Short-term effects of thrust versus nonthrust mobilization/manipulation directed at the thoracic spine in patients with neck pain: a randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Evidence supports the use of manual physical therapy interventions directed at the thoracic spine in patients with neck pain. The purpose of this study was to compare the effectiveness of thoracic spine thrust mobilization/manipulation with that of nonthrust mobilization/manipulation in patients with a primary complaint of mechanical neck pain. The authors also sought to compare the frequencies, durations, and types of side effects between the groups. SUBJECTS: The subjects in this study were 60 patients who were 18 to 60 years of age and had a primary complaint of neck pain. METHODS: For all subjects, a standardized history and a physical examination were obtained. Self-report outcome measures included the Neck Disability Index (NDI), a pain diagram, the Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NPRS), and the Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire. After the baseline evaluation, the subjects were randomly assigned to receive either thoracic spine thrust or nonthrust mobilization/manipulation. The subjects were reexamined 2 to 4 days after the initial examination, and they again completed the NDI and the NPRS, as well as the Global Rating of Change (GROC) Scale. The primary aim was examined with a 2-way repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA), with intervention group (thrust versus nonthrust mobilization/manipulation) as the between-subjects variable and time (baseline and 48 hours) as the within-subject variable. Separate ANOVAs were performed for each dependent variable: disability (NDI) and pain (NPRS). For each ANOVA, the hypothesis of interest was the 2-way group x time interaction. RESULTS: Sixty patients with a mean age of 43.3 years (SD=12.7) (55% female) satisfied the eligibility criteria and agreed to participate in the study. Subjects who received thrust mobilization/manipulation experienced greater reductions in disability, with a between-group difference of 10% (95% confidence interval [CI]=5.3-14.7), and in pain, with a between-group difference of 2.0 (95% CI=1.4-2.7). Subjects in the thrust mobilization/manipulation group exhibited significantly higher scores on the GROC Scale at the time of follow-up. No differences in the frequencies, durations, and types of side effects existed between the groups. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: The results suggest that thoracic spine thrust mobilization/manipulation results in significantly greater short-term reductions in pain and disability than does thoracic nonthrust mobilization/manipulation in people with neck pain.     

Effect of neck exercise on sitting posture in patients with chronic neck pain

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Poor sitting posture has been implicated in the development and perpetuation of neck pain symptoms. This study had 2 purposes: (1) to compare change in cervical and thoracic posture during a distracting task between subjects with chronic neck pain and control subjects and (2) to compare the effects of 2 different neck exercise regimens on the ability of people with neck pain to maintain an upright cervical and thoracic posture during this task. SUBJECTS: Fifty-eight subjects with chronic, nonsevere neck pain and 10 control subjects participated in the study. METHOD: Change in cervical and thoracic posture from an upright posture was measured every 2 minutes during a 10-minute computer task. Following baseline measurements, the subjects with neck pain were randomized into one of two 6-week exercise intervention groups: a group that received training of the craniocervical flexor muscles or a group that received endurance-strength training of the cervical flexor muscles. The primary outcomes following intervention were changes in the angle of cervical and thoracic posture during the computer task. RESULTS: Subjects with neck pain demonstrated a change in cervical angle across the duration of the task (mean=4.4 degrees ; 95% confidence interval [CI]=3.3-5.4), consistent with a more forward head posture. No significant difference was observed for the change in cervical angle across the duration of the task for the control group subjects (mean=2.2 degrees ; 95% CI=1.0-3.4). Following intervention, the craniocervical flexor training group demonstrated a significant reduction in the change of cervical angle across the duration of the computer task. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: This study showed that people with chronic neck pain demonstrate a reduced ability to maintain an upright posture when distracted. Following intervention with an exercise program targeted at training the craniocervical flexor muscles, subjects with neck pain demonstrated an improved ability to maintain a neutral cervical posture during prolonged sitting.     

