Effect of manual manipulation on mechanical gait parameters

CONTEXT

A variety of manual manipulation techniques are utilized in clinical practice to alleviate pain and improve musculoskeletal function. Many manual practitioners analyze gait patterns and asymmetries in their assessment of the patient, and an increasing number of gait motion capture studies are taking place with recent improvements in motion capture technology. This study is the first systematic review of whether these manual modalities have been shown to produce an objectively measurable change in gait mechanics.

OBJECTIVES

This study was designed to perform a systematic review of the literature to assess the impact of manual medicine modalities on biomechanical parameters of gait.

METHODS

A master search term composed of keywords and Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) search terms from an initial scan of relevant articles was utilized to search six databases. We screened the titles and abstracts of the resulting papers for relevance and then assessed their quality with the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool. Clinical trials that featured both a manual manipulation intervention and multiple mechanical gait parameters were included. Case reports and other studies that only measured gait speed or other subjective measures of mobility were excluded.

RESULTS

We included 20 studies in our final analysis. They utilize manipulation techniques primarily from osteopathic, chiropractic, massage, and physiotherapy backgrounds. The conditions studied primarily included problems with the back, knee, and ankle, as well as healthy patients and Parkinson's patients. Control groups were highly variable, if not absent. Most studies measured their gait parameters utilizing either multicamera motion capture systems or force platforms.

CONCLUSIONS

Twelve of 20 papers included in the final analysis demonstrated a significant effect of manipulation on gait variables, many of which included either step length, walking speed, or sagittal range of motion (ROM) in joints of the lower extremity. However, the results and study design are too heterogeneous to draw robust conclusions from these studies as a whole. While there are initial indications that certain modalities may yield a change in certain gait parameters, the quality of evidence is low and there is insufficient evidence to conclude that manual therapies induce changes in biomechanical gait parameters. Studies are heterogeneous with respect to the populations studied and the interventions performed. Comparators were variable or absent across the studies, as were the outcome variables measured. More could be learned in the future with consistent methodology around blinding and sham treatment, and if the gait parameters measured were standardized and of a more robust clinical significance.

Interoceptive bodily awareness in patients seeking pain relief with osteopathic manipulative treatment: an observational cohort pilot study

CONTEXT

Interoceptive bodily awareness (IBA) is one's attentional focus on and relationship with comfortable and uncomfortable (e.g., pain) internal body sensations. Integrating IBA into research on osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT) is growing, both as an outcome and predictor of treatment outcomes; however, it has yet to be studied in a clinical setting.

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to conduct a pilot study to measure IBA, with the Multidimensional Assessment of Interoceptive Awareness (MAIA), in patients seeking OMT for pain, and to test if OMT exposure may be associated with higher IBA as measured by the MAIA. The primary outcome was the change in MAIA scores, and the secondary outcomes were reduction in pain intensity, reduction in pain interference, and increase in participants' perception of change post-OMT.

METHODS

A convenience sample was recruited from individuals presenting for OMT appointments at a College of Osteopathic Medicine OMT teaching clinic. Participants were recruited into our single-arm observational cohort study (n=36), and categorized into one of two groups, OMT-naïve (n=19) or OMT-experienced (n=17), based on prior exposure to OMT. We measured MAIA scores and clinical pain-related outcomes prior to, immediately after, and at 1 and 3 weeks after a usual-care OMT session in the clinic. Covariates including experience with mind-body activities, non-OMT body work, and physical and emotional trauma were also collected to explore potential relationships. We utilized t tests to compare MAIA scores and pain outcomes between groups and across time points. Stepwise regression models were utilized to explore potential relationships with covariates.

RESULTS

The OMT-experienced group scored higher on the MAIA scales "Not-worrying" (p=0.002) and "Trusting" (p=0.028) at baseline. There were no significant changes in the MAIA scores before and after the single OMT session. Analysis of secondary outcomes revealed that all pain outcomes significantly decreased post-OMT (p<0.05), with the largest relative improvements in the acute pain and OMT-naïve subgroups, with diminishing effects over time.

CONCLUSIONS

Assessing IBA with MAIA in a clinical OMT setting is feasible. There were significant positive correlations between OMT exposure and two of the eight MAIA scales. Future studies are justified to further explore this relationship.

Common outpatient diagnoses and associated treatments logged by osteopathic medical students within a geriatric population

CONTEXT

Clinical clerkships provide osteopathic medical students the opportunity to participate in the diagnosis and treatment of commonly encountered medical conditions. Appropriate management of these conditions may include pharmacotherapy and/or nonpharmacologic interventions, such as osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT). Opportunities may exist to expand the utilization of OMT in the management of common conditions, particularly for geriatric patients, who are at increased risk for adverse outcomes from pharmacologic treatments.

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to assess the most common diagnoses and corresponding treatments logged by osteopathic medical students within an ambulatory geriatric population.

METHODS

Patient encounters logged electronically by osteopathic medical students were retrospectively reviewed to determine the most commonly reported diagnostic codes and their treatments. Logged interventions were filtered to include patients over the age of 65 years who were seen on family medicine rotations within an ambulatory setting. The top 10 diagnoses were sorted and assessed to determine the associated treatments, including medications, procedures, and OMT.

RESULTS

Between January 2018 and June 2020, a total of 11,185 primary diagnoses were logged pertaining to the defined patient population. The most frequently documented diagnoses were essential hypertension (n=1,420; 12.7 %), encounter for well examination (n=1,144; 10.2 %), type 2 diabetes mellitus (n=837; 7.5 %), hyperlipidemia (n=346; 3.1 %), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD; n=278; 2.5 %), osteoarthritis (OA; n=221; 2.0 %), low back pain (LBP; n=202; 1.8 %), pain in joint (n=187; 1.7 %), hypothyroidism (n=164; 1.5 %), and urinary tract infections (n=160; 1.4 %). Three of the top 10 logged diagnoses were musculoskeletal in nature (OA, LBP, and pain in joint). Pharmacotherapy was reported as the predominant treatment for musculoskeletal conditions, with OMT being logged as a treatment for 10.9 % (n=50) of those cases. The most commonly logged medication class in the management of patients with those musculoskeletal conditions was nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs; n=128; 27.9 %), while opioids were the second most frequently documented class of medications (n=65; 14.2 %).

