Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Hipsters Unite! Explore the hip's role in patients with low back pain

4,326 views

Published on

Delivered at the 2012 TPTA Annual Conference in San Antonio, TX.

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

Hipsters Unite! Explore the hip's role in patients with low back pain

  1. 1. Hipsters Unite!Examining the hip’s influence for patients with back pain. Eric K. Robertson, PT, DPT, OCS, FAAOMPT Assistant Professor Texas State University
  2. 2. Hipster Defined What is a hipster? You‘d be surprised. It could very well be YOU. A hipster is an individual—one that usually fits within a certain subculture. Which subculture? It doesn‘t matter. Because the definition for hipster is so very vague In its most simplest terms, a hipster is an individual who wants to know things.Source: quotes from a Hipster named Adam  (http://travelsofadam.com/what-is-a-hipster/)
  3. 3. Fact #52―If you were to lay every hipster in the world end to end, we don‘t know the length of the line they would form, but there would be an Apple store at the end of the line.‖
  4. 4. Austin: Epic Hipster Population *Ranked #2 behind Seattle, WA for hipsterism by designtrends.com
  5. 5. Actual Austin HipstersA confirmation that a) hipsters do exist in a nearby geographiclocale, and that b) sometimes they gather, and that c)whatever, I‘m going to just write what I want in the true spirit ofhipsterism.
  6. 6. Actually What This Talk is REALLY About:An examination into the age-old concept that a) yes, the hip bone isconnected to the back bone, that b) when one hurts, the other mostoften suffers, and that c) by paying attention to trends in movementpatterns we can flesh out how to direct treatments at the hip that mayassist us in treating patients with low back pain.
  7. 7. Actually What This Talk is REALLY About:An examination into the age-old concept that a) yes, the hip bone isconnected to the back bone, that b) when one hurts, the other mostoften suffers, and that c) by paying attention to trends in movementpatterns we can flesh out how to direct treatments at the hip that mayassist us in treating patients with low back pain.
  8. 8. Butt First…
  9. 9. Oh, the Aching Backs!Low Back Pain: Eric K. Robertson, PT, DPT, OCSA Current State of Affairs
  10. 10. Relative Healthcare Costs Cost in Billions350 Cardiovascular300 Disease250200 Cancer Diabetes LBP All Arthritis150100 50 0
  11. 11. Relative Healthcare Costs Cost in Billions800700 CHRONIC PAIN!600500 Cardiovascular400 Disease300200100 0
  12. 12. Which of the following are predictors of LBP?• Bulging disc without herniation or root • History of depression contact • History of• Bulging disc without occupational-related herniation but with LBP nerve root contact • Fearful beliefs about• Herniated/Prolapsed work as reported in a discs survey• End plate changes / Shmorl‘s nodes• Foraminal or canal Psychosocial stenosis findingsPhysical findings/ Imaging
  13. 13. How did you do? Physically:  Only disc contact with nerve root has been shown to be a WEAK predictor of LBP Psychosocial:  Depression, occupational injuries, and fear- avoidance are all STRONG predictors of LBP Implications in terms of pain?
  14. 14. Summary of LBP Predictors ? Physical Psychosocial
  15. 15. The Hip – Spine Relationship It‘s hip to have a high yield!
  16. 16. The Hip Bone‘s Connected to the… Hip – Spine Syndrome (Offierski and MacNab, 1983)  Proposed a formal relationship between hip and spine pain  Three subgroups  Simple – Primary Dysfunction of one area, but symptoms in another  Complex – Dysfunction in both hip and spine  Secondary – Hip and Spine pain are dependent and inter-related  This tight hip flexors and increased lumbar lordosis, as example
  17. 17. Offierski and MacNab, 1983
  18. 18. Hip – Spine Syndrome Though frequently cited, few have expanded upon the work of Offierski and MacNab. Ben-Galim et al., 2007 – Effects of THA on LBP  25 individuals with severe hip OA, received THA  No radiographic spine changes, but baseline LBP was 5.8 on VAS  Subjects had PT for ambulation, hip motion, but not for lumbar spine
  19. 19. Ben-Galim et al., 2007 Pain - LBP Disability - LBP6 405 3043 202 1010 0 VAS ODI
  20. 20. More recently… 10 Saito et al, Spine, May 2012Case series:4 patients with legpain and confirmedspinal stenosis and HipOA. 1 Fusion Helped by THA Helped by Fusion TKA ―I‘m sorry we fused your spine…‖ ―Conclusions. It is difficult to determine the origin of lower leg pain by spinal nerve block and hip joint block in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis and hip osteoarthritis. We take this into consideration before surgery.‖
  21. 21. So let‘s think about this connection…How can we evolve as hipsters?