The Immediate Effects of Upper Thoracic Translatoric Spinal Manipulation on Cervical Pain and Range of Motion: A Randomized Clinical Trial

This study examined the effect of translatoric spinal manipulation (TSM) on cervical pain and cervical active motion restriction when applied to upper thoracic (T1-T4) segments. Active cervical rotation range of motion was measured re- and post-intervention with a cervical inclinometer (CROM), and cervical pain status was monitored before and after manipulation with a Faces Pain Scale. Study participants included a sample of convenience that included 32 patients referred to physical therapy with complaints of pain in the mid-cervical region and restricted active cervical rotation. Twenty-two patients were randomly assigned to the experimental group and ten were assigned to the control group. Pre- and post-intervention cervical range of motion and pain scale measurements were taken by a physical therapist assistant who was blinded to group assignment. The experimental group received TSM to hypomobile upper thoracic segments. The control group received no intervention. Paired t-tests were used to analyze within-group changes in cervical rotation and pain, and a 2-way repeated-measure ANOVA was used to analyze between-group differences in cervical rotation and pain. Significance was accepted at p = 0.05. Significant changes that exceeded the MDC₉₅ were detected for cervical rotation both within group and between groups with the TSM group demonstrating increased mean (SD) in right rotation of 8.23° (7.41°) and left rotation of 7.09° (5.83°). Pain levels perceived during post-intervention cervical rotation showed significant improvement during right rotation for patients experiencing pain during bilateral rotation only (p=.05). This study supports the hypothesis that spinal manipulation applied to the upper thoracic spine (T1-T4 motion segments) significantly increases cervical rotation ROM and may reduce cervical pain at end range rotation for patients experiencing pain during bilateral cervical rotation.     

A preliminary study comparing the use of cervical/upper thoracic mobilization and manipulation for individuals with mechanical neck pain

Objectives:Neck pain is routinely managed using manual therapy (MT) to the cervical and thoracic spines. While both mobilizations and manipulations to these areas have been shown to reduce neck pain, increase cervical range of motion, and reduce disability, the most effective option remains elusive. The purpose of this preliminary trial was to compare the pragmatic use of cervical and thoracic mobilizations vs. manipulation for mechanical neck pain.Methods:This trial included 20 patients with mechanical neck pain. Each patient was randomized to receive either mobilization or manipulation to both the cervical and thoracic spines during their plan of care. Within-group analyses were made with Wilcoxon signed-rank tests and between-group analyses were made with Mann–Whitney U.Results:There were no between-group differences for any of the dependent variables including cervical active range of motion (CAROM) (P = 0.18), deep cervical flexion (DCF) endurance (P = 0.06), numerical pain rating scale (NPRS) (P = 0.26), the neck disability index (NDI, P = 0.33), patient-specific functional scale (PSFS, P = 0.20), or the global rating of change (GROC) scale (P = 0.94). Within-group results were significant for all outcome variables (P<0.001) from initial evaluation to discharge for both groups.Discussion:These findings were consistent with other trials previously conducted that applied the MT techniques in a pragmatic fashion, but varied from previous trials where the treatment was standardized. A larger experimental study is necessary to further examine the differences between mobilization and manipulation for neck pain.     

Treatment of Neck Pain With Myofascial Therapies: A Single Blind Randomized Controlled Trial

ObjectiveThis study aimed to investigate the effects of myofascial release therapy vs a standard physical therapy program in patients with neck pain (NP).MethodsThis was a randomized controlled trial in which 54 participants with mechanical NP were randomly assigned into an experimental group (EG) or a comparison group (CG). The EG group (n = 27) received 5 therapy sessions of myofascial release therapy while the CG group (n = 27) received 10 sessions of massage, ultrasound therapy, and transcutaneous electric nerve stimulation over a 2-week period. Outcome measures were the numerical pain rating scale (NPRS), pressure pain thresholds (PPTs) and range of motion at the end of treatment and at 1-month follow-up.ResultsAt 1-month follow-up, between-group differences in change scores were found in the NPRS (mean = –1.56, 95% confidence interval [CI] [–2.30 to –0.81]; P < .001), in the right thoracic PPT (mean = 0.35, 95% CI [0.03-0.66]; P = .031), and in both left (mean = 0.34, 95% CI [0.08-0.61]; P = .012) and right (mean = 0.29, 95% CI [0.04-0.54]; P = .026) suboccipital PPTs. The success rate was 63.0% in the CG and 92.6% in the EG. The number needed to treat was 3.38 (95% CI = 1.99-11.23).ConclusionsMyofascial release therapy could be better than a standard physical therapy program for improving pain and suboccipital PPTs in patients with NP. However, the difference between both treatments is less than the minimum detectable change of the NPRS.     

