26
Rehabilitative Management of the Chronic Pain Patient: Goals, Strategies, and Expectations Troy Hooper, PT, PhD, ATC Assistant Professor ScD Program in PT [email protected]

Rehabilitative Management of the Chronic Pain Patient: Goals, … · 2017-10-29 · ‣Reduced healthcare visits: 3.6 vs. 13.5 in control group at 1 year (Moseley, 2002) ‣Significantly

  • Upload
    others

  • View
    2

  • Download
    0

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: Rehabilitative Management of the Chronic Pain Patient: Goals, … · 2017-10-29 · ‣Reduced healthcare visits: 3.6 vs. 13.5 in control group at 1 year (Moseley, 2002) ‣Significantly

Rehabilitative Management of the Chronic

Pain Patient: Goals, Strategies, and

ExpectationsTroy Hooper, PT, PhD, ATC

Assistant Professor

ScD Program in PT

[email protected]

Page 2: Rehabilitative Management of the Chronic Pain Patient: Goals, … · 2017-10-29 · ‣Reduced healthcare visits: 3.6 vs. 13.5 in control group at 1 year (Moseley, 2002) ‣Significantly

Disclosures

‣None

Page 3: Rehabilitative Management of the Chronic Pain Patient: Goals, … · 2017-10-29 · ‣Reduced healthcare visits: 3.6 vs. 13.5 in control group at 1 year (Moseley, 2002) ‣Significantly

Moseley GL. A pain neuromatrix approach to patients with chronic pain. Manual Therapy. 2003;8(3):130-140.

Parallel Neural Networks or Matrices

3

Cognitive

Affective

Motivational

Emotional

Context Factors

Persistent pain is not necessarily related only to injury, but also due

to activation of the matrix.

Afferent

Pathways

Page 4: Rehabilitative Management of the Chronic Pain Patient: Goals, … · 2017-10-29 · ‣Reduced healthcare visits: 3.6 vs. 13.5 in control group at 1 year (Moseley, 2002) ‣Significantly

Neuromatrix Approach

Treating Chronic Pain

‣Management Benchmarks

• Information for mind and body

• Desensitization

• General activation

• Turn the corner on disability

Page 5: Rehabilitative Management of the Chronic Pain Patient: Goals, … · 2017-10-29 · ‣Reduced healthcare visits: 3.6 vs. 13.5 in control group at 1 year (Moseley, 2002) ‣Significantly

Information for the Mind

Neuromatrix Approach

“subchronic low back pain can be

managed successfully … and long

term disability may be reduced …

with information for patients about

the nature of the problem, provided in

a manner designed to reduce fear

and give them reason to resume light

activity.”Indahl A, Haldorsen EH, Holm S, Reikerås O, Ursin H. Five-year follow-up study of a controlled clinical trial using light

mobilization and an informative approach to low back pain. Spine. 1998;23(23):2625-30.

Page 6: Rehabilitative Management of the Chronic Pain Patient: Goals, … · 2017-10-29 · ‣Reduced healthcare visits: 3.6 vs. 13.5 in control group at 1 year (Moseley, 2002) ‣Significantly

Information for the Mind

Neuromatrix Approach

‣ Therapeutic focus:

• Reduce the threats by improving

understanding

• Key components

- Education

- Systematic approach to identification and

progression of motoric and functional

baselinesMoseley GL. A pain neuromatrix approach to patients with chronic pain. Man Ther. 2003;8(3):130-40.

Moseley GL, Butler DS. Fifteen years of explaining pain: The past, present, and future. J Pain. 2015;16(9):807-813.

Page 7: Rehabilitative Management of the Chronic Pain Patient: Goals, … · 2017-10-29 · ‣Reduced healthcare visits: 3.6 vs. 13.5 in control group at 1 year (Moseley, 2002) ‣Significantly

Information for the Mind

Neuromatrix Approach

7

Help establish: Willingness to socialize:

• Family Support-Help

with duties

• Sleeping

• Exercise

• Nutrition

• Smoking

• Are they isolating

themselves?

• Possibly not moving

much

• Encourage walking

with family members

• Social activities

Social Support

Page 8: Rehabilitative Management of the Chronic Pain Patient: Goals, … · 2017-10-29 · ‣Reduced healthcare visits: 3.6 vs. 13.5 in control group at 1 year (Moseley, 2002) ‣Significantly

Information for the Mind

Neuromatrix Approach

Communication

‣ Self Consciousness:

• Ensure early success in treatment (some form)

• Do not pick on them

Page 9: Rehabilitative Management of the Chronic Pain Patient: Goals, … · 2017-10-29 · ‣Reduced healthcare visits: 3.6 vs. 13.5 in control group at 1 year (Moseley, 2002) ‣Significantly

Information for the Body

Neuromatrix Approach

Motor control is affected by:

‣ Fear of pain

‣ Anticipation of pain

‣ Catastrophizing

‣ Past history

‣ Thoughts and emotions

Puentedura EJ, Louw A. A neuroscience approach to managing athletes with low back pain. Phys Ther Sport. 2012;13(3):123-133.

