Orthopaedic Physical Therapy Practice Research Articles

The Curious Case of a Glioblastoma Disguised as Lumbar Pathology in Orthopaedic Physical Therapy Practice

BACKGROUND: Glioblastoma is a primary brain tumor that shares symptoms with orthopaedic conditions like low back pain with radiating pain. The purpose of this case study was to describe a patient referred to physical therapy (PT) and subsequently diagnosed with a glioblastoma. CASE PRESENTATION: A 64-year-old male was referred to PT with right foot numbness and lower back pain. Initially, the patient was diagnosed with chronic low back pain with radiating pain (International Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, 10th Revision) related to lumbar spinal stenosis, and initial treatment resulted in significant reduction of foot numbness. After initial improvement, he reported an insidious onset of fasciculations and lacked response to therapy interventions, which warranted referral for imaging. OUTCOME AND FOLLOW-UP: Magnetic resonance imaging of the brain revealed high-grade glioblastomas, and the patient underwent a craniotomy for tumor resection with subsequent chemotherapy and radiation. DISCUSSION: Glioblastoma is an underreported condition in PT literature, and increased awareness of symptoms can improve recognition and appropriate referral. JOSPT Cases 2023;3(4):219-226. Epub 25 September 2023. doi:10.2519/josptcases.2023.11913

Development of a Yellow Flag Assessment Tool for Orthopaedic Physical Therapists: Results From the Optimal Screening for Prediction of Referral and Outcome (OSPRO) Cohort.

Study Design Clinical measurement, cross-sectional. Background Pain-associated psychological distress adversely influences outcomes for patients with musculoskeletal pain. However, assessment of pain-associated psychological distress (ie, yellow flags) is not routinely performed in orthopaedic physical therapy practice. A standardized yellow flag assessment tool will better inform treatment decision making related to psychologically informed practice. Objectives To describe the development of a concise, multidimensional yellow flag assessment tool for application in orthopaedic physical therapy clinical practice. Methods A 136-item yellow flag item bank was developed from validated psychological questionnaires across domains related to pain vulnerability (negative mood, fear avoidance) and resilience (positive affect/coping). Patients seeking physical therapy with neck, back, knee, or shoulder pain completed the item bank. Iterative statistical analyses determined minimal item sets meeting thresholds for identifying elevated vulnerability or low resilience (ie, upper or lower quartile, as indicated). Further item reduction yielded a concise yellow flag assessment tool to assess 11 psychological constructs measuring pain-associated psychological distress. Correlations between the assessment tool and individual psychological questionnaires were measured and compared between anatomical regions. Concurrent validity was assessed by determining variance explained in pain and disability scores by the assessment tool. Results Subjects with elevated vulnerability and decreased resilience were identified with a high degree of accuracy (minimum of 85%) using a 17-item tool. Correlations were moderate to high between the 17-item tool and individual psychological questionnaires, with no significant differences in correlations between different anatomical regions. Shorter 10- and 7-item versions of the assessment tool allow clinicians the flexibility to assess for yellow flags quickly with acceptable trade-offs in accuracy (81% and 75%, respectively). All versions of the tool explained significant additional variance in pain and disability scores (range, 19.3%-36.7%) after accounting for demographics, historical variables, and anatomical region of pain. Conclusion Concise assessment of yellow flags is feasible in outpatient physical therapy settings. This multidimensional tool advances assessment of pain-associated psychological distress through the addition of positive affect/coping constructs and estimation of full questionnaire scores. Further study is warranted to determine how this tool complements established risk-assessment tools by providing the option for efficient treatment monitoring. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2016;46(5):327-345. Epub 21 Mar 2016. doi:10.2519/jospt.2016.6487.