  22. 22. Lumbo-PelvicArthrokinematics What is normal lumbopelvic rhythm and how does this impact the hip-spine relationship?
  23. 23. Normal Lumbopelvic Rhythm Lumbar spine and hips contribute to flexion in equal magnitudes.  Early flexion from the lumbar spine  Later flexion from the hip contribution  Extension is the reverse, with muscle activation occurring from a caudad to cephalad direction  Twisting motions are primarily from hip contribution Lee & Wang
  24. 24. How about with LBP? We move slower, and with less magnitude. Hip:Spine Ratio (Shum et al, 4 studies)  Normal ratio: 0.50  LBP: 0.38-0.40 (reduced lumbar spine contribution)  Perhaps even less lumbar motion in those with +SLR Peak angular velocity also reduced for individuals with LBP
  25. 25. Shum et al. Contribution Examined patients with and without LBP Looked at:  Simple sit-stand  Sock donning  Twisting  Picking up and object from a seated position Altered movement strategies may be a strategy to protect injured lumbar tissues  These changes are larger in those with neural tension signs
  26. 26. Lumbopelvic Motion Many authors agree that more lumbar motion, earlier in the range, especially with rotation is apparent in patients with low back pain. (Burnett et al., 2004; Esola et al., 1996; Luomajoki et al., 2008; McClure et al., 1997; Roussel et al., 2009) Inconclusive overall.  Heterogeneous populations? Can sub-grouping help us?
  27. 27. Low Back Pain Classification Systems:  McKenzie-based  Treatment-based classification  Movement System Impairment  Commonalities?  Movement  Symptoms reproduced matters  Hip motion matters
  28. 28. Low Back Pain Classification Systems:  McKenzie-based  Treatment-based classification  Movement System Impairment  Commonalities?  Movement  Symptoms reproduced matters  Hip motion matters
  29. 29. Treatment-based Classification Hip Influence:  Spinal Manipulation and Exercise Group  CPR:  < 16 days  No pain beyond knee  Hypomobile lumbar spine accessory motion  Low Fear-Avoidance Beliefs  Hip Motion (>35 degrees)  Also, we see something interesting in the Stability subgroup…  Important factors: Age, recurrent pain, SLR ROM, etc
  30. 30. Arthrokinematics of a Subgroup Teyhen et al, 2007 in PTJ Examined subgroup indentified to have suspected spinal instability per CPR  Fluroscopic computer analysis Found segmental HYPO-mobility in this subgroup!
  31. 31. Hip Hypomobility with LBP Tafazzoli and Lamontagne, 1996 With LBP:  Increased passive elastic moment on the hamstrings  Increased hip stiffness to oscillatory motions A rationale to treat the hips for patients presenting with primary LBP
  32. 32. More Hip Trouble from LBP Reduced Hip Flexion in patients with LBP  Wong and Lee, 2004  3-dimensional analysis of functional motion in patients with LBP Increased ER compared to IR in patients with LBP  Cibulka et al, 1998  Examined over 100 patients with LBP
  33. 33. Low Back Pain Classification Systems:  McKenzie-based  Treatment-based classification  Movement System Impairment  Commonalities?  Movement  Symptoms reproduced matters  Hip motion matters
  34. 34. Movement System Impairment System People with LBP demonstrate earlier and greater lumbopelvic rotation during hip lateral rotation compared to people without LBP 5 groups (based on history, symptoms with movement and alignment)  lumbar extension rotation syndrome  lumbar extension syndrome  lumbar flexion rotation syndrome  lumbar flexion syndrome  lumbar rotation syndrome Important exam items related to the hip:  Hip Ext, Rot ROM, Hip abduction with lateral rotation in hook- lying, relative hip flexibility, hip motion in supine Van Dillen, Sahrmann, et al. 2003
  35. 35. Hip Musculature and LBP If we‘re moving differently, we‘re using our muscles differently, right?