CONCLUSIONS

Musculoskeletal complaints were commonly logged by osteopathic medical students within the studied population. Opioids were documented as a treatment for musculoskeletal conditions more frequently than OMT. As such, opportunities exist to expand the utilization of OMT during clinical clerkships and to decrease the frequency of prescribed medications for pain management.

The short- and long-term effect of osteopathic manipulative treatment on pain, and psychosocial factors in adults with chronic low back pain

CONTEXT

Chronic low back pain (CLBP) has long plagued mankind, but little progress has been made in finding a rational and effective treatment, let alone a common cause. This study is an attempt to fill that void by measuring short- and long-term effects of osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT), including psychosocial and pain reduction in CLBP patients.

OBJECTIVES

The objectives of this study were to investigate the effectiveness of neuromusculoskeletal medicine/osteopathic manipulative medicine (OMM) in treating CLBP, with a focus on biopsychosocial (pain sensitivity questionnaire [PSQ]) and pain control in chronic conditions.

METHODS

The study involved a large, single cohort observational design of 101 patients. The inclusion criteria for selecting patients targeted those with "nonspecific" CLBP. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) Minimum Dataset for Chronic Low Back Pain (NMD) was the measurement tool and was administered at consent (baseline), 2, 4, and 8 weeks and at 6 and 12 months. Time trends were analyzed as overall mean. Pairwise differences were compared between time points. Mixed-effects models were utilized to test the association of time with pain and biopsychosocial scores.

RESULTS

Pain and PSQ scores decreased over the study timeline. The most significant change for both pain and biopsychosocial scores occurred at 6 months compared to baseline, with a further reduction at 12 months.

CONCLUSIONS

OMT has been demonstrated to significantly reduce pain and psychosocial factors related to CLBP in both the short and long term.

A Survey Assessment of Neurosurgeons' Interest in Osteopathic Medicine and Its Integration Into Their Practice

INTRODUCTION

Osteopathic manipulative medicine (OMM) encompasses techniques guided by the tenets of osteopathy aimed at facilitating the body's natural self-healing capabilities as a treatment option for injury or illness. This approach recognizes the interrelationship of structure and function in promoting overall health. The clinical applications of OMM have been highly researched throughout different subspecialties of medicine; however, there is a notable lack of osteopathic-based research targeted toward neurosurgical patient populations.

METHODS

This cross-sectional descriptive study was conducted via a survey generated using SurveyMonkey (SurveyMonkey, San Mateo, CA, USA; accessed at www.surveymonkey.com). Subjects for this survey were gathered using a convenience sampling method in which emails of all neurosurgeons listed in the "Member Directory" on the American Association of Neurological Surgeons website were compiled into a mailing list. The survey was sent to all 6,503 emails collected, and the responses were recorded over the next month. The responses for each survey question were averaged and, when appropriate, compared using a two-tailed T-test, with statistical significance defined as a p<0.05. Where applicable, simple linear regression analysis was used to assess correlations between survey data. The measured outcomes included neurosurgeons' (1) knowledge of and (2) attitudes toward OMM.

RESULTS

Both MD and DO neurosurgeons reported using OMM (or referring their patients for OMM) less than once per year. In comparison to their MD colleagues, neurosurgeons carrying a DO degree ranked their familiarity with the tenets of osteopathic medicine (p<0.0001) and their knowledge of the applications of OMM in their practice (p=0.0018) significantly higher. Greater reported familiarity with the tenets of osteopathic medicine and applications of OMM showed a positive correlation with neurosurgeons' comfort in recommending OMM as a nonsurgical, preoperative treatment option, as a post-surgical, rehabilitative treatment option, and as a pain management option (p<0.0001 for all). There was a clear interest in seeing further osteopathic-based neurosurgery research by both MD and DO neurosurgeons, as well as a trend of interest in incorporating OMM into their practice if shown to be clinically beneficial.

CONCLUSIONS

Both MD and DO neurosurgeons are interested in seeing more research into the applications of OMM in their patient populations and, most importantly, are likely to integrate OMM into their practice if presented with research detailing clinical benefits to their patients. This study highlights the clinical interest of neurosurgeons in further research into the applications of OMM specific to the field of neurosurgery.

The Benefits of Integrative Medicine in the Management of Chronic Pain: A Review

Chronic pain is a debilitating condition that affects many individuals throughout their daily lives. While it is common to treat chronic pain with pharmaceutical treatments, an approach that has also shown great benefits is the use of integrative medicine, such as massage therapy, osteopathic and spinal manipulation, acupuncture, and yoga. The keywords “integrative medicine,” “pain,” “chronic pain,” and “pain management” with the use of the Boolean operators “AND,” “OR,” and “NOT” were used to identify relevant studies discussing the effectiveness of alternative medicine in the treatment of chronic pain. Massage therapy uses different forms of pressing, rubbing, and moving of muscles and other soft tissues, and has shown short-term benefits for chronic pain relief. Osteopathic and spinal manipulation is mainly used in treating muscles, tendons, and bone pain due to worn-out joints, torn ligaments, and more. Acupuncture involves penetrating the skin with thin needles which are activated through gentle and specific movements. According to our review, acupuncture and massage therapy are effective for short-term treatment, lasting three to five months for chronic pain. Yoga involves various physical, mental, and spiritual practices or disciplines that have shown beneficial results in the treatment of chronic pain. Combining yoga with physical therapy has shown significant benefits. This review aims to describe the benefits and uses of integrative medicine in the treatment of chronic pain.

Pain and functional recovery from chronic low back pain over 12 months: implications for osteopathic medicine

CONTEXT

Although low back pain is a common medical condition that often progresses to become a chronic problem, little is known about the likelihood of recovery from chronic low back pain (CLBP).

