Clinical Outcomes Following ManualPhysical Therapy and Exercise for HipOsteoarthritis: A Case SeriesCameron W. MacDonald, PT, DPT, GCS, OCS, FAAOMPT1

Julie M. Whitman, PT, DSc, OCS, FAAOMPT2

Joshua A. Cleland, PT, DPT, PhD, OCS, FAAOMPT3

Marcia Smith, PT, PhD4

Hugo L. Hoeksma, PT, PhD, MSc, MT5

Study Design: Case series describing the outcomes of individual patients with hip osteoarthritistreated with manual physical therapy and exercise.Case Description: Seven patients referred to physical therapy with hip osteoarthritis and/or hippain were included in this case series. All patients were treated with manual physical therapyfollowed by exercises to maximize strength and range of motion. Six of 7 patients completed aHarris Hip Score at initial examination and discharge from physical therapy, and 1 patientcompleted a Global Rating of Change Scale at discharge.Outcomes: Three males and 4 females with a median age of 62 years (range, 52-80 years) andmedian duration of symptoms of 9 months (range, 2-60 months) participated in this case series.The median number of physical therapy sessions attended was 5 (range, 4-12). The medianincrease in total passive range of motion of the hip was 82° (range, 70°-86°). The medianimprovement on the Harris Hip Score was 25 points (range, 15-38 points). The single patient whocompleted the Global Rating of Change Scale at discharge reported being ‘‘a great deal better.’’Numeric pain rating scores decreased by a mean of 5 points (range, 2-7 points) on 0-to-10-pointscale.Discussion: All patients exhibited reductions in pain and increases in passive range of motion, aswell as a clinically meaningful improvement in function. Although we cannot infer a cause andeffect relationship from a case series, the outcomes with these patients are similar to othersreported in the literature that have demonstrated superior clinical outcomes associated withmanual physical therapy and exercise for hip osteoarthritis compared to exercise alone. J OrthopSports Phys Ther 2006;36(8):588-599. doi:10.2519/jospt.2006.2233

Key Words: arthritis, Harris Hip Score, manipulation, mobilization, passiverange of motion

1 Physical Therapist, Centennial Physical Therapy, Colorado Sport and Spine Centers, Colorado Springs,CO; Fellow, Manual Physical Therapy Fellowship Program, Regis University, Denver, CO.2 Assistant Professor, Department of Physical Therapy, Regis University, Denver, CO; Faculty, ManualPhysical Therapy Fellowship Program, Regis University, Denver, CO.3 Assistant Professor, Department of Physical Therapy, Franklin Pierce College, Concord, NH; PhysicalTherapist, Rehabilitation Services, Concord NH; Fellow, Manual Physical Therapy Fellowship Program,Regis University, Denver, CO.4 Associate Professor, Department of Physical Therapy, Regis University, Denver, CO.5 Professor, Department of Rehabilitation and Health Services, St Antonius Hospital, Nieuwegein, TheNetherlands; Physical Therapist, Clinical Epidemiologist, Manual Therapy Certified, Netherlands Institutefor Health Services Research, Utrecht, The Netherlands.This project is attributed to Centennial Physical Therapy, CSSC and the Regis University FellowshipProgram in Orthopedic Manual Physical Therapy, Denver, CO, and received approval from theInstitutional Review Board at Regis University, Denver, CO.Address correspondence to Dr Cameron MacDonald, Centennial Physical Therapy, Colorado Sport andSpine Centers, 5731 Silverstone Terrace #120, Colorado Springs, CO 80919. E-mail:physiocam@adelphia.net

Osteoarthritis (OA)of the hip is de-scribed as a pro-gressive loss ofhyaline cartilage

within the hip joint, sclerosis ofsubchondral bone, and the forma-tion of bone spurs at the jointmargins.2,18,34 Hip OA has beenidentified as a major cause of dis-ability, with a prevalence of 10% to20% in the aging population.20,52

When viewed as a predictor offunctional disability, the overallcondition of OA ranks fourthamong women, and eighth amongmen.7,20,52 In addition to the per-sonal disability associated with thedisorder, OA also has a significanteconomic impact on thehealthcare system. In the UnitedStates it is estimated that the num-ber of people with OA in anyregion of the body will increasefrom 43 to 60 million by 2020,resulting in an estimated cost ofover 100 billion healthcare dollarsper year.20 Considering the per-sonal and economic impact of OA,and the currently accepted ‘‘stan-dard of care’’ for hip OA reportedas joint replacement surgery,46 in-terventions with the potential tolimit the disability and/or slow theprogression of hip OA, potentially

588 Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy

delaying or decreasing the number of joint replace-ments, demand further attention.

Hip OA typically presents clinically as pain in thegroin, lateral hip, and the medial thigh regions,sometimes extending distally to the knee.43 Patientswith OA of the hip often experience morning stiff-ness, loss of motion, and pain with weight bearing onthe affected limb.40,72 These impairments are oftencorrelated with a loss of function, such as difficultyraising from a low chair, bathing, dressing the lowerextremities, and ascending and descending stairs.47

The current American College of Rheumatology(ACR) guidelines for hip OA focus on pharmacologi-cal and surgical management.30 The role of exercisetherapy is acknowledged,3 but manual physicaltherapy (MPT) is not recognized in the most recentlyupdated guidelines.29 Systematic reviews have con-cluded that exercise reduces pain and disability inpatients with hip OA,59,68 but these benefits havebeen shown to yield only a moderate effect thattypically regresses by 24 to 52 weeks following cessa-tion of exercise therapy.70,71 With the side effectsassociated with medications prescribed for patientswith hip OA (nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory medica-tions), including gastrointestinal bleeds and cardio-vascular disease,6,22,73 it seems reasonable to concludethat the roles of nonpharmocologic and noninvasivetherapies, such as MPT, should be further explored.

Research on the use of MPT in the treatment ofhip OA is limited. In a recent literature search ofelectronic databases using Medline, OVID and Pedro,we identified only 2 references reporting the use ofMPT techniques for patients with hip OA.34,48 First,Loudon48 reported on the use of MPT and exerciseto treat a patient with hip OA. The author proposedthat the benefits of the mobilization/manipulation(thrust and nonthrust) facilitated a return of func-tion, which potentially could have prevented theneed for a total hip arthroplasty (THA). The inher-ent limitations of a case report, however, do not allowfor the identification of a cause-and-effect relation-ship. More recently, Hoeksma et al34 published theresults of a randomized clinical trial comparing theeffectiveness of 2 different therapy programs in agroup of patients with hip OA. The results of thistrial demonstrated the superiority of MPT plus exer-cise over exercise alone for improving pain and rangeof motion (ROM). A clinically meaningful differencewas also found in favor of the MPT-plus-exercisegroup in function, as measured on the Harris HipScore (HHS).34 In addition, these improvements weremaintained at the time of the 6-month follow-up.Recently the Ottawa Panel for evidence-based clinicalpractice reviewed the role of exercise and MPT in thetreatment of OA in general (not joint specific), andfound that further research is needed on the indi-vidual effects of MPT for patients with OA.54

TABLE 1. American College of Rheumatology criteria for classi-fication of hip osteoarthritis. Referenced from Altman R et al.1

Cluster 1 used in this case series.