  36. 36. Neuromuscular control of walkingwith chronic low-back pain Vogt et al., 2003, Manual Therapy  17 male subjects, hip ROM, surface EMG during gait Subjects with moderate low back pain had:  Decreased hip motion and stride time  Decreased hip extensor and lumbar spine extensor muscle activity  Persistent firing of the above noted muscle groups compared to controls Leinonen et al., 2000 – observed similar decreased gluteus maximus activation in patients with LBP
  37. 37. Lumbopelvic Stabilization  Hungerford et al., 2003, Spine.  EMG analysis of 14 individuals with SIJ pain compared to age-matched controls  Reduced activation of  Internal oblique  Multifidus  Gluteus maximus
  38. 38. Where We Stand As Hipsters Diagnostic Dilemma Patterns of Known Impairments of the hip in patients with low back pain Presence of hip-based factors in classification systems for clinicians to use when treating patients with low back pain. Practically Speaking: Education about the role of the hip in low back pain is something that people tend to teach in weekend courses and at conferences like this. It‘s not something much research has supported.
  39. 39. Evidence for InterventionsWhat guidance do we have concerning the hip-spine connection? Image by mpascoe via Flickr
  40. 40. Regional Interdependence Defined ―Seemingly unrelated impairments in a remote anatomical region may contribute to, or be associated with, the patient‘s primary complaint.‖ Wainner, Whitman, Cleland & Flynn. Regional Interdependence: A Musculoskeletal Examination Model Whose Time Has Come. JOSPT, 2007, (37)11.
  41. 41. Spine & Extremity Regions Typical referred & radiating pain patterns Impairments - often seemingly unrelated
  42. 42. Is this actually happening in clinical practice?
  43. 43. Examples in the Literature: Intervention StudiesPrimary LBP• Cibulka, JOSPT, 1999 Primary Knee Pain• Boyle & Demske, Physiotherapy  Deyle et al, Ann Int Med, ‗00 Theory & Practice, ‗09  Deyle et al, PT, ‘05• Whitman et al, PM&R Clinics of  Cliborne et al, JOSPT ‘04 North America 2003  Currier et al, Phys Ther, ‘07• Whitman et al, Spine 2006  Lowry et al, JOSPT, ‘08  Iverson et al, Phys Ther, ‘08  Mascal et al, JOSPT, ‘03  Cibulka & Threlkeld- Watkins, JOSPT, ‘05Primary Hip Pain  Vaughn, JOSPT, ‗08• Cibulka & Delitto, JOSPT, 1993 Primary Foot Pain• Konczak & Ames, JMPT, 2004 • Cleland et al, JOSPT, 2009• Wisdo, JMPT, 2004
  44. 44. Treat the Lower Quarter forPrimary Low Back Pain Classic Examples in the Literature
  45. 45. Lower Quarter Treatment for Primary LBP Low Back Pain • Cibulka, JOSPT, ’99 • Boyle & Demske, Physiotherapy Theory & Practice, ‗09 Lumbar Spinal Stenosis • Whitman et al, Spine. ‘06 • Whitman et al, PM&R Clinics of North America, ‘03
  46. 46. Differential Dx for Hip vs. Spine Disease Brown, et al. Clin Orthop. Feb 2004:280-284 97 pts with LE pain referred to spine specialty clinic  Age - mean 67.5 ± 11.6 years History, physical exam, & diagnostic testing completed Imaging studies gold standard for diagnosis Findings:  19% - spinal disorders only  36% - hip & spine in conjunction  45% - hip only disorders  81% - had some hip involvement present Limitations  Diagnostic & test review with spectrum bias
  47. 47. • Limp, groin pain, limited IR at hip – More likely to be present in a patient with a hip disorder• Positive femoral stretch test – More likely to have a spine disorder
  48. 48. Hamstring Muscle Strain Treated by Mobilizing the Sacroiliac Joint Cibulka et al, Phys Ther, 1986
  49. 49. Hamstring Muscle Strain Treated byMobilizing the Sacroiliac Joint 20 patients with a HS  Dependent Measures strain  Hamstring flexibility  Hamstring muscle torque  Quadriceps muscle torque Control- MH and stretching Experimental- MH, stretching and SI manip  Significant difference in hamstring torque for experimental group.