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to measure the risk of recovery from CLBP based on low back pain intensity and back-related functioning measures reported by participants within a pain research registry over 12 months of observation and to consider the implications for osteopathic medicine.

METHODS

A total of 740 participants with CLBP in the Pain Registry for Epidemiological, Clinical, and Interventional Studies and Innovation in the United States were studied between April 2016 and October 2021. Inception cohorts for pain recovery and functional recovery were assembled from the participants who did not meet the recovery criteria at registry enrollment. The pain recovery criterion was having a score of ≤1/10 on a numerical rating scale for low back pain intensity, and the functional recovery criterion was having a score of ≤4/24 on the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire. A total of 737 and 692 participants were included in the inception cohorts for pain recovery and functional recovery, respectively. Participants provided follow-up data at quarterly encounters over 12 months to determine if they achieved and maintained a pain or functional recovery from CLBP over the entire period of observation. Logistic regression was utilized to identify factors associated with recovery.

RESULTS

The mean age of the participants at baseline was 52.9 years (SD, 13.1 years) and 551 (74.5%) were female. No participant reported a pain recovery that was maintained over all four quarterly encounters, whereas 16 participants (2.3%; 95% CI, 1.2-3.4%) maintained a functional recovery. Having high levels of pain self-efficacy (OR, 17.50; 95% CI, 2.30-133.23; p=0.006) and being Hispanic (OR, 3.55; 95% CI, 1.11-11.37; p=0.03) were associated with functional recovery, and high levels of pain catastrophizing (OR, 0.15; 95% CI, 0.03-0.65; p=0.01) and having chronic widespread pain (OR, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.08-0.66; p=0.007) were inversely associated with functional recovery. The findings for pain self-efficacy and Hispanic ethnicity remained significant in the multivariate analysis that adjusted for potential confounders.

CONCLUSIONS

The absence of pain recovery and the low likelihood of functional recovery observed in our study suggests that osteopathic physicians should embrace a biopsychosocial approach to CLBP management and work with patients to set realistic expectations based on more pragmatic outcome measures, such as those that address health-related quality of life. The findings also suggest the potential importance of patient education and counseling to enhance pain self-efficacy.

Osteopathic Manipulative Medicine: A Brief Review of the Hands-On Treatment Approaches and Their Therapeutic Uses

Osteopathic manipulative medicine (OMM) is an emerging practice in the healthcare field with increasing popularity and evidence-based therapy. Osteopathic manipulative treatments (OMT) include hands-on manipulations of different body structures to increase systemic homeostasis and total patient well-being. Indeed, this new realm of the whole patient-based approach is being taught in osteopathic schools around the country, and the osteopathic principles of a mind-body-spirit-based treatment are being instilled in many new Doctor of Osteopathy (D.O.) students. However, despite their proven therapeutic value, there are still many individuals, both in and outside the medical profession, who are unaware (or misinformed) of the therapeutic uses and potential benefits of OMT. Here, we provide a brief introduction to this osteopathic therapeutic approach, focusing on the hands-on techniques that are regularly implemented in the clinical setting. It is becoming increasingly evident that different OMTs can be implemented to enhance patient recovery, both alone and in conjunction with the targeted therapies used in allopathic regimens. Therefore, it may be beneficial to inform the general medical community and educate the public and those associated with the healthcare field about the benefits of using OMT as a treatment modality. OMT is lower-cost, noninvasive, and highly effective in promoting full-body healing by targeting the nervous, lymphatic, immune, and vascular systems. There is a growing body of literature related to osteopathic research and the possible molecular pathways involved in the healing process, and this burgeoning field of medicine is expected to increase in value in the healthcare field. This brief review article explains the frequently utilized OMT modalities and their recognized therapeutic benefits, which underscore the need to understand the possible molecular mechanisms and circulating biomarkers linked to the systemic benefits of osteopathic medicine.

Comparative assessment of osteopathy technique with manual therapy associated with biofeedback in patients with the lumbar spine pain

Introduction: The aim of the study is to assess the impact of physiotherapy containing elements of osteopathy on the change of pain level of the lumbar spine of patients in comparison to traditional management using orthopedic manual therapy combined with biofeedback. Material and methods: The study included 60 people qualified for outpatient rehabilitation. Patients were divided into two groups (research and control) consisting of 30 people. The mean age of patients was 52.75 ± 11.58 years. Patients were examined before and after the implementation of the rehabilitation process, pain scale (VAS) and Oswestry Disability Index were used for the study. Rehabilitation lasted every day for four weeks. The control group used orthopedic manual therapy combined with biofeedback, while the research group used a series of treatments based on osteopathy techniques. In addition, both groups of patients underwent a standard physical therapy program. Results: The study showed the effectiveness of manual therapy combined with biofeedback and osteopathic therapy in patients with lumbar spine pain syndrome. A decrease in pain was noted in patients of both groups, however a greater decrease was noted in the research group. In the assessment using the Oswestry Disability Index, a comparable level of quality of life was noted in both treatment groups. Conclusions: The introduced therapeutic programs show an improvement both in terms of reducing pain and improving functioning in everyday life, however, the rehabilitation process based on osteopathic techniques is more effective in reducing pain.

International Overview of Somatic Dysfunction Assessment and Treatment in Osteopathic Research: A Scoping Review

BACKGROUND

Osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT) is a patient-centred, whole-body intervention aimed at enhance the person's self-regulation. OMT interventions are focused on somatic dysfunctions (SD) that can be defined as an altered regulative function associated with inflammatory signs palpable in the body framework in different body regions. The conceptual model that sustains SD, as well as its usefulness for the osteopathic profession, is still being discussed by the osteopathic community. Understanding the role and the application of SD is the aim of this scoping review.

METHODS

A literature search was carried out through the main biomedical databases: Pubmed (Medline), Cochrane, Central (Cochrane), Embase, PEDro and Scopus. Grey literature was considered via Google Scholar and the Osteopathic Research Web. The review was prepared by referring to the "Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analysis extension for Scoping Reviews" (PRISMA-ScR).

