



Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Prepare for your exams
Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points to download
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Community
Ask the community for help and clear up your study doubts
Discover the best universities in your country according to Docsity users
Free resources
Download our free guides on studying techniques, anxiety management strategies, and thesis advice from Docsity tutors
The findings of a literature search conducted to determine valid clinical tests for physical therapists in diagnosing lateral hip pain pathologies. The document identifies five valid clinical tests: single limb stance, hip lag sign, Ober’s test, resisted abduction, and isometric abduction. These tests aid in discerning between trochanteric bursitis and gluteal tendinosis, common causes of lateral hip pain. The document also provides background information on greater trochanteric pain syndrome, its prevalence, and common symptoms.
What you will learn
Typology: Exams
1 / 6
This page cannot be seen from the preview
Don't miss anything!
Background and Purpose: Lateral hip pain is of high prevalence in the orthopedic physical therapy setting. The purpose of this case study was to determine correct and valid clinical tests to aid physical therapists in dif- ferentially diagnosing between trochanteric bursitis and gluteal tendinosis. Methods: A detailed literature search was conducted to determine valid clinical tests that will aid physical therapists in better differentially diagnosing lateral hip pain pathologies. Find- ings: The 5 valid clinical tests found included single limb stance, hip lag sign, Ober’s test, resisted abduction, and isometric abduction. Clinical Relevance: By performing these 5 valid clinical tests, physical therapists can better narrow down the hip structure of con- cern; therefore, decreasing pain, increasing functional ability, and improving quality of life. Conclusion: There is a need for addi- tional studies addressing the implementation of these 5 clinical tests and their effects on proper diagnosis among patients with lateral hip pain.
Key Words: clinical testing, muscle strain, validity
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE Lateral hip pain, more commonly referred to as greater trochanteric pain syndrome (GTPS), is frequently seen in the orthopedic physical therapy setting; however, there have been a plethora of causes identified for lateral hip pain.1,2^ Trochanteric bursitis, iliotibial band (ITB) friction, gluteal tendinosis, and gluteal tears are the more common diagnoses that encompass GTPS, with approximately 2 patients per 1000 each year being affected.3- Greater trochanteric pain syndrome is more prevalent in women than men with a 4: ratio, especially between the fourth and sixth decades of life.1,3,6^ Due to the complexity of the hip joint and surrounding anatomy, differential diagnosis of lateral hip pain can often be difficult, specifically between tro- chanteric bursitis and tendinosis.1,2,6, The hip is a ball and socket joint with 3 degrees of freedom. 8 The 4 muscle groups providing motion at the hip include gluteal,
anterior, posterior, and medial. Greater tro- chanteric pain syndrome typically focuses on disorders of the gluteal region of the hip and the structures commonly affected are gluteus medius and minimus and the ITB. 8, Due to its shape and location, the gluteus medius muscle is often the most suscep- tible to injury. 6 It is a fan shaped muscle, with proximal attachment on the external surface of the ilium and a distal attachment on the lateral surface of the greater trochan- ter 8,9^ but more specifically to the superior- posterior and the lateral facets of the greater trochanter. 5 The gluteus medius contributes to internal rotation and is the prime abduc- tor of the hip, responsible for keeping the pelvis level during gait, running, and single leg activities. 4 Other anatomical structures may also contribute to the lateral hip pain such as bursae, which are membranous, fluid filled sacs, located in areas between bony promi- nences and soft tissues to act as a gliding interface and provide cushioning during friction.3-5,9^ According to Woodley et al,^1 when referring to the trochanteric bursitis, there are thought to be 8 bursae that could be the origin of pain in the lateral hip. Of those 8, the most common bursae involved in trochanteric bursitis are the subgluteus medius, the subgluteus maximus (trochan- teric), and the subgluteus minimus bursae.^10 The subgluteus maximus bursa is the larg- est and located superficially to the posterior facet of the greater trochanter and the lateral insertion of the gluteus medius tendon,5, whereas the subgluteus medius bursa is located deep to the gluteus medius tendon, and the subgluteus minimus bursa is located over the anterior facet of the greater trochan- ter, deep to the gluteus minimus tendon.^10 Due to the close proximity of numerous ana- tomical structures, irritation of the bursae is common. Trochanteric bursitis has been defined as inflammation of the bursa, which can be caused by repetitive action causing friction over the bursa or acute trauma to the sur- rounding muscles and tendons.^9 Trochan- teric bursitis is the most common diagnosis for patients with complaints of lateral hip
