Randomized controlled study of the effectiveness of osteopathic manipulative correction for muscular torticollis due to birth injury

Introduction. Muscular torticollis (MT) is the most common lesion of the musculoskeletal system in children, ranking third in pediatric practice. There are references in the literature confi rming high effi cacy of manipulative therapy, but in Cochrane′s 2015 Annual Review, experts did not fi nd evidence of the effectiveness of the manipulations. We carried out research in order to determine the effectiveness of osteopathic manipulative correction (OMC) in children with muscular torticollis (MT) due to birth injury (code for ICD X: P 15.8).

Goal of research — to study the gradual effectiveness of OMC on the basis of clinical and instrumental studies and ultrasound examination of the relationship between the bone structures and the cervical muscles.

Materials and methods. 57 children aged 0–7 years with muscular torticollis due to birth injury were examined. All patients were randomly divided into 2 groups. Patients of the main group (32 children) received osteopathic treatment. Each child received from 3 to 5 sessions, depending on the severity of the birth injury and the duration of postural disorders. The time gap between the sessions was 2–3 weeks. Patients of the control group (25 children) received physiotherapy, massage and orthosis every day for 2 weeks. Along with the neurological examination the study of the effectiveness of treatment included assessment of the pain syndrome with the use of the behavioral numerical scale FLACC, and the assessment of the muscle tone with the help of the kinesthetic examination. Angle of rotation in the cervical spine was measured with the use of the goniometer. Moreover, all children underwent sonography of the cervical spine in order to determine the position of the tooth axis, with the calculation of the coeffi cient of asymmetry. The state of the musculus rectus capitis major (MRCM) and musculus sterno cleido mastoideus (MSCM) was also assessed.

Results. It was observed that after OMC the clinically signifi cant improvement started earlier in patients of the main group. This improvement manifested by complete elimination or signifi cant reduction of biomechanical and tone disorders in the neck. Pain syndrome, measured with the help of the FLACC scale, signifi cantly decreased both after treatment and in catamnesis after 6 months (p0,05). When intercomparing left and right muscles in the groups, signifi cant differences were revealed (p0,05).

Conclusion. The use of OMC (3 to 5 treatment sessions with the intervals of 2–3 weeks) in patients with MT is more effective than the treatment with the use of physiotherapy, massage and orthotics, which was received by patients every day for 2 weeks. This allows to recommend OMC for wider clinical use in this category of patients.

1. Bredenkamp J. K., Hoover L. A., Berke G. S., Shaw A. Congenital muscular torticollis. A spectrum of disease. Arch. Otolaryngol. Head. Neck. Surg. 1990 Feb; 116 (2): 212–216.

2. Do T. T. Congenital muscular torticollis: current concepts and review of treatment. Curr. Opin. Pediat. 2006 Feb; 18 (1): 26–29. doi: 10.1097/01.mop.0000192520.48411.fa.

3. Kinon M. D., Nasser R., Nakhla J., Desai R., Moreno J. R., Yassari R., Bagley C. A. Atlantoaxial Rotatory Subluxation: A Review for the Pediatric Emergency Physician. Pediat. Emerg. Care. 2016 Oct; 32 (10): 710–716. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/ PEC.0000000000000817.

4. Neal K. M., Mohamed A. S. Atlantoaxial rotatory subluxation in children. J. Amer. Acad. Orthop. Surg. 2015 Jun; 23 (6): 382–392. doi: 10.5435/JAAOS-D-14-00115.

5. Lee S. J., Han J. D., Lee H. B., Hwang J. H., Kim S. Y., Park M. C., Yim S. Y. Comparison of clinical severity of congenital muscular torticollis based on the method of child birth. Ann. Rehab. Med. 2011 Oct; 35 (5): 641–647. https://doi.org/ 10.5535/arm.2011.35.5.641.

6. Hardgrib N., Rahbek O., Moller-Madsen B., Maimburg R. D. Do obstetric risk factors truly infl uence the etiopathogenesis of congenital muscular torticollis? J. Orthop. Traumatol. 2017 Dec; 18 (4): 359–364. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10195-017-0461-z.

