Mulligan Concept manual therapy: Standardizing annotation

Manual therapy and exercise for lateral elbow pain

BACKGROUND

Manual therapy and prescribed exercises are often provided together or separately in contemporary clinical practice to treat people with lateral elbow pain.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of manual therapy, prescribed exercises or both for adults with lateral elbow pain.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the databases CENTRAL, MEDLINE and Embase, and trial registries until 31 January 2024, unrestricted by language or date of publication.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised or quasi-randomised trials. Participants were adults with lateral elbow pain. Interventions were manual therapy, prescribed exercises or both. Primary comparators were placebo or minimal or no intervention. We also included comparisons of manual therapy and prescribed exercises with either intervention alone, with or without glucocorticoid injection. Exclusions were trials testing a single application of an intervention or comparison of different types of manual therapy or prescribed exercises.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected studies for inclusion, extracted trial characteristics and numerical data, and assessed study risk of bias and certainty of evidence using GRADE. The main comparisons were manual therapy, prescribed exercises or both compared with placebo treatment, and with minimal or no intervention. Major outcomes were pain, disability, heath-related quality of life, participant-reported treatment success, participant withdrawals, adverse events and serious adverse events. The primary endpoint was end of intervention for pain, disability, health-related quality of life and participant-reported treatment success and final time point for adverse events and withdrawals.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty-three trials (1612 participants) met our inclusion criteria (mean age ranged from 38 to 52 years, 47% female, 70% dominant arm affected). One trial (23 participants) compared manual therapy to placebo manual therapy, 12 trials (1124 participants) compared manual therapy, prescribed exercises or both to minimal or no intervention, six trials (228 participants) compared manual therapy and exercise to exercise alone, one trial (60 participants) compared the addition of manual therapy to prescribed exercises and glucocorticoid injection, and four trials (177 participants) assessed the addition of manual therapy, prescribed exercises or both to glucocorticoid injection. Twenty-one trials without placebo control were susceptible to performance and detection bias as participants were not blinded to the intervention. Other biases included selection (nine trials, 39%, including two quasi-randomised), attrition (eight trials, 35%) and selective reporting (15 trials, 65%) biases. We report the results of the main comparisons. Manual therapy versus placebo manual therapy Low-certainty evidence, based upon a single trial (23 participants) and downgraded due to indirectness and imprecision, indicates manual therapy may reduce pain and elbow disability at the end of two to three weeks of treatment. Mean pain at the end of treatment was 4.1 points with placebo (0 to 10 scale) and 2.0 points with manual therapy, MD -2.1 points (95% CI -4.2 to -0.1). Mean disability was 40 points with placebo (0 to 100 scale) and 15 points with manual therapy, MD -25 points (95% CI -43 to -7). There was no follow-up beyond the end of treatment to show if these effects were sustained, and no other major outcomes were reported. Manual therapy, prescribed exercises or both versus minimal intervention Low-certainty evidence indicates manual therapy, prescribed exercises or both may slightly reduce pain and disability at the end of treatment, but the effects were not sustained, and there may be little to no improvement in health-related quality of life or number of participants reporting treatment success. We downgraded the evidence due to increased risk of performance bias and detection bias across all the trials, and indirectness due to the multimodal nature of the interventions included in the trials. At four weeks to three months, mean pain was 5.10 points with minimal treatment and manual therapy, prescribed exercises or both reduced pain by a MD of -0.53 points (95% CI -0.92 to -0.14, I2 = 43%; 12 trials, 1023 participants). At four weeks to three months, mean disability was 63.8 points with minimal or no treatment and manual therapy, prescribed exercises or both reduced disability by a MD of -5.00 points (95% CI -9.22 to -0.77, I2 = 63%; 10 trials, 732 participants). At four weeks to three months, mean quality of life was 73.04 points with minimal treatment on a 0 to 100 scale and prescribed exercises reduced quality of life by a MD of -5.58 points (95% CI -10.29 to -0.99; 2 trials, 113 participants). Treatment success was reported by 42% of participants with minimal or no treatment and 57.1% of participants with manual therapy, prescribed exercises or both, RR 1.36 (95% CI 0.96 to 1.93, I2 = 73%; 6 trials, 770 participants). We are uncertain if manual therapy, prescribed exercises or both results in more withdrawals or adverse events. There were 83/566 participant withdrawals (147 per 1000) from the minimal or no intervention group, and 77/581 (126 per 1000) from the manual therapy, prescribed exercises or both groups, RR 0.86 (95% CI 0.66 to 1.12, I2 = 0%; 12 trials). Adverse events were mild and transient and included pain, bruising and gastrointestinal events, and no serious adverse events were reported. Adverse events were reported by 19/224 (85 per 1000) in the minimal treatment group and 70/233 (313 per 1000) in the manual therapy, prescribed exercises or both groups, RR 3.69 (95% CI 0.98 to 13.97, I2 = 72%; 6 trials).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Low-certainty evidence from a single trial in people with lateral elbow pain indicates that, compared with placebo, manual therapy may provide a clinically worthwhile benefit in terms of pain and disability at the end of treatment, although the 95% confidence interval also includes both an important improvement and no improvement, and the longer-term outcomes are unknown. Low-certainty evidence from 12 trials indicates that manual therapy and exercise may slightly reduce pain and disability at the end of treatment, but this may not be clinically worthwhile and these benefits are not sustained. While pain after treatment was an adverse event from manual therapy, the number of events was too small to be certain.