Test Cluster 1

All 3 findings need to be present for diagnosis of patient withhip osteoarthritis• Pain reported in the hip• 115° hip flexion• 15° hip internal rotation

Test Cluster 2

Alternate cluster for diagnosis if all 3 findings are present• Pain with hip internal rotation• 60 minutes morning stiffness• 50 years of age

Considering the limited published reports investi-gating the effectiveness of MPT in the managementof hip OA, and the findings of the Ottawa Panel,54 acase series reporting clinical decision making andoutcomes of patients treated with MPT and exerciseis of value to the research literature. In particular, acase series allows for the presentation of the clinicaldecision-making process based on the best availableevidence for treatment selection, rather than a strin-gent, predetermined protocol of interventions oftenused in large clinical trials. The purpose of this caseseries is to describe the clinical decision making usedto treat a series of patients with hip OA, to report theclinical outcomes achieved by these patients, and todemonstrate the implementation of evidence-basedpractice into clinical patient care.34,61

CASE DESCRIPTIONS

Patients referred to physical therapy with a diagno-sis of hip OA or a primary report of hip pain,meeting the ACR classification for hip OA (Table 1),1

were screened to determine eligibility for participa-tion in this case series. Satisfaction of the ACRguidelines, which are considered the diagnostic stan-dard for hip OA in rheumatologic medicine, yields apositive likelihood ratio of 4.4 to 5.0, indicating amoderate shift in probability that the patient presentswith hip OA.1,5,11,13 Further inclusion and exclusioncriteria for this case series are listed in Table 2. Atotal of 7 patients satisfying all inclusion and exclu-sion criteria participated in this case series. Five weretreated at Centennial Physical Therapy, ColoradoSprings, CO, 1 patient was treated in The Hague,The Netherlands, and 1 in Concord, NH.

This study was approved by the Institutional ReviewBoard at Regis University, Denver, CO. Patient pri-vacy, patient consent, and compliance with HealthInsurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA)guidelines was maintained through the course of thiscase series for patients treated in the United States,

J Orthop Sports Phys Ther • Volume 36 • Numbe 9856002tsuguA•8r

CA

SE

RE

PO

RT

TABLE 2. Inclusion and exclusion criteria.

Inclusion Criteria

• Referral to physical therapy with a diagnosis of hip pain orhip osteoarthritis

• 50-90 years of age• Meet ACR classification for hip osteoarthritis

Exclusion Criteria

• Prior hip surgery

• Patient refusal of mobilization/manipulation techniques• Clinical exam consistent with nonmusculoskeletal etiology

of symptoms (malignancy, infection, etc)• Rheumatoid arthritis• Severe low back pain• Recent spinal or knee orthopedic surgery• Radicular pain below the knee*• Osteoporosis

Abbreviation: ACR, American College of Rheumatology.*Radicular pain was defined as presenting with radiating pain intothe lower extremity, in a recognized dermatomal path, consistentwith pain primarily of spinal origin and not from the hip.

TABLE 3. Patient demographics and outcomes at baseline.

Patient Age (y) SexInvolved

Hip

SymptomDuration

(mo)

1 53 M Right 602 52 M Left 93 66 F Right 364 62 F Left 95 59 F Left 36 80 M Right 27 76 F Left 9

with appropriate patient privacy maintained per insti-tutional standards in The Netherlands.

Examination

Patients completed a number of baseline self-reportquestionnaires, followed by a comprehensive historyand physical examination. The historical examinationincluded patient age, sex, duration of symptoms,location and nature of symptoms, aggravating andeasing positions or activities, occupation, symptomirritability, recreational and leisure activities, patientgoals, medical history, and past surgical history.Baseline variables for all patients are shown in Table3.

The physical examination included a postural as-sessment,42 neurological assessment,44 hip passiverange of motion (PROM) measurements, manualmuscle testing (MMT) of the lumbopelvic, gluteal,and hip musculature,42,53 and assessment of passiveaccessory mobility of the hip joint.8,45,50 PROM wasassessed using a standard dual-arm goniometer forhip flexion, abduction, internal/external rotation,and extension. Goniometric measures of hip PROM

have been shown to be reliable, and the summationof hip PROM (including flexion, extension, abduc-tion, and internal and external rotation) has beenshown to be valid in comparing total hip PROMbetween subjects.36

Because a loss of strength is purported to be aconsequence of hip OA, and a potential cause offunctional impairments, we believe that addressingstrength deficits may be an important component ofa rehabilitation program for this popula-tion.1,16,19,59,62 MMT was utilized to assess the majormuscle groups of the hip. MMT has been reported tohave good reliability (82% interrater agreement,55 �= 0.6757) and validity for assessment of the hipextensors and flexors; however, no reliability data formeasurements of hip abduction or rotation havebeen reported in the literature. The specific tech-niques for MMT of the hip are consistent with thosereported in Magee.49

Techniques used to determine joint impairmentsincluded the assessment of hip joint end feels andevaluation of hip joint accessory motion.38,49,50 Theinterexaminer reliability of hip joint mobility throughmanual assessment has been reported to be good toexcellent for pain provocation in flexion and internalrotation (� = 0.88 and 0.74), and fair to good withoutpain provocation, but the reliability of specific assess-ment of passive accessory mobility of the hip joint isunknown.8

Gait assessment was also included in this caseseries, with visual observation of the trunk, pelvis,and lower extremities during ambulation on a levelsurface. Deviations from normal hip and pelvic mo-tion were recorded individually, with attention to avisible Trendelenburg sign, antalgic gait, or an al-tered step length.9,66

Outcome Measures

PROM, numeric pain rating score (NPRS), and ameasure of disability (HHS) was collected at baseline.PROM and pain scores were included because thesefactors have been shown to be significantly associatedwith the disability experienced by those with hipOA.69 The NPRS was collected at the baseline exami-nation and weekly thereafter until discharge. Patientswere asked to report the highest level of painexperienced over the last 24 hours on a 0-to-10 scale,with 0 representing no pain and 10 the worst painimaginable. Previous studies have demonstrated ad-equate reliability and validity for this type of NPRS,and a 2-point change has been reported to representclinically meaningful change.10,23 Patient-perceivedlevels of disability were measured with the HHS(Table 4). The HHS is a 10-item functional assess-ment tool yielding a score of up to 100, with lowerscores representing greater amounts of disability and

590 J Orthop Sports Phys Ther • Volume 36 • Number 8 • August 2006

TABLE 4. Outcome measure: Harris Hip Score. Referenced fromHarris.28

Category Points

PainNone 44Slight, occasional 40Mild, normal activity 30Moderate, activity concessions 20Marked, severe concessions 10Totally disabled 0

