Joint as a Reference to Assessment and Treatment

March 13, 2007 Joint as a Reference to Assessment and Treatment of the Musculoskeletal System on the invitation of Sean Flanagan, PhD, ATC, CSCS California State University, Northridge March 13, 2007 Kornelia Kulig, PhD, PT University of Southern California Outline • Assessment of joint mobility • • • • • Osteo-kinematics Arthro-kinematics Treatment plane Joint Surfaces ‘Grades’ of motion • Joint mobilization as an intervention • Indications, Benefits, Contraindications • Direction, Grade, Speed 2 Assessment of joint mobility •Osteo-kinematics •Arthro-kinematics •Treatment plane •Joint Surfaces •Grades of motion Movement of a bone around an axis. Rotation. 3 CSUN, Kulig for Flanagan, Joint Mobilization 1 March 13, 2007 Osteo-kinematic Motions at the Knee • Examples …. 4 Assessment of joint mobility •Osteo-kinematics •Arthro-kinematics •Treatment plane •Joint Surfaces •Grades of motion Movement of a bone around an axis. Rotation. Movement of a bone at the joint. Linear motion. 5 Arthro-kinematic Motions at the Knee Which arthrokinematic motions are not represented in these photos? 6 CSUN, Kulig for Flanagan, Joint Mobilization 2 March 13, 2007 Assessment of joint mobility •Osteo-kinematics •Arthro-kinematics •Treatment plane •Joint Surfaces •Grades of motion Movement of a bone around an axis. Rotation. Movement of a bone at the joint. Linear motion. An imaginary plane parallel to the concave joint surface. 7 -a ve Assessment of joint mobility Movement of a bone around an axis. Rotation. Movement of a bone at the joint. Linear motion. Co n - •Osteo-kinematics •Arthro-kinematics •Treatment plane •Joint Surfaces •Grades of motion An imaginary plane parallel to the concave joint surface. Concave and Convex 8 Assessment of joint mobility •Osteo-kinematics •Arthro-kinematics •Treatment plane •Joint Surfaces •Grades of motion Movement of a bone around an axis. Rotation. Movement of a bone at the joint. Linear motion. An imaginary plane parallel to the concave joint surface. Concave and Convex 9 CSUN, Kulig for Flanagan, Joint Mobilization 3 March 13, 2007 Passive Motion Joint Accessory Motion Testing Joint Play Testing Pioneers of Joint Play Testing • The two principal pioneers of joint play testing in manual therapy are Geoffrey Maitland of Australia, and Freddy Kaltenborn of Norway. • Both individuals developed techniques for the extremities and spine, and both developed different scales for describing the force and movement used during testing and treatment. 11 Essential Differences Between the Australian and the Nordic Approach • During the development of his approach, Maitland was strongly influenced by the neurophysiologic principles relating to pain. • Kaltenborn on the other hand was influenced by the joint based mechanical approaches advocated by Cyriax, Mennel, and Stodard. 12 CSUN, Kulig for Flanagan, Joint Mobilization 4 March 13, 2007 Maitland’s Approach to Joint Play Testing • Maitland’s joint play testing uses both rotational and translational movement within a joint. • These movements are performed in an oscillatory manner (1 and 2-3 oscillation per second) • The examiner feels for abnormal resistance to motion and carefully monitors any symptoms reported by the patient. 13 Maitland’s 5 Point Scale • Maitland developed a 5 point scale to describe the amount (amplitude) of movement and of the oscillations used during manual joint testing and treatment. From Maitland 14 Maitland’s 5 Point Scale Grade 1 – a small amplitude movement at the beginning of the movement Grade 2 – a large amplitude movement performed within the free range but not moving into any resistance (perceived stiffness) Grade 3 – a large amplitude movement performed up to the limits of the range Grade 4 – a small amplitude movement performed at the limit of the range Grade 5 – a small amplitude movement performed beyond the limit of the range (a manipulation) 15 CSUN, Kulig for Flanagan, Joint Mobilization 5 March 13, 2007 Kaltenborn’s Approach to Joint Play Testing • In contrast to Maitland, Kaltenborn developed his joint play testing with an emphasis on straight line, translatoric, movement within a joint. • This testing is not truly oscillatory although it is often repeated several times using different speeds of movement. • The examiner feels for abnormal resistance to motion with a particular emphasis on end-feel testing. 