pain.1,3,4,6^ The common presentation of tro- chanteric bursitis is a dull, aching pain, with tenderness around the greater trochanter and radiation of pain along the lateral thigh. 1, Conservative treatment and corticosteroid injections have been shown to be effective in 90% of people diagnosed with trochanteric bursitis.^3 Unfortunately, the pain pattern and presentation of trochanteric bursitis is not unique, making it hard to differentiate between this and other disorders, especially tendinosis. Tendons are comprised of 95% Type I collagen fibers and are responsible for distrib- uting forces across joints, stabilizing joints, and aiding in body movement.^11 Tendinosis refers to a degeneration of the tendon’s col- lagen over time.11,12^ Within the lateral hip, tendinosis and tears most commonly affect the gluteus medius. Over the last decade, research has shown an increasing number of cases of gluteal tendinosis and tears.^11 Due to common misdiagnoses and the umbrella term GTPS, it is unclear from the litera- ture exactly what the incidence of gluteus medius tendinopathies may be. According to Woodley et al, 1 the prevalence of gluteal tendon pathology is variable, ranging from 25.7% to 83.3%, making it one of the most common causes of lateral hip pain and the most common of tendinopathies in the lower extremity. 5 Tendinosis onset is often insidious, worsening over time; however, it can also occur following a fall or a forceful contrac- tion. 6 Tendinosis and bursitis share the same common symptoms of pain and tenderness along the greater trochanter.3,5,6,9^ Tendinosis does not typically present with inflamma- tion; therefore, cortisone injections are often unsuccessful. 5,6,11^ The most common activity limitations associated with gluteal tendinosis are rising to stand or walking after sitting, sleeping on the involved side, single leg stance activities, and climbing stairs.^5 Patients often show increased weakness in abduction and may develop a Trendelenburg gait pattern. 5, Tendinosis could ultimately result in partial or even full-thickness tears if untreated or not detected soon enough, making conservative therapy an insufficient measure. 6,11,
Department of Physical Therapy, Marymount University, Arlington, VA
Long and colleagues^10 performed a study with a sample size of 877 patients with GTPS. Of the sample size, 79.8% showed no evidence of bursitis on ultrasound and 49.9% had gluteal tendinosis. Of those with tendi- nosis, 26.9% had isolated gluteus medius tendinosis and 0.2% had partial thickness tears of the gluteus medius.^10 Literature has shown the increase of misdiagnoses between trochanteric bursitis and gluteal tendinosis results in an increased recovery time and pro- longed duration of disability and pain.1,2,4-7,
METHODS To mitigate misdiagnoses of lateral hip pain, much research is being conducted to determine reliable clinical tests to best evalu- ate patients. Several tests have been used to differentially diagnose between bursitis and tendinosis that have shown to be both reli- able and valid.1,5, Literature research has demonstrated that there are 5 valid and reliable clinical tests for differentiating causes of lateral hip pain. Those tests are single limb stance, hip lag sign, Ober’s test, resisted abduction, and isometric hip abduction.1,5,6^ Each test aids in indicating slightly different diagnoses so it is important that each test be implemented during the initial evaluation of a patient with lateral hip pain. These tests can easily be completed in a relatively short time. The tests should be in the order of easiest to most difficult for the patient to do:
then brings the leg into adduction and allows it to fall to end range. If there is restricted range and/or pain repro- duction, it is considered a positive test, which is indicative of ITB tightness or trochanteric bursitis.5,
Patient Description The patient was a 61-year-old Caucasian female with a two-year history of left lat- eral hip pain that began approximately two weeks after she slipped on the ice sustaining a fall on the outstretched hand. For her hand injury, she was referred to a hand therapist