Range of motion (ROM)Full 5Partial* 4Limited* 2

Gait/limpNone 11Slight 8Moderate 5Unable to walk 0

Gait/supportNone 11Cane for long walks 7Cane, full time 5Crutch 4Two canes 2Unable to walk 0

Gait/distanceUnlimited 116 blocks 82 or 3 blocks 5Indoors only 2Bed and chair 0

Function/stairsNormal 4Normal with banister 2Any method 1Unable 0

Socks and shoesEasy 4With difficulty 2Unable 0

SittingAny chair 1 hour 5High chair 1⁄2 hour 3Unable to sit 1⁄2 hour 0

Public transportAble 1Not able to use 0

Deformity†

Absence of all 4 4Presence of 1 0

Total score: /100

*ROM: no specific instructions for definition of partial ROM wereavailable at the time of this case series for the HHS. For the purposesof this study, partial ROM was when either hip flexion was �115° orinternal rotation was �15°. If both limitations were present this wasscored as limited ROM.†Deformity: the presence of 1 of the following 4 deformities led to a0 score in this category: less than 10° abduction, leg lengthdiscrepancy �3.18 cm, flexion contracture �30°, or leg fixed in�10° internal rotation in extension.

a 4-point change indicating clinically meaningfulchange.28,32 This questionnaire has been shown to bereliable in a patient population with hip OA and is

utilized as a primary outcomes tool for clinicalresearch involving patients with hip OA.32,34,35,65 Ra-diographs were not used to guide clinical decisionmaking in this study, as the relationship betweenradiographic presentation and disability from hip OAis variable and has not been shown to be predictive ofresponse to MPT interventions.15,33,40,58

Case Presentations

All 7 patients included in this case series exhibiteda loss of both passive hip flexion and internalrotation.45 Table 5 presents the initial PROM andNPRS and lists the initial examination ACR classifica-tion1 for each patient. Every patient presented withweakness of the hip external rotators and hip abduc-tors on the affected side. Variable muscle weaknessbetween patients was also identified in the ipsilateralhamstrings, hip extensors, and quadriceps. Muscleperformance of the trunk and core (including thedeep abdominal muscles) was examined to identifyany primary control or muscle capacity deficits thatmay have indicated the need for interventions target-ing these impairments.31 Specific individual examina-tion findings for each patient participating in thiscase series are described in detail below.

Patient 1 A 53-year-old, 100-kg male with a diagnosisof right hip pain and a 5-year history of pain andmobility limitations reported a progressive decreasein the ability to participate in bike riding and golf. Inaddition to the common findings for all patientspreviously described, this patient’s pain was repro-duced with passive internal rotation of the right hip.Additionally, the patient exhibited an antalgic gaitpattern and decreased step length on the right side.

Patient 2 A 52-year-old, 83-kg male with a 9-monthhistory of left hip pain reported increasing difficultyascending and descending stairs, walking, and gettinginto and out of his car. The patient demonstrated aTrendelenburg gait pattern on the left side, indicat-ing weakness of the left gluteus medius muscle.56

Additionally, he reported pain in the left hip regionwith a full squat and exhibited strength deficits in theleft hamstrings (4/5) and gluteus medius (4/5)muscles.

Patient 3 A 66-year-old female (body mass notreported) diagnosed with right hip OA and a progres-sive loss of functional status, reported that she hadpreviously completed a bout of physical therapy (PT),which included functional and active exercises. Ac-cording to the patient, this type of treatment was notbeneficial in improving her function or disabilitylevel. She did not recall receiving any MPT. Thispatient exhibited decreased right hip extension dur-ing gait and reported being unable to ascend stairscomfortably.

Patient 4 A 62-year-old, 73-kg female with a diagno-sis of left hip pain reported a 9-month history of

J Orthop Sports Phys Ther • Volume 36 • Number 8 • August 2006 591

CA

SE

RE

PO

RT

TABLE 5. Baseline measurements and ACR classification. From Altman et al.1

Patient PROM Flex (deg) PROM IR (deg) NPRS Score*Meet ACR HipClassification?

1 95 0 6 Yes2 89 12 8 Yes3 100 0 6 Yes4 80 0 7 Yes5 90 2 9 Yes6 98 12 5 Yes7 95 2 6 Yes

Abbreviation: ACR, American College of Rheumatology; IR, internal rotation; NPRS, numeric pain rating scores; PROM, passive range of motion.*Pain was reported verbally by the patient on a 10-point NPRS, recording the worst pain felt over the last 24 hours. Zero represents no pain, with10 as the worst pain imaginable

progressive pain and dysfunction in the left hip. Shereported sharp pain upon upright stance that radi-ated into the anterior left thigh and difficulty withfunctional and recreational tasks, including drivingand skiing. The patient exhibited a left antalgic gaitwith decreased step length and no extension beyond15° of flexion of the left hip. She reported that painwas most severe with supine passive left hip flexion.

Patient 5 A 59-year-old, 70-kg female with a diagno-sis of left hip OA reported left hip pain, withradiation down the medial thigh to the knee. A priorhistory of left buttock and low back pain was treatedwith chiropractic care, which resulted in mild im-provements in these symptoms. Through observationof the patient’s gait, the therapist visually notedexcessive pronation of the left midfoot. A valgusdeformity was also noted at the left knee. Pain wasmost severe with passive left hip internal rotation.

Patient 6 This patient was an 80-year-old, 75-kg malewith a 10-week history of right hip and leg pain and adiagnosis of right hip OA. He reported difficulty withwalking, pain on weight bearing, and loss of function.A hip scour test was positive for primary pain in theright hip.38,49

Patient 7 A 76-year-old, 61-kg female referred to PTwith a diagnosis of bilateral hip degenerative jointdisease greater in the left than the right hip. Thepatient reported the left hip pain resulted in a loss offunction, as she was unable to complete gardeningand was restricted in daily activities due to the lefthip. Weakness was present bilaterally, but greater inthe left abductors and external rotators (3+/5) com-pared to 4+/5 on the right side. No specific treat-ment was completed on the right hip.

Interventions

Three physical therapists completed all examina-tions and patient interventions in this case series. Fivepatients were treated by the primary author (C.M.), aphysical therapist with over 10 years of clinicalpractice, 1 patient by a physical therapist (J.C.) withmore than 5 years of clinical practice, and the finalpatient by a physical therapist (H.H.) with more than

TABLE 6. Hip mobilization/manipulation techniques.