Interpreting Joint Pain: Quantitative Sensory Testing in Musculoskeletal Management

Pain is a common complaint among clients seeking physical therapy services, yet interpretation of associated sensory changes can be difficult for the clinician. Musculoskeletal injury typically results in nociceptive pain due to noxious stimuli of the damaged muscle or joint tissues. However, with progression from acute to chronic stages, altered nociceptive processing can give rise to an array of sensory findings. Specifically, patients with chronic joint injury may present with signs and symptoms typically associated with neuropathic injury, due to changes in nociceptive processing. Clinical presentation may include expansion of hyperalgesia into adjacent and remote areas, allodynia, dysesthesias, and perceptual deficits. Quantitative sensory testing (QST) may provide an objective method of examining sensation and, thereby, of recognizing potential changes in the nociceptive pathways. The purpose of this paper is to provide an overview of altered nociceptive processing and somatosensory changes that may occur following a musculoskeletal injury without associated neural injury. Recommendations are made on clinical uses of quantitative sensory testing in orthopaedic physical therapy practice, and supporting clinical and laboratory evidence are presented. Examples related to joint injury are discussed, specifically, osteoarthritis of the knee and low back pain. Quantitative sensory testing may be a useful clinical tool to aid clinical decision making and for determination of prognosis.

Dizziness in Orthopaedic Physical Therapy Practice: History and Physical Examination

Physical therapy (PT) differential diagnosis of patients complaining of dizziness centers on distinguishing those patients who might benefit from sole management by the physical therapist from those patients who require referral for medical-surgical differential diagnosis and (co) management. There is emerging evidence that PT management may suffice for patients with benign paroxysmal positional vertigo, cervicogenic dizziness, and musculoskeletal impairments leading to dysequilibrium. This article provides information on the history taking and physical examination relevant to patients with a main complaint of dizziness. The intention of the article is to enable the therapist to distinguish between patients complaining of dizziness due to these three conditions amenable to sole PT management and those patients who likely require referral. Where available, we have provided data on reliability and validity of the history items and physical tests described to help the clinician establish a level of research-based confidence with which to interpret history and physical examination findings. The decision to refer the patient for a medical-surgical evaluation is based on our findings, the interpretation of such findings in light of data on reliability and validity of history items and physical tests, an analysis of the risk of harm to the patient, and the response to seemingly appropriate intervention.

Dizziness in Orthopaedic Physical Therapy Practice: Classification and Pathophysiology

Dizziness is a frequent complaint in patients presenting to orthopaedic physical therapists. Differential diagnosis of dizziness is complex but essential and requires knowledge of musculoskeletal, vestibular, cardiovascular, neurological, metabolic, and psychiatric conditions, thus transcending the musculoskeletal boundaries of orthopaedic physical therapy clinical practice. Physical therapy intervention is not indicated for many causes of dizziness. Some types of dizziness present contra-indications to certain orthopaedic physical therapy interventions. This article presents a diagnostic classification system and relevant pathophysiology that may facilitate orthopaedic physical therapy diagnosis, screening, and subsequent appropriate physical therapy management or medical referral.

Clinical Commentary: Diagnostic Classification and Orthopaedic Physical Therapy Practice: What We Can Learn From Medicine

Clinical Commentary: Diagnostic Classification and Orthopaedic Physical Therapy Practice: What We Can Learn From Medicine

Diagnostic classification and orthopaedic physical therapy practice: what we can learn from medicine.

Concepts of diagnosis and classification have a long history in medicine, while formal schemes of diagnostic classification in physical therapy are relatively new. Basic differences exist between medicine and physical therapy in the phenomena which are diagnosed and classified. However, similarities in the diagnostic and classification process provide an opportunity to learn from medicine as the process now evolves in physical therapy. This paper provides a brief history of the development of the concept of diagnostic classification in medicine and physical therapy. Difficulties associated with the process are described. Knowledge of these difficulties is used to analyze some of the evolving concepts of diagnostic classification in physical therapy, especially those related to orthopaedic physical therapy practice.

