The aim of this study was to describe and update current knowledge of manual therapy accuracy in treating cervical and lumbar radiculopathy, to identify the limitations in current studies, and to suggest areas for future research. The study was conducted according to PRISMA guidelines for systematic reviews. A comprehensive literature review was conducted using PubMed and Web of Science databases up to April 2020. The following inclusion criteria were used: (1) presence of radiculopathy; (2) treatment defined as manual therapy (i.e., traction, manipulation, mobilization); and (3) publication defined as a Randomized Controlled Trial. The electronic literature search resulted in 473 potentially relevant articles. Finally, 27 articles were accepted: 21 on cervical (CR) and 6 in lumbar radiculopathy (LR). The mean PEDro score for CR was 6.6 (SD 1.3), and for LR 6.7 (SD 1.6). Traction-oriented techniques are the most frequently chosen treatment form for CR and are efficient in reducing pain and improving functional outcomes. In LR, each of the included publications used a different form of manual therapy, which makes it challenging to summarize knowledge in this group. Of included publications, 93% were either of moderate or low quality, which indicates that quality improvement is necessary for this type of research.

The COVID-19 pandemic brought out the need to deliver health care services at a distance in the form of telerehabilitation (TR). This study aimed to analyse the Italian speech and language therapists’ (SLTs) opinions on the feasibility of the TR in the field of speech-language therapy during the COVID-19 pandemic. We developed an anonymous survey to determine the SLTs’ opinions on feasibility of TR during lockdown caused by COVID-19. We analysed the survey’s answers provided by 136 SLTs. Cronbach’s alpha coefficient showed good reliability of the survey. The SLTs working previously with TR showed better judgements regarding this method. The comparison analysis between TR and face-to-face treatment delivery showed statistically significant differences as follows: “importance” (4.35 vs. 3.32, p = 0.001), “feasibility” (3.37 vs. 2.11, p < 0.001), “alternative form” (3.64 vs. 2.58, p = 0.001) and “comparison” (2.24 vs. 1.69, p < 0.001), but not with “familiarity” (p = 0.81). The survey showed that most of the Italian SLTs were not satisfied with TR systems. SLTs who used TR previously had a better opinion on this treatment modality. Experience and familiarity with TR systems were key factors for the use of this new rehabilitation modality.

Lumbar segmental instability (LSI) can cause pain and disability, and its background can be related to lumbar disc herniation (LDH). This retrospective study was conducted to analyze the prevalence of lumbar segmental instability (LSI) in young patients with different types of lumbar disc herniation (LDH). The study evaluated 133 individuals (18–25 years old) who suffered from LDH and underwent MRI and flexion-extension X-rays. Two groups were created: protrusion (PRO) and extrusion (EXT). LSI was scored positive when translatory motion was greater than 4 mm anteriorly or 2 mm posteriorly at the level of herniation. Statistica 13 was used to perform statistics. The LSI overall prevalence was 18.33% in PRO and 21.92% in EXT (p > 0.05). Out of all LSI positives, higher LSI incidence was observed in females compared to males; in PRO: 63.64%; in EXT: 68.75% (p > 0.05). LSI correlated positively with the passive lumbar extension test (PLE) (R = 0.32; p = 0.01) in the PRO group only. In summary, the results showed that the overall incidence of LSI was higher with severer disc damage. In addition, females were more prone to this pathology. However, the different types of LDH do not significantly affect the prevalence of LSI in young individuals.

This study aimed to evaluate the differences in patient satisfaction between telerehabilitation and traditional face-to-face rehabilitation and to identify the impact of personality traits on patient satisfaction with the remote form of rehabilitation. Eighty participants with musculoskeletal pain were recruited for the study. The telerehabilitation group (n = 40) completed a single remote session of rehabilitation, whereas the traditional rehabilitation group (n = 40) completed a single face-to-face session. After therapy, each participant was asked to complete a tailored satisfaction survey using Google Forms. The Health Care Satisfaction Questionnaire (HCSQ) and the International Personality Item Pool-Big Five Markers-20 (IPIP-BFM-20) were used as outcome measures. Considering the results of patient satisfaction with healthcare service, there were no statistically significant differences between telerehabilitation and traditional rehabilitation groups in the total HCSQ score and its subscales. For the complete HCSQ, agreeableness, conscientiousness, and extraversion were essential predictor variables, accounting for 51% of the variance in patient satisfaction. In conclusion, there were no differences in patient satisfaction between telerehabilitation and traditional rehabilitation groups. In the telerehabilitation group, higher agreeableness levels and lower conscientiousness and extraversion level could predict patients’ satisfaction with telerehabilitation.

BACKGROUND: Lumbar vertebrae carry the greatest load from the spinal column, often leading to several pathologies, including degenerative disc disease (DDD), potentially disturbing spinal movement patterns. Mobilisation increases hypomobile segment mobility, however there is little evidence on mobilisation in patients suffering from different types of DDD. OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy of mobilisation in young patients with DDD, as diagnosed by MRI. METHODS: Thirty patients (24–35 years) participated in this study, and were divided into two groups, based on progression levels of DDD diagnosed by MRI (protrusion-PRO/extrusion-EXT). Twenty sessions of sustained stretch mobilisation (grade III) were applied to both groups over four weeks. Numeric Rating Scale (NRS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), straight leg raise (SLR), passive lumbar extension (PLE) and lumbar range of motion (ROM) assessed outcome variables. Three trial stages were investigated: pre-therapy (1), post-therapy (2) and follow-up (3). RESULTS: Age (p= 0.007) and NRS (p= 0.002) were significantly different before therapy. Patient outcomes were significantly improved for all parameters in both groups, except SLR which improved in the EXT group only (p= 0.043). CONCLUSIONS: Applied treatments improved patient outcomes and were statistically significant in both groups, however, better outcomes were observed in the EXT group during follow-up. Mobilisation was a safe and effective procedure for the treatment of DDD.

The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy of stabilizing training for the deep core muscles of the lumbar spine in subjects with degenerative disc disease. This study was conducted on 38 participants. The participants were divided into two groups: the extrusion group (EXT, n = 17) and the protrusion group (PRO, n = 21). All the subjects underwent a four-week-long core stability exercise-based treatment (five sessions/week). Clinical outcome measures were assessed pre-intervention (pre), post-intervention (post) and four weeks after the intervention (follow-up). The primary outcome measures were the spinal range of motion (ROM; Spinal Mouse^® device) and the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). In the PRO group, the ROM decreased from 88.52° pre-intervention to 83.33° post-intervention and to 82.82° at follow-up (p = 0.01), while the ODI decreased from 16.14 points pre-intervention to 6.57 points post-intervention, with 9.42 points at follow-up (p < 0.01). In the EXT group, the ROM decreased from 81.00° pre-intervention to 77.05° post-intervention, then increased to 77.94° at follow-up (p = 0.03), while the ODI decreased from 22.58 points pre-intervention to 15.41 points post-intervention and to 14.70 points at follow-up (p < 0.001). Although the stabilizing exercise sessions improved the clinical outcomes in each group, we cannot make conclusions as to whether the type of intervertebral disc damage significantly affects the results of stabilizing exercise-based treatment.