Supine

• Long-axis nonthrust oscillations in slight abduction• Progression of above into abduction• Nonthrust lateral glides of femur with a belt• Lateral glides with combined rotations• Long-axis thrust mobilization/manipulation in a loose-

packed position• Thrust mobilization/manipulation in less abduction (�15°)• Hip flexion nonthrust inferior glides

Sidelying

• Anterior femoral nonthrust mobilization/manipulation• Hip distraction with nonthrust medial femoral glide• Hip distraction nonthrust medial glide plus abduction

Prone

• Anterior nonthrust femoral glides• Anterior nonthrust glides in figure-four position

10 years clinical practice. A summary of the tech-niques used in this case series is presented in Table 6.The MPT methods for addressing joint mobility weredetermined by the treating therapist and based onthe clinical examination of each respective patient.We recognize that there is no reported reliability orvalidity of these techniques that might assist inselecting particular treatment interventions in MPT;however, each clinician used these techniques toguide the clinical decision making regarding thedirection and magnitude of joint mobilization/manipulation in each patient case, and whether touse thrust or nonthrust mobilization/manipulationtechniques.4,38,49,50,63 Thrust mobilization/manipula-tion techniques were performed where a significantrestriction in capsular end feel was identified incomparison to the contralateral side or where, in thejudgment of the treating PT, there was an abnormallyhypomobile ‘‘capsular’’ end feel when bilateral hipinvolvement was present. Thrust mobilization/manipulation was not performed in the presence of anormal end feel when the hip was tested with acaudal distraction.14,38 Mobilization/manipulationswere performed in the direction of identified restric-

592 J Orthop Sports Phys Ther • Volume 36 • Number 8 • August 2006

tions, with immediate reassessment of PROM andjoint mobility to determine changes occurring afteradministration of the interventions. This was per-formed based on the clinician’s belief that intrases-sion changes would be predictive of a positive overalloutcome given the recent reports on the positivepredictive value of intersession changes for MPTinterventions to the spine.26,67

Nonthrust mobilization/manipulations in this caseseries are defined as repetitive passive movement ofvarying amplitudes and of low velocity, applied atdifferent points through the range of motion, de-pending on the effect desired.25 Thrust mobilization/manipulation is defined as small-amplitude, high-velocity therapeutic movements of a joint.4 We areunaware of any reported adverse effects associatedwith hip nonthrust and thrust mobilization/manipulation. However, Hoeksma et al34 reportedthat if osteophytes were noted on radiographs of thehip, they performed hip thrust mobilization/manipulations with the hip in greater than 15° ofabduction, theoretically to avoid acetabular impac-tion.34

Description/Rationale of Selected Techniques

The following techniques are described as theywere most frequently implemented in this case series,along with the clinical decision making for theirutilization.

Nonthrust Long-Axis Oscillation Mobilization/Manipulation This technique was used with the intentof encouraging relaxation of the muscles of the hip,decreasing tension in the soft tissues of the hip, andimproving the elasticity of the joint capsule.18,51 Thistechnique was utilized on all subjects at the begin-ning of treatment. A failure of this technique torestore capsular mobility was an indication to usethrust mobilization/manipulation techniques for pa-tients treated in this case series.

For this technique, the patient was supine, with thecontralateral limb flat and slightly abducted or flexedat the hip and knee, based on patient comfort.Gentle and progressive long-axis distraction oscilla-tions were performed by the therapist, with a2-handed hold at the ankle as shown in Figure 1.Oscillations in this case series were repeated grade IIor III nonthrust mobilization/manipulations with aprogressive increase in intensity.50 Every attempt wasmade to ensure patient comfort and, if needed, thetherapist performed the same technique with thehands above the knee. Progression of the distractionposition into more abduction was utilized as motionimproved to gain further ROM.

Hip Joint Thrust Mobilization/Manipulation This tech-nique was used with the intent of creating temporaryrelaxation of the muscles of the hip, decreasingtension in the soft tissues of the hip, and improving

the elasticity of the joint capsule, allowing for pro-gression of mobility with other techniques.18,51 Thrustmobilization/manipulation was utilized on every pa-tient in this case series.

The thrust mobilization/manipulation of the hipjoint was performed in a manner very similar to thetechniques described by Hoeksma et al.34 It wasinitially performed in a position of approximately 30°abduction and slight flexion, and was progressed intoless abduction (not less than 15°) and internalrotation of the hip to gain further capsular flexibilityand to potentially decrease intra-articular pres-sure.18,51 Patient positioning was the same as forlong-axis nonthrust mobilization/manipulations (Fig-ure 1) and the technique was adjusted to address thedirection of restriction identified by the treatingtherapist for each individual patient’s hip. In this caseseries, no specific number of thrust mobilization/manipulations was utilized during each session, butclinical assessment following each thrustmobilization/manipulation was utilized to determinea change in joint end feel, and thrust mobilization/manipulations were repeated based on the judgmentof the treating physical therapist with considerationto the success of intervention and patient comfort.

Sidelying Nonthrust Medial Mobilization/ManipulationThis technique was intended to promote medial andinferior articular mobility of the femoral head in theacetabulum, with the ultimate goal of improving hipabduction and internal rotation. This technique wasutilized by the primary author (C.M.) on 5 patientsin this case series. Lateral nonthrust mobilization/manipulation of the hip joint with a belt, as shown inFigure 2, was also used for the intent to improve hipabduction and internal rotation.

As shown in Figure 3, a 2-person sidelying medialnonthrust mobilization/manipulation combined withdistraction was utilized. The distraction force was first

FIGURE 1. Long-axis nonthrust mobilization/manipulation of thehip in 15° to 30° abduction and 15° to 30° flexion.

J Orthop Sports Phys Ther • Volume 36 • Number 8 • August 2006 593

CA

SE

RE

PO

RT

FIGURE 2. Lateral nonthrust mobilization/manipulation of the hipwith a belt, combining a lateral femoral glide with internal rotation.

FIGURE 3. Two therapist caudal hip nonthrust mobilization/manipulation with combined medial and inferior glide. One thera-pist (not visualized here) distracts the hip while the other therapistprovides a medial glide to the hip.

applied, then a medial and inferior translation of thefemoral head was provided by the second therapist,individualized to each patient based upon restrictionsin motion detected by the examiner and progressionof the treatment program. The technique was mostoften an oscillatory glide at the middle to end ofrange of osteokinematic motion, with the end rangebeing the passive limit of available hip motion in agiven direction at the point of first restriction.14

Prone Figure-Four Nonthrust Mobilization/ManipulationWith Knee off Table We used this technique with theintent to improve anterior femoral glide, ultimatelywith the goal of improving physiologic hip extensionand external rotation. This technique was utilized for5 of 7 patients in this case series.

Figure 4 shows the patient positioning and thera-pist hand placement for a prone anterior glide of thefemoral head. The knee was placed off the table toallow for the technique to be completed where therewas a restriction in abduction of the involved hip.This technique was also used in conjunction with an

active contraction by the patient of the externalrotators of the hip, with the intent of increasing theanterior glide of the femur through the contractionof the muscles across the posterior aspect of the hipjoint (Figure 5). The combination of nonthrustmobilization/manipulation with active contraction bythe patient was also used on a limited basis for thelateral gapping mobilization/manipulation combinedwith internal rotation in this case series (Figure 2).

Treatment progression for each patient focused onfrequent reassessment (both intrasession and at theend of each session of MPT) of joint accessorymotion and PROM by the treating clini-cian.24,38,39,64,74 Where a restriction in hip joint mo-bility was still perceived by the treating therapist,

FIGURE 4. Anterior hip nonthrust mobilization/manipulation inmodified figure-four position, allowing for less available abduction(knee on stool).