Page 10: Rehabilitative Management of the Chronic Pain Patient: Goals, … · 2017-10-29 · ‣Reduced healthcare visits: 3.6 vs. 13.5 in control group at 1 year (Moseley, 2002) ‣Significantly

Information for the Body

Neuromatrix Approach

Locomotor Consequences:

‣ Muscles

• Global

• Local

• Pelvic floor

‣ Changes due to pain

• Histological

• Strength

• Motor recruitment (magnitude and timing)

Page 11: Rehabilitative Management of the Chronic Pain Patient: Goals, … · 2017-10-29 · ‣Reduced healthcare visits: 3.6 vs. 13.5 in control group at 1 year (Moseley, 2002) ‣Significantly

Information for the Body

Neuromatrix Approach

Higher Order

Complex Combinations 1 + 7 2 + 7 3 + 7

4 + 1, 4 + 3, 4 + 1 + 7, 4 + 3 + 7

5 + 1, 5 + 3, 5 + 1 + 7, 5 + 3 + 7

6 + 1, 6 + 3, 6 + 1 + 7, 6 + 3 + 7

See other exercise group combinations

Standing ADIM in standingDiagonal Pull-

Downs A-B in Standing Reciprocal ReachResisted Hip

Extension in stand

1. Latissimus Pull-Downs

2. Low-Rows PFA in standing

1/2 KneelingADIM in 1/2

kneelingDiagonal Pull-

Downs A-B in 1/2 KneelingReciprocal Shoulder

Elevation Glut Sets in 1/2

kneeling

1. Unilateral Pull-Downs

2. Unilateral Low-Rows PFA in 1/2 kneeling

SittingADIM in Sitting on

SwissBall

1. X-Leg resisted diag's

2. X-Leg Diag Pull-Downs A-B in Sitting

Reciprocal Shoulder Elevation

Tipped Rise from SwissBall

1. Latissimus Pull-Downs

2. Low-RowsPFA in Sitting on

Swiss Ball

All-4's ADIM in All-4'sReciprocal Drawing-

in A-B In All-4's Hip Ext-HoldKnee Ext --> Hip

Ext + LEERResisted Sh.

Extension PFA in All-4's

Lower Order Recumbent1. ADIM in Supine 2. ADIM in Prone

1. Bridging 2. Side Bridging (SB)

3. Abdominal Crunch A-B in Supine

1. Sup Assisted Activation

2. Prone Hip Ext-Hold Bridge & March1. Sup ISOM Sh Ext 2. Side Bridge

1. PFA in supine 2. PFA in prone

LocomotorComponent

Transverse Abdominus

Internal Obliques

Abdominal Co-Contraction Multifidus

Gluteus Maximus Latissimus Dorsi Pelvic Floor

Exercise Group Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

SenMoCORTM

Page 12: Rehabilitative Management of the Chronic Pain Patient: Goals, … · 2017-10-29 · ‣Reduced healthcare visits: 3.6 vs. 13.5 in control group at 1 year (Moseley, 2002) ‣Significantly

Information for the Body

Neuromatrix Approach

Functional Sensory Consequences:

‣ Reflex responses

‣ Proprioception

‣ Static and dynamic balance

‣ Postural control

Page 13: Rehabilitative Management of the Chronic Pain Patient: Goals, … · 2017-10-29 · ‣Reduced healthcare visits: 3.6 vs. 13.5 in control group at 1 year (Moseley, 2002) ‣Significantly

Information for the Body: Testing

Neuromatrix Approach

‣ Single-leg balance

• Hard vs foam surface

‣ Y-Balance Test

Hooper TL, James CR, Brismée JM et al. Dynamic balance as measured by the y-balance test is reduced in individuals with low back pain: A cross-sectional comparative study. Phys Ther Sport. 2016;2229-34.

Page 14: Rehabilitative Management of the Chronic Pain Patient: Goals, … · 2017-10-29 · ‣Reduced healthcare visits: 3.6 vs. 13.5 in control group at 1 year (Moseley, 2002) ‣Significantly

Information for the Body: Training

Neuromatrix Approach

Page 15: Rehabilitative Management of the Chronic Pain Patient: Goals, … · 2017-10-29 · ‣Reduced healthcare visits: 3.6 vs. 13.5 in control group at 1 year (Moseley, 2002) ‣Significantly

Desensitize

Neuromatrix Approach

Louw A, Zimney K, O’Hotto C, Hilton S. The clinical application of teaching people about pain. Physiother Theory Pract. 2016;32(5):385-395.

