To treat or not to treat: new evidence for the effectiveness of manual therapy

Cost-effectiveness of specialised manual therapy versus orthopaedic care for musculoskeletal disorders: long-term follow-up and health economic model

Background

Physiotherapy is usually the first line of treatment for musculoskeletal disorders. If pain persists, an appointment with an orthopaedic surgeon is indicated, but many disorders for which patients are placed on orthopaedic waiting lists cannot be treated in an orthopaedic clinic. Specialised manual therapy, although not mainstream, can be an effective alternative to orthopaedic care, although its cost-effectiveness beyond 12 months is unknown.

Objectives

To perform an 8-year follow-up of the quality of life and costs of specialised manual therapy versus standard orthopaedic care for working-age patients with common nonsurgical musculoskeletal disorders referred to orthopaedic surgeons and to develop a health economic model.

Design

Cost-effectiveness study using Markov modelling.

Methods

The index group of a previously published pragmatic randomised controlled trial received a maximum of five treatment sessions of specialised manual therapy, while the control group received orthopaedic 'care as usual'. At 3, 6, 12 and 96 months, Health-Related Quality of Life and costs were measured with Short Form Health Survey 36, Short Form Health Survey 6D and Diagnostic Related Groups. An incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was calculated, a Markov model was developed and a sensitivity analysis was performed.

Results

Overall, 95% (n = 75) of the participants completed the 8-year follow-up. Recovery rates during the first 3 months ('per protocol') in the index and control group were 69% and 58%, respectively. The index group had 0.159 more gains in quality-adjusted life years and cost 40,270 SEK (€4027) less per patient over 8 years. The sensitivity analysis results were consistent with the main results.

Conclusion

Specialised manual therapy dominated standard care after 8 years. The results of this small but very first study are promising; therefore, further exploration within other health care professions, clinics and/or countries is required. Our study raises questions about the triaging of orthopaedic outpatients, cost-effectiveness and resource allocation.

Registration

Not applicable per the information provided by ClinicalTrials.gov.

Plain Language Summary

Specialised manual therapy is more cost-effective than 'care as usual' for working-age patients referred to an orthopaedist. This study provides an 8-year follow-up of the cost effects and quality of life of a previously published trial. Why was this study conducted? The standard care for musculoskeletal pain consists of exercises with a physiotherapist in primary care. If the pain persists, a referral to an orthopaedic clinic is often made. Many of these referrals are inappropriate because they concern pain from muscles and joints that do not benefit from surgery or the resources available in an orthopaedic clinic. There is a gap in competence and treatment between primary and specialised care that is costly, time- and resource-consuming and causes prolonged patient suffering. Although specialised manual therapy (MT) is effective, its use is not mainstream. Costs and effects after more than 12 months of treatment that may shorten waiting lists have never been evaluated. What did the researchers do? Quality of life and costs were compared in 75 patients with nonsurgical disorders referred to orthopaedic surgeons at 8 years after treatment with specialised MT or standard orthopaedic care. A health economics model for the probability of recovery was also developed and tested. What did the researchers find? Compared with the control group, the study participants treated with specialised MT had a better quality of life, required fewer health care interventions, underwent less surgery, incurred significantly lower costs and demonstrated an increased probability of recovery. What do these findings mean? It seems probable that using specialised MT for an old, well-known structural problem may yield better treatment effects at a significantly lower cost. Our study findings suggest that policy recommendations should focus on costs and effects rather than resource utilisation alone. The study is small and requires expansion using its economic health model.

Naprapathy versus orthopaedic standard care for common musculoskeletal disorders: an 8-year follow-up of a pragmatic randomized controlled trial in Sweden

BACKGROUND

Musculoskeletal pain is among the most common reasons for seeking care, specialist competence for its treatment in primary care limited and waiting lists for orthopaedics often amongst the longest. Many referrals to orthopaedics do not concern disorders that benefit from surgery. Manual therapy is effective, yet not integrated in national health care systems, and there is a lack of research on other than neck and low back pain, and a lack of long-term follow-ups. The present study evaluates the long-term effects of a manual therapy (naprapathy) for common orthopaedic disorders.

METHODS

An 8-year follow-up (96 months) of a pragmatic randomized controlled trial of naprapathy (experimental group) versus standard orthopaedic care (control group) for non-surgical patients of working age with the most common musculoskeletal disorders on the waiting lists (n = 78). Bodily pain, physical function (SF36), Quality of life (QoL; SF6D), and data on health care utilization were collected. The treatments lasted from January 2007 to November 2007.

RESULTS

N = 75 participants in the original study sample completed the 8-year follow-up. The differences in bodily pain (21.7 (95% CI: 9.1-34.3)), physical function (17.6 (6.7-28.4)), and QoLs (0.823 (95% CI: 0.785-0.862) compared with 0.713 (95% CI: 0.668-0.758)) were statistically significantly in favor of the experimental group (p-values < 0.01). After sensitivity analysis the experimental group had altogether 260 health care visits compared with 1161 in the control group.