FIGURE 5. Anterior hip nonthrust mobilization/manipulation, usingan active contraction of the hip external rotators to assist with theanterior glide. The patient actively pushes the knee into thetherapist’s hand, facilitating a contraction, as the therapist mobilizesthe femur anteriorly with the proximal hand (dashed line representsdirection of push from patient’s muscle contraction).

594 J Orthop Sports Phys Ther • Volume 36 • Number 8 • August 2006

TABLE 7. Home exercises. Exercises were commenced follow-ing manual physical therapy in the clinic, and progressed intohome programs individualized to each patient. Completed 1 to2 times per day.

• Upright bicycle: 10 min• Gluteus medius clamshell exercises: 3 sets of 12• Hip abduction in sidelying: 3 sets of 12• Core transverse abdominus: 2 sets of 20 in supine with hips

flexed to 45°• Bridge with straight leg raise: 3 sets of 10• Hip flexor stretch kneeling or sidelying: 30 sec × 3• Single leg balance: up to 60 sec• Tandem stance eyes open or closed: up to 60 sec

appropriate nonthrust and thrust mobilization/manipulative interventions were continued. JointMPT interventions were ceased once assessed jointend feel was considered normal, PROM equaled thecontralateral side, no further progression could bemade secondary to patient complaint of pain, orthere was no noted progression following repeatedmobilization/manipulations (3 sessions withoutchange). Following mobilization/manipulation, pa-tients were prescribed exercises, which were deter-mined individually based upon the outcomes of theirevaluation. Exercises were chosen primarily tostrengthen the hip external rotator and abductormusculature, given the examination findings of con-sistent lateral hip weakness in these muscles for eachpatient. A home exercise program was established foreach patient, with the most frequently prescribedexercises and hip stretches listed in Table 7. Ingeneral, exercises were completed in 3 sets of 10repetitions without weight, then progressed with theaddition of weight up to 4 kg as a maximum forgluteus medius training in hip abduction and exter-nal rotation with the knee flexed to 90° and the hipflexed to 45°.

Patients were discharged from PT care if there wasa plateau in improvements in pain and PROM, oronce the patient reported 0/10 NPRS with an abilityto continue home exercises independently. One pa-tient did not complete the HHS at the initial evalua-tion; therefore, he was asked to complete a GlobalRating of Change (GROC) at the time of discharge.10

This scale is a 15-point Likert scale ranging from avery great deal worse (–7), to no change (0), to avery great deal better (+7), with changes greater than+3 indicating a moderate change in patient status.37

OUTCOMES

The total number of PT visits ranged from 4 to 12,with a median number of 5 visits over a 2- to 5-weekperiod. All 7 patients demonstrated and reportedimprovements in pain, hip mobility, and disabilitystatus over the course of PT care. The specificchanges in patient hip flexion PROM, hip internal

rotation PROM, total joint PROM, HHS, and NPRSare shown in Figures 6 through 10. The medianimprovement in total hip ROM was 82° (range,70°-86°), the median improvement in pain on theNPRS was 5 points (range, 2-7 points), and themedian improvement in disability on the HHS was 25points (range, 15-38 points).

Each patient in this case series progressed frommeeting the ACR classification criteria for hip OA atexamination, to not having the identified impair-ments for classification at discharge. Each patientregistered clinically meaningful changes in hip ROM,hip pain, and hip function. Individual significantfunctional changes were a return to golf for patient1, an ability to return to skiing by patient 4 immedi-ately following participation in this case series, and areturn to gardening by patient 7.

Although long-term outcomes were not collectedformally, the primary author of this study (C.M.)contacted 5 of the patients in this case series. Patient1 reported no change in discharge (DC) status at 6months post-DC, but sought further MPT care 15

FIGURE 6. Patients’ hip flexion passive range of motion as mea-sured at baseline and at discharge.

FIGURE 7. Patients’ hip internal rotation (IR) passive range ofmotion at baseline and discharge. Note: patients 1 and 3 had 0° hipIR at baseline.

60

70

80

90

100

110

120

130

1 2 3 4 5 6 7Patient

Deg

rees

Hip flexion: baselineHip flexion: discharge

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

1 2 3 4 5 6 7Patient

Deg

rees

Hip IR: BaselineHip IR: Discharge

J Orthop Sports Phys Ther • Volume 36 • Number 8 • August 2006 595

CA

SE

RE

PO

RT

FIGURE 8. Patients total hip passive range of motion (PROM) atbaseline and discharge. PROM includes flexion, extension, internalrotation, external rotation, and abduction.

FIGURE 9. Harris Hip Scores (HHS) from evaluation and discharge,0 represents total disability, 100 represents normal hip function andmobility. Minimum clinically important difference (MCID) for theHHS is 4 points (Hoeksma et al35). Patient 2 did not complete aHHS.

FIGURE 10. Patients reported maximal pain levels in the previous24 hours, using a numeric pain rating scale (NPRS) where 0represents no pain and 10 the worst pain imaginable. The minimumclinically important difference (MCID) for patients with low backpain is 2 points (Childs10). Patients 1 and 3 reported a 0 score onthe NPRS at discharge.

months post-DC for symptoms at a lower intensitythan those present initially (NPRS score, 2/10; initialwas 6/10 with 0/10 at DC). Patients 5, 6, and 7 did

not require further care at 6 months post-DC. Two ofthese patients reported 100% function at 6 months,and one 80% improvement at 3 months and again at6 months post-DC. Patient 4 continued to receiveintermittent private care for hip MPT and was dis-charged from all PT care 6 months post-DC from thiscase series, with further functional gains in PROMand activity levels.

DISCUSSION

This case series describes the rationale and clinicaldecision making regarding the incorporation of MPTand exercise into the treatment of hip OA. Patientsreceiving MPT interventions based upon the clinicalexamination, including directional nonthrustmobilization/manipulations and thrust mobilization/manipulations of the hip demonstrated similar out-comes to the patients of the Hoeksma et al34

randomized clinical trial who received MPT andexercise. Significant changes in function as measuredthrough the HHS and decreases in pain as recordedin the MPT group of the Hoeksma et al34 trial werealso noted in this case series. This case series demon-strates the incorporation of the best available evi-dence into clinical practice for the use of MPT andexercise in the treatment of patients with hip OA.

The fact that each patient satisfied the ACR classifi-cation for hip OA at initial examination, but not atdischarge, also suggests a positive outcome for thepatients in this case series. The primary impairmentsidentified in the ACR guidelines may have beeninfluenced by MPT.1 Improvements in PROM inflexion and internal rotation were the primary out-comes that changed the diagnostic classification ofthe patients in this case series. The specific MPTtechniques described in this case series serve toillustrate potential primary interventions for patientswith hip OA.

