James W Brantingham’s research while affiliated with Logan University and other places

Objective: The objective of this case series is to describe manual manipulative therapy with exercise for 3 patients with mild to moderate osteoarthritis of the great toe. Clinical features: Three patients, a 32-year-old man, a 55-year-old woman, and a 49-year-old woman, had great toe pain of 8, 1, and 2 years, respectively. Each had a palpable exostosis, a benign outgrowth of bone projecting outward from the bone surface, and decreased dorsiflexion with a hard end-feel. Intervention and outcome: Manual manipulative therapy with exercise, the Brantingham protocol, was used with patients receiving 6, 9, and 12 treatments over 6 weeks. Specific outcome measures for hallux rigidus and the foot were chosen to document the effects of this intervention including digital inclinometry, the lower extremity functional scale, the foot functional index, overall therapy effectiveness and Visual Analogue Scale (VAS). Each patient had an increase in range of motion that surpassed the minimal clinically important change, an increase in the overall therapy effectiveness and a decrease in the foot functional index that surpassed the minimally clinically important difference. Most importantly for the patients, each reported a decrease in both usual and worst pain on the VAS that exceeded the minimally clinically important difference of 20 to 30 mm. Conclusion: The 3 patients reported decreased pain measured by the VAS, increased range of motion and minimally clinically important difference in 3 other outcome measures.

The purpose of this study was to examine the methodological integrity, sample size requirements, and short-term preliminary clinical outcomes of manual and manipulative therapy (MMT) in addition to a rehabilitation program for symptomatic knee osteoarthritis (OA).Methods This was a pilot study of an assessor-blinded, randomized, parallel-group trial in 2 independent university-based outpatient clinics. Participants with knee OA were randomized to 3 groups: 6 MMT sessions alone, training in rehabilitation followed by a home rehabilitation program alone, or MMT plus the same rehabilitation program, respectively. Six MMT treatment sessions (provided by a chiropractic intern under supervision or by an experienced chiropractor) were provided to participants over the 4-week treatment period. The primary outcome was a description of the research methodology and sample size estimation for a confirmatory study. The secondary outcome was the short-term preliminary clinical outcomes. Data were collected at baseline and 5 weeks using the Western Ontario and McMasters Osteoarthritis Index questionnaire, goniometry for knee flexion/extension, and the McMaster Overall Therapy Effectiveness inventory. Analysis of variance was used to compare differences between groups.ResultsEighty-three patients were randomly allocated to 1 of the 3 groups (27, 28, and 28, respectively). Despite 5 dropouts, the data from 78 participants were available for analysis with 10% of scores missing. A minimum of 462 patients is required for a confirmatory 3-arm trial including the respective interventions, accounting for cluster effects and a 20% dropout rate. Statistically significant and clinically meaningful changes in scores from baseline to week 5 were found for all groups for the Western Ontario and McMasters Osteoarthritis Index (P ≤ .008), with a greater change in scores for MMT and MMT plus rehabilitation. Between-group comparison did not reveal statistically significant differences between group scores at week 5 for any of the outcome measures (P ≥ .46).Conclusions This pilot trial suggests that a confirmatory trial is feasible. There were significant changes in scores from baseline to week 5 across all groups, suggesting that all 3 treatment approaches may be of benefit to patients with mild-to-moderate knee OA, justifying a confirmatory trial to compare these interventions.