Thoracic Manual Therapy Improves Pain and Disability in Individuals With Shoulder Impingement Syndrome Compared With Placebo: A Randomized Controlled Trial With 1-Year Follow-up

ObjectiveTo investigate whether muscle energy technique (MET) to the thoracic spine decreases the pain and disability associated with shoulder impingement syndrome (SIS).DesignSingle-center, 3-arm, randomized controlled trial, single-blind, placebo control with concealed allocation and a 12-month follow-up.SettingPrivate osteopathic practice.ParticipantsThree groups of 25 participants (N=75) 40 years or older with SIS received allocated intervention once a week for 15 minutes, 4 consecutive weeks.InterventionsParticipants were randomly allocated to MET to the thoracic spine (MET-only), MET plus soft tissue massage (MET+STM), or placebo.Main Outcome MeasuresPrimary outcome measure: Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) questionnaire. Secondary outcome measures: Shoulder Pain and Disability Index (SPADI) questionnaire; visual analog scale (VAS) (mm/100): current, 7-day average, and 4-week average; Patient-Specific Functional Scale (PSFS); and Global Rating of Change (GROC). Measures recorded at baseline, discharge, 4-week follow-up, 6 months, and 12 months. Also baseline and discharge thoracic posture and range of motion (ROM) measured using an inclinometer. Statistical analysis included mixed-effects linear regression model for DASH, SPADI, VAS, PSFS, GROC, and thoracic posture and ROM.ResultsMET-only group demonstrated significantly greater improvement in pain and disability (DASH, SPADI, VAS 7-day average) than placebo at discharge (mean difference, DASH=?8.4; 95% CI, ?14.0 to ?2.8; SPADI=?14.7; 95% CI, ?23.0 to ?6.3; VAS=?15.5; 95% CI, ?24.5 to ?6.5), 6 months (?11.1; 95% CI, ?18.6 to ?3.7; ?14.9; 95% CI, ?26.3 to ?3.5; ?14.1; 95% CI, ?26.0 to ?2.2), and 12 months (?13.4; 95% CI, ?23.9 to?2.9; ?19.0; 95% CI, ?32.4 to ?5.7; ?17.3; 95% CI, ?30.9 to ?3.8). MET+STM group also demonstrated greater improvement in disability but not pain compared with placebo at discharge (DASH=?8.2; 95% CI, ?14.0 to ?2.3; SPADI=?13.5; 95% CI, ?22.3 to ?4.8) and 6 months (?9.0; 95% CI, ?16.9 to ?1.2; ?12.4; 95% CI, ?24.3 to ?0.5). For the PSFS, MET-only group improved compared with placebo at discharge (1.3; 95% CI, 0.1-2.5) and 12 months (1.8; 95% CI, 0.5-3.2); MET+STM at 12 months (1.7; 95% CI, 0.3-3.0). GROC: MET-only group improved compared with placebo at discharge (1.5; 95% CI, 0.9-2.2) and 4 weeks (1.0; 95% CI, 0.1-1.9); MET+STM at discharge (1.2; 95% CI, 0.5-1.9) and 6 months (1.2; 95% CI, 0.1-1.3). There were no differences between MET-only group and MET+STM, and no between-group differences in thoracic posture or ROM.ConclusionsMET of the thoracic spine with or without STM improved the pain and disability in individuals 40 years or older with SIS and may be recommended as a treatment approach for SIS.     

Immediate Changes in Neck Pain Intensity and Widespread Pressure Pain Sensitivity in Patients With Bilateral Chronic Mechanical Neck Pain: A Randomized Controlled Trial of Thoracic Thrust Manipulation vs Non–Thrust Mobilization

Objective

The purpose of this study was to compare the effects of thoracic thrust manipulation vs thoracic non–thrust mobilization in patients with bilateral chronic mechanical neck pain on pressure pain sensitivity and neck pain intensity.

