STUDY DESIGN: Randomized clinical trial. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether manipulation of the proximal or distal tibiofibular joint would change ankle dorsiflexion range of motion and functional outcomes over a 3-week period in individuals with chronic ankle instability. BACKGROUND: Altered joint arthrokinematics may play a role in chronic ankle instability dysfunction. Joint mobilization or manipulation may offer the ability to restore normal joint arthrokinematics and improve function. METHODS: Forty-three participants (mean ± SD age, 25.6 ± 7.6 years; height, 174.3 ± 10.2 cm; mass, 74.6 ± 16.7 kg) with chronic ankle instability were randomized to proximal tibiofibular joint manipulation, distal tibiofibular joint manipulation, or a control group. Outcome measures included ankle dorsiflexion range of motion, the single-limb stance on foam component of the Balance Error Scoring System, the step-down test, and the Foot and Ankle Ability Measure sports subscale. Measurements were obtained prior to the intervention (before day 1) and following the intervention (on days 1, 7, 14, and 21). RESULTS: There was no significant change in dorsiflexion between groups across time. When groups were pooled, there was a significant increase (P<.001) in dorsiflexion at each postintervention time interval. No differences were found among the Balance Error Scoring System foam, step-down test, and Foot and Ankle Ability Measure sports subscale scores. CONCLUSIONS: The use of a proximal or distal tibiofibular joint manipulation in isolation did not enhance outcome effects beyond those of the control group. Collectively, all groups demonstrated increases in ankle dorsiflexion range of motion over the 3-week intervention period. These increases might have been due to practice effects associated with repeated testing. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapy, level 2b–.

J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2012;42(2):125-134. doi:10.2519/jospt.2012.3729

KEY WORDS: ankle sprain, CAI, manual therapy, mobilization

STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review. BACKGROUND: Neck pain is a common diagnosis in the physical therapy setting, yet there is no gold standard for treatment. This study is part of a growing body of literature on the use of thoracic spine thrust manipulation for the treatment of individuals with mechanical neck pain. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this systematic review was to determine the effects of thoracic spine thrust manipulation on pain, range of motion, and self-reported function in patients with mechanical neck pain. METHODS: Six online databases were comprehensively searched from their respective inception to October 2010. The primary search terms included "thoracic mobilization," "thoracic spine mobilization," "thoracic manipulation," and "thoracic spine manipulation." Of the 44 studies assessed for inclusion, 6 randomized controlled trials were retained. Between-group mean differences and effect sizes for pretreatment-to-posttreatment change scores, using Cohen's d formula, were calculated for pain, range of motion, and subjective function at all stated time intervals. RESULTS: Effect size point estimates for the pain change scores were significant for global assessment across all studies (range, 0.38-4.03) but not conclusively significant at the end range of active rotation (range, 0.02-1.79). Effect size point estimates were large among all range-of-motion change measures (range, 1.40-3.52), and the effect size point estimates of the change scores among the functional questionnaires (range, 0.47-3.64) also indicated a significant treatment effect. CONCLUSIONS: Thoracic spine thrust manipulation may provide short-term improvement in patients with acute or subacute mechanical neck pain. However, the body of literature is weak, and these results may not be generalizable. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapy, level 1b–.

J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2011;41(9):633-642. doi:10.2519/jospt.2011.3670

KEY WORDS: cervical spine, manipulative therapy, manual therapy

STUDY DESIGN: Case report. BACKGROUND: Decreased quadriceps activation has been shown to be present following anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury, but its presence prior to ACL injury is unknown. The purpose of this case report was to describe the level of quadriceps activation measured hours before a noncontact ACL injury in an individual who previously demonstrated known biomechanical risk factors for ACL injury. CASE DESCRIPTION: A 23-year-old female (height, 176.9 cm; mass, 72.4 kg), sustained a left noncontact ACL injury while landing from a jump stop during a recreational basketball game. This case was unique because data regarding landing biomechanics and quadriceps force and activation were gathered in 2 separate, unrelated studies prior to injury. OUTCOMES: Peak external knee abduction moment (-65.3 Nm) during a drop jump landing 8 months prior to injury indicated elevated risk for ACL injury. Involved quadriceps central activation ratios (CAR) were obtained 1 week (CAR, 0.81) and 4 hours (CAR, 0.77) prior to injury. Strength and CAR (0.76) measurements changed very little within 36 hours of injury and both strength, and activation (CAR, 0.90) improved following surgical reconstruction and formal rehabilitation. DISCUSSION: An individual with known biomechanical risk factors for ACL injury may compound risk for noncontact ACL injury if decreased quadriceps activation is also present. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognosis, level 4.

J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2008;38(8):502-507, published online 25 April 2008. doi:10.2519/jospt.2008.2761

KEY WORDS: ACL, biomechanics, knee, muscle inhibition