The purpose of this study was to compare manipulative therapy (MT) plus rehabilitation to rehabilitation alone for recurrent ankle sprain with functional instability (RASFI) to determine short-term outcomes. This was an assessor-blind, parallel-group randomized comparative trial. Thirty-three eligible participants with RASFI were randomly allocated to receive rehabilitation alone or chiropractic MT plus rehabilitation. All participants undertook a daily rehabilitation program over the course of the 4-week treatment period. The participants receiving MT had 6 treatments over the same treatment period. The primary outcome measures were the Foot and Ankle Disability Index and the visual analogue pain scale, with the secondary outcome measure being joint motion palpation. Data were collected at baseline and during week 5. Missing scores were replaced using a multiple imputation method. Statistical analysis of the data composed of repeated-measures analysis of variance. Between-group analysis demonstrated a difference in scores at the final consultation for the visual analogue scale and frequency of joint motion restrictions (P ≤ .006) but not for the Foot and Ankle Disability Index (P = .26). This study showed that the patients with RASFI who received chiropractic MT plus rehabilitation showed significant short-term reduction in pain and the number of joint restrictions in the short-term but not disability when compared with rehabilitation alone. Copyright © 2014 National University of Health Sciences. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Objective: The purpose of this study was to complete a systematic review of manual and manipulative therapy (MMT) for common upper extremity pain and disorders including the temporomandibular joint (TMJ). Methods: A literature search was conducted using the Cumulative Index of Nursing Allied Health Literature, PubMed, Manual, Alternative, and Natural Therapy Index System (MANTIS), Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro), Index to Chiropractic Literature, Google Scholar, and hand search inclusive of literature from January 1983 to March 5, 2012. Search limits included the English language and human studies along with MeSH terms such as manipulation, chiropractic, osteopathic, orthopedic, and physical therapies. Inclusion criteria required an extremity peripheral diagnosis (for upper extremity problems including the elbow, wrist, hand, finger and the (upper quadrant) temporomandibular joint) and MMT with or without multimodal therapy. Studies were assessed using the PEDro scale in conjunction with modified guidelines and systems. After synthesis and considered judgment scoring was complete, evidence grades of "A, B, C and I" were applied. Results: Out of 764 citations reviewed, 129 studies were deemed possibly to probably useful and/or relevant to develop expert consensus. Out of 81 randomized controlled or clinical trials, 35 were included. Five controlled or clinical trials were located and 4 were included. Fifty case series, reports and/or single-group pre-test post-test prospective case series were located with 32 included. There is Fair (B) level of evidence for MMT to specific joints and the full kinetic chain combined generally with exercise and/or multimodal therapy for lateral epicondylopathy, carpal tunnel syndrome, and temporomandibular joint disorders, in the short term. Conclusion: The information from this study will help guide practitioners in the use of MMT, soft tissue technique, exercise, and/or multimodal therapy for the treatment of a variety of upper extremity complaints in the context of the hierarchy of published and available evidence.

Low back pain (LBP) is a well-recognized public health problem with no clear gold standard medical approach to treatment. Thus, those with LBP frequently turn to treatments such as spinal manipulation (SM). Many clinical trials have been conducted to evaluate the efficacy or effectiveness of SM for LBP. The primary objective of this paper was to describe the current literature on patient-centered outcomes following a specific type of commonly used SM, high-velocity low-amplitude (HVLA), in patients with LBP. A systematic search strategy was used to capture all LBP clinical trials of HVLA using our predefined patient-centered outcomes: visual analogue scale, numerical pain rating scale, Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire, and the Oswestry Low Back Pain Disability Index. Of the 1294 articles identified by our search, 38 met our eligibility criteria. Like previous SM for LBP systematic reviews, this review shows a small but consistent treatment effect at least as large as that seen in other conservative methods of care. The heterogeneity and inconsistency in reporting within the studies reviewed makes it difficult to draw definitive conclusions. Future SM studies for LBP would benefit if some of these issues were addressed by the scientific community before further research in this area is conducted.