  50. 50. N = 60 patients with LSSOutcomes: • GRC, Disability (OSW) • Baseline, 6-weeks, 1-year, long-term (mean 27-29 mo)Interventions: • All subjects: 2x/wk for 6 wks in-clinic, walk at home 3x/week Flexion Exercise & Manual PT, Exercise, and Walking Group (FExWG) Walking Group (MPTExWG) • Sub-therapeutic US, SKC/DKC, •BWS TM walking & SKC/DKC TM walking program • Manual physical therapy - Impairment-Based, Comprehensive Lower Quarter
  51. 51. Regions Treated 100 Patients receiving treatment (%) 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Thoracic Lumbo-Pelvic Hip Knee Ankle/Foot
  52. 52. Interventions Utilized: Lower Extremities 100 90 80 70 Percentage 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Hip Knee Ankle/Foot Manipulation Mobilization Stretch Muscle Energy
  53. 53. Hip MobilizationsLong-Axis Distraction Supine P-A Currier et al, JOSPT, 2008 MacDonald, JOSPT, 2006
  54. 54. Hip MobilizationsProne A-P in FABER Position Prone A-P in FABER Position Currier et al, JOSPT, 2008 MacDonald, JOSPT, 2006
  55. 55. Related RegionalInterdependence Facts
  56. 56. Other RI Facts: Hip-Spine Syndrome / RelationshipsHip ROM & LBP/SIJ Ellison et al, Phys Ther, ‘90; Chesworth et al, Physiother Canada, ‘94; Cibulka et al, Spine, ‘98; Sjolie , Scand J Med Sci, sports, ‘04; Vad et al, Am J Sports Med, ‘04; Coplan, JOSPT, ‘02; Mellin, Spine, ‘88 Porter & Wilkinson; Spine ‘97; Mellin. Spine ‘88Hip Region Muscle Performance & LBP Nadler et al, Clin J Sport Med, ‘00; Nadler et al, Am J Phys Med Rehabil, ‘01; Nadler et al, Med Sci Sports Exerc, ‘02; Kandaanpaa et al, Arch Phys Med Rehabil, ‘98; Nourbakhsh & Arab, JOSPT, ‗02Hip Region Muscle Performance & LBP Offierski & McNab, Spine ‘83; Ben-Galim et al, Spine, ‘07; Murata et al, Clin Orthop Surg, ‘02; Nakamura et al, Acta Orthop Scand, ‘03; Yoshimoto et al, Spine, ‘05; Takemitsu et al, Spine, ‘88; Sato et al, J Musculoskelet Syst, ‘89; Itoi, Spine, ‘91; Watanabe et al, Orthopedics, ‗02Reiman, Weisbach, and Glynn. The Hip’s Influence on Low Back Pain: A Distal Link to a ProximalProblem. Journal of Sport Rehab, ‘09
  57. 57. Other RI Facts Associations between:  Hip ROM & response to spinal manipulation Flynn et al. Spine ’02.Childs et al, Ann Int Med ’04  Hip Abd, ER, and Ext Weakness and PFPS Robinson, JOSPT, ‘07; Ireland, JOSPT, ‗03 SIJ manipulation and quadriceps facilitation  Suter et al. JMPT ‘00 SIJ manipulation and HS peak torque changes (pts with HS strain)  Cibulka et al, Phys Ther, ‗85 LSS source of pain identified after THA  Bohl et al, Spine, ‘79, Saito et el, Spine 2012 Concomitant spine and hip disease extremely common  Brown et al, CORR, ‘04
  58. 58. Primary Hip Interventions for Patientswith Low Back Pain and Hip Impairments:A Prospective Case Series (Preliminary Results)Eric K. Robertson1, Cheryl Sparks2, Derek Clewley31Faculty,Department of Physical Therapy, Texas State University, San Marcos, TX, USA, 2Faculty, Department ofPhysical Therapy, Bradley University, Peoria, IL, USA, 3Benchmark Physical Therapy, Atlanta, GA, USA*Acknowledgement: Dr. Julie M. Whitman for her review of the study design and report.Research performed as part of the Evidence in Motion Fellowship Program
  59. 59. Although many clinicians whoare perceived as experts oftendescribe examination andinterventions at the hip forpatients with low backpain, very little evidencedescribing this exists.Lack of Research
  60. 60. Management of a Female with ChronicSciatica and LBP: A Case Report History  6 weeks of lumbar stabilization and flexibility intervention did not eliminate symptoms Intervention  Treatment plan revised to include impairment-based left hip capsule flexibility  Also included hip strengthening to glut med Outcome  Complete resolution of pain, disability (0 NPRS, 0% on ODI (reduced from 41% at baseline)) Boyle and Demske, 2009 Physiotherapy Theory and Practice