Immediate Effects of Mulligan Mobilization on Elbow Proprioception in Healthy Individuals: A Randomized Placebo-Controlled Single-Blind Study

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to investigate the immediate effects of Mulligan's mobilization with movement (MWM) on elbow proprioception.

METHODS

The study included 26 participants in the intervention group and 30 participants in the control group. The intervention group received MWM, while the control group received a sham application. Proprioception was assessed with joint position sense error at baseline, immediately after mobilization, and 30 minutes after mobilization with 70° and 110° of elbow flexion. The hypothesis of interest was the group × time interaction.

RESULTS

At 110° of elbow flexion, group × time interaction was significant (F[2, 108] = 11.48, P = .001). In the paired comparisons, there was a statistically significant difference in favor of the control group in the first measurement (P = .003). No difference was detected in other time points (P = 1.00). At 70° of elbow flexion, there was no significant difference between the time point × group interaction (F[2, 108] = 1.37, P = .10). Therefore, no pairwise comparison was made.

CONCLUSION

In this study of healthy participants, no immediate difference was found between MWM and sham application on elbow proprioception.

A randomized controlled trial on pain, grip strength, and functionality in lateral elbow pain: Mulligan vs muscle energy techniques

BACKGROUND

Lateral elbow tendinopathy (LET) is one of the most common lesions of the upper extremity. The level of evidence from studies on LET treatment protocols is insufficient.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to compare the acute effects of mobilization with movement (MWM) and muscle energy technique (MET) on pain, grip strength, and functionality in patients diagnosed with LET.

METHODS

Forty-five patients with LET aged 30-55 years were enrolled in this study. Patients were divided into three groups: MWM, MET, and control group. The control group received a 4-week home exercise program. In addition to the home exercise program in the MWM group, 12 sessions of MWM and 12 sessions of MET were performed in the MET group. Participants' pain, grip strength, and functionality were assessed before and after the study.

RESULTS

After the treatment period, greater improvement in pain, grip strength, finger strength, and functionality were observed in the MWM and MET groups than in the control group (p< 0.05), but no statistically significant difference was found between the MWM and MET groups (p> 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

This study shows that MWM and MET, used in addition to home exercises, can be used to relieve pain and increase grip strength, finger strength, and functionality.

Efficacy of manual therapy on psychological status and pain in patients with neck pain. A randomized clinical trial

Objectives:

To compare the effectiveness of Maitland versus Mulligan mobilization techniques on pain, functional disability, and psychological status in patients with neck pain.