by her primary care physician. She recovered from the hand injury after several months of therapy. For her left hip pain two weeks following her fall, she consulted with an orthopedic surgeon who diagnosed her with left hip trochanteric bursitis and prescribed physical therapy for 4 weeks. The patient was compliant with 4 weeks of therapy but only displayed minimal pain reduction, which ultimately led to her discharge from physical therapy. At this point, her physician admin- istered a cortisone injection that only slightly decreased her pain for approximately one week. She discontinued treatment following the cortisone injection and took ibuprofen on an as needed basis. Eight months following the initial injury in August 2016, the patient reported an increase in pain in her left hip and returned to her physician for additional evaluation. The physician at that point ordered an MRI, which revealed left gluteus medius tendi- nosis with small partial thickness tearing at the greater trochanter and no evidence of trochanteric bursitis (Figure 1 and 2). Two months later the patient underwent an open repair of the left gluteus medius in November 2016 to reattach the gluteus medius tendon to the greater trochanter. Following the pro- cedure, the patient was on strict nonweight bearing (NWB) precautions for 6 weeks. She came to physical therapy in December 2016 once she was no longer in the NWB status. The orthopedic surgeon provided a detailed protocol for the plan of care (Appendix). A review of systems revealed that prior to her injury she was active and worked as a school nurse. Her family history was positive for cardiac disease. She was on medications to control her hypertension. Due to the post- operative restrictions of NWB status and no driving she was not engaged in any activities following her hip surgery. Her postoperative pain was being managed well with ibuprofen on an as needed basis. Upon initial evaluation of the hip, the patient demonstrated 90° of active hip flex- ion and 20° of active hip abduction, before experiencing pain. Passive physiological movements were not performed due to pro- tocol restrictions and internal and external rotation was not measured due to the patient reporting 7/10 pain level on the numeric pain rating scale. A general strength screen was performed of the patient’s bilateral upper extremities and right lower extremity (LE); all were within normal limits (WNL). The manual muscle testing of the left LE revealed: hip abduction 4-/5, hip flexion 4/5, knee flex-
determine the use of special clinical tests during an evaluation to aid physical thera- pists in differentially diagnosing between trochanteric bursitis and gluteal tendinosis. The 5 clinical tests that have shown the most validity include the single leg stance, the hip lag sign, Ober’s test, resisted abduction, and isometric hip abduction. 1,5, The patient in this case showed signifi- cant improvements in strength during her time in physical therapy postsurgery as opposed to her presurgical treatment ses- sions even though the content of both peri- ods of therapy mirrored one another closely. The patient was highly motivated and had a strong support system that aided in keep- ing her compliant with her HEP. She showed an increased confidence, increased gait speed, increased single limb stance time on the involved leg, and significant improve- ments in the TUG and FTSTS times. With an overall increase in strength, TUG, and FTSTS, the patient showed an increase in her ODI scores as well as reports of an over- all improved quality of life. The 5 tests discussed in this study were not performed during the patient’s preop- erative physical therapy management. Thus, it is the assessment of the authors that as a result the patient was misdiagnosed and par- ticipated in physical therapy that most likely had limited effect. Although those tests were known, at the time of her original presen- tation in the physical therapy clinics, these tests had not yet been made a common prac- tice in physical therapy. Grouping the 5 tests together in a more comprehensive sequence to rule in or rule out specific structures in the lateral hip region is more effective than just selecting single tests in isolation. Each test indicates a slightly different diagnosis; how- ever, they can help to determine and narrow down the hip structure of concern. 1,5,6^ With each of these tests being easy to adminis- ter, 5,6^ it would be appropriate to add them
to each hip initial evaluation as well as to the reassessment during each week of care. By working in a systematic way, these tests can further rule in or rule out pathologies in an effort to determine an accurate diagnosis and appropriate intervention. As discussed in the outcomes and seen in Table 1, while the same intervention was used both pre- and postsurgery, the strength- ening protocol was more effective follow- ing the correct initial intervention. With an accurate diagnoses a decrease in recovery and disability times for patients suffering with lateral hip pain can be expected. Thus, had these 5 tests been used at the initial evalu- ation of this patient, she likely would have been referred out in a timely manner to undergo a corrective surgical intervention. Although much literature exists on vari- ous possible causes, further studies are rec- ommended to ascertain the validity and reliability of the 5 clinical tests used in this case for the differential diagnosis of lateral hip pain. Hence, timely and accurate inter- ventions to facilitate recovery and improved function.