16 Kaltenborn’s 3 Point Scale • Kaltenborn developed a 3 point scale to describe the amount of movement and perceived resistance during manual joint testing and treatment. From Kaltenborn 17 Kaltenborn’s 3 Point Scale • Kaltenborn’s Grades – A Grade I “loosening” movement is an extremely small traction force which produces no appreciable increase in joint separation. Grade I traction nullifies the normal compressive forces acting on the joint. – A Grade II “tightening” movement first takes up the slack in the tissue surrounding the joint and then tightens the tissues. – A Grade III “stretching” movement is applied after the slack has been taken up and all tissues become taut. 18 CSUN, Kulig for Flanagan, Joint Mobilization 6 March 13, 2007 Angular Joint Play Testing • Maitland’s approach uses angular motions in the extremities when looking at joint play. • Logically, angular movements of the long bones may be used to identify abnormal resistance due to muscle guarding, muscle tone, or articular restriction. • However, because of its gross nature, it is difficult to judge whether articular or neuromuscular impairments are causing a particular movement restriction. 19 Translatoric Joint Play Testing • Drawing from simple mechanical principles Kaltenborn reasoned that there are two types of movement available in a joint: rolling and gliding. • Understanding that excessive loading (sheer and compression) leads to articular cartilage degeneration Kaltenborn chose to emphasize straight-lined, translational (gliding) movements during joint examination, mobilization, and manipulation. • His techniques are performed using very small amplitudes of movement with forces applied close to the joint line. 20 Kaltenborn & Maitland’s Initial Treatment Directions • Kaltenborn and Maitland target their initial treatments differently. • Maitland advocated treating patients with pain by directing oscillations towards the direction of movement causing pain (but not into pain). • Kaltenborn on the other hand emphasized treating to improve function using directions that cause the least amount of pain. 21 CSUN, Kulig for Flanagan, Joint Mobilization 7 March 13, 2007 Combining Scales of Movement • The scales developed by Maitland and Kaltenborn are equally dissimilar. • Kaltenborn’s scale looks at resistance within the range while Maitland’s scale looks at the amplitude of oscillations within the range. • Some manual therapy systems integrate these two scales which causes confusion for the novice manual therapist. 22 Which Scale Will We Use ? • For the sake of study here, we will use the scale as developed by Kaltenborn. • We will describe the use of oscillations during treatment later in this course. 23 Palpating Resistance to Normal Movement • As the therapist takes up the slack in the tissues they will feel an increased resistance to movement as they near the first stop. This resistance may develop quicker or slower, and may be firmer or softer dependent on the specific anatomy of the joint and pathology it may be experiencing. From Kaltenborn CSUN, Kulig for Flanagan, Joint Mobilization 24 8 March 13, 2007 Identifying Pathological Movement • When abnormal movement is present the first and final stops to the movement will change. • For the hypomobile joint the stop will occur sooner. • For the hypermobile joint the stop will occur later. From Kaltenborn 25 The Relationship of Resistance to Pathological Movement • The shift in the first and final stops is accompanied by a shift in the resistance felt by the therapist. • Resistance to movement will continue to increase as the therapist nears these stops regardless of where they are located in the range of movement. From Kaltenborn 26 Manual Grading of Movement • In order to communicate with each other regarding our joint play findings it is useful to use this simple 6 point scale. Stiffness? 27 From Kaltenborn CSUN, Kulig for Flanagan, Joint Mobilization 9 March 13, 2007 Determining the Direction of Decreased Joint Gliding • The direction of limitation for joint gliding may be determined either directly (using glide testing) or indirectly using Kaltenborn’s Concave-convex rule. 28 The Direct Method (Glide Testing) ƒ Passive translatoric gliding movements are applied in all possible directions to determine joint gliding restrictions. ƒ This is the preferred method as it gives the most information about the degree and nature of gliding restrictions ! 