To investigate the role of early initiation of rehabilitation on length of stay (LOS) and cost following total hip arthroplasty, total knee arthroplasty, or unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Electronic databases PubMed, CINAHL, Pedro, Embase, AMED, and the Cochrane Library were searched in July 2016. Five additional trials were identified through reference list scanning. Eligible studies were published in English language peer-reviewed journals; included participants that had undergone total hip arthroplasty, total knee arthroplasty, or unicompartmental knee arthroplasty reported clearly defined timing of rehabilitation onset for at least two groups; and reported at least one measure of LOS or cost. Inclusion criteria were applied by 2 independent authors, with disagreements being determined by a third author. Searching identified 1,029 potential articles, of which 17 studies with 26,614 participants met the inclusion criteria. Data was extracted independently by 2 authors, with disagreements being determined by a third author. Methodological quality of each study was evaluated independently by 2 authors using the Downs and Black checklist. Pooled analyses were analyzed using a random-effects model with inverse variance methods to calculate standardized mean differences (SMD) and 95% confidence intervals for LOS. When compared with standard care, early initiation of physical therapy demonstrated a decrease in length of stay for the 4 randomized clinical trials (SMD = -1.90; 95% CI -2.76 to -1.05; I² = 93%) and for the quasi-experimental and 5 prospective studies (SMD = -1.47; 95% CI -1.85 to -1.10; I² = 88%). Early initiation of rehabilitation following total hip arthroplasty, total knee arthroplasty, or unicompartmental knee arthroplasty is associated with a shorter LOS, a lower overall cost, with no evidence of an increased number of adverse reactions. Additional high quality studies with standardized methodology are needed to further examine the impact of early initiation of physical therapy among patients with joint replacement procedures.

Low back pain (LBP) is common and associated healthcare costs are significant. While clinical practice guidelines have been established in an attempt to reduce costs and healthcare utilization, it is unclear if adherence to physical therapy guidelines for those with LBP is efficacious. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to assess current evidence and evaluate the impact of physical therapy guideline adherence on subsequent healthcare costs and utilization for patients with LBP. An electronic search was conducted in PubMed, CINAHL (EBSCO Host), AMED (Ovid), and PEDro. Studies included in this review were published in peer reviewed journals and the primary mode of treatment was administered by a physical therapist. Also, the definition of adherence was clearly defined based on claims data and at least one measure of cost or utilization reported. Quality assessment was evaluated via a modified Downs and Black checklist. Due to the conceptual heterogeneity in variable measurements, data were qualitatively synthesized and stratified by reported utilization and cost measures. A total of 256 results were identified and after omitting duplicates, 4 articles were retained, which were all retrospective in nature. Quality scores ranged between 19 and 21 points out of a possible 26 on the modified Downs and Black checklist. All identified studies used the same definition of guideline adherence, which focused on billing active codes and minimizing use of passive codes. The results demonstrated trends that, with a few exceptions, suggested those patients with LBP that were treated with an adherent guideline program demonstrated decreased healthcare utilization and an overall healthcare savings. Preliminary evidence suggests that adherence to established clinical practice guidelines may assist with decreasing healthcare utilization and costs. Additional research based on prospective randomized controlled trials are needed to provide high quality evidence regarding the impact of guideline adherence among patients with LBP.

Study Design: Randomized clinical trial.Objective: To investigate the short-term effects of thoracic spine thrust manipulation combined with cervical spine nonthrust manipulation (experimental group) versus cervical spine nonthrust manipulation alone (comparison group) in individuals with mechanical neck pain.Background: Research has demonstrated improved outcomes with both nonthrust manipulation directed at the cervical spine and thrust manipulation directed at the thoracic spine in patients with neck pain. Previous studies have not determined if thoracic spine thrust manipulation may increase benefits beyond those provided by cervical nonthrust manipulation alone.Methods: Sixty-four participants with mechanical neck pain were randomized into 1 of 2 groups, an experimental or comparison group. Both groups received 2 treatment sessions of cervical spine nonthrust manipulation and a home exercise program consisting of active range-of-motion exercises, and the experimental group received additional thoracic spine thrust manipulations. Outcome measures were collected at baseline and at a 1-week follow-up, and included the numeric pain rating scale, the Neck Disability Index, and the global rating of change.Results: Participants in the experimental group demonstrated significantly greater improvements (P<.001) on both the numeric pain rating scale and Neck Disability Index at the 1-week follow-up compared to those in the comparison group. In addition, 31 of 33 (94%) participants in the experimental group, compared to 11 of 31 participants (35%) in the comparison group, indicated a global rating of change score of +4 or higher at the 1-week follow-up, with an associated number needed to treat of 2.Conclusion: Individuals with neck pain who received a combination of thoracic spine thrust manipulation and cervical spine nonthrust manipulation plus exercise demonstrated better overall short-term outcomes on the numeric pain rating scale, the Neck Disability Index, and the global rating of change.Level of Evidence: Therapy, level 1b. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2013;43(3):118–127. Epub 7 December 2012. doi:10.2519/jospt.2013.4221