Methods:

Forty-four patients with nonspecific neck pain were randomly assigned to the Maitland group (n=22 patients received Maitland therapy [central or unilateral postero-anterior pressure] for 2 sessions/week for 3 weeks) and Mulligan group (n=22 patients received Mulligan sustained natural apophyseal glides for 2 sessions/week for 3 weeks). This study was conducted at the Rehabilitation Clinic, King Abdulaziz Hospital, Jeddah, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia between December 2016 to May 2017. The outcome measures were the numeric pain rating scale score, neck disability index score, beck depression inventory score, State-trait anxiety inventory score, fear avoidance beliefs questionnaire, and pain catastrophic scale results. The independent t-test, Shapiro-Wilk test, and paired t-test were used in data analysis.

Results:

There were significant improvements in mean values of the numeric pain rating scale, neck disability index, beck depression inventory, state-trait anxiety inventory scores, and pain catastrophic scale results after the interventions in both groups (p<0.05, all except fear avoidance beliefs results in mulligan group p>0.05), and there were no significant differences in mean values between the groups (p>0.05).

Conclusion:

In patients with nonspecific neck pain, Maitland and Mulligan mobilization techniques have positive effects on neck pain, functional disability, and selected psychological features with no significant difference between them.

Approaches to cervical spine mobilization for neck pain: a pilot randomized controlled trial

Study design

Pilot randomized controlled trial.

Background

Better understanding of the relative effectiveness of different approaches to cervical spine mobilization has been identified as a research priority in manual therapy practice. Two distinct approaches to the practice of mobilization have emerged in recent years, based on different reasoning models for selection of mobilization techniques. The objective of this pilot study was to assess feasibility aspects for a future randomized clinical trial by exploring short-term pain and disability outcomes after a single treatment with pragmatic versus prescriptive approaches to cervical mobilization for people with recent-onset neck pain at 48-h follow-up after randomization.

Methods

Twenty adults with a new episode of mechanical neck pain were randomly allocated to either pragmatic or prescriptive mobilization intervention groups. The pragmatic group received a single treatment of cervical mobilization with the technique, target segment, and grade selected by their treating therapist. The prescriptive group received a single treatment of standardized mobilization with techniques similar to a previous mobilization clinical trial. Feasibility outcomes were recruitment rates, randomization audit and completion of treatment and follow-up per protocol. The primary clinical outcome of interest was disability level measured at 48-h follow-up after randomization.

Results

Recruitment rates were approximately 2.5 participants per week and 100% of eligible participants were deemed suitable for treatment with cervical mobilization. There was sufficient variety in the range of pragmatic treatments selected and the data collection process imposed minimal burden on participants.

Conclusions

Our results provide supporting evidence for the feasibility of a future larger scale randomized clinical trial.

Trial registration

Trial registration: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12616000446460). Registered 6th April 2016. https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=370448&isReview=true

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12998-020-00348-z.

An empirical, pragmatic approach applying reflection in interaction approach to manual therapy treatments

Background: Most literature on decision processes within physiotherapy relates to "reasoning that results in action" - decisions based on information including assessments that are gathered prior to treatment decisions. A process of "reasoning in interaction" that is often used, particularly by expert clinicians, has received less attention. Objective:  To provide a theoretical and practical approach to applying reasoning in interaction in a musculoskeletal setting. Methods: The theory is: If an impairment that can be directly targeted by treatment (i.e. pain or limitation of passive movement) is related to patient's active impairments and functional limitations, then moment-to-moment changes in the targeted impairment can be used as feedback to guide real-time treatment modification before formal reassessment of functional limitations and other impairments. Results: Applying the theory to manual therapy results in parameters of techniques such as force, speed, direction and duration no longer being pre-determined, but rather being continually adjusted in real-time according to feedback from the patient through both therapist perception (changes in movement quantity or quality) and patient verbal responses. Conclusion: A process of continuous decision-making is described that the authors believe is used by many experienced clinicians but has not previously been adequately described in the literature. .