The treatments in this case series were not basedon a specific predetermined set of planned interven-tions or protocol but, rather, on the clinicians’individual patient assessment of deficits in PROM,end feel, and loss of joint motion as perceivedthrough manual joint assessment. The apparent suc-cess of manual interventions for hip OA promotesthe potential of a decreased reliance on pharmaceuti-cal management, improved quality of life, decreasedpain, and decreased personal and community costsassociated with hip OA.7,41,52 Medication usage wasnot recorded in this case series, and was not noted tobe recorded in previous reported studies of MPTinvolving the hip.12,34

The rationale for this type of treatment approachin the management of hip OA is to restore functionalmotion to the hip, allowing for an increase inexercise participation and to potentially improve thenutrition and tissue health of the hip joint.18,35,39,51

50

100

150

200

250

300

1 2 3 4 5 6 7Patient

Deg

rees

Total Hip PROM: BaselineTotal Hip PROM: Discharge

0

20

40

60

80

100

1 2 3 4 5 6 7Patient

Har

ris H

ip S

core

s (

Ran

ge 0

-100

)

BaselineDischarge

0

2

4

6

8

10

1 2 3 4 5 6 7Patient

NP

RS

(R

ange

0-1

0)

BaselineDischarge

596 J Orthop Sports Phys Ther • Volume 36 • Number 8 • August 2006

The actual pathophysiology behind the success ofMPT interventions for hip OA is beyond the scope ofthis case series and will require further research. It isalso recognized that improvements reported in thiscase series may be due to simply an increased level ofactivity, as causality can not be determined from acase series.

The potential cost containment benefits of utiliza-tion of MPT for hip OA can be seen by a theoreticalcomparison of the cost of participation in this caseseries, to the cost of the potential eventual treatmentof hip OA with a THA.46 The cost of PT services inthis case series is estimated at $900 dollars (8 visitsplus 1 evaluation) compared to an estimated $30 000for a THA (including surgery and hospitalization at$23 332 plus rehabilitation).21 It is recognized thatthere is not a direct relationship of hip OA to THA,but the value of a longitudinal study looking at thenumber of patients needed to be treated to avoid 1THA over a prolonged period of time would be ofclinical value, especially given the decrease in totalknee arthroplasty of 75% at 1 year in the MPTtreatment group of the Deyle et al17 study withcomparison to the control group, and the currentreported number of THAs being 164 000 annually inthe United States.27

As previously mentioned, we cannot infer a cause-and-effect relationship from a case series. Furtherlimitations include the fact that no intrarater orinterrater testing or training was completed for theexamination tests and measures and the MPT tech-niques utilized. No blinding occurred as the treatingphysical therapists completed all of the patient exami-nations in this case series. A directional causal effectcannot be extrapolated for specific MPT techniquesas multiple techniques were used. The influence ofthe Hawthorne effect, which is the tendency ofindividuals to perform better in a research setting asthey are being assessed,60 can not be ignored, as eachtherapist in this case series was aware that individualpatient outcomes were being measured, but no sub-jects were excluded from outcomes reporting. How-ever, despite the limitations of the case series, theoutcomes presented are encouraging for the clinicalutilization of MPT techniques and exercise in thetreatment of hip OA and patients with primary hippain satisfying the ACR classification for hip OA.

Future studies should investigate the physiologicalmechanism that promotes improved joint functionfollowing nonthrust and thrust mobilization/manipulation for hip OA. Research assessing theappropriateness of including MPT into the ACRguidelines for the treatment of hip OA, given theoutcomes of the Hoeksma et al34 trial and this caseseries, is warranted. Studies should investigatewhether thrust mobilization/manipulation generatesa different clinical outcome than nonthrustmobilization/manipulation techniques for hip OA,

and whether specific joint testing is necessary toguide mobilizations, or if general application ofmobilization/manipulation to the hip will providebenefits in pain and disability for patients with hipOA. Future studies should also inquire into the usageof medications following MPT interventions for hipOA and identify the duration of long-term benefitfollowing MPT for hip OA.

CONCLUSIONS

This case series highlights the use of nonthrust andthrust mobilization/manipulative techniques and ex-ercise in the treatment of hip OA from animpairment-based MPT approach. Loss of PROM andpain in the hip formed the basis of the medicaldiagnosis in this case series, while restrictions inPROM, joint end feels, functional decline in mobility,and pain guided the MPT interventions. The utiliza-tion of specific techniques to increase joint mobilitywith complementary exercises appears to have con-tributed to gains in PROM, decreases in pain, andincreased functional activity in this case series. Be-cause a case series cannot establish a cause-and-effectrelationship, further research, including randomizedclinical trials, is necessary to uncover the exact effectsof MPT and exercise for the treatment of hip OA.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We would like to graciously thank the faculty ofRegis University, Denver Colorado, for their ongoingsupport of clinical research.

REFERENCES1. Altman R, Alarcon G, Appelrouth D, et al. The Ameri-

can College of Rheumatology criteria for the classifica-tion and reporting of osteoarthritis of the hip. ArthritisRheum. 1991;34:505-514.

2. Altman RD, Bloch DA, Dougados M, et al. Measure-ment of structural progression in osteoarthritis of thehip: the Barcelona consensus group. Osteoarthritis Car-tilage. 2004;12:515-524.

3. American College of Rheumatology. Recommendationsfor the medical management of osteoarthritis of the hipand knee: 2000 update. American College ofRheumatology Subcommittee on Osteoarthritis Guide-lines. Arthritis Rheum. 2000;43:1905-1915.

4. American Physical Therapy Association. Guide to Physi-cal Therapist Practice. Second Edition. American Physi-cal Therapy Association. Phys Ther. 2001;81:9-746.

5. Birrell F, Croft P, Cooper C, Hosie G, Macfarlane G,Silman A. Predicting radiographic hip osteoarthritis fromrange of movement. Rheumatology (Oxford).2001;40:506-512.

6. Bjordal JM, Ljunggren AE, Klovning A, Slordal L.NSAIDs, including coxibs, probably do more harm thangood, and paracetamol is ineffective for hip OA. AnnRheum Dis. 2005;64:655-656; author reply 656.

J Orthop Sports Phys Ther • Volume 36 • Number 8 • August 2006 597

CA

SE

RE

PO

RT

7. Brooks PM. Impact of osteoarthritis on individuals andsociety: how much disability? Social consequences andhealth economic implications. Curr Opin Rheumatol.2002;14:573-577.

8. Browder DA, Enseki K, Fritz J. Intertester reliability ofhip range of motion measurements and special tests[abstract]. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2004;34:A1.

9. Browder DA, Erhard RE. Decision making for a painfulhip: a case requiring referral. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther.2005;35:738-744.

10. Childs JD, Piva SR, Fritz JM. Responsiveness of thenumeric pain rating scale in patients with low backpain. Spine. 2005;30:1331-1334.

11. Cibulka MT, Threlkeld J. The early clinical diagnosis ofosteoarthritis of the hip. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther.2004;34:461-467.

12. Cliborne AV, Wainner RS, Rhon DI, et al. Clinical hiptests and a functional squat test in patients with kneeosteoarthritis: reliability, prevalence of positive test find-ings, and short-term response to hip mobilization.J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2004;34:676-685.

