoarthritis. Function was assessed in about three-quarters of included studies, though other outcomes were not presented in most studies. Only one study described satisfactorily the physiotherapy treatment. Almost half of the studies did not provide any description of the rehabilitation process. CONCLUSIONS: There is little evidence about the assessment of function, pain, quality of life, satisfaction, psychosocial aspects, and other outcomes in tibial EF patients. Physiotherapy treatment in these patients is poorly reported.Protocol registration: Open Science Framework: doi:10.17605/OSF.IO/UT2DAIMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATIONRehabilitation programmes and research should consider that most studies with tibial external fixator (EF) patients did not evaluate outcomes routinely used in physiotherapy assessment.Rehabilitation programmes should consider that the instruments used in evaluation of tibial EF patients have unknown measurement properties.Rehabilitation programmes should consider that treatment of patients with tibial EF involves different types of interventions, however, they are poorly described or not described in most studies.

Does focus of attention alter craniocervical flexion test motor learning? A randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effects of three different foci of attention (internal, external and mixed) on motor learning using craniocervical flexion test in inexperienced participants. METHODS: Ninety healthy young adults, with no experience in the task, practiced the craniocervical flexion test under three different focus of attention: a) Mixed Focus (internal plus external), b) Internal Focus, and c) External Focus. We assessed immediate, post-training, and retention (one week after the last training session) aspects of motor learning by quantifying (i) the activity of the superficial cervical flexors muscles, (ii) craniocervical range of motion, and (iii) the performance on the craniocervical flexion test. RESULTS: None of the groups showed any significant immediate, post-training, or retention effects on superficial neck flexors activity and craniocervical range of motion progression. At immediate assessment, mixed focus had greater craniocervical flexion performance than external (MD 0.9, 95%CI 0.2 to 1.5), and internal foci (MD 1.4, 95%CI 0.8 to 2.1). At post-training, mixed focus led to better craniocervical performance compared to external (MD 1.6, 95%CI 0.8 to 2.4) and internal foci (MD 2.7, 95%CI 1.9 to 3.5). External focus had better scores on the craniocervical flexion test performance than internal focus (MD 1.1, 95%CI 0.3 to 1.9). Results remained similar at retention, with mixed focus being superior to internal (MD 2.3, 95%CI 1.7 to 3) and external foci (MD 1.5, 95%CI 0.9 to 2.1) on craniocervical flexion test performance. Similarly, the performance on the craniocervical flexion test performance remained similar at retention between external and internal foci (MD 0.9, 95%CI 0.2 to 1.5). CONCLUSION: In inexperienced asymptomatic participants, different foci of attention were not able to change cervical muscle activity and craniocervical range of motion during the craniocervical flexion test. Mixed focus was better than external and internal focus on the craniocervical flexion test. These findings were retained after one week.

Measurement Properties of the Craniocervical Flexion Test: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVE: Patients with neck pain commonly have altered activity of the neck muscles. The craniocervical flexion test (CCFT) is used to assess the function of the deep neck flexor muscles in patients with musculoskeletal neck disorders. Systematic reviews summarizing the measurement properties of the CCFT are outdated. The objective of this study was to systematically review the measurement properties of the CCFT for assessing the deep neck flexor muscles. METHODS: The data sources MEDLINE, EMBASE, Physiotherapy Evidence Database, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Scopus, and Science Direct were searched in April 2019. Studies of any design that reported at least 1 measurement property of the CCFT for assessing the deep neck flexor muscles were selected. Two reviewers independently extracted data and rated the risk of bias of individual studies using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) risk-of-bias checklist. The overall rating for each measurement property was classified as "positive," "indeterminate," or "negative." The overall rating was accompanied with a level of evidence. RESULTS: Fourteen studies were included in the data synthesis. The ratings were positive, and the level of evidence was moderate for interrater and intrarater reliability and convergent validity. There was conflicting rating and level of evidence for discriminative validity. Measurement error was indeterminate, with an unknown level of evidence. Responsiveness was negative, with a limited level of evidence. A limitation of this study was that only papers published in English were included. CONCLUSIONS: The CCFT is a valid and reliable test that can be used in clinical practice as an assessment test. Because of the conflicting and low-quality evidence, caution is advised when using the CCFT as a discriminative test and as an outcome measure. Future better-designed studies are warranted.

Short-Term Effects of Different Rates of Thoracic Mobilization on Pressure Pain Thresholds in Asymptomatic Individuals: A Randomized Crossover Trial.