Methods

Fifty-two patients (58% were female) were randomly assigned to a thoracic spine thrust manipulation group or of thoracic non–thrust mobilization group. Pressure pain thresholds (PPTs) over C5-C6 zygapophyseal joint, second metacarpal, and tibialis anterior muscle and neck pain intensity (11-point Numerical Pain Rate Scale) were collected at baseline and 10 minutes after the intervention by an assessor blinded to group allocation. Mixed-model analyses of variance (ANOVAs) were used to examine the effects of the treatment on each outcome. The primary analysis was the group * time interaction.

Results

No significant interactions were found with the mixed-model ANOVAs for any PPT (C5-C6: P > .252; second metacarpal: P > .452; tibialis anterior: P > .273): both groups exhibited similar increases in PPT (all, P < .01), but within-group and between-group effect sizes were small (standardized mean score difference [SMD] < 0.22). The ANOVA found that patients receiving thoracic spine thrust manipulation experienced a greater decrease in neck pain (between-group mean difference: 1.4; 95% confidence interval, 0.8-2.1) than did those receiving thoracic spine non–thrust mobilization (P < .001). Within-group effect sizes were large for both groups (SMD > 2.1), and between-group effect size was also large (SMD = 1.3) in favor of the manipulative group.

Conclusions

The results of this randomized clinical trial suggest that thoracic thrust manipulation and non–thrust mobilization induce similar changes in widespread PPT in individuals with mechanical neck pain; however, the changes were clinically small. We also found that thoracic thrust manipulation was more effective than thoracic non–thrust mobilization for decreasing intensity of neck pain for patients with bilateral chronic mechanical neck pain.     

Manipulation or mobilisation for neck pain: A Cochrane Review

Manipulation and mobilisation are often used, either alone or combined with other treatment approaches, to treat neck pain. This review assesses if manipulation or mobilisation improves pain, function/disability, patient satisfaction, quality of life (QoL), and global perceived effect (GPE) in adults experiencing neck pain with or without cervicogenic headache or radicular findings. A computerised search was performed in July 2009. Randomised trials investigating manipulation or mobilisation for neck pain were included. Two or more authors independently selected studies, abstracted data, and assessed methodological quality. Pooled relative risk (pRR) and standardised mean differences (pSMD) were calculated. 33% of 27 trials had a low risk of bias. Moderate quality evidence showed cervical manipulation and mobilisation produced similar effects on pain, function and patient satisfaction at intermediate-term follow-up. Low quality evidence suggested cervical manipulation may provide greater short-term pain relief than a control (pSMD ?0.90 (95%CI: ?1.78 to ?0.02)). Low quality evidence also supported thoracic manipulation for pain reduction (NNT 7; 46.6% treatment advantage) and increased function (NNT 5; 40.6% treatment advantage) in acute pain and immediate pain reduction in chronic neck pain (NNT 5; 29% treatment advantage). Optimal technique and dose need to be determined.     

Immediate effects of thoracic manipulation in patients with neck pain: a randomized clinical trial

Mechanical neck pain is a common occurrence in the general population resulting in a considerable economic burden. Often physical therapists will incorporate manual therapies directed at the cervical spine including joint mobilization and manipulation into the management of patients with cervical pain. Although the effectiveness of mobilization and manipulation of the cervical spine has been well documented, the small inherent risks associated with these techniques has led clinicians to frequently utilize manipulation directed at the thoracic spine in this patient population. It is hypothesized that thoracic spine manipulation may elicit similar therapeutic benefits as cervical spine manipulation while minimizing the magnitude of risk associated with the cervical technique. The purpose of this randomized clinical trial was to investigate the immediate effects of thoracic spine manipulation on perceived pain levels in patients presenting with neck pain. The results suggest that thoracic spine manipulation results in immediate analgesic effects in patients with mechanical neck pain. Further studies are needed to determine the effects of thoracic spine manipulation in patients with neck pain on long-term outcomes including function and disability.     