Focus on Diagnosis

In this issue of JOSPT, we have included a collection of commentaries that focus on the issue of diagnosis in physical therapy. The idea to create the collection was precipitated by Nancy Zimny's submission of her manuscript entitled “Diagnostic Classification and Orthopaedic Physical Therapy Practice: What We Can Learn from Medicine.” Because she makes a number of potentially provocative points, we decided to take advantage of the opportunity to reignite the discussion about diagnosis in physical therapy. We chose to do so by inviting 3 distinguished members of our profession to write commentaries on her article. Dr. Peter O'Sullivan, Dr. Marilyn Moffat, and Dr. Anthony Delitto all graciously accepted our invitation and, as expected, each of them has provided a unique perspective. The author's response to the collection of commentaries provides yet another perspective. Our hope is that each of you will find at least 1 point to discuss further with your colleagues and keep the conversation going. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2004;34(3):103–104. doi:10.2519/jospt.2004.0103

Structure and function of the lumbar intervertebral disk in health, aging, and pathologic conditions.

This report is a comprehensive review of the basic and clinical science relating to the morphology and function of the intervertebral disc of the lumbar spine. The purpose is to review the anatomy, physiology, and biomechanics of the intervertebral disc of the lumbar spine in health, with aging, and in pathologic conditions. The complex morphology and ultrastructure of the intervertebral disc of the lumbar spine in the human provide the critical elements that permit normal mobility and transmission of force through the vertebral column. Alterations in this structure are manifest in a variety of clinical conditions routinely encountered in orthopaedic physical therapy practice. These structural and biomechanical changes are related to degenerative changes that occur in association with aging and trauma. Knowledge of the gross morphology and ultrastructure of the intervertebral disc and pathobiologic processes underlying associated conditions is essential to orthopaedic practice.

Clinical reasoning of an experienced physiotherapist: insight into clinician decision‐making regarding low back pain

Investigation of the clinical reasoning skills of experienced clinicians provides insight into decision-making in the practice of physiotherapy. The purpose of the present study was to analyse the clinical reasoning skills of an experienced physiotherapist during her assessment and treatment of clients with low back pain. Deconstruction of the physiotherapist's reasoning process was accomplished through observation of encounters between her and each of six patient subjects. Reconstruction and analysis of the physiotherapist's decision-making process was performed through retrospective interviews and reflective analysis of her clinical reasoning during each encounter. A working model of the physiotherapist's clinical reasoning was created from an integration of theoretical elements in the literature and the data. Through analysis of this framework, two core dimensions of her clinical reasoning were revealed: the influence of clinical experience and the influence of advanced training in a specific philosophy of treating the spine. The construction of these themes has contributed to the growing understanding of clinical reasoning strategies and skills used in orthopaedic physical therapy practice. Detailed description of the physiotherapist's reasoning process provides more meaningful understanding of physiotherapy treatments. In this case the physiotherapist employed a pattern recognition strategy and forward reasoning process in making a diagnosis. Further research is necessary to expand knowledge on the development of clinical reasoning skills.

Practice analysis survey: revalidation of advanced clinical practice in orthopaedic physical therapy.

The first orthopaedic physical therapy practice analysis survey was completed in 1983. Another practice analysis survey was conducted in 1993 to identify the advance practice of clinicians who practice in orthopaedic physical therapy settings. Since 10 years elapsed, a new practice analysis study was conducted to identify the practice of orthopaedic clinical specialists. The purpose of this report is to describe the results of this survey. Orthopaedic physical therapists, both specialists and nonspecialists, participated in group interviews, subject matter expert meetings, and a national practice survey to delineate important knowledges and responsibilities. The survey was.sent to a stratified convenience sample of 1,000 orthopaedic physical therapists, of which 325 were orthopaedic clinical specialists. The three-part survey contained 180 items. A total of 420 respondents, of which 241 were orthopaedic clinical specialists, rated the importance and application level for the items. The results of this study provide evidence for a core body of knowledge required by clinicians practicing with advanced skills in orthopaedic physical therapy and create the framework for the Orthopaedic Physical Therapy Specialty Exam.