Effect of mobilization with movement on lateral knee pain due to proximal tibiofibular joint hypomobility

This case report describes a 45-year-old female who presented with lateral knee pain over the right proximal tibiofibular joint (PTFJ) managed unsuccessfully with rest, medications, bracing, injection, and physiotherapy. Clinical diagnosis of PTFJ hypomobility was based on concordant symptom reproduction with palpatory tenderness, accessory motion testing, and restricted anterior glide of the fibula. Intervention consisted of Mulligan's mobilization with movement and taping over the right PTFJ with immediate improvements noticed in pain, range of motion, and function. The patient was seen twice a week and was discharged after four treatment sessions. A follow-up after 6 months revealed that the patient was pain free and fully functional.

Effect of a novel mobilization with movement procedure on anterolateral ankle impingement - A case report

This case report describes a 50-year-old male who presented with right anterolateral ankle pain managed unsuccessfully with rest, medications, bracing, injection, physical therapy, and massage therapy. Clinical diagnosis of anterolateral ankle impingement was based on concordant symptom reproduction with palpatory tenderness and a positive lateral synovial impingement test. This case report is a potential first time description of the successful management of anterolateral ankle impingement utilizing a novel Mulligan's mobilization with movement procedure (consisting of internal rotation of the distal tibia) and taping with immediate improvements noted in pain, range of motion, and function. The patient was seen twice a week and was discharged after four treatment sessions. A follow-up after 4 months revealed that the patient was pain free and fully functional.

Influence of expectations plus mobilization with movement in patient with lateral epicondylalgia: a pilot randomized controlled trial

The aim of this study was to determine the influence of expectations plus mobilization with movement (MWM) in kinesiophobia, perceived disability and sensorimotor variables in patients with lateral epicondylalgia. A pilot randomized controlled trial in 24 patients with lateral epicondylalgia was conducted. Perceived pain, pain-free grip strength, pressure pain detection threshold, kinesiophobia measured with the short version of Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia, perceived disability of the upper limb measured with disability of the arm, hand and shoulder questionnaire, and perceived disability specifically for the elbow joint measured with patient-rating tennis elbow evaluation, and also satisfaction were assessed. Participants were randomized to receive written instructions in order to create positive expectations regarding the technique in one group (n=12) or neutral expectations in the other one (n=12). All patients were treated for three sessions with the MWM technique. Measures were recorded before and after treatment. The effect size was calculated by Rosenthal "r" for nonparametrical tests. There were no significant statistical differences (P>0.05) between groups after receiving the treatment for none of the physical analyzed variables. The Wilcoxon test showed statistically significant changes in kinesiophobia (Z=-2.278, r=0.47, P=0.023) and perceived disability (Z= -2.934, r=0.61, P=0.003) within positive expectations group. In conclusion this pilot study shows that a positive expectation almost given in a sealed envelope before treatment plus MWM produced changes in kinesiophobia and perceived disability in the immediate term, in patients with lateral epicondylalgia.

The effects of caudal mobilisation with movement (MWM) and caudal self-mobilisation with movement (SMWM) in relation to restricted internal rotation in the hip: A randomised control pilot study

BACKGROUND

A loss of internal rotation (IR) of the hip is associated with hip pathology. Improving IR may improve hip range of motion (ROM) or prevent hip pathology.

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to compare the immediate effects of caudal mobilisation with movement (MWM) and caudal self-mobilisation with movement (SMWM) on young healthy male subjects with reduced IR of the hip.

DESIGN

A randomised controlled trial was performed. Twenty-Two subjects were randomised into a MWM group (n = 6), SMWM group (n = 8) or a control group (n = 8).

METHOD

The primary outcome measures included the functional internal rotation test (FIRT) for the hip and the passive seated internal rotation test (SIRT) for the hip. Outcomes were captured at baseline and immediately after one treatment of MWMs, SMWMs or control.

RESULTS

A two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), group × time interaction was conducted. The ANOVA revealed the only significant improvement was in the MWM group for the FIRT (p = 0.01), over the control group. Subjects with reduced IR of the hip who receive a single session of MWMs exhibited significantly improved functional IR of their hip than the control group.

CONCLUSIONS

From the data presented, it can be suggested that caudal MWMs of the hip appear to have a positive effect on functional IR of healthy young hips. This may be due to addressing the positional fault theory or the arthrogenic muscular inhibition theory. SMWMs may be effective in augmenting treatments for patients waiting for hip operations.