  61. 61. Management of a Female with Chronic Sciatica and LBP:A Case Report• History 60 • 6-weeks of lumbar stabilization and flexibility 50 intervention did not eliminate symptoms 40• Intervention 30 41% Reduction. • Treatment plan revised to 20 include impairment-based left hip capsule flexibility 10 • Also included hip Spine Interventions strengthening to glut med 0 Hip Interventions NPRS ODI Boyle and Demske, 2009 Physiotherapy Theory and Practice
  62. 62. PurposeThe purpose of this prospective case series was two-fold.1. Describe the clinical decision making process involved in the management of patients with primary complaints of low back and hip pain.2. Provide an evidence-based rationale for directing treatment at the hip in a sub-group of patients with low back pain.
  63. 63. Number of SubjectsSix subjects referred to physical therapy with low back pain whoalso demonstrated impairments at the hip were recruited toparticipate. (Note: Data collection is still in progress, currentlyhave 11 enrolled.)
  64. 64. About the SubjectsInclusion Criteria:• 1. Adults referred to PT with a primary complaint of low back pain (LBP)• 2. Positive hip impairments as identified in the patient’s initial physical examination*Definition of positive hip impairment:• Positive special tests, decreased ROM, decreased muscle strength, reversed lumbo-pelvic rhythm, decreased mobility or pain with accessory motions, or findings consistent with the clinical presentation of hip osteoarthritis per the criteria established by Altman et al.
  65. 65. About the SubjectsExclusion Criteria:• Any medical red flags• Spinal or femoral fractures, except for degenerative spondylolisthesis or spondylolisis• Upper motor neural compromise• Pregnancy• Lower motor neuron changes suggestive of nerve root irritation and/or compression (positive straight leg raise at <45º or diminished lower extremity strength, sensation, or reflexes• High fear-avoidance beliefs (>35 on the Fear Avoidance Belief Questionnaire Work [FABQW] subscale)• Previous history of spine or hip surgery• Inability to read and understand English
  66. 66. Methods• Primary outcomes: • Secondary outcomes: • Oswestry Disability • Global Rating of Change Index, (ODI) (GROC) • Harris Hip Score (HHS) • Assessment of hip impairments. • Numerical Pain Rating Scale (NPRS) Initial Examination Week 4 Visit #2 (2-3 days after Initial Examination) Institutional Review Board approval was obtained from Bradley University for this study.
  67. 67. Important Exam Items Hip Examination ROM, all planes• +/- Hip Impairment Special Tests: Scour, FABER, other• Positive special tests, decreased Flexibility: Hip flexor, extensor length ROM, decreased muscle Strength: All planes strength, reversed lumbo-pelvic rhythm, decreased mobility or pain with accessory motions, or findings Lumbar Spine Examination consistent with the clinical presentation of hip osteoarthritis per ROM Screen the criteria established by Altman et al. Accessory Mobility Core musculature assessment Special Tests: SLR, PIT, etc
  68. 68. Hip Examination Item ResultsHip ROM Impairments 6/6Hip Weakness 4/6+ Hip Special Test 5/6Median age was 50 years (range, 27-61 years)Examination Results
  69. 69. InterventionsDay 1: Examination and Initial TreatmentIf hip impairment was noted, then treatment progressed in the following manner:• Manual Interventions focused on hip. (thrust/non-thrust)• Hip-specific therapeutic exercise• Reinforcing Home Exercise Program• Re-assess Day 2.