7. Merkel S. I., Voepel-Lewis T., Shayevitz J. R., Malviya S. The FLACC: a behavioral scale for scoring postoperative pain in young children. Pediat. Nurs. 1997 May–Jun; 23 (3): 293–297.

8. Ay S., Konak H. E., Evcik D., Kibar S. The effectiveness of Kinesio Taping on pain and disability in cervical myofascial pain syndrome. Rev. Bras. Reumatol. Engl. Ed. 2016 Mar–Apr; 57 (2): 93–99.

9. Kim H. J. Cervical spine anomalies in children and adolescents. Curr. Opin. Pediat. 2013 Feb; 25 (1): 72–77. doi: 10.1097/ MOP.0b013e32835bd4cf.

10. Parikh S. N., Crawford A. H., Choudhury S. Magnetic resonance imaging in the evaluation of infantile torticollis. Orthopedics. 2004 May; 27 (5): 509–515. https://doi.org/10.3928/0147-7447-20040501-20.

11. Boyko N., Eppinger M. A. Straka-DeMarco D., Mazzola C. A. Imaging of congenital torticollis in infants: a retrospective study of an institutional protocol. J. Neurosurg. Pediat. 2017 Aug; 20 (2): 191–195. doi: 10.3171/2017.3.PEDS16277.

12. Lowe L. H., Johanek A. J., Moore C. W. Sonography of the neonatal spine: part 1, Normal anatomy, imaging pitfalls, and variations that may simulate disorders. Amer. J. Roentgenol. 2007 Mar; 188 (3): 733–738. http://dx.doi.org/10.2214/ AJR.05.2159.

13. Lee K., Chung E., Koh S., Lee B. H. Outcomes of asymmetry in infants with congenital muscular torticollis. J. Phys Ther Sci. 2015 Feb; 27 (2): 461–464. doi: 10.1589/jpts.29.543.

14. Park H. J., Kim S. S., Lee S. Y., Lee Y. T., Yoon K., Chung E. C., Rho M. H., Kwag H. J. Assessment of follow-up sonography and clinical improvement among infants with congenital muscular torticollis. Amer. J. Neuroradiol. 2013 Apr; 34 (4): 890–894. doi: 10.3174/ajnr.A3299.

15. Petronic I., Brdar R., Cirovic D., Nikolic D., Lukac M., Janic D., Pavicevic P., Golubovic Z., Knezevic T. Congenital muscular torticollis in children: distribution, treatment duration and out come. Europ. J. Phys. Rehab. Med. 2010 Jun; 46 (2): 153–157.

16. Tatli B., Aydinli N., Caliskan M., Ozmen M., Bilir F., Acar G. Congenital muscular torticollis: evaluation and classifi cation. Pediat. Neurol. 2006 Jan; 34 (1): 41–44.

17. Kwon D. R., Park G. Y. Effi cacy of microcurrent therapy in infants with congenital muscular torticollis involving the entire sternocleidomastoid muscle: a randomized placebo-controlled trial. Clin. Rehab. 2014 Oct; 28 (10): 983–991. doi: 10.1177/0269215513511341.

18. Angoules A. G., Boutsikari E. C., Latanioti E. P. Congenital Muscular Torticollis: An Overview. J. Gen. Pract. 2013, 1:1. doi: 10.4172/2329-9126.100010

19. Hsu P. T., Liou I. H., Sun S. F., Hwang C. W., Wang J. L. Effect of rehabilitation on a child with atlantoaxial rotatory fi xation. Spine. 2013 Apr. 20; 38 (9): 569–572. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e31828a3048.

20. Hobaek Siegenthaler M. Chiropractic Management of Infantile Torticollis With Associated Abnormal Fixation of One Eye: A Case Report . J. Chiropr. Med. 2015 Mar; 14 (1): 51–56. doi: 10.1016/j.jcm.2014.12.003.

21. Keklicek H., Uygur F. A randomized controlled study on the effi ciency of soft tissue mobilization in babies with congenital muscular torticollis. J. Back. Musculoskelet Rehab. 2018; 31 (2): 315–321.

22. Merkel S. I., Voepel-Lewis T., Shayevitz J. R., Malviya S. The FLACC: a behavioral scale for scoring postoperative pain in young children. Pediat. Nurs. 1997 May–Jun; 23 (3): 293–297.