HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Licciardone, J. C. Articles by Winn, W. B. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Licciardone, J. C. Articles by Winn, W. B.

From the University of North Texas Health Science Center at Fort Worth–Texas College of Osteopathic Medicine (Licciardone, Stoll, Gamber); the University of Texas School of Public Health, Houston (Cardarelli); Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn (Swift); and the College of Education and Health Professions, University of Arkansas (Winn).

Address correspondence to John C. Licciardone, DO, MS, University of North Texas Health Science Center at Fort Worth–Texas College of Osteopathic Medicine, 3500 Camp Bowie Blvd, Fort Worth, TX 76107. E-mail: jlicciar{at}hsc.unt.edu

Context: Preliminary study results suggest that osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT) may reduce pain, improve ambulation, and increase rehabilitation efficiency in patients undergoing knee or hip arthroplasty.

Objective: To determine the efficacy of OMT in patients who recently underwent surgery for knee or hip osteoarthritis or for a hip fracture.

Design: Randomized controlled trial involving hospital and postdischarge phases.

Setting: Hospital-based acute rehabilitation unit.

Patients: A total of 42 women and 18 men who were hospitalized between October 1998 and August 1999.

Intervention: Patients were randomly assigned to groups that received either OMT or sham treatment in addition to standard care. Manipulation was individualized and performed according to study guidelines regarding frequency, duration, and technique.

Main Outcome Measures: Changes in Functional Independence Measure (FIM) scores and in daily analgesic use during the rehabilitation unit stay; length of stay; rehabilitation efficiency—defined as the FIM total score change per rehabilitation unit day; and changes in Medical Outcomes Study Short Form-36 scores from rehabilitation unit admission to 4 weeks after discharge.

Results: Of 19 primary outcome measures, the only significant difference between groups was decreased rehabilitation efficiency with OMT (2.0 vs 2.6 FIM total score points per day; P = .01). Stratified analyses demonstrated that poorer OMT outcomes were confined to patients with osteoarthritis who underwent total knee arthroplasty (length of stay, 15.0 vs 8.3 days; P = .004; rehabilitation efficiency, 2.1 vs 3.4 FIM total score points per day; P = .001).

Conclusion: The OMT protocol used does not appear to be efficacious in this hospital rehabilitation population.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				B. E. Bledsoe and J. C. Licciardone The Elephant in the Room: Does OMT Have Proved Benefit? J Am Osteopath Assoc, October 1, 2004; 104(10): 405 - 406. [Full Text] [PDF]