RESULTS

A total of 37,279 records were identified through database searching and other sources. After the duplicates were removed, 27,023 titles and abstracts were screened. A total of 1495 full-text articles were assessed for eligibility. The qualitative synthesis included 280 studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Treating SD is an important part of osteopathic practice that varies from country to country. SD should be considered as a clinical value that assists in the clinical assessment and guides the decision-making process of osteopathic practitioners. Further studies should be designed to better understand why and how to choose the different assessment and intervention modalities to approach SD and to evaluate new osteopathic models.

Do manual therapies have a specific autonomic effect? An overview of systematic reviews

Background

The impact of manual therapy interventions on the autonomic nervous system have been largely assessed, but with heterogeneous findings regarding the direction of these effects. We conducted an overview of systematic reviews to describe if there is a specific autonomic effect elicited by manual therapy interventions, its relation with the type of technique used and the body region where the intervention was applied.

Methods

We conducted an overview according to a publicly registered protocol. We searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, MEDLINE, EPISTEMONIKOS and SCOPUS, from their inception to march 2021. We included systematic reviews for which the primary aim of the intervention was to assess the autonomic effect elicited by a manual therapy intervention in either healthy or symptomatic individuals. Two authors independently applied the selection criteria, assessed risk of bias from the included reviews and extracted data. An established model of generalisation guided the data analysis and interpretation.

Results

We included 12 reviews (5 rated as low risk of bias according the ROBIS tool). The findings showed that manual therapies may have an effect on both sympathetic and parasympathetic systems. However, the results from included reviews were inconsistent due to differences in their methodological rigour and how the effects were measured. The reviews with a lower risk of bias could not discriminate the effects depending on the body region to which the technique was applied.

Conclusion

The magnitude of the specific autonomic effect elicited by manual therapies and its clinical relevance is uncertain. We point out some specific recommendations in order to improve the quality and relevance of future research in this field.

Preventing progression from chronic to widespread pain and its impact on health-related quality of life: a historical cohort study of osteopathic medical care

CONTEXT

It is generally acknowledged that osteopathic physicians take a holistic approach to patient care. This style may help prevent the progression of painful musculoskeletal conditions, particularly if combined with osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT).

OBJECTIVES

The study aimed to determine if osteopathic medical care lowers the risk of progression from localized chronic low back pain to widespread pain and lessens the impact of pain on health-related quality of life.

METHODS

A historical cohort study was conducted within the Pain Registry for Epidemiological, Clinical, and Interventional Studies and Innovation (PRECISION Pain Research Registry) using data acquired from April 2016 through March 2021. Registry participants aged 21-79 years with chronic low back pain at the baseline encounter were potentially eligible for inclusion if they had a treating physician, completed all four quarterly follow-up encounters, and did not report physician crossover at the final 12-month encounter. Eligible participants were classified according to the type of physician provider at baseline and thereby into osteopathic or allopathic medical care groups. Participants were also classified according to prior use of OMT at the final encounter. Widespread pain was measured at baseline and each quarterly encounter to determine the period prevalence rate of widespread pain and its severity over 12 months using the Minimum Dataset for Chronic Low Back Pain recommended by the National Institutes of Health. Participants who reported "not being bothered at all" by widespread pain during each encounter were classified as not having widespread pain, whereas those who were bothered "a little" or "a lot" at any quarterly encounter were classified as having widespread pain. The severity of widespread pain was measured by summing participant responses at each encounter. The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System was used at each encounter to measure health-related quality-of-life (HRQOL) scores for physical function, anxiety, depression, fatigue, sleep disturbance, participation in social roles and activities, and pain interference with activities.

RESULTS

A total of 462 participants were studied, including 101 (21.9%) in the osteopathic medical care group and 73 (15.8%) who used OMT. The mean age of participants at baseline was 52.7 ± 13.2 years (range, 22-79 years) and 336 (72.7%) were female. A lower period prevalence rate of widespread pain was observed in the osteopathic medical care group (OR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.27-0.81; p=0.006) and in the OMT group (OR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.21-0.75; p=0.004), although the latter finding did not persist after adjustment for potential confounders. The osteopathic medical care and OMT groups both reported lower widespread pain severity. The osteopathic medical care group also reported better age- and sex-adjusted outcomes for each of the seven HRQOL dimensions throughout the study. The OMT group reported better outcomes in five of the HRQOL dimensions.

CONCLUSIONS

This study supports the view that osteopathic physicians practice a holistic approach to medical care that manifests itself through a lower risk of progression from chronic low back pain to widespread pain, lower widespread pain severity, and lesser deficits in HRQOL. Similar findings were generally associated with OMT use.

The rationale for including osteopathic manipulative treatment in the management of infections: a hermeneutic review

INTRODUCTION

As the prevalence of drug-resistant infections continues to outpace the development of new antibiotics, we must explore all reasonable options for enhancing the effectiveness of existing anti-infectives. The emergence of novel pathogens without initial drug treatments or vaccines, typified by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 pandemic, further underscores the need for non-pharmacologic adjunctive measures for infection management. Osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT) may represent such an adjunct.

AREAS COVERED

PubMed, CINAHL, Google Scholar, Cochrane databases and relevant chapters of major osteopathic texts were searched for animal experiments, case reports, observational studies, non-randomized, and randomized trials pertaining to infection, OMT, and the complications or safety of OMT. OMT was associated with one or more of the following: decreased bacterial colony counts in lung tissue; changes in immunologic profiles manifested by significant differences dendritic cells and levels of IL-8, MCP-1, MIP-1a, and G-CSF; shorter durations of IV antibiotics; decreased length of hospitalization; decreased rates of respiratory failure and death; decreased post-surgical lengths of stay; and enhanced patient satisfaction.

EXPERT OPINION

Preliminary, lower-grade evidence suggests that OMT can improve some infection-related outcomes, and is safe. The role of OMT in infection management should undergo further controlled trials without delay.