CONCLUSION The beneficial outcomes from the second (postoperative) period of physical therapy when applied under the correct diagnosis as compared to the lack of improvement seen while the patient was under an alternate diagnosis suggest that accurate testing, and not limiting testing to just one or two spe- cial tests, would have been a more effective way to determine an accurate diagnosis and would have ensured that the patient received the appropriate treatment.
Re-evaluation Scores Minimal Detectable Outcome Measures Falls Risk Cut Off Score Initial Evaluation Scores (after 4 weeks) Change Change
ODI^18 Not reported 16/50 = 32% 9/50 = 18% 5 points = 14% 10% disability disability
TUG14,19^ 13.5-14 seconds 15.2 seconds 9.9 seconds 5.3 seconds Not reported for this patient population
FTSTS 20 12 seconds 14.9 seconds 8.5 seconds 6.4 seconds 2.5 seconds
Abbreviations: ODI, Oswestry Disability Index; TUG, Timed Up and Go; FTSTS, Five Times Sit to Stand
Table 1. Outcome Measures at Initial Evaluation and Re-evaluation
Go test a useful predictor of risk of falls in community dwelling older adults: a systematic review and meta- analysis. BMC Geriatr. 2014;14:14. doi:10.1186/1471-2318-14-14.
Appendix. Arthroscopic Hip Surgery
Physical Therapy Protocol
The intent of this protocol is to provide guidelines for your patient’s therapy progression. It is not intended to serve as a recipe for treatment. We request that the PT/PTA/ATC should use appropriate clinical decision making skills when progressing a patient forward.
Please contact office to obtain the operative reports from our office prior to the first post-op visit. Also please contact if there are any questions about the protocol or your patient’s condition.
Please keep in mind common problems that may arise following hip arthroscopy: hip flexor tendonitis, adductor tendonitis, sciatica/piriformis syndrome, ilialupslips and rotations, low back pain from quadratus lumborum (QL) hypertonicity and segmental vertebral rotational lesions. If you encounter any of these problems please evaluate, assess, and treat as you feel appropriate, maintaining precautions and guidelines at all times. Gradual progression is essential to avoid flare-ups. If a flare-up occurs, back off with therapeutic exercises until it subsides.
Please reference the exercise progression sheet for timelines and use the following precautions during your treatments. Thank you for progressing all patients appropriately and please send all progress notes to office or hand deliver with the patient themselves. Successful treatment requires a team approach, and the PT/PTA/ATC is a critical part of the team! Please contact at any time with your input on how to improve the therapy protocol.
Please Use Appropriate Clinical Judgement During All Treatment Progressions
INITIAL PREOPERATIVE ASSESSMENT Assess bilateral hips ROM – flexion, extension, internal rotation, external rotation, abduction, adduction Gait – look for Trendelenburg gait Impingement test – flexion/adduction/internal rotation often reproduces pain Ober’s Test Strength – abduction, flexion, extension
**** PLEASE SEE LAST PAGE FOR MODIFICATIONS – PATIENT SPECIFIC PROCEDURES** Begin therapy Post-Operative Day (POD)# (unless otherwise instructed)**
Phase 1 – Immediate Rehabilitation (1 to 2 weeks): Goals: Protection of the repaired tissue Prevent muscular inhibition and gait abnormalities Diminish pain and inflammation
Precautions: 20 lb. flat-foot-weight-bearing post-op, duration per medical doctor’s orders depending on procedure Do not push through pain or pinching, gentle stretching will gain more ROM Gentle passive ROM only, no passive stretching Avoid capsular mobilizations Avoid any isolated contractions of iliopsoas