OBJECTIVE: The primary aim of this study was to determine the effects of different rates of thoracic spine passive accessory intervertebral mobilization (PAIVM) on pressure pain threshold (PPT) at T4. The secondary aim was to investigate the widespread effects of different rates of thoracic PAIVM. METHODS: Twenty asymptomatic participants were randomly assigned to 3 experimental conditions: posteroanterior rotatory thoracic PAIVM at 2 Hz, 0.5 Hz, and placebo. Each participant received all 3 experimental conditions in a random order with a washout period of at least 48 hours between each procedure. The PPT was measured in 3 different points: pre-treatment, immediately after, and 15 minutes after the treatment at C7 and T4 spinous process, first interossei dorsal on the right and left hands and tibial tuberosity bilaterally. A repeated-measures analysis of covariance adjusted by baseline values was used to assess between-group differences at each point. Pairwise comparisons were adjusted for multiple tests with a Bonferroni correction. A P value < .05 was considered significant. RESULTS: There was no between-group differences on PPT at T4 when comparing 0.5 Hz (mean difference -0.29; 95% CI -0.99 to 0.42; P = .999) or 2 Hz (mean difference -0.37; 95% CI -1.1 to 0.33; P = .528) to placebo. CONCLUSION: None of the mobilization techniques in this study (0.5 Hz, 2 Hz, and placebo) showed a significant change of PPT both locally and at distant sites at any point in asymptomatic participants.

Autonomic function and pressure pain threshold following thoracic mobilization in asymptomatic subjects: A randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effects of two different mobilization techniques and a placebo intervention applied to the thoracic spine on heart rate variability (HRV) and pressure pain threshold (PPT) in asymptomatic individuals. METHODS: Sixty healthy asymptomatic subjects aged between 18 and 40 years old were randomized to a single session of one of the three interventions: posterior-to-anterior (PA) rotatory thoracic passive accessory intervertebral mobilization (PAIVM) (PA group), unilateral thoracic PA in slump position (SLUMP group) or placebo intervention (Placebo group). HRV and PPT at C7 and T4 spinous process, first dorsal interossei muscles bilaterally, and muscle belly of tibialis anterior bilaterally were measured before and immediately after the intervention. A univariate analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) adjusted for baseline values assessed the effect of "Group". Pairwise comparisons with Bonferroni adjustment for multiple comparisons were performed. RESULTS: There were no significant between-group differences for HRV. A significant between-group difference for PPT in the ipsilateral tibia was found favoring the SLUMP group in comparison with the PA group. There were no significant between-group differences for PPT in the other landmarks. CONCLUSION: A single treatment of thoracic PAIVM in prone lying and slump position did not alter PPT and HRV compared to placebo in asymptomatic subjects.

Measurement properties of the craniocervical flexion test: a systematic review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Neck pain is the leading cause of years lived with disability worldwide and it accounts for high economic and societal burden. Altered activation of the neck muscles is a common musculoskeletal impairment presented by patients with neck pain. The craniocervical flexion test with pressure biofeedback unit has been widely used in clinical practice to assess function of deep neck flexor muscles. This systematic review will assess the measurement properties of the craniocervical flexion test for assessing deep cervical flexor muscles. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a protocol for a systematic review that will follow the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis statement. MEDLINE (via PubMed), EMBASE, PEDro, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Scopus and Science Direct will be systematically searched from inception. Studies of any design that have investigated and reported at least one measurement property of the craniocervical flexion test for assessing the deep cervical flexor muscles will be included. All measurement properties will be considered as outcomes. Two reviewers will independently rate the risk of bias of individual studies using the updated COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments risk of bias checklist. A structured narrative synthesis will be used for data analysis. Quantitative findings for each measurement property will be summarised. The overall rating for a measurement property will be classified as 'positive', 'indeterminate' or 'negative'. The overall rating will be accompanied with a level of evidence. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval and patient consent are not required since this is a systematic review based on published studies. Findings will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal for publication. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42017062175.

Effectiveness of Physiotherapy interventions plus Extrinsic Feedback for neck disorders: A systematic review with meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: To systematically review the effectiveness of Physiotherapy interventions combined with extrinsic feedback (EF) compared to Physiotherapy interventions alone or control for the management of neck pain and disability. METHODS: Randomized clinical trials were searched and retrieved from six databases, from inception through August 2016. Risk of bias of included studies was assessed using the PEDro scale. When possible data were pooled and Meta-analyses were conducted. The quality and strength of evidence for each outcome was assessed using the GRADE approach. RESULTS: Eight studies (n = 677) were included in the review. The pooled estimates suggested Physiotherapy intervention + EF was not superior to Physiotherapy intervention alone for disability (MD = -0.38; 95%CI = -0.91 to 0.18; I2 = 82%), but was superior for pain (MD = -0.37; 95%CI = -0.73 to -0.01; I2 = 68%). Physiotherapy intervention + EF was not superior than control for disability scores (SMD = -3.94; 95%CI = -12.06 to 4.18; I2 = 92%). Physiotherapy intervention + EF intervention was more effective than control for pain scores at short-term (SMD = -1.44; 95%CI = -2.25 to-0.63; I2 = 50%). Most studies did not specify nor use the ideal characteristics of EF. CONCLUSION: There is very low quality of evidence that Physiotherapy intervention + EF is more effective than Physiotherapy intervention alone or control for short-term pain, but not for disability. Physiotherapy intervention plus EF was more effective than Physiotherapy alone for acute neck pain, but not for chronic pain or disability. There was high risk of bias within included studies. Future studies are likely to change the estimates of the effects of Physiotherapy intervention plus EF on neck rehabilitation.