Cost comparison of osteopathic manipulative treatment for patients with chronic low back pain

CONTEXT

Chronic low back pain (cLBP) is the second leading cause of disability in the United States, with significant physical and financial implications. Development of a multifaceted treatment plan that is cost effective and optimizes patients' ability to function on a daily basis is critical. To date, there have been no published prospective studies comparing the cost of osteopathic manipulative treatment to that of standard care for patients with cLBP.

OBJECTIVES

To contrast the cost for standard of care treatment (SCT) for cLBP with standard of care plus osteopathic manipulative treatment (SCT + OMT).

METHODS

This prospective, observational study was conducted over the course of 4 months with two groups of patients with a diagnosis of cLBP. Once consent was obtained, patients were assigned to the SCT or the SCT + OMT group based on the specialty practice of their physician. At enrollment and after 4 months of treatment, all patients in both groups completed two questionnaires: the 11 point pain intensity numerical scale (PI-NRS) and the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ). Cost data was collected from the electronic medical record of each patient enrolled in the study. Chi-square (χ ² _Yates) tests for independence using Yates' correction for continuity were performed to compare the results for each group.

RESULTS

There was a total of 146 patients: 71 (48.6%) in the SCT + OMT group and 75 (51.4%) in the SCT group. The results showed no significant differences between the mean total costs for the SCT + OMT ($831.48 ± $553.59) and SCT ($997.90 ± $1,053.22) groups. However, the utilization of interventional therapies (2; 2.8%) and radiology (4; 5.6%) services were significantly less for the SCT + OMT group than the utilization of interventional (31; 41.3%) and radiology (17; 22.7%) therapies were for the SCT group (p<0.001). Additionally, the patients in the SCT + OMT group were prescribed fewer opioid medications (15; 21.1) than the SCT (37; 49.3%) patients (p.001). Patients in the SCT group were approximately 14.7 times more likely to have received interventional therapies than patients in the SCT + OMT group. Likewise, the patients in the SCT group were approximately four times more likely to have received radiological services. Paired t tests comparing the mean pre- and 4 month self reported pain severity scores on the RMDQ for 68 SCT + OMT patients (9.91 ± 5.88 vs. 6.40 ± 5.24) and 66 SCT patients (11.44 ± 6.10 vs. 8.52 ± 6.14) found highly significant decreases in pain for both group (<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The mean total costs for the SCT and SCT + OMT patients were statistically comparable across 4 months of treatment. SCT + OMT was comparable to SCT alone in reducing pain and improving function in patients with chronic low back pain; however, there was less utilization of opioid analgesics, physical therapy, interventional therapies, radiologic, and diagnostic services for patients in the SCT + OMT group.

Support for osteopathic manipulative treatment inclusion in chronic pain management guidelines: a narrative review

Context

Osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT) is used to treat chronic pain conditions. However, few guidelines focusing on chronic pain management include recommendations for OMT.

Objectives

To evaluate previous literature on the use of OMT for improving chronic pain.

Methods

A literature search was conducted on MEDLINE/PubMed and ScienceDirect on August 26-27, 2019, using the terms "osteopathic," "chronic," and "pain," yielding a total of 312 MEDLINE/PubMed articles and 515 ScienceDirect articles. Eligibility criteria required that studies investigate pain, functional status, or medication usage through an experimental design, focusing on human subjects with chronic pain who had various forms of OMT administered by osteopathically trained individuals in which the comparator group received no intervention, a sham or placebo, or conventional care. Three authors independently performed literature searches and methodically settled disagreements over article selection.

Results

In the 22 articles included in our study that examined OMT use in chronic pain conditions, we evaluated primary outcomes of pain (22; 100%) and functional status (20; 90.9%), and the secondary outcome of medication usage (3; 13.6%). The majority of articles showed that OMT resulted in a significant decrease in pain levels as compared to baseline pain levels or the control group (20; 90.9%) and that OMT resulted in an improvement in functional status (17; 77.3%). In articles that did not find a significant difference in pain (2; 9.1%) or functional status (3; 13.6%), there were overall outcomes improvements noted. All articles that investigated medication usage (3; 13.6%) showed that OMT was effective in decreasing patients' medication usage. Our study was limited by its small sample size and multimodal comparator group exclusion.

Conclusions

OMT provides an evidence-based management option to reduce pain levels, improve functional status, and decrease medication usage in chronic pain conditions, especially low back pain (LBP). Pain management guidelines should include OMT as a resource to alleviate chronic pain.

Osteopathy modulates brain-heart interaction in chronic pain patients: an ASL study

In this study we used a combination of measures including regional cerebral blood flow (rCBF) and heart rate variability (HRV) to investigate brain-heart correlates of longitudinal baseline changes of chronic low back pain (cLBP) after osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT). Thirty-two right-handed patients were randomised and divided into 4 weekly session of OMT (N = 16) or Sham (N = 16). Participants aged 42.3 ± 7.3 (M/F: 20/12) with cLBP (duration: 14.6 ± 8.0 m). At the end of the study, patients receiving OMT showed decreased baseline rCBF within several regions belonging to the pain matrix (left posterior insula, left anterior cingulate cortex, left thalamus), sensory regions (left superior parietal lobe), middle frontal lobe and left cuneus. Conversely, rCBF was increased in right anterior insula, bilateral striatum, left posterior cingulate cortex, right prefrontal cortex, left cerebellum and right ventroposterior lateral thalamus in the OMT group as compared with Sham. OMT showed a statistically significant negative correlation between baseline High Frequency HRV changes and rCBF changes at T2 in the left posterior insula and bilateral lentiform nucleus. The same brain regions showed a positive correlation between rCBF changes and Low Frequency HRV baseline changes at T2. These findings suggest that OMT can play a significant role in regulating brain-heart interaction mechanisms.

