Background and objective: Serious pathologies of the neck can potentially result in cranial nerve palsy. Knowledge about cranial nerve examination (CNE) seems sparse, and its use is still unknown. We aim to investigate the knowledge, skills, and utilization of CNE of Italian physiotherapists. Materials and Methods: An online cross-sectional survey. Results: 396 completed the survey, reaching the required sample size. Although Italian physiotherapists consider CNE relevant (mean ± SD = 7.6/10 ± 2.0), over half of all responders (n = 229 (57.8%)) were not trained in the fundamentals and around a third did not use it in their daily practice (n = 138 (34.8%)). Additionally, participants were unconfident and insecure in conducting (n = 152 (38.4%) and n = 147 (37.1%)), interpreting (n = 140 (35.4%) and n = 164 (41.4%)), and managing the CNE (n = 141 (35.6%) and n = 154 (38.9%)). Possessing a musculoskeletal specialization was associated with an increased value attributed to clinical practice guidelines and reduced the lack of confidence in conducting, interpreting, and managing the CNE (respectively, n = 35 (25.5%), p = 0.0001; n = 32 (23.4%) p = 0.0002; n = 32 (23.4%) p = 0.0002). Working in a direct access setting significantly increased the considered relevance of guidelines and the concerns about arterial (p = 0.004) and other serious pathologies (p = 0.021). Pain and visual disturbances were considered the main indicators to CNE, demonstrating limited knowledge of signs and symptoms’ indicating CNE. Participants considered specific training in CNE as relevant (mean ± SD = 7.6/10 = 2.1). Conclusions: a substantial proportion of Italian physiotherapists are not schooled in the fundamentals of cranial nerve examination. Given the number of physiotherapists who work in first contact roles, this is a professional concern.

No abstract

Purpose: To investigate the efficacy of manipulation under anesthesia (MUA) compared to other non-surgical therapeutic strategies for patients with frozen shoulder contracture syndrome (FSCS). Methods: A systematic review of literature was conducted. A literature search was performed in MEDLINE, EMBASE, PEDro, Cochrane Central Library and Scopus. Only randomized controlled trials were included and assessed for critical appraisal through the Cochrane Collaborations tools. Results: Five randomized controlled trials were included. The overall risk of bias (RoB) was high in 4 out of 5 of the included studies. MUA was found to be not superior in terms of reduction of pain and improvement of function when compared to cortisone injections with hydrodilatation (mean regression coefficient MUA −2.77 vs. injection −2.75; 95% CI (−1.11 to 1.15)) and home exercise (mean difference 95% CI: 0.2 (−0.64 to 1.02)) in the short term (3 months), and cortisone injections with hydrodilatation (mean regression coefficient MUA 3.13 vs. injection 3.23; 95% CI (−0.90 to 1.11)) in the long term (>6 months). Moreover, if compared to structured physiotherapy, MUA highlighted a higher Oxford Shoulder Score at final 1-year follow up (mean difference 95% CI: 1.05 (−1.28 to 3.39); p = 0.38). Similar results were obtained for disability, with statistically no significant long-term (>12 months) differences between MUA and home exercise (mean difference 95% CI: 0 (−3.2 to 3.2)) or structured physiotherapy (mean difference 95% CI: −0.50 (−5.70 to 4.70); p = 0.85)). Only two trials reported adverse events. Conclusions: This review suggested that limited and inconsistent evidence currently exists on the efficacy of MUA compared to other non-surgical strategies in the management of patients with FSCS. Future research should focus on clinical trials with higher methodological quality.

No abstract