Manual therapy and exercise for neck pain: A systematic review

Manual therapy is often used with exercise to treat neck pain. This cervical overview group systematic review update assesses if manual therapy, including manipulation or mobilisation, combined with exercise improves pain, function/disability, quality of life, global perceived effect, and patient satisfaction for adults with neck pain with or without cervicogenic headache or radiculopathy. Computerized searches were performed to July 2009. Two or more authors independently selected studies, abstracted data, and assessed methodological quality. Pooled relative risk (pRR) and standardized mean differences (pSMD) were calculated. Of 17 randomized controlled trials included, 29% had a low risk of bias. Low quality evidence suggests clinically important long-term improvements in pain (pSMD-0.87(95% CI:?1.69,?0.06)), function/disability, and global perceived effect when manual therapy and exercise are compared to no treatment. High quality evidence suggests greater short-term pain relief [pSMD-0.50(95% CI:?0.76,?0.24)] than exercise alone, but no long-term differences across multiple outcomes for (sub)acute/chronic neck pain with or without cervicogenic headache. Moderate quality evidence supports this treatment combination for pain reduction and improved quality of life over manual therapy alone for chronic neck pain; and suggests greater short-term pain reduction when compared to traditional care for acute whiplash. Evidence regarding radiculopathy was sparse. Specific research recommendations are made.     

Time course considerations for the effects of unilateral lower cervical adjustments with respect to the amelioration of cervical lateral-flexion passive end-range asymmetry

The initial effectiveness as well as the temporal stability of the effect of cervical spinal manipulation with respect to the amelioration of goniometrically verified cervical lateral-flexion passive end-range asymmetry was examined. Responses of two groups of pain-free subjects were compared: a) those exhibiting end-range asymmetries of greater than 10 degrees who, in addition, had suffered previous neck trauma, and; b) those who happened to exhibit end-range asymmetries of greater than 10 degrees but who had no history of prior neck trauma. All subjects received a single lower cervical adjustment delivered to the side of most-restricted end-range, and goniometric reassessments were performed 30 min, 4 hr, and 48 hr following the adjustment. A dramatic amelioration of asymmetry was observed in both groups at 30 min and 4 hr postmanipulation. Furthermore, the magnitudes of these short-term effects were similar for the two groups. However, by 24 hours, a difference in the temporal responses of the groups had become readily apparent. By 48 hours, the difference was even more striking; whereas 14 of 16 of the subjects with no previous neck trauma continued to exhibit asymmetries of less than 10 degrees (mean +/- SEM = 3.8 +/- 1.0 degrees), 12 of the 16 subjects with previous neck trauma had regained asymmetries of greater than 10 degrees (mean +/- SEM = 11.4 +/- 1.7 degrees). These results indicate that among asymptomatic (pain-free) individuals, the mere presence of passive end-range asymmetry as well as the magnitude of the short-term ameliorative effect of cervical manipulation do not distinguish these two categories of subjects.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)     

Naprapathic manual therapy or evidence-based care for back and neck pain: a randomized, controlled trial

OBJECTIVES: To compare naprapathic manual therapy with evidence-based care for back or neck pain regarding pain, disability, and perceived recovery. Naprapathy that is common in the Nordic countries and in some states in the United States is characterized by manual manipulations with a focus on soft and connective tissues, aiming to decrease pain and disability in the musculoskeletal system. METHODS: Four hundred and nine patients with pain and disability in the back or neck lasting for at least 2 weeks, recruited at 2 large public companies in Sweden in 2005, were included in this randomized controlled trial. The 2 interventions were naprapathy, including spinal manipulation/mobilization, massage, and stretching (Index Group) and support and advice to stay active and how to cope with pain, according to the best scientific evidence available, provided by a physician (Control Group). Pain, disability, and perceived recovery were measured by questionnaires at baseline and after 3, 7, and 12 weeks. RESULTS: At 7-week and 12-week follow-ups, statistically significant differences between the groups were found in all outcomes favoring the Index Group. At 12-week follow-up, a higher proportion in the naprapathy group had improved regarding pain [risk difference (RD)=27%, 95% confidence interval (CI): 17-37], disability (RD=18%, 95% CI: 7-28), and perceived recovery (RD=44%, 95% CI: 35-53). Separate analysis of neck pain and back pain patients showed similar results. DISCUSSION: This trial suggests that combined manual therapy, like naprapathy, might be an alternative to consider for back and neck pain patients.     