A Comprehensive Review of Alternative Therapies for the Management of Chronic Pain Patients: Acupuncture, Tai Chi, Osteopathic Manipulative Medicine, and Chiropractic Care

INTRODUCTION

Non-pharmacologic alternative therapies for pain have been around for a long time, some for hundreds of years. They have been used throughout history to treat many issues.

RECENT FINDINGS

Currently, alternative medicine is most frequently used to treat musculoskeletal pain, and between 59 and 90% of patients utilizing alternative therapies for chronic pain claimed they were helpful and can serve as an effective adjunctive for the treatment of chronic pain. Some examples of alternative therapies that will be discussed in this review include acupuncture, tai chi, osteopathic manipulation, and chiropractic care. Acupuncture, traditionally a Chinese practice, is becoming more popular across the world to attempt to relieve pain. It involves the placement of thin needles at various points in the body. The efficacy of acupuncture for pain is heavily debated. More research and discussion are necessary to determine the exact role it plays in the treatment of chronic pain. Tai chi is also a traditional Chinese practice that is often used as a form of meditation and for potential health benefits. Tai chi involves a series of complex movements such as squatting combined with deep breathing to achieve relaxation and pain reduction. Osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT) is a technique used by both osteopathic physicians (DO) as well as other health professionals to manage a wide range of conditions in any given patient. The technique involves utilization and manipulation of the musculoskeletal system to achieve potential health benefits. OMT has been used as therapy for many issues but is commonly used for pain conditions. Alternative therapies may serve as an effective adjunctive treatment modality for the management of chronic pain conditions. There has been a tremendous amount of research dictating the effectiveness of alternative therapies for chronic pain management. The purpose of this review is to provide a comprehensive evidence-based update of alternative therapy used for the management of chronic pain conditions.

Brain Connectivity Changes after Osteopathic Manipulative Treatment: A Randomized Manual Placebo-Controlled Trial

The effects of osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT) on functional brain connectivity in healthy adults is missing in the literature. To make up for this lack, we applied advanced network analysis methods to analyze resting state functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) data, after OMT and Placebo treatment (P) in 30 healthy asymptomatic young participants randomized into OMT and placebo groups (OMTg; Pg). fMRI brain activity measures, performed before (T0), immediately after (T1) and three days after (T2) OMT or P were used for inferring treatment effects on brain circuit functional organization. Repeated measures ANOVA and post-hoc analysis demonstrated that Right Precentral Gyrus (F (2, 32) = 5.995, p < 0.005) was more influential over the information flow immediately after the OMT, while decreased betweenness centrality in Left Caudate (F (2, 32) = 6.496, p < 0.005) was observable three days after. Clustering coefficient showed a distinct time-point and group effect. At T1, reduced neighborhood connectivity was observed after OMT in the Left Amygdala (L-Amyg) (F (2, 32) = 7.269, p < 0.005) and Left Middle Temporal Gyrus (F (2, 32) = 6.452, p < 0.005), whereas at T2 the L-Amyg and Vermis-III (F (2, 32) = 6.772, p < 0.005) increased functional interactions. Data demonstrated functional connectivity re-arrangement after OMT.

Effect of Spinal Manipulative and Mobilization Therapies in Young Adults With Mild to Moderate Chronic Low Back Pain: A Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

Low back pain (LBP) is one of the most common reasons for seeking medical care. Manual therapy is a common treatment of LBP, yet few studies have directly compared the effectiveness of thrust (spinal manipulation) vs nonthrust (spinal mobilization) techniques.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the comparative effectiveness of spinal manipulation and spinal mobilization at reducing pain and disability compared with a placebo control group (sham cold laser) in a cohort of young adults with chronic LBP.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This single-blinded (investigator-blinded), placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial with 3 treatment groups was conducted at the Ohio Musculoskeletal and Neurological Institute at Ohio University from June 1, 2013, to August 31, 2017. Of 4903 adult patients assessed for eligibility, 4741 did not meet inclusion criteria, and 162 patients with chronic LBP qualified for randomization to 1 of 3 treatment groups. Recruitment began on June 1, 2013, and the primary completion date was August 31, 2017. Data were analyzed from September 1, 2017, to January 20, 2020.

INTERVENTIONS

Participants received 6 treatment sessions of (1) spinal manipulation, (2) spinal mobilization, or (3) sham cold laser therapy (placebo) during a 3-week period.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Coprimary outcome measures were the change from baseline in Numerical Pain Rating Scale (NPRS) score over the last 7 days and the change in disability assessed with the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (scores range from 0 to 24, with higher scores indicating greater disability) 48 to 72 hours after completion of the 6 treatments.

RESULTS

A total of 162 participants (mean [SD] age, 25.0 [6.2] years; 92 women [57%]) with chronic LBP (mean [SD] NPRS score, 4.3 [2.6] on a 1-10 scale, with higher scores indicating greater pain) were randomized. Fifty-four participants were randomized to the spinal manipulation group, 54 to the spinal mobilization group, and 54 to the placebo group. There were no significant group differences for sex, age, body mass index, duration of LBP symptoms, depression, fear avoidance, current pain, average pain over the last 7 days, and self-reported disability. At the primary end point, there was no significant difference in change in pain scores between spinal manipulation and spinal mobilization (0.24 [95% CI, -0.38 to 0.86]; P = .45), spinal manipulation and placebo (-0.03 [95% CI, -0.65 to 0.59]; P = .92), or spinal mobilization and placebo (-0.26 [95% CI, -0.38 to 0.85]; P = .39). There was no significant difference in change in self-reported disability scores between spinal manipulation and spinal mobilization (-1.00 [95% CI, -2.27 to 0.36]; P = .14), spinal manipulation and placebo (-0.07 [95% CI, -1.43 to 1.29]; P = .92) or spinal mobilization and placebo (0.93 [95% CI, -0.41 to 2.29]; P = .17).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this randomized clinical trial, neither spinal manipulation nor spinal mobilization appeared to be effective treatments for mild to moderate chronic LBP.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01854892.