To determine the short-term effectiveness of full kinematic chain manual and manipulative therapy (MMT) plus exercise compared with targeted hip MMT plus exercise for symptomatic mild to moderate hip osteoarthritis (OA). Parallel-group randomized trial with 3-month follow-up. Two chiropractic outpatient teaching clinics. Convenience sample of eligible participants (N=111) with symptomatic hip OA were consented and randomly allocated to receive either the experimental or comparison treatment, respectively. Participants in the experimental group received full kinematic chain MMT plus exercise while those in the comparison group received targeted hip MMT plus exercise. Participants in both groups received 9 treatments over a 5-week period. Western Ontario and McMasters Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), Harris hip score (HHS), and Overall Therapy Effectiveness, alongside estimation of clinically meaningful outcomes. Total dropout was 9% (n=10) with 7% of total data missing, replaced using a multiple imputation method. No statistically significant differences were found between the 2 groups for any of the outcome measures (analysis of covariance, P=.45 and P=.79 for the WOMAC and HHS, respectively). There were no statistically significant differences in the primary or secondary outcome scores when comparing full kinematic chain MMT plus exercise with targeted hip MMT plus exercise for mild to moderate symptomatic hip OA. Consequently, the nonsignificant findings suggest that there would also be no clinically meaningful difference between the 2 groups. The results of this study provides guidance to musculoskeletal practitioners who regularly use MMT that the full kinematic chain approach does not appear to have any benefit over targeted treatment.

The purpose of this study is to update a systematic review on manipulative therapy (MT) for lower extremity conditions. A review of literature was conducted using MEDLINE, MANTIS, Science Direct, Index to Chiropractic Literature, and PEDro from March 2008 to May 2011. Inclusion criteria required peripheral diagnosis and MT with or without adjunctive care. Clinical trials were assessed for quality using a modified Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) ranking system. In addition to the citations used in a 2009 systematic review, an additional 399 new citations were accessed: 175 citations in Medline, 30 citations in MANTIS, 98 through Science Direct, 54 from Index to Chiropractic Literature, and 42 from the PEDro database. Forty-eight clinical trials were assessed for quality. Regarding MT for common lower extremity disorders, there is a level of B (fair evidence) for short-term and C (limited evidence) for long-term treatment of hip osteoarthritis. There is a level of B for short-term and C for long-term treatment of knee osteoarthritis, patellofemoral pain syndrome, and ankle inversion sprain. There is a level of B for short-term treatment of plantar fasciitis but C for short-term treatment of metatarsalgia and hallux limitus/rigidus and for loss of foot and/or ankle proprioception and balance. Finally, there is a level of I (insufficient evidence) for treatment of hallux abducto valgus. Further research is needed on MT as a treatment of lower extremity conditions, specifically larger trials with improved methodology.

To compare a protocol of evidence-based conservative care with usual care for acute nonspecific low back pain (LBP) of less than 6 weeks' duration. Parallel-group randomized trial. Three practices in the United Kingdom. Convenience sample of 149 eligible patients were invited to participate in the study, with 118 volunteers being consented and randomly allocated to a treatment group. The experimental group received evidence-based treatments for acute nonspecific LBP as prescribed in a structured protocol of care developed for this study. The control group received usual conservative care. Participants in both groups could receive up to 7 treatments over a 4-week period. Oswestry Low Back Disability Index (ODI), visual analog scale (VAS), and Patient Satisfaction Questionnaire, alongside estimation of clinically meaningful outcomes. Total dropout rate was 14% (n=16), with 13% of data missing. Missing data were replaced using a multiple imputation method. Participants in both groups received an average of 6 treatments. There was no statistically significant difference in disability (ODI) scores at the end of week 4 (P=.33), but there was for pain (VAS) scores (P<.001). Interestingly, there were statistically significant differences between the 2 groups for both disability and pain measures at the midpoint of the treatment period (P<.001). Patient satisfaction with care was equally high (85%) in both groups. Minimally clinically important differences in scores and number needed to treat scores (NNT<6) indicated that the experimental treatment (protocol of care) offered a clinically meaningful benefit over the control treatment (usual care), particularly at the midpoint of the treatment period. Overall, the 2 treatment groups were similar based on primary or secondary outcome measure scores for the full treatment period (4 weeks, with up to 7 treatments). However, there were statistically significant and clinically meaningful differences in both disability and pain scores at week 2 (midpoint) with 4 treatments, suggesting that the protocol of care had a more rapid effect than usual care.