13. Croft P, Cooper C, Wickham C, Coggon D. Definingosteoarthritis of the hip for epidemiologic studies. Am JEpidemiol. 1990;132:514-522.

14. Cyriax J. Textbook of Orthopaedic Medicine, 1: Diagno-sis of Soft Tissue Lesions. 8th ed. London, UK: BailliereTindall; 1982.

15. Dekker J, Boot B, van der Woude LH, Bijlsma JW. Painand disability in osteoarthritis: a review ofbiobehavioral mechanisms. J Behav Med. 1992;15:189-214.

16. Dekker J, Tola P, Aufdemkampe G, Winckers M. Nega-tive affect, pain and disability in osteoarthritis patients:the mediating role of muscle weakness. Behav ResTher. 1993;31:203-206.

17. Deyle GD, Henderson NE, Matekel RL, Ryder MG,Garber MB, Allison SC. Effectiveness of manual physi-cal therapy and exercise in osteoarthritis of the knee. Arandomized, controlled trial. Ann Intern Med.2000;132:173-181.

18. Duthrie R, Bentley G. Mercer’s Orthopaedic Surgery.9th ed. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press; 1996.

19. Ekdahl C, Andersson SI, Svensson B. Muscle function ofthe lower extremities in rheumatoid arthritis andosteoarthrosis. A descriptive study of patients in aprimary health care district. J Clin Epidemiol.1989;42:947-954.

20. Elders MJ. The increasing impact of arthritis on publichealth. J Rheumatol Suppl. 2000;60:6-8.

21. Epps CD. Length stay, discharge disposition, and hos-pital charge predictors. Aorn J. 2004;79:975-976, 979-981, 984-997.

22. Fajardo M, Di Cesare PE. Disease-modifying therapiesfor osteoarthritis: current status. Drugs Aging.2005;22:141-161.

23. Farrar JT, Young JP, Jr., LaMoreaux L, Werth JL, PooleRM. Clinical importance of changes in chronic painintensity measured on an 11-point numerical pain ratingscale. Pain. 2001;94:149-158.

24. Greenman PE. Principles of Manual Medicine. 2nd ed.Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins; 1996.

25. Grieve GP. Common Vertebral Joint Problems. 2nd ed.London, UK: Churchill Livingstone; 1988.

26. Hahne AJ, Keating JL, Wilson SC. Do within-sessionchanges in pain intensity and range of motion predictbetween-session changes in patients with low backpain? Aust J Physiother. 2004;50:17-23.

27. Hall MJ, DeFrances CJ. 2001 National Hospital Dis-charge Survey. Advance Data for Vital and Health

Statistics. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/ad/ad332.pdf. Accessed July 25, 2003.

28. Harris WH. Traumatic arthritis of the hip after disloca-tion and acetabular fractures: treatment by moldarthroplasty. An end-result study using a new method ofresult evaluation. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1969;51:737-755.

29. Hochberg MC. What a difference a year makes: reflec-tions on the ACR recommendations for the medicalmanagement of osteoarthritis. Curr Rheumatol Rep.2001;3:473-478.

30. Hochberg MC, Altman RD, Brandt KD, et al. Guidelinesfor the medical management of osteoarthritis. Part I.Osteoarthritis of the hip.American College ofRheumatology. Arthritis Rheum. 1995;38:1535-1540.

31. Hodges PW. Core stability exercise in chronic low backpain. Orthop Clin North Am. 2003;34:245-254.

32. Hoeksma HL. Manual Therapy in Osteoarthritis of theHip. Koninklijke De Swart: Den Haag; 2003.

33. Hoeksma HL, Dekker J, Ronday HK, Breedveld FC, Vanden Ende CH. Manual therapy in osteoarthritis of thehip: outcome in subgroups of patients. Rheumatology(Oxford). 2005;44:461-464.

34. Hoeksma HL, Dekker J, Ronday HK, et al. Comparisonof manual therapy and exercise therapy in osteoarthritisof the hip: a randomized clinical trial. Arthritis Rheum.2004;51:722-729.

35. Hoeksma HL, Van Den Ende CH, Ronday HK, HeeringA, Breedveld FC. Comparison of the responsiveness ofthe Harris Hip Score with generic measures for hipfunction in osteoarthritis of the hip. Ann Rheum Dis.2003;62:935-938.

36. Holm I, Bolstad B, Lutken T, Ervik A, Rokkum M, SteenH. Reliability of goniometric measurements and visualestimates of hip ROM in patients with osteoarthrosis.Physiother Res Int. 2000;5:241-248.

37. Jaeschke R, Singer J, Guyatt GH. Measurement of healthstatus. Ascertaining the minimal clinically importantdifference. Control Clin Trials. 1989;10:407-415.

38. Kaltenborn FM. Manual Mobilization of the ExtremityJoints: Basic Examination and Treatment Techniques.4th ed. Oslo, Norway: Olaf Norlis Bokhandel; 1989.

39. Kaltenborn FM. The Spine, Basic Evaluation and Mobili-zation Techniques. 2nd ed. Oslo, Norway: Olaf NorlisBokhandel; 1993.

40. Kean WF, Kean R, Buchanan WW. Osteoarthritis: symp-toms, signs and source of pain. Inflammopharmacology.2004;12:3-31.

41. Kellgren JH. Osteoarthrosis in patients and populations.Br Med J. 1961;5243:1-6.

42. Kendall FP. Muscles, Testing and Function. 4th ed.Baltimore, MD: Lippincott, Williams &Wilkins; 1993.

43. Khan AM, McLoughlin E, Giannakas K, Hutchinson C,Andrew JG. Hip osteoarthritis: where is the pain? Ann RColl Surg Engl. 2004;86:119-121.

44. King JT, Jr., Moossy JJ, Tsevat J, Roberts MS. Multimodalassessment after surgery for cervical spondyloticmyelopathy. J Neurosurg Spine. 2005;2:526-534.

45. Klassbo M, Harms-Ringdahl K, Larsson G. Examinationof passive ROM and capsular patterns in the hip.Physiother Res Int. 2003;8:1-12.

46. Koh J, Dietz J. Osteoarthritis in other joints (hip, elbow,foot, ankle, toes, wrist) after sports injuries. Clin SportsMed. 2005;24:57-70.

47. Lin YC, Davey RC, Cochrane T. Tests for physicalfunction of the elderly with knee and hip osteoarthritis.Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2001;11:280-286.

48. Loudon JK. Manual therapy management of hiposteoarthritis. J Man Manip Ther. 1999;7:203-208.

598 J Orthop Sports Phys Ther • Volume 36 • Number 8 • August 2006

49. Magee DJ. Orthopedic Physical Assessment. 3rd ed.Philadelphia, PA: W.B. Saunders Co; 1997.

50. Maitland GD. Peripheral Manipulation. London, UK:Butterworth Heinemann; 1986.

51. Mink A. Extremiteiten: Functie-Onderzoek en ManueleTherapie [in Dutch]. Houten, The Netherlands: BohnStafleu Van Lochem; 1990.