  70. 70. InterventionsExercises provided to focus on• gluteus maximus,• hip abduction and external rotation• core stabilization progression.Neuromuscular re-education: • Movement re-education consisting of patient instruction, practice if abnormalities noted, i.e. sit to stand • Squatting and proper lifting mechanics • Proprioceptive core stability exercises
  71. 71. InterventionsDay 2 – Week 4 Treatment• Treat per impairment-based approach or a pragmatic application of the Treatment-based classification approach.• HEP and TherEx continued to stress hip-focused interventions
  72. 72. ResultsResults: At 4 weeks, the average improvement in ODI scores was 39%, and24% for the HHS. 66% of the patients experienced a significant decrease in theNPRS. 100% of patients for which data was collected experienced at least achange of 4 on the GROC (4-7), indicating at least moderate improvement.Avg. visits = 7.3 (3-10). Numeric Pain Rating Global Rating of Change* Scale* 5.3 2.8 Median 5.25, (range, 4-7) Median 3, (range, 0-5) “Quite a bit better” MCID: 1.8 *Note: Data on GROC collected for 4/6 patients.
  73. 73. ODI Avg. Change Day 2 4 Week 4 20 Oswestry Disability Index9080706050 Baseline40 Day 2 Week 43020100 Patient 1 Patient 2 Patient 3 Patient 4 Patient 5 Patient 6
  74. 74. HHS Avg. % Change Day 2 18 Week 4 24 Harris Hip Score100 90 80 70 60 Baseline 50 Day 2 40 Week 4 30 20 10 0 Patient 1 Patient 2 Patient 3 Patient 4 Patient 5 Patient 6
  75. 75. • Small Case Series = No Cause and Effect• Not consecutive subjects• Control over interventions limited, especially the neuromuscular reeducation to the coreLimitations
  76. 76. Short-term response of hip mobilizations andexercise in individuals with chronic low backpain: a case series • Subjects: • 8 Subjects with CLBP, Avg age 49, with ROM impairments • Intervention • Impairment-based manual therapy to Bilateral Hips • 3 Sessions over 1 week • Outcome • 5/8 (65%) reports >4 “Moderately Better” on the GROC • 24% reduction in ODI scores “This case series suggests that an impairment-based approach directed at the hip joints may lead toimprovements in pain, function, and disability in patients with CLBP. A neurophysiologic mechanism may be aplausible explanation regarding the clinical outcomes of this study. A larger, well-controlled trial is needed todetermine the potential effectiveness of this approach with patients with CLBP.” Burns, Mintken, Austin, Cleland. 2010 JMMT
  77. 77. Conclusions• Significant improvements were observed in all primary outcome measures at 4 weeks.• Secondary outcome measures trended towards significant improvements.• This case series provides preliminary evidence that some patients with low back pain may receive a benefit from interventions directed at the hip.• Future studies should work to determine the factors that can predict patients that may realize this benefit.
  78. 78. HOW TO GET HIPYes, you can be a hipster too!
  79. 79. Posterior Pelvic Tilts Williams Flexion Exercises Hot Packs Massage Ultrasound That‘s so yesterday! Once we acknowledge the role of the LE in back pain, it frees us from the constraints of patients with low back pain. It allows us tobecome creative and challenge our patients in new ways.