Osteopathic Manipulation in the Management of Chronic Pain: Current Perspectives

Chronic pain is a common condition that often interferes with work or other activities. Guidelines support the use of non-pharmacological treatments, such as spinal manipulation, in patients with chronic pain. Osteopathic physicians in the United States are uniquely positioned to manage chronic pain because their professional philosophy embraces the biopsychosocial model and they are trained in the use of osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT) to complement conventional medical care. This narrative review provides current perspectives on the osteopathic approach to chronic pain management, including evidence for the efficacy of OMT based on systematic searches of the biomedical literature and the ClinicalTrials.gov database. Men, persons with low levels of education, and non-White and Hispanic patients are significantly less likely to have received OMT during their lifetime. Patients with low back and neck pain are most likely to be treated with OMT, and osteopathic manipulative medicine specialty physicians and family medicine physicians most often use OMT. However, many osteopathic physicians report using OMT infrequently. Although OMT is considered safe, based on millions of patient encounters over more than a century, there is limited evidence on its efficacy in treating chronic pain. The lone exception involves chronic low back pain, wherein there is evidence from systematic reviews, a large clinical trial, and observational studies. There is lesser evidence to support cost effectiveness and patient satisfaction associated with OMT for chronic pain. The only clinical practice guideline established by the American Osteopathic Association recommends that OMT should be used to treat chronic low back pain in patients with somatic dysfunction. Given the philosophy of osteopathic medicine, universal training of osteopathic physicians to use OMT, and national guidelines supporting non-pharmacological treatments for chronic pain, it is unclear why OMT use is reported to be remarkably low in physician surveys.

Non-Opioid Perioperative Pain Strategies for the Clinician: A Narrative Review

Alternative and non-opioid options for pain management are necessary in perioperative patient care. Opioids are no longer touted as cure-all medications, and furthermore, there have been tremendous advances in alternative therapies such as in interventional pain, physical therapy, exercise, and nutritional counseling that have proven benefits to combat pain. The center for disease control now strongly recommends the use of multimodal analgesia and multidisciplinary approaches based on the individual needs of patients: personalized medicine. In this manuscript, the specifics of non-opioid pharmacological and non-pharmacological analgesic approaches will be discussed as well as their possible indications and uses to reduce the need for excessive use of opioids for adequate pain control.

Osteopathic Medical Care With and Without Osteopathic Manipulative Treatment in Patients With Chronic Low Back Pain: A Pain Registry-Based Study

Context

The OSTEOPATHIC Trial demonstrated substantial improvement in pain intensity, decreased need for rescue medication for pain, and greater likelihood of recovery in patients with chronic low back pain who received 6 osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT) sessions over 3 months.

Objective

To assess osteopathic medical care and the effectiveness of OMT for chronic low back pain in a real-world setting without the constraints of a rigid research protocol.

Methods

An observational study of 445 adults with chronic low back pain who had an established osteopathic physician (ie, DO) or allopathic physician (ie, MD) was conducted within the PRECISION Pain Research Registry from April 2016 through February 2019. Primary outcome measures included a numerical rating scale for low back pain intensity, the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire for back-related functioning, and use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs or opioids for low back pain.

Results

A total of 79, 48, and 318 patients, respectively, were treated by DOs who used OMT, DOs who did not use OMT, or MDs. Patients treated by DOs who used OMT reported significantly lesser low back pain intensity (mean numerical rating score, 5.6; 95% CI, 5.1-6.1 vs 6.1; 95% CI, 5.9-6.3; P=.04) and back-related disability (mean Roland-Morris Disability score, 12.4; 95% CI, 11.1-13.8 vs 14.4; 95% CI, 13.7-15.0; P=.009) than patients treated by MDs. Patients treated by DOs who used OMT also reported less frequent use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (multivariate odds ratio, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.24-0.70; P=.001) or opioids (multivariate odds ratio, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.28-0.98; P=.04). There were no significant differences in primary outcomes between DOs who did not use OMT and MDs.

Conclusion

This study of community-based patients in a pain research registry supports the effectiveness of OMT as an integral component of osteopathic medical care for chronic low back pain. Patients treated by DOs who did not use OMT did not experience better results than patients treated by MDs in any primary outcome measure. Further research is needed to more specifically compare the effects of OMT with other treatment effects that may be attributed to patient-DO interactions during medical encounters.

The effect of spinal manipulation on brain neurometabolites in chronic nonspecific low back pain patients: a randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND

In patients with chronic nonspecific low back pain (NCLBP), brain function changes due to the neuroplastic changes in different regions.

AIM

The current study aimed to evaluate the brain metabolite changes after spinal manipulation, using proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy (¹H-MRS).

METHODS

In the current study, 25 patients with NCLBP aged 20-50 years were enrolled. Patients were randomly assigned to lumbopelvic manipulation or sham. Patients were evaluated before and 5 weeks after treatment by the Numerical Rating Scale (NRS), the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and ¹H-MRS.

RESULTS

After treatment, severity of pain and functional disability were significantly reduced in the treatment group vs. sham group (p < 0.05). After treatment, N-acetyl aspartate (NAA) in thalamus, insula, dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) regions, as well as choline (Cho) in the thalamus, insula, and somatosensory cortex (SSC) regions, had increased significantly in the treatment group compared with the sham group (p < 0.05). A significant increase was further observed in NAA in thalamus, anterior cingulate cortex (ACC), and SCC regions along with Cho metabolite in thalamus and SCC regions after treatment in the treatment group compared with the baseline measures (p < 0.05). Also, a significant increase was observed in Glx (glutamate and glutamine) levels of thalamus (p = 0.03). There was no significant difference in terms of brain metabolites at baseline and after treatment in the sham group.

CONCLUSION

In the patient with low back pain, spinal manipulation affects the central nervous system and changes the brain metabolites. Consequently, pain and functional disability are reduced.

