Annalie Basson

To identify factors and barriers, which affect the utilisation of spinal manipulation and mobilisation among infants, children, and adolescents. Twenty-six international expert physiotherapists in manual therapy and paediatrics were invited to participate in a Delphi investigation using Qualtrics^Ⓡ. In Round-1 physiotherapists selected from a list of factors and barriers affecting their decision to use spinal manipulation and mobilisation in the paediatric population and had opportunity to add to the list. Round-2 asked respondents to select as many factors and barriers that they agreed with, resulting in a frequency count. The subset of responses to questions around barriers and facilitators are the focus of this study. Twelve physiotherapists completed both rounds of the survey. Medical diagnosis, mechanism of injury, patient presentation, tolerance to handling, and therapist's knowledge of techniques were the dominant deciding factors to use spinal manipulation and mobilisation among infants, children, and adolescents across spinal levels. More than 90% of the respondents selected manipulation as inappropriate among infants as their top barrier. Additional dominant barriers to using spinal manipulation among infants and children identified by ≥ 75% of the respondents included fear of injuring the patient, fear of litigation, lack of communication, lack of evidence, lack of guardian consent, and precision of the examination to inform clinical reasoning. This international survey provides much needed insight regarding the factors and barriers physiotherapists should consider when contemplating the utilisation of spinal mobilisation and manipulation in the paediatric population.

The aim of this study was to establish international consensus regarding the use of spinal manipulation and mobilisation among infants, children, and adolescents among expert international physiotherapists. Twenty-six international expert physiotherapists in manual therapy and paediatrics voluntarily participated in a 3-Round Delphi survey to reach a consensus via direct electronic mail solicitation using Qualtrics®. Consensus was defined a-priori as ≥75% agreement on all items with the same ranking of agreement or disagreement. Round 1 identified impairments and conditions where spinal mobilisation and manipulation might be utilised. In Rounds 2 and 3, panelists agreed or disagreed using a 4-point Likert scale. Eleven physiotherapists from seven countries representing five continents completed all three Delphi rounds. Consensus regarding spinal mobilisation or manipulation included:Manipulation is not recommended: (1) for infants across all conditions, impairments, and spinal levels; and (2) for children and adolescents across most conditions and spinal levels.Manipulation may be recommended for adolescents to treat spinal region-specific joint hypomobility (thoracic, lumbar), and pain (thoracic).Mobilisation may be recommended for children and adolescents with hypomobility, joint pain, muscle/myofascial pain, or stiffness at all spinal levels. Consensus revealed spinal manipulation should not be performed on infants regardless of condition, impairment, or spinal level. Additionally, the panel agreed that manipulation may be recommended only for adolescents to treat joint pain and joint hypomobility (limited to thoracic and/or lumbar levels). Spinal mobilisation may be recommended for joint hypomobility, joint pain, muscle/myofascial pain, and muscle/myofascial stiffness at all spinal levels among children and adolescents.

Carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) has been traditionally classified as primarily a neuropathic condition with or without pain. Precision medicine refers to an evidence-based method of grouping patients based on their susceptibility to biology, prognosis of a particular disease, or in their response to a specific treatment, and tailoring specific treatments accordingly. In 2021, the International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP) proposed a grading system for classifying patients into nociceptive, neuropathic, or nociplastic phenotypes. This position paper presents data supporting the possibility of subgrouping individuals with specific CTS related-pain into nociceptive, neuropathic, nociplastic or mixed-type phenotypes. Carpal tunnel syndrome is a neuropathic condition but can also be comorbid with a nociplastic pain condition. The presence of extra-median symptoms and the development of facilitated pain processing seem to be signs suggesting that specific CTS cases can be classified as the nociplastic pain phenotype. The clinical responses of therapeutic approaches for the management of CTS are inconclusive. Accordingly, the ability to identify the predominant pain phenotype in patients with CTS could likely be problematic for producing efficient treatment outcomes. In fact, the presence of a nociplastic or mixed-type pain phenotype would explain the lack of clinical effect of treatment interventions targeting the carpal tunnel area selectively. We propose a clinical decision tree by using the 2021 IASP classification criteria for identifying the predominant pain phenotype in people with CTS-related pain, albeit CTS being a priori a neuropathic pain condition. The identification of a nociplastic-associated condition requires a more nuanced multimodal treatment approach to achieve better treatment outcomes.

Background: It remains unclear whether definite neural mechanosensitivity (NM) is required for neural mobilisations to be beneficial in people with spinally referred leg pain.Objective: To determine whether the efficacy of neural mobilisations in patients with spinally referred leg pain depends on the presence and type of criteria used to define NM.Method: PubMed, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PEDro and Science Direct were searched from 1980 to March 2020. Randomised controlled trials evaluating the efficacy of neural mobilisations on pain and disability in spinally referred leg pain were included. Studies were grouped according to the certainty of NM into NMdefinite, NMunclear, NMuntested and NMabsent. Effects on pain and disability and subgroup differences were examined.Results: We identified 21 studies in 914 patients (3 NMdefinite, 16 NMunclear, 2 NMuntested, 0 NMabsent). Meta-analysis revealed medium to large effect sizes on pain for neurodynamic compared to control interventions in NMdefinite and NMunclear groups. For disability, neurodynamic interventions had medium to large effects in NMunclear but not NMdefinite groups. NMuntested studies could not be pooled.Conclusion: The nonexistence of studies in patients with negative neurodynamic tests prevents inferences whether neural mobilisations are effective in the absence of NM. The criteria used to define NM may not impact substantially on the efficacy of neural mobilisations. The mostly high risk of bias and heterogeneity prevents firm conclusions.Clinical implications: Neural mobilisations seem beneficial to reduce pain and disability in spinally referred leg pain independent of the criteria used to interpret neurodynamic tests.