  80. 80. ADVANCE EXERCISE CONCEPTSFOR THE …HIP? LOW BACK? DPTMWG
  81. 81. DPTMWG
  82. 82. • Progression of: • Limb support • Surface • Visual input • Perturbations • Task demands Proprioceptive/Balance Training DPTMWG
  83. 83. Testing For Strength In CKC Positions• Sit to Stand• Squat• Leg Press• Lunge
  84. 84. • Used most often with older individuals• Performance is based on given period of time (10-30 seconds) and reps recorded or given reps and time recorded in seconds• Sit to stand performance has direct correlation to knee extension force and leg press force. Sit To Stand TestJones et al DPTMWG
  85. 85. Sit to stand Test DPTMWG
  86. 86. • Sit to Stand Test (Csuka et al, Am J Med 1985) • Regression equation for predicting normal performance for 10 stand ups. Results are in seconds. • Women: 7.6 + .17 x age • Men: 4.9 +.19 x age Sit to Stand Test DPTMWG
  87. 87. • Utilized to compare uninvolved to involved and also to compare to norms• Associated with thigh, hip and buttock strength• Takes balance and core factors out of strength assessment.• Greater than 90% of contra-lateral considered acceptable Leg Press Test for Strength DPTMWG
  88. 88. Plisky et al. N Am J Sports Phys Ther. 2009 May; 4(2): 92–99. DPTMWG
  89. 89. • Significant differences associated with chronic ankle instability and ACL insufficiency• Can be predictive of LE injury• What about LBP?! Population Reach Distance Implication P value All Players R:L Difference of 2.5x more likely to p<.05 >4 cm sustain LE injury Females <94% of LE 6x more likely to p<.05 length sustain LE injury Y Balance Test Utility DPTMWG
  90. 90. Mascal et al. Management of patellofemoral pain targeting hip, pelvis,and trunk muscle function: 2 case reports. JOSPT 2003 N=2 20, 37 y/o females
  91. 91. Mascal et al. Management of patellofemoral pain targeting hip, pelvis,and trunk muscle function: 2 case reports. JOSPT 2003 • 14 week treatment period focused on recruitment and endurance training of the hip, pelvis and trunk (including TrA) • Patients attended PT 1-2 times per week • Hip muscles (particularly glut max, med and external rotators) were progressively strengthened, starting in NWB followed by WB functional tasks
  92. 92. Hip Abductors and ERs • Mini-squats, step-ups/downs and leg presses for concentric/eccentric control, BAPS board/lunges for proprioceptive training Core muscle trainingRestore Neuromuscular Control
  93. 93. It‘s Hip to have a high yield!
  94. 94. Before I leave you…
  95. 95. Relative Healthcare Costs Cost in Billions800700 CHRONIC PAIN!600500 Cardiovascular400 Disease300200100 0
  96. 96. Pain… It might not be as much of a physical thing as we think! We need to consider the cognitive components!
  97. 97. L E V E LP A I N Injury! Adapted from Butler & Mosely, 2008, ―Explain Pain‖ H E A L I N G R E S P ON SE
  98. 98. ―Nociception is neither sufficientfor, or necessary to experience pain.‖ Adapted from Butler & Mosely, 2008, ―Explain Pain‖
  99. 99. Identifying Patients at Risk forChronic PainGeorge & Zepperi, JOSPT, July- 2009  Fear-avoidance model of musculoskeletal pain (FAM) (Measured by FABQ)  Factors influencing pain perception  Anxiety  Fear of re-injury  Catastrophizing Confrontation Avoidance Anxiety Anxiety Fear of re-injury Fear of re-injury Catastrophizing Catastrophizing
  100. 100. FDAQ – A Measurement George & Zepperi, JOSPT, July- 2009 George et al., PTJ, July- 2009
  101. 101. Establishing a BaselineTherapist: ‗How long can you walk before you flare-up?‘Patient: ‗I can walk for 30 min but I pay for it the next day‘Therapist: ‗Can you walk for 20 min without flaring up?‘Patient: ‗No, but I have‘Therapist: ‗Can you walk for 10 min without flaring up?‘Patient: ‗Probably not — definitely not up hills‘Therapist: ‗5 min on a flat surface?‘Patient: ‗Probably‘Therapist: ‗3 min on a flat surface?‘Patient: ‗Definitely‘
  102. 102. Continuous Progression ‗Every day you do more than you did yesterday, but not much more‘ …at least initially. Setting clear measurable goals and objectives!
  103. 103. KEY POINTS Pain is not nociception The representation of the body in the human brain The brain changes as the pain persists Body-brain is a 2 way street Training the brain for people in Pain This is VERY Hip.