Page 16: Rehabilitative Management of the Chronic Pain Patient: Goals, … · 2017-10-29 · ‣Reduced healthcare visits: 3.6 vs. 13.5 in control group at 1 year (Moseley, 2002) ‣Significantly

Desensitize

Neuromatrix Approach

Use Visualization

‣ Imagine using the arm/leg how it used

to be

‣ See yourself in the future with normal

function: imagine those activities

Page 17: Rehabilitative Management of the Chronic Pain Patient: Goals, … · 2017-10-29 · ‣Reduced healthcare visits: 3.6 vs. 13.5 in control group at 1 year (Moseley, 2002) ‣Significantly

Desensitize

Neuromatrix Approach

Focus on Function Rather Than Pain

‣ De-emphasize VAS

‣ Emphasize functional scores

Page 18: Rehabilitative Management of the Chronic Pain Patient: Goals, … · 2017-10-29 · ‣Reduced healthcare visits: 3.6 vs. 13.5 in control group at 1 year (Moseley, 2002) ‣Significantly

General Activation

Neuromatrix Approach

Improving Fitness and Function

‣ Activity-oriented exercise > strengthening

and stretching exercises

• Allows the patient to link the exercise to their

day-to-day activities

‣ Understand that the exercise is not about a

cure, but about how to be more active

despite the pain. Any change to the pain, is a

bonus!

Page 19: Rehabilitative Management of the Chronic Pain Patient: Goals, … · 2017-10-29 · ‣Reduced healthcare visits: 3.6 vs. 13.5 in control group at 1 year (Moseley, 2002) ‣Significantly

General Activation

Neuromatrix Approach

‣ Introduce exercise slowly, and start with the

least feared movements.

‣ “What would you do if your pain was gone?”

‣ Break the goal down into small parts.

‣ Make a plan – write it down.

‣ Activity log.

Page 20: Rehabilitative Management of the Chronic Pain Patient: Goals, … · 2017-10-29 · ‣Reduced healthcare visits: 3.6 vs. 13.5 in control group at 1 year (Moseley, 2002) ‣Significantly

General Activation

Neuromatrix Approach

‣ Start with low baselines. Build up tolerance

gradually and systematically.

• Easily manageable (time or repetitions)

• Done comfortably

• Does not cause flare-up (can have up to 2

hours of increased pain after)

‣ Take regular rests between activities.

‣ Do small amounts often rather than doing

everything at once.

Page 21: Rehabilitative Management of the Chronic Pain Patient: Goals, … · 2017-10-29 · ‣Reduced healthcare visits: 3.6 vs. 13.5 in control group at 1 year (Moseley, 2002) ‣Significantly

General Activation

Neuromatrix Approach

‣ Do not rush to increase activity/exercise

levels. Just maintaining the program can be

beneficial.

‣ Don’t overdo it on good days (pacing).

‣ “every day you do more than you did

yesterday, but not much more”

Page 22: Rehabilitative Management of the Chronic Pain Patient: Goals, … · 2017-10-29 · ‣Reduced healthcare visits: 3.6 vs. 13.5 in control group at 1 year (Moseley, 2002) ‣Significantly

Turning the Corner on Disability

Neuromatrix Approach

Page 23: Rehabilitative Management of the Chronic Pain Patient: Goals, … · 2017-10-29 · ‣Reduced healthcare visits: 3.6 vs. 13.5 in control group at 1 year (Moseley, 2002) ‣Significantly

Turning the Corner on Disability

Neuromatrix Approach

Additional Treatment Domains

‣ Anxiety and Depression

‣ Emotional Issues

‣ Socioeconomic Issues

‣ Fear Avoidance

‣ Social Support

‣ Occupational Barriers

Page 24: Rehabilitative Management of the Chronic Pain Patient: Goals, … · 2017-10-29 · ‣Reduced healthcare visits: 3.6 vs. 13.5 in control group at 1 year (Moseley, 2002) ‣Significantly

Turning the Corner on Disability

Neuromatrix Approach

‣ Increased pain thresholds during

physical tasks (Moseley, 2004; Van Oosterwick

et al, 2011)

‣ Reduced unhelpful pain-related beliefs

and attitudes, improved exercise

outcomes (Moseley, 2004; Nijs et al, 2011;

Meeus 2010)

‣ Decreased perceived disability (Moseley,

2002; Van Oosterwick et al, 2011; Pires et al, 2015)

Page 25: Rehabilitative Management of the Chronic Pain Patient: Goals, … · 2017-10-29 · ‣Reduced healthcare visits: 3.6 vs. 13.5 in control group at 1 year (Moseley, 2002) ‣Significantly

Turning the Corner on Disability

Neuromatrix Approach

‣ Reduced healthcare visits: 3.6 vs. 13.5

in control group at 1 year (Moseley, 2002)

‣ Significantly reduced sick-leave days

and care-seeking (Vibe Fersum et al, 2013)

‣ Reduced healthcare costs when

implemented pre-operatively: 45% less

than control group at 1 year (Louw et al,

2014)