Tolerance of Rib Raising Among Hospitalized Patients: A Pilot Study

Context

Rib raising is an osteopathic manipulative treatment modality that can help patients with various respiratory conditions to improve their work of breathing. However, the tolerance of this technique in hospitalized patients has not been assessed in a systematic manner. We hypothesized that rib raising would be a well-tolerated treatment modality for hospitalized patients admitted for asthma, pneumonia, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and/or congestive heart failure.

Objective

To determine hospitalized patients' tolerance of rib raising through a prospective pilot study.

Methods

The study included patients at University Hospitals-Richmond Medical Center and University Hospitals-Bedford Medical Center who were admitted for asthma, pneumonia, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and/or congestive heart failure between November 1, 2016, and October 31, 2017. Each patient was treated with rib raising, which was performed in a standardized fashion. Immediately after treatment, patients were asked to rate their tolerance of the procedure on a scale of 0 to 10, where 0 represented no discomfort and 10 represented maximum discomfort.

Results

The study population consisted of 87 hospitalized, non-intensive care unit patients. The mean tolerance score for rib raising was 1.18, and the median score was 0. The score was between 0 and 3 in 80 patients (92.0%), between 4 and 6 in 6 patients (6.9%), and between 7 and 10 in 1 patient (1.1%).

Conclusion

Rib raising was shown to be well tolerated by the majority of the patients in the study population.

Cerebral Perfusion Changes After Osteopathic Manipulative Treatment: A Randomized Manual Placebo-Controlled Trial

Osteopathic Manipulative Treatment (OMT) is a therapeutic approach aimed at enhancing the body's self-regulation focusing on somatic dysfunctions correction. Despite evidence of OMT effectiveness, the underlying neurophysiological mechanisms, as well as blood perfusion effects, are still poorly understood. The study aim was to address OMT effects on cerebral blood flow (CBF) in asymptomatic young volunteers as measured by Magnetic Resonance Arterial Spin Labeling (ASL) method. Thirty blinded participants were randomized to OMT or placebo, and evaluated with an MRI protocol before manual intervention (T0), immediately after (T1), and 3 days later (T2). After T0 MRI, participants received 45 min of OMT, focused on correcting whole body somatic dysfunctions, or placebo manual treatment, consisting of passive touches in a protocolled order. After treatment, participants completed a de-blinding questionnaire about treatment perception. Results show significant differences due to treatment only for the OMT group (OMTg): perfusion decreased (compared to T0) in a cluster comprising the left posterior cingulate cortex (PCC) and the superior parietal lobule, while increased at T2 in the contralateral PCC. Furthermore, more than 60% of participants believed they had undergone OMT. The CBF modifications at T2 suggest that OMT produced immediate but reversible effects on CBF.

Osteopathic care for spinal complaints: A systematic literature review

The aim of the current study was to evaluate the literature examining the impact of osteopathic care for spinal complaints. The bibliographic databases Medline (Pubmed), Web of Science, Embase, and PEDro were searched. In addition, a number of grey literature sources were searched. Only randomized controlled trials conducted in high-income Western countries were considered. Two authors independently screened the titles and abstracts. Primary outcomes included ‘pain’ and ‘functional status’, while secondary outcomes included ‘medication use’ and ‘health status’. It was examined if differences existed related to the treatment protocol and geography (European vs. US studies). Study quality was assessed using the risk of bias tool of the Cochrane Back Review Group. Nineteen studies were included and qualitatively synthesized. Nine studies were from the US, followed by Germany with seven studies. The majority of studies (n = 13) focused on low back pain. In general, mixed findings related to the impact of osteopathic care on primary and secondary outcomes were observed. For the primary outcomes, a clear distinction between US and European studies was found, in favor of the latter ones. Studies were characterized by substantial methodological differences in sample sizes, number of treatments, control groups, and follow-up. In conclusion, there is some evidence suggesting that osteopathic care may be effective for people suffering from spinal complaints. Further studies with larger study samples and assessment of long-term impact are required to further increase the evidence-based knowledge of the potential of osteopathic care for individuals suffering from spinal complaints.

Profile of osteopathic practice in Spain: results from a standardized data collection study

Background

There is limited research regarding patients’ profiles and consumer attitudes and habits of osteopathy in Spain. The purpose of this study was to profile patients who regularly receive osteopathic care in Spain using an internationally developed standardized data collection tool.

Method

During the period between April 2014 and December 2015, a UK-developed standardized data collection tool was distributed to Spanish osteopaths who voluntarily agreed to participate in this cross-sectional study.

Results

Thirty-six osteopaths participated in this study and returned a total of 314 completed datasets. Of 314 patients, 61% were women and 39% were men, with a mean age of 40 years (SD 17.02 years, range 0 to 83 years). Forty-four percent were full-time salaried workers, and in 78% of cases, receiving osteopathic treatment was the patient’s own choice. Chronic spinal pain presentations were the most frequent reasons for consultation. Seventy-five percent of patients presented with a coexisting condition, mainly gastrointestinal disorders and headaches. The main treatment approach consisted of mobilization techniques, followed by soft tissue, cranial and high velocity thrust techniques. Improvement or resolution of the complaint was experienced by 93% of patients after a small number of sessions. Adverse events were minor and occurred in 7% of all cases.

Conclusion

This is the first study carried out in Spain analyzing the profile of patients who receive osteopathic care. The typical patient who receives osteopathic care in Spain is middle-aged, presents mainly with chronic spinal pain, and voluntarily seeks osteopathic treatment. Osteopathic treatment produces a significant improvement in the majority of cases with a low rate of minor adverse events reported.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12906-018-2190-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

An Osteopathic Approach to Chronic Pain Management

Chronic pain reduces quality of life and productivity, costing billions in health care dollars and lost revenue. Physicians routinely prescribe opioids, which has led to opioid addiction and overdose. The US surgeon general recommends nonpharmacologic treatment for patients with chronic pain. A paradigm shift is necessary for patients to partner with physicians to take control of their own health. This article outlines the cognitive behavioral approaches, nonopioid therapies, and nonpharmacologic therapies that osteopathic physicians can integrate in their treatment of patients with chronic pain.