Sacroiliac Distraction Test: Difference between revisions

No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 55: Line 55:


== Resources  ==
== Resources  ==
[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez/18458988/ www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez/18458988/] 


== References<br> ==
== References<br> ==


<references />
<references />

Revision as of 03:36, 9 December 2009

Be the first to edit this page and have your name permanently included as the originating editor, see the editing pages tutorial for help.

Original Editor - Your name will be added here if you created the original content for this page.

Lead Editors - Your name will be added here if you are a lead editor on this page.  Read more.

Purpose
[edit | edit source]

The Distraction test is used to rule in and rule out a sprain of the anterior sacroiliac ligaments and sacroiliac dysfunction. This test has also been described as the Gapping (Transverse Anterior Stress) Test, and Sacroiliac Joint Stress Test[1][2].

Technique
[edit | edit source]

Patient is supine on the edge of a table. Bilateral anterior superior iliac spines are palpated by the examiner. The examiner crosses his or her arms, creating an x at the forearms. A lateral posterior directed force is applied to bilateral anterior superior iliac spines. The position is held for 30 seconds, then a vigorous force is applied to the ASIS in an attempt reproduce the patient’s symptoms. If pain is reproduced, the test is considered positive for SI joint dysfunction[3][4]


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lzoVoTo3r5g

Evidence[edit | edit source]

The Diagnostic Accuracy of the Distraction test is described below.

Reliability Sensitivity Specificity LR+ LR-
Russel[5] 11 90 1.1 .98
Laslett[6] [7] .69 60 81 3.2 .5
Albert[8] .84 14 100

Resources[edit | edit source]

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez/18458988/ 

References
[edit | edit source]

  1. 2. Konin, J., Wiksten, D., Isear, J., &amp; Brader, H. (2002). Special Test for Orthopedic Examination. New Jersey: Slack.
  2. 1. Dutton M. Orthopaedic Examination, Evaluation, and Intervention. 2nd ed. New York: McGraw Hill, 2008.
  3. 3. Cook, C., Cleland, J., & Huijbregts, P. (2007). Creation and Critique of Studies of Diagnostic Accuracy: Use of theS methodological Quality Assessment Tool. J Manipulative Physiol Ther, 15(2), 93-102.
  4. 4. Cook, C., & Hegedus, E. (2008). Orthopedic Physical Examination Test: An Evidence Based Approach. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
  5. 8. Russell A, Maksymovich W, LeClerq S. Clinical examination of the sacroiliac joints: a prospective study. Arthritis Pheumatism. 1981;24:1575-1577.
  6. 6. Laslett M, Aprill C, McDonald B, Young S. Diagnosis of sacroiliac joint pain: validity of individual provocation tests and composites of test. Man Ther. 2005;10:207-218.
  7. 7. Laslett M, Williams M. The reliability of selected pain provocation test for sacroiliac joint pathology. Spine. 1994;19(11):1243-1249
  8. 5. Albert H, Godskesen M, Westergaard J. Evaluation of clinical test used in classification procedures in pregnancy related pelvic joint pain. Eur Spine J. 2000; 9(2):161-166