Search PubMed⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Julie M Whitman

Publications and source records attributed to Julie M Whitman.

23 records · Page 2Linked to original sources
PubMed2004

Effectiveness of manual physical therapy to the cervical spine in the management of lateral epicondylalgia: a retrospective analysis.

DESIGN: Retrospective ex-post facto design. OBJECTIVES: To retrospectively review the management of patients with lateral epicondylalgia, and to compare self-reported outcomes to assess the potential benefit of manual physical therapy to the cervical spine. BACKGROUND: It has been postulated that dysfunction of the cervical spine may contribute to the symptoms associated with lateral epicondylalgia; however, the literature assessing the effectiveness of manual physical therapy to the cervicothoracic region in this patient population has been inconclusive. Documentation and analysis of outcomes of management strategies focusing on the cervical spine may lead to determining the most effective and efficient clinical practices. METHODS AND MEASURES: Of the 213 charts reviewed, 112 satisfied inclusion-exclusion criteria and were divided into 2 groups: those who received treatment solely directed at the elbow (local management [LM]), or those who received treatment directed at the elbow and cervical manual therapy (LM+C). Telephone follow-up interviews were used to determine the number of successful outcomes. Percentages of successful outcomes in each group were compared using chi-square analysis. An independent samples t test was used to compare the total number of visits per group. RESULTS: Sixty-one of the 112 patients were in the LM group, while 51 received LM+C. Seventy five percent of the patients available for follow-up in the LM group and 80% in the LM+C group reported a successful outcome. Patients in the LM group received a greater number of visits (mean, 9.7; SD, 2.4) than patients in the LM+C group (mean, 5.6; SD, 1.7; P<.01). CONCLUSIONS: The results of this retrospective review suggest that most patients had successful outcomes regardless of the inclusion of manual therapy interventions to the cervical spine. The LM+C group achieved the successful long-term outcome in significantly fewer visits.

Adult↗
PubMed2004

Factors related to the inability of individuals with low back pain to improve with a spinal manipulation.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Although spinal manipulation is one of the few interventions for low back pain supported by evidence, it appears to be underutilized by physical therapists, possibly due to therapists' concerns that a patient may not benefit from the intervention. The purpose of this study was to identify factors that are associated with an inability to benefit from manipulation. SUBJECTS: Seventy-five people with nonradicular low back pain (mean age=37.6 years, SD=10.6, range=19-59; mean duration of symptoms=41.7 days, SD=54.7, range=1-252) participated. METHODS: Subjects underwent a standardized examination that included history-taking; self-reports of pain, disability, and fear-avoidance beliefs; measurement of lumbar and hip range of motion; and use of various tests. All subjects received a spinal manipulation intervention for a maximum of 2 sessions. Subjects who did not show greater than 5 points of improvement on the modified Oswestry Low Back Pain Disability Questionnaire were considered to have shown no improvement with the manipulation. Baseline variables were tested for univariate relationship with the outcome of the manipulation. Variables showing a univariate relationship were entered into a logistic regression equation, and adjusted odds ratios were calculated. RESULTS: Twenty subjects (28%) did not improve with manipulation. Six variables were identified as being related to inability to improve with manipulation: longer symptom duration, having symptoms in the buttock or leg, absence of lumbar hypomobility, less hip rotation range of motion, less discrepancy in left-to-right hip medial rotation range of motion, and a negative Gaenslen sign. The resulting logistic regression model explained 63% of the variance in manipulation outcome. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: The majority of subjects improved with manipulation. Baseline variables could be identified that were predictive of which subjects would not improve.

Adult↗
PubMed2003

The audible pop is not necessary for successful spinal high-velocity thrust manipulation in individuals with low back pain.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the relationship between an audible pop and symptomatic improvement with spinal manipulation in patients with low back pain (LBP). DESIGN: A prospective cohort study. SETTING: Two outpatient physical therapy clinics located in military medical centers. PARTICIPANTS: A cohort of 71 patients with nonradicular LBP referred to physical therapy. INTERVENTIONS: Participants underwent a standardized examination and standardized spinal manipulation treatment program. All patients were treated with a sacroiliac (SI) region manipulative technique and the presence or absence of an audible pop was noted. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Subjects were reassessed 48 hours after the manipulation for changes in range of motion (ROM), numeric pain rating scale (PRS) scores, and modified Oswestry Disability Questionnaire (ODQ) scores. RESULTS: An audible pop occurred in 50 of the 71 subjects during the manipulative procedure. Both groups-those who had an audible pop and those who did not-improved over time in flexion ROM, PRS scores, and modified ODQ scores; however, there were no differences between groups (P>.05). Nineteen of the 71 (27%) patients improved dramatically (mean drop in modified ODQ, 67.6%). In 14 of the 19 dramatic responders, an audible pop occurred. However, the odds ratio (1.2; 95% confidence interval, 0.38-4.04) suggested that the occurrence of a manipulative pop would not improve the odds of achieving a dramatic reduction in symptoms after the manipulation. CONCLUSION: There is no relationship between an audible pop during SI region manipulation and improvement in ROM, pain, or disability in individuals with nonradicular LBP. Additionally, the occurrence of a pop did not improve the odds of a dramatic improvement with manipulation treatment.

Adolescent↗
PubMed2003

Nonsurgical management of patients with lumbar spinal stenosis: a literature review and a case series of three patients managed with physical therapy.

This article critically reviews the available literature regarding nonsurgical management for lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) and presents a case series of three patients managed with manual physical therapy. This case series uses a well-defined, impairment-based, noninvasive, outpatient treatment program for patients with LSS and provides patient-centered, long-term outcome information. The outpatient treatment program focuses on patients' individualized, prioritized impairments identified on initial examination, and emphasizes manual physical therapy techniques targeting each patient's impairments, specific exercises to either reinforce the manual physical therapy treatment or strengthen specific muscles, and a walking program. The results demonstrate that patients with LSS can make significant gains in disability, symptoms, and function in relatively short periods of time and that these gains can be maintained for up to 18 months. Under this physical therapy program, patients experienced significant improvements, and the potential adverse effects of invasive therapies or pharmacologic management strategies, which often are included in other "nonsurgical" treatment programs, were avoided.

Aged↗