To investigate the role of thoracic spine manipulation (TSM) on pain and disability in the management of mechanical neck pain (MNP). Electronic databases PubMed, CINAHL, Pedro, Embase, AMED, the Cochrane Library, and clinicaltrials.gov were searched in January 2018. Eligible studies were completed RCTs, written in English, had at least 2 groups with one group receiving TSM, had at least one measure of pain or disability, and included patients with MNP of any duration. The search identified 1717 potential articles, with 14 studies meeting inclusion criteria. Methodological quality was evaluated independently by two authors using the guidelines published by the Cochrane Collaboration. Pooled analyses were analyzed using a random-effects model with inverse variance methods to calculate mean differences (MD) and 95% confidence intervals for pain (VAS 0-100mm, NPRS 0-10pts; 0 = no pain) and disability (NDI and NPQ 0–100%; 0 = no disability). Across the included studies, there was increased risk of bias for inadequate provider and participant blinding. The GRADE approach demonstrated an overall level of evidence ranging from very low to moderate. Meta-analysis that compared TSM to thoracic or cervical mobilization revealed a significant effect favoring the TSM group for pain (MD -13.63; 95% CI: -21.79, -5.46) and disability (MD -9.93; 95% CI: -14.38, -5.48). Meta-analysis that compared TSM to standard care revealed a significant effect favoring the TSM group for pain (MD -13.21; 95% CI: -21.87, -4.55) and disability (MD -11.36; 95% CI: -18.93, -3.78) at short-term follow-up, and a significant effect for disability (MD -4.75; 95% CI: -6.54, -2.95) at long-term follow-up. Meta-analysis that compared TSM to cervical spine manipulation revealed a non-significant effect (MD 3.43; 95% CI: -7.26, 14.11) for pain without a distinction between immediate and short-term follow-up. The greatest limitation in this systematic review was the heterogeneity among the studies making it difficult to assess the true clinical benefit, as well as the overall level of quality of evidence. TSM has been shown to be more beneficial than thoracic mobilization, cervical mobilization, and standard care in the short-term, but no better than cervical manipulation or placebo thoracic spine manipulation to improve pain and disability. PROSPERO CRD42017068287

Kolber, MJ, Hanney, WJ, Cheatham, SW, Salamh, PA, Masaracchio, M, and Liu, X. Shoulder joint and muscle characteristics among weight-training participants with and without impingement syndrome.J Strength Cond Res31(4): 1024–1032, 2017—Subacromial impingement syndrome (SIS) has been reported as an etiological source of shoulder pain among weight-training (WT) participants; however, a paucity of evidence exists to describe intrinsic risk factors. The purpose of this study was to investigate specific risk-related joint and muscle adaptations among WT participants identified as having SIS based on a previously validated clinical testing cluster. Fifty-five men (mean age 27.3 years) who participated in recreational WT a minimum of 2 d·wk⁻¹were recruited, including 24 individuals with SIS and 31 without SIS serving as controls. Active range of motion (AROM), bodyweight-adjusted strength values, and strength ratios were compared between groups. Significant differences were present as WT participants with SIS had decreased internal and external rotation AROM (p≤ 0.016) and decreased bodyweight-adjusted strength values of the external rotator and lower trapezius musculature (p≤ 0.02) when compared with WT participants without SIS. Select strength ratios were greater in the SIS group (p≤ 0.004) implying agonist to antagonist muscle imbalances. The impaired joint and muscle characteristics identified among WT participants with SIS are not without consequence, as they are associated with shoulder disorders in both general and athletic populations. Practical applications for these findings may reside in exercise prescription that addresses internal rotation mobility, mitigates training bias, and favors muscles responsible for stabilization, such as the external rotators and lower trapezius. Strength and conditioning professionals should consider risk-related adaptations associated with WT when prescribing upper-extremity exercises.

Randomized clinical trial. To determine the effect of strain counterstrain (SCS) on dynamic balance and subjective sense of instability in individuals with chronic ankle instability (CAI). Although many studies have been published on CAI, the cause for this common clinical dysfunction remains inconclusive. No studies have assessed the effectiveness of SCS on CAI. At baseline all participants completed a demographic questionnaire, the star excursion balance test (SEBT), and the foot and ankle ability measure (FAAM). Following the baseline evaluation, participants were randomized into the SCS experimental group (EG) (n = 13) or the sham SCS group (SG) (n = 14). All participants received the assigned treatment once a week for 4 weeks and participated in a prescribed exercise program. At week 4, all participants repeated the outcome measures and completed a global rating of change (GROC) form. The primary aim was examined with a two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA). A significant group-by-time interaction was found for seven directions in the SEBT (P0.548), but the GROC revealed a significant difference (P = 0.014) in the mean score for the EG (3.92±1.66) when compared to the SG (2.43±1.66). Although SCS may not have an effect on subjective ankle function in individuals with CAI, preliminary evidence suggests that SCS may lead to an improvement in dynamic ankle stability and the subjective sense of ankle instability. Therapy, Level 1b.