Research Department, DBA U.S. Spine & Sport Foundation, The Vert Mooney Research Foundation, San Diego, California, USA.
Rehabilitation & Prosthetic Services (12RPS4), Orthotic, Prosthetic & Pedorthic Clinical Services (OPPCS), US Department of Veterans Affairs, Washington, DC, USA.
Phys Ther. 2024 Oct 2;104(10). doi: 10.1093/ptj/pzae101.
The objective of this study was to examine the associations between active, passive, and manual therapy interventions with the escalation-of-care events following physical therapist care for veterans with low back pain (LBP).
A retrospective cohort study was conducted in 3618 veterans who received physical therapist care for LBP between January 1, 2015 and January 1, 2018. The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Corporate Data Warehouse was utilized to identify LBP-related physical therapist visits and procedures, as well as opioid prescription and non-physical therapy clinic encounters. The association between physical therapist interventions with 1-year escalation-of-care events were assessed using adjusted odds ratios from logistic regression.
Nearly all veterans (98%) received active interventions, but only a minority (31%) received manual therapy. In the 1-year follow-up period, the odds of receiving an opioid prescription were 30% lower for those who received manual therapy in addition to active interventions, as compared with patients who received only active interventions. Moreover, the odds of receiving primary care, specialty care, and diagnostic testing were 30% to 130% higher for patients who received electrical stimulation or more than 1 passive intervention in addition to active treatments, as compared with patients who received only active interventions.
The use of manual therapy along with active interventions was associated with reduced prescription of opioids, while utilization of specific passive interventions such as electrical stimulation or multiple modalities in conjunction with active interventions resulted in increased escalation-of-care events.
The use of active interventions, which is supported by most clinical practice guidelines, was the cornerstone of physical therapist care for veterans with LBP. However, the use of clinical practice guideline-recommended manual therapy interventions was low but associated with reduced opioid prescriptions. The use of 2 or more different passive interventions along with active interventions was common (34%) and associated with less-than-optimal escalation-of-care outcomes.
本研究旨在探讨在退伍军人腰痛(LBP)物理治疗护理后,主动、被动和手动治疗干预与升级护理事件之间的关联。
对 2015 年 1 月 1 日至 2018 年 1 月 1 日期间接受 LBP 物理治疗的 3618 名退伍军人进行了回顾性队列研究。利用退伍军人事务部(VA)公司数据仓库,确定与 LBP 相关的物理治疗就诊和治疗过程,以及阿片类药物处方和非物理治疗诊所就诊。采用逻辑回归调整后的优势比评估物理治疗干预与 1 年升级护理事件之间的关联。
几乎所有退伍军人(98%)都接受了主动干预,但只有少数(31%)接受了手动治疗。在 1 年的随访期间,与仅接受主动干预的患者相比,同时接受主动干预和手动治疗的患者接受阿片类药物处方的可能性降低了 30%。此外,与仅接受主动干预的患者相比,接受电刺激或 1 种以上被动干预的患者接受初级保健、专科保健和诊断检查的可能性增加了 30%至 130%。
与仅接受主动干预相比,同时使用手动治疗和主动干预与减少阿片类药物处方相关,而使用电刺激或多种模式等特定被动干预与主动干预联合使用则导致升级护理事件增加。
主动干预的使用得到了大多数临床实践指南的支持,是退伍军人 LBP 物理治疗的基石。然而,临床实践指南推荐的手动治疗干预的使用(34%)很低,但与减少阿片类药物处方相关。与主动干预联合使用 2 种或更多不同的被动干预是常见的(34%),但与不太理想的升级护理结果相关。