NTOS from the Physical Therapists’ Point of View

  • Peter I. Edgelow


The purpose of this chapter is to discuss the evaluation by a physical therapist of a patient who has been diagnosed as having neurogenic thoracic outlet syndrome (NTOS). Such an evaluation is designed to obtain the facts that will guide both the technique and vigor of treatment. The initial evaluation can be separated into three sections: First, subjective evaluation of the history of symptoms (with emphasis paid to characteristic pain patterns and their persistence), numeric assessment of current symptoms, and functional assessment (ideally using a standardized functional questionnaire). Second, an objective evaluation, including assessment of active movements and palpation, to determine both the sensitivity of the nervous system and to help differentiate various other problems from NTOS. Emphasis is placed on tests that are performed at every treatment session to assess the effect of the treatment. Finally, emphasis on evaluation of motor dysfunction (Kabat test), breathing, and neurodynamics of the brachial plexus are performed.


Brachial Plexus Cubital Tunnel Numeric Pain Rating Scale Cervical Disk Disease Diaphragmatic Breathing 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    Wainner R, Fritz J, Irrgang J, Boninger M, Delitto A, Allison S. Reliability and diagnostic accuracy of the clinical examination and patient self-report measures for cervical radiculopathy. Spine. 2003;28(1):52–62.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Jensen M, Karoly P, Braver S. The measurement of clinical pain intensity: a comparison of six methods. Pain. 1986;27:117–26.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Beaton D, Katz J, Fossel A, Wright J, Tarasuk V, Bombardier C. Measuring the whole or the parts? Validity, reliability, and responsiveness of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand outcome measures in different regions of the upper extremity. J Hand Ther. 2001;14:128–46.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Stratford P, Gill C, Westeway M, Binkley J. Assessing disability and change on individual patients: a report of a patient specific measure. Physiother Can. 1995;47:258–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Coppieters M, Stappaerts K, Janssens K. Reliability of detecting “onset of pain” and “submaximal pain” ­during neural provocation of the upper quadrant. Physiother Res Int. 2002;7(3):146–56.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ellis W, Cheng S. Intraoperative thermographic ­monitoring during neurogenic thoracic outlet ­decompressive surgery. Vasc Endovascular Surg. 2003;37(4):253–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    McLaughlin L, Goldsmith CH, Coleman K. Breathing evaluation and retraining as an adjunct to manual therapy. Man Ther. 2011;16:51–2.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Shacklock M. Clinical neurodynamics: a new system of musculoskeletal treatment. 1st ed. Edinburgh: Elsevier; 2005.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Butler D. The sensitive nervous system. Unley: Noigroup Publications; 2000.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Jull G, Falla D, Treleaven J, Sterling M, O’Leary S. A therapeutic exercise approach for cervical disorders. 3rd ed. Churchill Livingston: Elsevier; 2005. Vol Chapter 32.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kabat H. Low back and leg pain. St. Louis: Warren H. Green, Inc.; 1980.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Graduate Program in Physical TherapyUCSF/SFSUUnion CityUSA

Personalised recommendations