52. Odding E, Valkenburg HA, Stam HJ, Hofman A. Deter-minants of locomotor disability in people aged 55 yearsand over: the Rotterdam Study. Eur J Epidemiol.2001;17:1033-1041.

53. O’Sullivan PB, Twomey L, Allison GT. Altered abdomi-nal muscle recruitment in patients with chronic backpain following a specific exercise intervention. J OrthopSports Phys Ther. 1998;27:114-124.

54. Ottawa Panel. Ottawa panel evidence-based clinicalpractice guidelines for therapeutic exercises and manualtherapy in the management of osteoarthritis. Phys Ther.2005;85:907-971.

55. Perry J, Weiss WB, Burnfield JM, Gronley JK. Thesupine hip extensor manual muscle test: a reliabilityand validity study. Arch Phys Med Rehabil.2004;85:1345-1350.

56. Petrofsky JS. The use of electromyogram biofeedback toreduce Trendelenburg gait. Eur J Appl Physiol.2001;85:491-495.

57. Pollard H, Lakay B, Tucker F, Watson B, Bablis P.Interexaminer reliability of the deltoid and psoas muscletest. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2005;28:52-56.

58. Reijman M, Hazes JM, Pols HA, Bernsen RM, Koes BW,Bierma-Zeinstra SM. Role of radiography in predictingprogression of osteoarthritis of the hip: prospectivecohort study. BMJ. 2005;330:1183.

59. Roddy E, Zhang W, Doherty M, et al. Evidence-basedrecommendations for the role of exercise in the man-agement of osteoarthritis of the hip or knee--the MOVEconsensus. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2005;44:67-73.

60. Roethlisberger J, Dickson WJ. Management and theWorker. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press;1966.

61. Sackett DL. Clinical epidemiology. what, who, andwhither. J Clin Epidemiol. 2002;55:1161-1166.

62. Sims K. The development of hip osteoarthritis: implica-tions for conservative management. Man Ther.1999;4:127-135.

63. Steultjens MP, Dekker J, van Baar ME, Oostendorp RA,Bijlsma JW. Muscle strength, pain and disability inpatients with osteoarthritis. Clin Rehabil. 2001;15:331-341.

64. Stoddard A. Manual of Osteopathic Technique. 3rd ed.London, UK: Hutchinson; 1980.

65. Tak E, Staats P, Van Hespen A, Hopman-Rock M. Theeffects of an exercise program for older adults withosteoarthritis of the hip. J Rheumatol. 2005;32:1106-1113.

66. Trendelenburg F. Trendelenburg’s test: 1895. ClinOrthop Relat Res. 1998;3-7.

67. Tuttle N. Do changes within a manual therapy treat-ment session predict between-session changes for pa-tients with cervical spine pain? Aust J Physiother.2005;51:43-48.

68. van Baar ME, Assendelft WJ, Dekker J, Oostendorp RA,Bijlsma JW. Effectiveness of exercise therapy in patientswith osteoarthritis of the hip or knee: a systematicreview of randomized clinical trials. Arthritis Rheum.1999;42:1361-1369.

69. van Baar ME, Dekker J, Lemmens JA, Oostendorp RA,Bijlsma JW. Pain and disability in patients withosteoarthritis of hip or knee: the relationship witharticular, kinesiological, and psychological characteris-tics. J Rheumatol. 1998;25:125-133.

70. van Baar ME, Dekker J, Oostendorp RA, Bijl D, VoornTB, Bijlsma JW. Effectiveness of exercise in patientswith osteoarthritis of hip or knee: nine months’ followup. Ann Rheum Dis. 2001;60:1123-1130.

71. Weigl M, Angst F, Stucki G, Lehmann S, AeschlimannA. Inpatient rehabilitation for hip or knee osteoarthritis:2 year follow up study. Ann Rheum Dis. 2004;63:360-368.

72. Wolfe F. Determinants of WOMAC function, pain andstiffness scores: evidence for the role of low back pain,symptom counts, fatigue and depression inosteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis and fibromyalgia.Rheumatology (Oxford). 1999;38:355-361.

73. Wong M, Chowienczyk P, Kirkham B. Cardiovascularissues of COX-2 inhibitors and NSAIDs. Aust FamPhysician. 2005;34:945-948.

74. Wyke BD. Articular neurology and manipulativetherapy. In: Glasgow EF, Twomey LT, eds. Aspects ofManipulative Therapy. Melbourne, Australia: ChurchillLivingstone; 1985:72-77.

J Orthop Sports Phys Ther • Volume 36 • Number 8 • August 2006 599

CA

SE

RE

PO

RT

journal of orthopaedic & sports physical therapy | volume 37 | number 9 | september 2007 | 573

CORRECTION: ALTMAN’S CRITERIAFOR OSTEOARTHRITIS OF THE HIPAND KNEE

In 1991, Altman and colleagues1

published criteria for classification ofosteoarthritis of the hip, of which

one criterion was “less than or equal to60 minutes of morning stiffness.” Thiscriterion was erroneously published bythe JOSPT as greater than 60 minutesin TABLE 3 of the article by Cibulka andThrelkeld3 (August 2004) and in TABLE

1 of the article by MacDonald et al5 (Au-gust 2006). Also, one of the criteria forclassification of idiopathic osteoarthritisof the knee, as published by Altman etal2 in 1986, was less than 30 minutes ofstiffness. This was incorrectly published

as stiffness greater than 30 minutesin the text of the article by Cliborne etal,4 in the November 2004 issue of theJOSPT.

We apologize for these errors andhave corrected reprints of the articles,which are available to members andsubscribers for download on the JOSPTweb site (www.jospt.org).

ERRATA

REFERENCES

1. Altman R, Alarcon G, Appelrouth D, et al. TheAmerican College of Rheumatology criteria forthe classification and reporting of osteoarthritisof the hip. Arthritis Rheum. 1991;34:505-514.

2. Altman R, Asch E, Bloch D, et al. Develop-

ment of criteria for the classification and

reporting of osteoarthritis. Classification

of osteoarthritis of the knee. Diagnostic

and Therapeutic Criteria Committee of the

American Rheumatism Association. Arthritis

Rheum. 1986;29:1039-1049.

3. Cibulka, MT, Threlkeld, J. The early clinical

diagnosis of osteoarthritis of the hip. J Orthop

Sports Phys Ther. 2004;34(8):461-467.

4. Cliborne AV, Wainner RS, Rhon DI. Clinical hip

tests and a functional squat test in patients

with knee osteoarthritis: reliability, prevalence

of positive test findings, and short-term re-

sponse to hip mobilization. J Orthop Sports

Phys Ther. 2004. 34(11):676-685.

5. MacDonald CW, Whitman JM, Cleland JA, Smith

M, Hoeksma HL. Clinical outcomes following

manual physical therapy and exercise for hip

osteoarthritis: a case series. J Orthop Sports

Phys Ther. 2006;36(8):588-599.