  104. 104. References:• Davies, GJ, Zillmer, DA. Functional Progression of a Patient Through a Rehabilitation Program. Orthopaedic Physical Therapy Clinics of North America, 9:103-118, 2000• Caffrey E, Docherty CL, Schrader J, Klossner J. The ability of 4 single-limb hopping tests to detect functional performance deficits in individuals with functional ankle instability. The Journal of orthopaedic and sports physical therapy. 2009;39(11):799-806.• Kong DH, Yang SJ, Ha JK, et al. Validation of functional performance tests after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Knee surgery & related research. 2012;24(1):40-5.• Munro AG, Herrington LC. Between-session reliability of the star excursion balance test. Physical therapy in sport  : 2010;11(4):128-32. Available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21055706. Accessed July 25, 2012.• Narducci E, Waltz A, Gorski K, Leppla L, Donaldson M. The clinical utility of functional performance tests within one-year post-acl reconstruction: a systematic review. International journal of sports physical therapy. 2011;6(4):333-42. Available at: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=3230161&tool=pmcentrez&rendertype=abstract.• Pigozzi F, Giombini A, Macaluso A. Do current methods of strength testing for the return to sport after injuries really address functional performance? American journal of physical medicine & rehabilitation. 2012;91(5):458-60. Available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22415342. Accessed July 25, 2012.• Reid A, Birmingham TB, Stratford PW, Alcock GK, Giffin JR. Hop testing provides a reliable and valid outcome measure during rehabilitation after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Physical therapy. 2007;87(3):337-49• Plisky P. Star Excursion Balance Test as a Predictor of Lower Extremity Injury in High School Basketball Players. Journal of Orthopaedic and Sports Physical Therapy. 2006;36(12):911-919.• Hertel J, Braham RA, Hale SA, Olmsted-kramer LC. Simplifying the Star Excursion Balance Test  Chronic Ankle Instability. : Journal of Orthopaedic and Sports Physical Therapy. 2006;36(12).• Hewett TE, Myer GD, Ford KR, et al. Biomechanical measures of neuromuscular control and valgus loading of the knee predict anterior cruciate ligament injury risk in female athletes: a prospective study. The American journal of sports medicine. 2005;33(4):492-501.• Myer GD, Ford KR, Hewett TE. Tuck Jump Assessment for Reducing Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injury Risk. Athl Ther Today. 2009;13(5):39-44. DPTMWG
  105. 105. References: DPTMWG
  106. 106. References:• Davies, GJ, Zillmer, DA. Functional Progression of a Patient Through a Rehabilitation Program. Orthopaedic Physical Therapy Clinics of North America, 9:103-118, 2000• Caffrey E, Docherty CL, Schrader J, Klossner J. The ability of 4 single-limb hopping tests to detect functional performance deficits in individuals with functional ankle instability. The Journal of orthopaedic and sports physical therapy. 2009;39(11):799-806.• Kong DH, Yang SJ, Ha JK, et al. Validation of functional performance tests after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Knee surgery & related research. 2012;24(1):40-5.• Munro AG, Herrington LC. Between-session reliability of the star excursion balance test. Physical therapy in sport  : 2010;11(4):128-32. Available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21055706. Accessed July 25, 2012.• Narducci E, Waltz A, Gorski K, Leppla L, Donaldson M. The clinical utility of functional performance tests within one-year post-acl reconstruction: a systematic review. International journal of sports physical therapy. 2011;6(4):333-42. Available at: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=3230161&tool=pmcentrez&rendertype=abstract.• Pigozzi F, Giombini A, Macaluso A. Do current methods of strength testing for the return to sport after injuries really address functional performance? American journal of physical medicine & rehabilitation. 2012;91(5):458-60. Available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22415342. Accessed July 25, 2012.• Reid A, Birmingham TB, Stratford PW, Alcock GK, Giffin JR. Hop testing provides a reliable and valid outcome measure during rehabilitation after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Physical therapy. 2007;87(3):337-49• Plisky P. Star Excursion Balance Test as a Predictor of Lower Extremity Injury in High School Basketball Players. Journal of Orthopaedic and Sports Physical Therapy. 2006;36(12):911-919.• Hertel J, Braham RA, Hale SA, Olmsted-kramer LC. Simplifying the Star Excursion Balance Test  Chronic Ankle Instability. : Journal of Orthopaedic and Sports Physical Therapy. 2006;36(12).• Hewett TE, Myer GD, Ford KR, et al. Biomechanical measures of neuromuscular control and valgus loading of the knee predict anterior cruciate ligament injury risk in female athletes: a prospective study. The American journal of sports medicine. 2005;33(4):492-501.• Myer GD, Ford KR, Hewett TE. Tuck Jump Assessment for Reducing Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injury Risk. Athl Ther Today. 2009;13(5):39-44. DPTMWG

×