Innovative treatment of clinically diagnosed meniscal tears: a randomized sham-controlled trial of the Mulligan concept 'squeeze' technique

Blinding and sham control methods in trials of physical, psychological, and self-management interventions for pain (article I): a systematic review and description of methods

ABSTRACT

Blinding is challenging in randomised controlled trials of physical, psychological, and self-management therapies for pain, mainly because of their complex and participatory nature. To develop standards for the design, implementation, and reporting of control interventions in efficacy and mechanistic trials, a systematic overview of currently used sham interventions and other blinding methods was required. Twelve databases were searched for placebo or sham-controlled randomised clinical trials of physical, psychological, and self-management treatments in a clinical pain population. Screening and data extraction were performed in duplicate, and trial features, description of control methods, and their similarity to the active intervention under investigation were extracted (protocol registration ID: CRD42020206590). The review included 198 unique control interventions, published between 2008 and December 2021. Most trials studied people with chronic pain, and more than half were manual therapy trials. The described control interventions ranged from clearly modelled based on the active treatment to largely dissimilar control interventions. Similarity between control and active interventions was more frequent for certain aspects (eg, duration and frequency of treatments) than others (eg, physical treatment procedures and patient sensory experiences). We also provide an overview of additional, potentially useful methods to enhance blinding, as well as the reporting of processes involved in developing control interventions. A comprehensive picture of prevalent blinding methods is provided, including a detailed assessment of the resemblance between active and control interventions. These findings can inform future developments of control interventions in efficacy and mechanistic trials and best-practice recommendations.

The Efficacy of the Mulligan Concept to Treat Meniscal Pathology: A Systematic Review

Background

Meniscal pathologies are common knee injuries and arthroscopic surgery is the current accepted gold standard for treatment. However, there is evidence to support the use of the Mulligan Concept (MC) Mobilization with Movement (MWM) for meniscal pathologies including the 'Squeeze' technique, tibial internal rotation (IR), and tibial external rotation (ER).

Hypothesis/Purpose

The purpose of this systematic review was to critically appraise the literature to investigate the effectiveness of MC MWMs for meniscal lesions on patient reported pain, function, and multi-dimensional health status in patients with clinically diagnosed meniscal pathologies.

Study Design

Systematic Review.

Methods

A literature search was completed across multiple databases using combinations of the words "knee, function, mobilization with movement, MWM, mulligan concept, MC, meniscal pathology, meniscal derangement, and meniscal tear." Studies written within the prior 10 years that examined MC MWM techniques to treat knee meniscal injury were included. Articles that met the inclusion criteria (used MC MWM 'Squeeze' technique, tibial IR, or tibial ER for treatment of clinically diagnosed meniscal pathologies; Patient reported outcome [PRO] measures had to be used in the assessment of knee pain or function) were analyzed for quality. Randomized control trials were analyzed using the PEDro scale and the Downs & Black (D&B) checklist, case series were analyzed using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) checklist, and case reports were analyzed using the CARES checklist.

Results

Six articles met the inclusion criteria and were included in this review, two randomized controlled studies, two case series, and two case reports consisting of 72 subjects. All six papers included reports of improvements in pain and function that were either statistically significant or met the minimal clinically important difference (MCID). Five studies reported the Disablement in the Physically Active (DPA) scale that also demonstrated statistically significant differences or met the MCID. The MC MWM 'Squeeze' technique, tibial IR, or tibial ER demonstrated the ability to reduce pain, improve function, and improve patient perceived disability following treatment of a clinically diagnosed meniscal pathology. These studies demonstrated short term results lasting from one week to 21 weeks.

Conclusion

Treatment interventions incorporating MC MWM techniques demonstrated reduction of pain and improvement in function in the short term in patients with clinically diagnosed meniscal pathologies.

Level of Evidence

2a.

Immediate effects of Mulligan's techniques on pain and functional mobility in individuals with knee osteoarthritis: A randomized control trial

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Mulligan's mobilization with movement was shown to be effective when implemented in multimodal therapy for knee osteoarthritis. However, no study has evaluated the Mulligan's technique in isolation and compared the relative effectiveness with sham-controlled interventions. Hence, the present study examined the immediate effects of Mulligan's techniques with sham mobilization on the numerical pain rating scale (NPRS) and timed up and go (TUG) test in individuals with knee osteoarthritis.

METHODS

Thirty participants (mean age: 55.3 ± 8.3 years) with symptoms at the knee and radiographic diagnosis of knee osteoarthritis were randomized into sham (n = 15) and intervention (n = 15) groups. The intervention (I) group received Mulligan's mobilization glides that resulted in relative pain relief for three sets of 10 repetitions. For the sham (S) group, the therapist's hand was placed over the joint surfaces mimicking the pain-relieving glides, without providing the gliding force. The outcome measures NPRS and TUG were recorded by a blinded assessor pre- and post-intervention.

RESULTS

Statistically significant differences were identified between the groups in post-intervention median (interquartile range) NPRS (I group: 4.00 [2.00-5.00]; S group: 6.00 [4.00-7.00]) and TUG scores (I group: 10.9 [9.43-10.45]; S group: 13.18 [10.38-16.00]) with the intervention group demonstrating better outcomes (p < .05). Within-group, the post-intervention scores of NPRS and TUG were significantly lower (p < .05) compared to the pre-intervention scores in the intervention group. In the sham group, a statistically significant pre-post change was noticed only in the NPRS scores but not in the TUG scores.

CONCLUSION

Mulligan's techniques were effective in improving pain and functional mobility in individuals with knee osteoarthritis. The underlying mechanisms for observed effects must be examined further, as participants reported pain relief following sham mobilization.