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

No abstract

No abstract

These findings may have implications in the etiology and treatment of chronic ankle instability.

AIMTo compare the posterior vs anterior approaches for fusion of Lenke 5 adolescent idiopathic scoliosis curves, matched for curve magnitude and for the distal level of fixation (dLOF) standardized to the third lumbar vertebrae (L3).METHODSA prospectively collected multicenter database was used for this retrospective comparative study. Our dependent variables included sagittal and coronal radiographic measurements, number of fused vertebrae, estimated blood loss, length of hospitalization and SRS total and individual domain scores at the two-year follow-up. Subject demographics were similar for all group comparisons. Independent t-test was used to compare groups for all analyses at P < 0.01.RESULTSFor all matched cases of Lenke 5 curves, a selective approach was used only 50% of the time in cases undergoing a posterior fusion. When comparing a posterior selective approach to an anterior selective approach, surgeons utilizing a posterior approach fused significantly more levels than surgeons using an anterior approach with no other significant differences in radiographic or SRS outcomes (Ant = 4.8 ± 1.0 levels vs post = 6.1 ± 1.0 levels, P < 0.0001). When the dLOF was standardized to L3, the anterior approached provided significantly greater lumbar Cobb percent correction than the posterior approach (Ant = 69.1% ± 12.6% vs post = 54.6% ± 16.4%, P = 0.004), with no other significant radiographic or SRS score differences between approaches.CONCLUSIONSurgeons treating Lenke 5c curves with a posterior instrumentation and fusion vs an anterior approach include more motion segments, even with a selective fusion. When controlled for the distal level of fixation, the anterior approach provides greater correction of the thoracolumbar curve.