Recently, The Manual Therapist wrote a blog post about what is most important when treating a patient: the what, the why, and the how. To relate it more directly, what you have refers to specific diagnoses. Why you have it refers to the theory of why the pathology occurred, i.e. movement impairment syndromes. The how refers to how we actually treat and assess. Much of medicine and physical therapy is often stuck in the "what" phase. We tend to assign diagnoses to tissue pathology and often look to treat what we believe is the source of the pain, not the original cause. Many physical therapists are moving towards the "why" mindset where we look at a more complete chain of the body to determine why our patients are in pain. This typically leads to a more well-rounded treatment approach. The "how" comes back to what we are actually doing and how we are treating our patients. I recommend reading the original post by Dr. E to get further clarification. This post comes with good timing in the wake of Tiger Woods' "sacrum" comments. In case you missed it, Tiger Woods recently played in a golf tournament and had to withdraw, because he claimed his "sacrum went out." As a result, there was a backlash from much of the young PT community claiming how it was a horrible diagnosis, Woods' physical therapist had poor communication skills, etc. The discussion lead to many physical therapists and physical therapy students ranting about how the research for SIJ Dysfunction as a diagnosis is poorly supported based on higher level evidence (which is correct) and some even saying how the SIJ doesn't move at all. Based on these comments, it would appear many do not assess or treat the Sacroiliac Joint. While I may agree that we shouldn't worry about actual tissue diagnoses, I get frustrated by people's reluctance regarding any potential SIJ treatment given my personal clinical success. In the residency at Scottsdale Healthcare, we were taught various assessment and treatment techniques for the SIJ, but the distraction manipulation could be used as a "shotgun" approach and treat typically any form of SIJ dysfunction. In my limited experience, in the patients I feel would benefit from the manipulation, they tend to be 100% within just a few visits. Now a manipulation by itself is never the answer alone, but it can be an extremely useful tool. We need to build on preventing future recurrences of pain and teach our patients to maintain improvement independently. Some patient's arrive at clinic in excruciating pain and are nearly pain-free after manual treatment. A manipulation and mobilization are not the only potential treatment for what some would diagnose "SIJ Dysfunction." Repeated motions towards the directional preference may be appropriate as well. Basically, many of treatment techniques like these have theories to support them, but the evidence is not always as established. That doesn't mean successful treatment techniques should be discounted. I again recognize our limited ability (and importance) of truly diagnosing what we think we see with the SIJ, but I must continue to stress the impact of when we assess, treat, and reassess. This is the importance of the how I discussed at the beginning. If the patient feels better immediately after a treatment technique, something I did had the desired effect! We currently are unable to be certain in knowing the exact mechanism our techniques have, but we should not ignore positive results. I have written extensively in the past about the problems with the studies regarding manual therapy, especially the SIJ, but that is not important in the end. What is important is that we find effective ways in getting our patients better as soon as possible. If that means doing a manipulation or mobilization where we think we are targeting the SIJ, then so be it. Do not let the limitations in higher level research prevent you from providing your patients with the most effective care. -Chris
17 Comments
JeromeFrenchPT
9/9/2014 12:34:33 am
Hi Chris,
Reply
Tim Stevenson
9/9/2014 07:03:27 am
Chris,
Reply
Chris
9/9/2014 08:32:57 am
Thanks for that link Jerome. Yes I read that piece awhile ago and really appreciate the review of some recent literature and multi - modal approaches. My fear with that type of dialogue however is that useful techniques such as manual therapy are being discouraged when they can help a patient lower year pain threshold and become more active for other parts of therapy.
Reply
Steve
9/9/2014 09:24:11 pm
Lets be careful here. Will we accept any technique that appears to work? Is there not some level of evidence, research, and construct validity that must inform practice? Would you perform MFR, and Craniosacral techniques? Therapeutic touch?
Reply
Thanks for your comments Steve. To answer your questions:
Reply
Brian
9/9/2014 10:28:09 pm
Great post. Of all the manual techniques I use, mobilizations/manipulations to the SI jt produce the most significant rapid changes in pain. I like to test/retest supine to long sit and almost always see a dysfunctional position move to functional which almost always correlates with a moderate to large reduction in pain.
Reply
Steve
9/10/2014 02:11:04 am
There is absolutely no evidence for, or reports of validity and / or reliability whether inter or intra tester with the long sit test. It even suffers from a basic lack of content validity!
Reply
If you are going to look at the research, there are actually several test clusters that utilize the Supine to Longsit Test, along with other movement based tests. They all tend to lack the reliability and validity that you suggest. The only study that has been promoted as valid showed a cluster of SIJ pain provocation tests, which has many faults IMO. There is a push for a combination of movement-based and pain provocation tests for a cluster, but it has not been met yet. I actually rarely incorporate these tests into my care. I base my examinations off the SFMA and repeated motions. I occasionally use a few SIJ tests to confirm suspicion as a cluster, but that's it.
JeromeFrenchPT
9/11/2014 05:35:25 pm
Steve don't forget that the placebo effect is a powerfool tool. Even if our goal is the EBP we sometimes have to play with the placebo effect. And i think placebo effect is EBP...because it works. It's all about how we explain things to patients and incorporate some placebo techniques which the patient (and the clinician) believe in and some more evidence techniques.
Reply
Steve
9/14/2014 12:46:06 pm
I very much appreciate the posts which followed mine. I agree research and EBP are behind what experienced clinicians do on a daily basis. BUT, we need to separate what works and what is equal to doing a random manual treatment.
Reply
There is a difference between experienced and highly trained, but I would love to read the studies that you are referring to. I know a lot of bad clinicians that have been practicing for 30+ years.
Reply
JeromeFrenchPT
9/17/2014 12:08:58 am
In the Canadian Academy of Manipulative Physiotherapy fellowship courses i learned the use of four provocation test, distraction, compression, sacral thrust and P4 test. If, at least, two tests are positive maybe the SIJ is a part of the problem and need more assessment.
Steve
9/17/2014 04:44:28 am
Here are SOME:
Reply
-The movement in the SIJ is small yes, but insignificant? No.
Reply
Steve
9/20/2014 08:43:08 am
Yes, I see your point. BUT, are there any studies, other than the general lumbosacral manip technique that show the effectiveness of SIJ assessment procedures?
Chris
9/21/2014 11:49:36 am
Yes, my clinical experience. As my post discussed, the evidence is limited. Just because there isn't a study that shows a technique or assessment method to support it, doesn't mean it should be thrown out the door. Test, treat, and retest. The outcome is most important. As evidence catches up to actual clinical practice, we can incorporate the findings more judiciously.
JeromeFrenchPT
10/7/2014 06:46:35 pm
Great post from Dr E about Non-specific Effects.
Reply
Leave a Reply. |
Archives
July 2019
Categories
All
|