CONCLUSIONS

Naprapathy is a continuously effective treatment. Together with earlier research our study suggests that specialized manual therapy should be considered when triaging patients with common non-surgical musculoskeletal disorders in national health care systems.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Not applicable, as per information given by ClinicalTrials.gov.

Influence of manual therapy on functional mobility after joint injury in a rat model

CONTEXT

Animal models can be used to investigate manual therapy mechanisms, but testing manipulation in animal models is problematic because animals cannot directly report their pain.

OBJECTIVE

To develop a rat model of inflammatory joint injury to test the efficacy of manual therapy in reducing nociception and restoring function.

METHODS

The authors induced acute inflammatory joint injury in rats by injecting carrageenan into the ankle and then measured voluntary running wheel activity in treated and untreated rats. Treatments included manual therapy applied to the ankle and knee of the injured limb and several analgesic medications (eg, morphine, ketorolac, prednisone).

RESULTS

Intra-articular injection of carrageenan to the ankle produced significant swelling (diameter of the ankle increased by 64% after injection; P=.004) and a robust reduction in voluntary running wheel activity (running distance reduced by 91% compared with controls; P<.001). Injured rats gradually returned to running levels equal to controls over 10 days. Neither manual therapy nor analgesic medications increased running wheel activity relative to untreated rats.

CONCLUSION

Voluntary running wheel activity appears to be an appropriate functional measure to evaluate the impact of an acute inflammatory joint injury. However, efforts to treat the injury did not restore running relative to untreated rats.

Multimodal management of mechanical neck pain using a treatment based classification system

THE PURPOSE OF THIS CASE STUDY WAS TWOFOLD: 1) to illustrate the use of a treatment-based classification (TBC) system to direct the early intervention of a patient with mechanical neck pain, and 2) to show the progression of this patient with multimodal-modal intervention. The patient exhibited axial neck pain with referral into her upper extremity. Her pain peripheralized with cervical range of motion and centralized with joint mobilization placing her primarily in the centralization category. Her poor posture and associated muscle weakness along with the chronicity of symptoms placed her secondarily into the exercise and conditioning group resulting in a multi-modal treatment as the patient progressed. Although the design of this case report prevents wide applicability, this study does illustrate the effective use of the TBC system for the cervical spine as captured by accepted outcomes measures.

Naprapathic manual therapy or conventional orthopedic care for outpatients on orthopedic waiting lists?: A pragmatic randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVES

Traditionally, orthopedic outpatient waiting lists are long, and many referrals are for conditions that do not respond to interventions available at an orthopedic outpatient department. The overall objective of this trial was to investigate whether it is possible to reduce orthopedic waiting lists through integrative medicine. Specific aims were to compare the effects of naprapathic manual therapy to conventional orthopedic care for outpatients with nonurgent musculoskeletal disorders unlikely to benefit from surgery regarding pain, physical function, and perceived recovery.

METHODS

Seventy-eight patients referred to an orthopedic outpatient department in Sweden were included in this pragmatic randomized controlled trial. The 2 interventions compared were naprapathic manual therapy (index group) and conventional orthopedic care (control group). Pain, physical function, and perceived recovery were measured by questionnaires at baseline and after 12, 24, and 52 weeks. The number of patients being discharged from the waiting lists and the level of agreement concerning management decisions between the naprapath and the orthopedists were also estimated.

RESULTS

After 52 weeks, statistically significant differences between the groups were found regarding impairment in pain, increased physical function, and regarding perceived recovery, favoring the index group. Sixty-two percent of the patients in the index group agreed to be discharged from the waiting list. The level of agreement concerning the management decisions was 80%.

DISCUSSION

The trial suggests that naprapathic manual therapy may be an alternative to consider for orthopedic outpatients with disorders unlikely to benefit from surgery.

Naprapathic manual therapy or evidence-based care for back and neck pain: a randomized, controlled trial

OBJECTIVES

To compare naprapathic manual therapy with evidence-based care for back or neck pain regarding pain, disability, and perceived recovery. Naprapathy that is common in the Nordic countries and in some states in the United States is characterized by manual manipulations with a focus on soft and connective tissues, aiming to decrease pain and disability in the musculoskeletal system.

METHODS

Four hundred and nine patients with pain and disability in the back or neck lasting for at least 2 weeks, recruited at 2 large public companies in Sweden in 2005, were included in this randomized controlled trial. The 2 interventions were naprapathy, including spinal manipulation/mobilization, massage, and stretching (Index Group) and support and advice to stay active and how to cope with pain, according to the best scientific evidence available, provided by a physician (Control Group). Pain, disability, and perceived recovery were measured by questionnaires at baseline and after 3, 7, and 12 weeks.

RESULTS

At 7-week and 12-week follow-ups, statistically significant differences between the groups were found in all outcomes favoring the Index Group. At 12-week follow-up, a higher proportion in the naprapathy group had improved regarding pain [risk difference (RD)=27%, 95% confidence interval (CI): 17-37], disability (RD=18%, 95% CI: 7-28), and perceived recovery (RD=44%, 95% CI: 35-53). Separate analysis of neck pain and back pain patients showed similar results.

DISCUSSION

This trial suggests that combined manual therapy, like naprapathy, might be an alternative to consider for back and neck pain patients.