RehabEdge homepageHost a course at your facilityCEU by topic and providerSearch for CEU by state, topic, format, etc.Comprehensive therapy products and supplies catalogRehabEdge Forum main pageReach thousands of therapists to show off your products and CEUAsk us.  We're here to help.

RE: Classification-based treatment

 
Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [RehabEdge Forum] >> Orthopedics >> RE: Classification-based treatment Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Classification-based treatment - August 20, 2007 2:01:13 PM   
jesspt

 

Posts: 85
Joined: April 3, 2007
From: Illinois
Status: offline
It sounds like you're referring to the McKenzie classification scheme? Is that a correct assumption?
Using Delitto's treatment based classification, I'm less concerned about mid vs. end range pain. I just use repeated motions to ascertain whether or not a patient's symptoms centralize.

_____________________________

Jess Brown, PT
Board Certified in Orthopaedic Physical Therapy

(in reply to Shill)
Post #: 21
RE: Classification-based treatment - August 20, 2007 3:02:07 PM   
proud

 

Posts: 944
Joined: March 22, 2006
Status: offline
Shill, Jesse,

Thank you for the input. Actually, the discussion here is relevant to why I asked the question in the first place.

I, like Shill, tend to be a bit more investigative with centralization than most classification schemes I know. Delitto's asked the questions:

"does the patient centralize with at least two movements in the same direction(ie extension or flexion)

AND

" Does the patient centralize with a movemnt in one direction and peripheralize with an opposite movement"

I tend to complete a full McKenzie evaluation first. As centralization has good support as a prognostic indicator for recovery...why not complete a full evaluation in search of it?

Also, if symptoms are non-radicular and do not centralize. I would like to see some a scheme with neural tissue Tx( like the mulligan SLR or slump stretching as described by Cleland, Childs, Palmer, Eberhart). Perhaps this could be included in the manipualtion/mobilization category?

Anyway, just a few thoughts.

< Message edited by proud -- August 20, 2007 6:35:47 PM >

(in reply to jesspt)
Post #: 22
RE: Classification-based treatment - August 20, 2007 3:17:58 PM   
jesspt

 

Posts: 85
Joined: April 3, 2007
From: Illinois
Status: offline
I wonder if some of those patients who benefit from MWM SLR might be the very ones that Delitto currently puts in his traction category?

_____________________________

Jess Brown, PT
Board Certified in Orthopaedic Physical Therapy

(in reply to proud)
Post #: 23
RE: Classification-based treatment - August 20, 2007 6:29:23 PM   
proud

 

Posts: 944
Joined: March 22, 2006
Status: offline
 
Is that Delitto classification this one:



http://www.aptei.com/articles/pdf/DelittoLumbarAssessmentFormStageI.pdf


http://www.aptei.com/articles/pdf/DelittoLumbarAssessmentFormStageII.pdf


< Message edited by proud -- August 20, 2007 6:34:16 PM >

(in reply to jesspt)
Post #: 24
RE: Classification-based treatment - August 20, 2007 6:52:23 PM   
jesspt

 

Posts: 85
Joined: April 3, 2007
From: Illinois
Status: offline
Yeah, that's the one. It's also the classification scheme that's used in the studies I posted earlier.

_____________________________

Jess Brown, PT
Board Certified in Orthopaedic Physical Therapy

(in reply to proud)
Post #: 25
RE: Classification-based treatment - August 24, 2007 11:52:41 PM   
rwillcott

 

Posts: 435
Joined: March 20, 2006
From: Canada
Status: offline
Proud,

I follow Delitto's classification system.  Mainly because it has research to support it's effectiveness and it makes sense to me.  I have had great success with this system. 

Recently, Brennan et. al. (Spine, 2006) published an excellent RCT demonstrating the effectiveness of this system.  They compared two groups of LBP patients with symptoms less than 90 days.  One group was matched to their treatment sub-group and the other was unmatched.  After 4 weeks, patients recieving matched treatments experienced greater short and long-term reductions in disability than those recieving unmatched treatments.

The take home message of this study was that non-specific LBP should not be viewed as a homogenous condition.  Outcomes can be improved when subgrouping is used to guide treatment decision-making.

My opionion is that manual therapists who follow a pathoanatomical approach relying on motion palpation are treating LBP patients as a homogenous group.  After months of grade 3-4 mobs of a unilateral flexion dysfunction of L4/L5 a patient finally gets better due to the natural course of healing.  If the same patient was placed in the appropriate sub-group their level of disability would have improved within a much shorter period. 

Rob

(in reply to proud)
Post #: 26
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2]
All Forums >> [RehabEdge Forum] >> Orthopedics >> RE: Classification-based treatment Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts



Google Custom Search
Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5.5 Unicode

0.109