SOMT University of Physiotherapy, Amersfoort, the Netherlands; Erasmus University, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Rotterdam University of Applied Sciences, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Musculoskelet Sci Pract. 2020 Apr;46:102069. doi: 10.1016/j.msksp.2019.102069. Epub 2019 Nov 10.
The aim of this study is to compare Dutch usual care musculoskeletal therapy in patients with non-specific neck pain with recommendations from international clinical practice guidelines. Physical therapy is diverse, as it may consist of exercise, massage, advice, and other modalities. Physical therapists with post graduate qualifications in manual therapy (MT) may additionally apply spinal thrust manipulation or non-thrust mobilization techniques to treat neck pain. It is important that, in the absence of a Dutch clinical guideline for the treatment of patients with neck pain, musculoskeletal therapists use the available recommendations from international clinical practice guidelines when treating patients with neck pain. One updated clinical practice guideline was identified (Blanpied, 2017), a report from the Task Force on Neck Pain (Guzman et al., 2008) and the IFOMPT International Framework for Examination of the Cervical Region for potential of Cervical Arterial Dysfunction prior to Orthopaedic Manual Therapy Intervention (Rushton et al., 2014). At baseline 1193 patients are included and data with regard to pain, disability, fear avoidance, expectations and applied treatment modalities are gathered. Outcome is measured using the Global Perceived Effect questionnaire. Results show that patients with acute neck pain are treated significantly more often with manipulation compared to patients with sub-acute or chronic neck pain (p < .000) and younger patients are treated with manipulation more often than older patients (p < .000). In the presence of comorbidity, the preference of spinal manipulation seems to diminish, in favour of mobilization and exercise. Almost every patient receives multimodal therapy (94.3%) and spinal manipulation and mobilization are rarely used as a stand-alone treatment (4.5% and 0.8%). Dutch musculoskeletal therapists choose treatment strategies that correspond with recommendations from international guidelines.
本研究旨在比较荷兰常规的肌肉骨骼治疗方法在非特异性颈痛患者中的应用与国际临床实践指南的建议。物理疗法多种多样,可能包括运动、按摩、建议和其他方式。具有研究生学历的物理治疗师(MT)可能会额外应用脊柱推压手法或非推压松动技术来治疗颈痛。重要的是,在缺乏针对颈痛患者的荷兰临床指南的情况下,肌肉骨骼治疗师在治疗颈痛患者时应使用国际临床实践指南中的现有建议。本研究确定了一个更新的临床实践指南(Blanpied,2017)、颈部疼痛工作组的报告(Guzman 等人,2008 年)和国际肌肉骨骼物理治疗师联合会在接受骨科手法治疗之前检查颈椎区域以评估潜在的颈内动脉功能障碍的国际框架(Rushton 等人,2014 年)。在基线时纳入了 1193 名患者,并收集了疼痛、残疾、恐惧回避、期望和应用的治疗方式的数据。使用总体感知效果问卷进行结果测量。结果表明,急性颈痛患者接受手法治疗的比例明显高于亚急性或慢性颈痛患者(p<0.000),年轻患者接受手法治疗的比例高于老年患者(p<0.000)。在存在合并症的情况下,似乎更倾向于使用松动而不是手法治疗。几乎每个患者都接受了多模式治疗(94.3%),手法治疗和松动治疗很少单独使用(4.5%和 0.8%)。荷兰肌肉骨骼治疗师选择的治疗策略与国际指南的建议相符。