29 The Indirect Method (Concave-Convex Rule) ƒ This method is based on the relationship between normal bone rotations and the gliding component of the corresponding joint movement. ƒ Useful for joints with very small movement. ƒ Useful when severe pain limits movement. 30 CSUN, Kulig for Flanagan, Joint Mobilization 10 March 13, 2007 Applying the Concave-Convex Rule ƒ For the convex joint partner ƒ The therapist moves a bone with a convex joint surface opposite to the direction of the restricted bone movement. From Kaltenborn ƒ For the concave joint partner ƒ The therapist moves a bone with a concave joint surface in the same direction of the restricted bone movement. From Kaltenborn 31 End-feel • End-feel is the sensation imparted to your hands at the limit of available range of movement. • End-feel can be evaluated during standard and combined passive rotational movements (overpressure end-feel) or during translatoric joint play movements (joint play end-feel) From Kaltenborn 32 The Background of End-feel Testing • The first individual to describe end-feels was James Cyriax. – He described 5 primary endfeels: • • • • • Capsular Bony Soft Boggy Empty 33 CSUN, Kulig for Flanagan, Joint Mobilization 11 March 13, 2007 Other Descriptions of End-feels • Many others have described end-feels. • In fact Paris has approximately 21 end-feels which he has described. • Kaltenborn describes 3 normal end-feels based on his study with Cyriax • Firm or Capsular • Hard or Bony • Soft 34 Normal End-feels • • • Soft – Characteristic of soft tissue approximation (e.g., knee flexion) or soft tissue stretching (e.g., ankle dorsiflexion with the knee extended) Firm – Characteristic of capsular or ligamentous stretching. • A firm endfeel is variable among individuals depending on factors such as size, age, and the extent of degenerative changes. Hard – Occurs when bone or cartilage meet (e.g., elbow extension and flexion) 35 Judging the End-feel • There are normal end-feels associated with specific joints. These end-feels are expected to occur at the end of normal ROM. • An end-feel is considered abnormal when it is different than the normal occurring end-feel for the joint, and when it occurs at a different point in the range than is normal. 36 CSUN, Kulig for Flanagan, Joint Mobilization 12 March 13, 2007 37 Shoulder Examination -- Let’s Practice Glenohumeral Joint Play Testing CSUN, Kulig for Flanagan, Joint Mobilization 13 March 13, 2007 Positioning the Joint for Testing • When initially positioning the joint for joint play testing we use either the resting or actual resting positions. • Resting positions were first described by McConaill and are an estimate of where the joint capsule is the most relaxed, there is little joint contact, and there is the greatest joint play. 40 The Actual Resting Position • Sometimes we are unable to test our patients joint in the resting position due to pain or significantly limited motion. • In these cases we use the position where there is the least amount of pain and tissue tension. This is called the actual resting position. • This is often the position where treatment is initiated. • During treatment this position will change as pain decreases and tissues relax. 41 Testing Out of the Resting Position • As your skills improve and your patients impairments decrease you will find that you need to perform joint play testing out of the resting position. • In order to judge the degree of capsular looseness or tightness in these positions it is important to have a thorough sense of how these tissues feel normally in the resting position. 42 CSUN, Kulig for Flanagan, Joint Mobilization 14 March 13, 2007 Before You Start Joint Play Testing • Remember… 1. Keep your own arms and hands relaxed. This will help you sense the movement better. 2. Vary the speed of your testing and be sure to stabilize with an equal and opposite force. 3. Compare your findings from side to side, and between different patients. 