Clinical outcomes following manual physical therapy and exercise for hip osteoarthritis: a case series.

Study Design: Case series describing the outcomes of individual patients with hip osteoarthritis treated with manual physical therapy and exercise. Case Description: Seven patients referred to physical therapy with hip osteoarthritis and/or hip pain were included in this case series. All patients were treated with manual physical therapy followed by exercises to maximize strength and range of motion. Six of 7 patients completed a Harris Hip Score at initial examination and discharge from physical therapy, and 1 patient completed a Global Rating of Change Scale at discharge. Outcomes: Three males and 4 females with a median age of 62 years (range, 52-80 years) and median duration of symptoms of 9 months (range, 2-60 months) participated in this case series. The median number of physical therapy sessions attended was 5 (range, 4-12). The median increase in total passive range of motion of the hip was 82° (range, 70°-86°). The median improvement on the Harris Hip Score was 25 points (range, 15-38 points). The single patient who completed the Global Rating of Change Scale at discharge reported being ‘‘a great deal better.’’ Numeric pain rating scores decreased by a mean of 5 points (range, 2-7 points) on 0-to-10-point scale. Discussion: All patients exhibited reductions in pain and increases in passive range of motion, as well as a clinically meaningful improvement in function. Although we cannot infer a cause and effect relationship from a case series, the outcomes with these patients are similar to others reported in the literature that have demonstrated superior clinical outcomes associated with manual physical therapy and exercise for hip osteoarthritis compared to exercise alone. (aut. ref.

Manual therapy in osteoarthritis of the hip: outcome in subgroups of patients

OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether manual therapy has particular benefit in subgroups of patients defined on the basis of hip function, range of joint motion, pain and radiological deterioration. METHODS: The study was performed in the out-patient clinic of physical therapy of a large hospital. Data on 109 patients with OA of the hip (clinical ACR criteria) participating in a randomized clinical trial on the effects of manual therapy were used. The outcomes for hip function (Harris hip score), range of joint motion (ROM) and pain (VAS) were compared for specific subgroups. Subgroups were assigned by the median split method. The interaction effect between subgroup and treatment was tested using multiple regression analysis. RESULTS: No differences were observed in the effect of manual therapy in specific subgroups of patients defined on the basis of baseline levels of hip function, pain and ROM. On the basis of radiological grading of osteoarthritis (OA), we found that patients with severe radiological grading of OA had significantly worse outcome on ROM as a result of manual therapy than patients with mild or moderate radiological grading of OA. CONCLUSION: A significant interaction effect was found for only 1 out of 12 hypotheses investigated. Therefore, we conclude that there is no evidence for the particular benefit of manual therapy in subgroups of patient

A comparison of the OARSI response criteria with patient's global assessment in patients with osteoarthritis of the hip treated with a non-pharmacological intervention.

Objective: To compare the Osteoarthritis Research Society International (OARSI) response criteria for clinical trials with patient's global assessment in patients with osteoarthritis (OA) of the hip receiving a non-pharmacological intervention, i.e., manual therapy or exercise therapy. Methods: Data of a randomized clinical trial on manual therapy and exercise therapy in patients with OA of the hip (n = 109) were used. Change scores of measures of hip function, range of joint motion and pain were compared between patients who were differently classified by the OARSI response criteria and the patient's global assessment (using a t test, 95% CI). Furthermore, risk ratios (with 95% CI) were calculated for the contrast between treatment outcome, using the OARSI criteria or patient's global assessment. Results: Few patients were classified as improved (i.e., responders) with the OARSI response criteria as compared to patient's global assessment. Significantly worse outcome for hip function and pain was observed in patients who were classified as non-responders (OARSI criteria), but who considered themselves as improved (patient's global assessment). Risk ratios for the contrast between the two treatment programs (manual therapy vs exercise therapy) were similar, when using the OARSI criteria or patient's global assessment. Conclusion: The validity of the OARSI response criteria has been previously demonstrated in OA patients treated with pharmacological interventions. The present study demonstrates the validity of the OARSI response criteria in OA patients treated with a non-pharmacological intervention, i.e., manual therapy and exercise therapy. (aut. ref.