Physical therapy treatment dose for nontraumatic neck pain: A comparison between 2 patient groups

被引:17
作者
Clair, Dean A.
Edmondston, Stephen J.
T Allison, Garry
机构
[1] Curtin Univ Technol, Sch Physiotherapy, Perth, WA 6845, Australia
[2] Osborne Pk Hosp, Dept Physiotherapy, Stirling, WA, Australia
[3] Univ Western Australia, Sch Surg & Pathol, Ctr Musculoskeletal Studies, Perth, WA 6009, Australia
关键词
classification; neck pain; physical therapy; treatment dose;
D O I
10.2519/jospt.2006.2299
中图分类号
R826.8 [整形外科学]; R782.2 [口腔颌面部整形外科学]; R726.2 [小儿整形外科学]; R62 [整形外科学(修复外科学)];
学科分类号
摘要
Study Design: Prospective cohort study. Objectives: To classify patients with nonacute, nontraumatic neck pain according to the dominant impairment of spinal function, and to determine whether there were differences in the amount of treatment sessions required (treatment dose) to achieve a significant change in the patients disorder. Background: Classification of patients with mechanical neck pain may be an important process in optimizing treatment prescription and evaluating treatment response. However, patient classification has not been used to consider possible differences in the amount of treatment sessions (treatment dose) required to achieve a significant change in the neck pain disorder. Methods and Measures: Ninety-two patients with nonacute, nontraumatic neck pain were classified into 2 groups, according to the dominant impairment of spinal function. Of the 77 patients who completed treatment, 63 (82%) were classified as having a "movement disorder," while the remainder was classified into a "loading disorder" group. Physical therapists who were blinded to the patient classification provided multimodal physical therapy treatment as considered appropriate and the patients were discharged when the optimal treatment response had been achieved. Results: There was no difference in pain intensity or global disability level between the groups at baseline. Both groups achieved a significant improvement in neck pain and disability following treatment, and there was no significant difference between groups in the magnitude of the treatment response. The number of treatment sessions received by the loading group (mean +/- SD, 7.3 +/- 4.5) was significantly lower than the number received by the movement group (mean +/- SD, 11.5 +/- 5.9; 95% CI: -7.6 to -0.8; P<.01). Patients in the loading group were 2.4 times as likely to be discharged at any particular treatment session (95% CI: 1.1 to 4.1, P<.005) compared to those in the movement group. Conclusion: For patients with nontraumatic neck pain, classification according to impairment of spinal function may be a useful indicator of the number of physical therapy treatment sessions required to achieve a significant treatment response.
引用
收藏
页码:867 / 875
页数:9
相关论文
共 38 条
[1]
Albright J, 2001, PHYS THER, V81, P1701
[2]
CERVICAL ZYGAPOPHYSEAL JOINT PAIN PATTERNS .2. A CLINICAL-EVALUATION [J].
APRILL, C ;
DWYER, A ;
BOGDUK, N .
SPINE, 1990, 15 (06) :458-461
[3]
The neck [J].
Bogduk, N .
BEST PRACTICE & RESEARCH IN CLINICAL RHEUMATOLOGY, 1999, 13 (02) :261-285
[4]
The clinical course and prognostic factors of non-specific neck pain: a systematic review [J].
Borghouts, JAJ ;
Koes, BW ;
Bouter, LM .
PAIN, 1998, 77 (01) :1-13
[5]
NECK PAIN IN THE GENERAL-POPULATION [J].
BOVIM, G ;
SCHRADER, H ;
SAND, T .
SPINE, 1994, 19 (12) :1307-1309
[6]
Proposal of a classification system for patients with neck pain [J].
Childs, MJD ;
Fritz, JM ;
Piva, SR ;
Whitman, JA .
JOURNAL OF ORTHOPAEDIC & SPORTS PHYSICAL THERAPY, 2004, 34 (11) :686-696
[7]
Clair Dean, 2004, Physiother Res Int, V9, P43, DOI 10.1002/pri.299
[8]
David J, 1998, BRIT J RHEUMATOL, V37, P1118
[9]
An assessment of the efficacy of physical therapy and physical modalities for the control of chronic musculoskeletal pain [J].
Feine, JS ;
Lund, JP .
PAIN, 1997, 71 (01) :5-23
[10]
CLINICAL CLASSIFICATION AS A PREDICTOR OF THERAPEUTIC OUTCOME AFTER CERVICAL EPIDURAL STEROID INJECTION [J].
FERRANTE, FM ;
WILSON, SP ;
LACOBO, C ;
ORAV, EJ ;
ROCCO, AG ;
LIPSON, S .
SPINE, 1993, 18 (06) :730-736