43 Avoiding Compression During Gliding • • • • It is important to avoid applying compression when testing joint mobility, or applying gliding forces to stretch capsular tissues. It has been suggested by Kaltenborn that we incorporate a grade one traction during these procedures thereby avoiding compression. This may or may not always be easily accomplished because of patient and therapist size, and the specific testing being performed. Every effort should be used to avoid compressing the joints during these procedures! 44 Glenohumeral Joint Information • Resting position: 55° abduction, 30° horizontal adduction, slight external rotation • Closed packed position: maximal abduction and external rotation • Capsular pattern: lateral rotation-abduction-medial rotation From Kaltenborn From Kaltenborn 45 CSUN, Kulig for Flanagan, Joint Mobilization 15 March 13, 2007 Traction Joint Play ƒ This test is performed by stabilizing the scapula with a medial force while applying a lateral traction force on the proximal humerus. ƒ Note how the patient’s arm is supported by the therapist. ƒ Be aware of unwanted movement of the patient’s trunk. They should not lean towards you during the test. 46 Posterior Glide Joint Play ƒ This test is performed by stabilizing the scapula with an anterior force while applying a posterior gliding force on the proximal humerus. 47 Inferior Glide Joint Play ƒ During this test the scapula is stabilized by the rib cage and upper trapezius muscle. ƒ The test is performed by applying a caudal gliding force on the proximal humerus. 48 CSUN, Kulig for Flanagan, Joint Mobilization 16 March 13, 2007 Anterior Glide Joint Play Anterior View ƒ Here we are stabilizing the scapula with a posterior force while applying an anterior gliding force on the proximal humerus. Posterior View 49 Compression Provocation Testing GH Compression Testing • • Subacromial Compression Testing This technique is performed prior to contractile tissue testing to identify pain originating from an articular lesion. Note, this procedure may need to be held for some period of time, and can be performed with the arm in various positions. 50 Supine Joint Play Testing • Joint play testing is also performed in a supine position. • This may be used to – confirm seated joint play findings – clarify joint play which may have been difficult to sense in the seated position – Reassess joint play following supine joint mobilization 51 CSUN, Kulig for Flanagan, Joint Mobilization 17 March 13, 2007 Identifying the Dysfunctional Joint • Remember: – When assessing a joint's mobility three different characteristics are observed: quantity, quality, and end-feel. – A dysfunctional joint has a distinctly different quantity, quality and end-feel than the joint with normal mobility. – A dysfunctional joint often demonstrates less quantity of movement, a change in the quality of the movement (increased resistance to a movement within the available range) and a more abrupt completion of movement with a firmer end-feel. 52 53 Outline • Assessment of joint mobility • • • • • Osteo-kinematics Arthro-kinematics Treatment plane Joint Surfaces ‘Grades’ of motion • Joint mobilization as an intervention • Indication, Benefits, Contraindication • Direction, Grade, Speed 54 CSUN, Kulig for Flanagan, Joint Mobilization 18 March 13, 2007 Joint Mobilization • Indications – Joint dysfunction: PROM =/> AROM but < than optimal – Inadequate ROM with capsular end-feel of the joint – Painful restriction of accessory joint motion with loss of rotational motions 55 Joint Mobilization • Benefits – Increase ROM – Decrease of muscle guarding – Increased proprioceptive awareness 56 Joint Mobilization Contraindications: • Infection • Neoplasm • Recent fracture • Acute OA, RA • Osteoporosis • Joint effusion • Loss of range without capsular end-feel (i.e., muscular end-feel) 57 CSUN, Kulig for Flanagan, Joint Mobilization 19 March 13, 2007 Joint Mobilization • Direction • Grade • Speed Placzek et al., Am J Ortho, 2004 58 Joint Mobilization Arthrokinematic Osteokinematic 59 Shoulder Joint Mobilization • Indications • capsular end feel • pattern of restriction • history of: – pain pain & restriction restriction • Mobilize or manipulate? 60 CSUN, Kulig for Flanagan, Joint Mobilization 20 March 13, 2007 Intervention for Frozen Shoulder, Adhesive Capsulitis • • • • Manipulation under anesthesia Capsular distension Mobilization Exercise 61 http://pt.usc.edu/labs/mbrl kulig@usc.edu 62 CSUN, Kulig for Flanagan, Joint Mobilization 21