Immediate Effects of a Single Session of Cervical Spine Manipulation on Cervical Movement Patterns in People With Nonspecific Neck Pain: A Randomized Controlled Trial

ObjectiveThe aim of the present study was to assess the immediate effects of a single session of cervical spine manipulation on cervical movement patterns, disability, and the patient's perceived improvement in people with nonspecific neck pain.MethodsA single-blinded, randomized, sham-controlled trial was carried out at a biomechanics institute. Fifty participants diagnosed with acute and chronic nonspecific neck pain (minimum duration of the symptoms being 1 month) were randomized to an experimental group (EG, n = 25) or a sham-control group (CG, n = 25, 23 of whom completed the study). EG received a single cervical spine manipulation session; CG received a single placebo intervention. Both groups received manipulation or sham from the same physiotherapist. Main outcome measures were neck kinematics (ie, range of motion and movement harmony) during cyclic movements, self-reported neck disability, and impression of change assessed before and 5 minutes after treatment.ResultsThe EG showed no significant improvements (P > .05) in any of the studied biomechanical variables, except for right-side bending and left rotation, in which we found a range of motion significant mean difference of 1.97° and 1.95°, respectively (P < .05). The CG showed enhanced harmonic motion during flexion (P < .05). Both groups showed a significant decrease in self-reported neck disability after treatment (P < .05), and EG participants perceived a significantly larger improvement after manipulation compared with the CG (P < .05).ConclusionsA single session of cervical manipulation provided by a physiotherapist had no impact on cervical motion during cyclic movements, but rather induced self-reported perceived improvement in neck disability and impression of change after treatment in people with nonspecific neck pain.     

Changes in proprioception and pain in patients with neck pain after upper thoracic manipulation

[Purpose] The purpose of this study was to conduct cervical stability training and upper thoracic manipulation for patients with chronic neck pain and then investigate the changes of cervical proprioception and pain. [Subjects and Methods] Subjects were 30 workers with mechanical neck pain, who were randomly divided into an upper thoracic manipulation group and a cervical stability training group. Upper thoracic manipulation after cervical stability training was conducted for the upper thoracic manipulation group, and only stability training was conducted for the cervical stability training group. The intervention period was six weeks, and consisted of three sessions a week, each of which lasted for 30 minutes. For proprioception measurement, an electro-goniometer was used to measure reposition sense before and after the intervention. The visual analogue scale was used to assess pain. [Results] After the intervention, the error angle was significantly smaller in flexion and right left side-bending, and pain was significantly reduced in the upper thoracic manipulation group. According to the post intervention comparison of the two groups, there were significant differences in the proprioception and pain values. [Conclusion] Conducting both cervical stability training and upper thoracic manipulation for patients with chronic neck pain was more helpful for the improvement of proprioception and pain than cervical stability training alone.     

Immediate effects of thoracic spine self-mobilization in patients with mechanical neck pain: A randomized controlled trial

ObjectivesTo investigate the immediate effects of thoracic spine self-mobilization in patients with mechanical neck pain.Study designRandomized, controlled trial.BackgroundThoracic spine self-mobilization is performed after thoracic spine thrust manipulation to augment and maintain its effects. To the best of our knowledge, no study has investigated the effects of thoracic spine self-mobilization alone in individuals with mechanical neck pain. The purpose of this randomized, controlled trial was to evaluate the immediate effects of thoracic spine self-mobilization alone without any other intervention on disability, pain, and cervical range of motion in patients with mechanical neck pain.MethodsFifty-two patients (39 females and 13 males) with mechanical neck pain were randomly allocated to either a thoracic spine self-mobilization group that was performing a thoracic spine active flexion and extension activity using two tennis balls fixed by athletic tape or a placebo thoracic spine self-mobilization group. Outcome measures were collected at pre-intervention and immediately after intervention, including the Neck Disability Index, visual analogue scale, and active cervical range of motion (ROM). The immediate effect of the intervention was analyzed using two-way repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA). If interactions were found, a simple main effect test was performed to compare the pre-post intra-group results.ResultsThe results of two-way repeated measures ANOVA indicated that the main effect of time was significant (p < 0.05) for all measurement outcomes. The main effect of group was not significant for all measurement outcomes (p > 0.05). The group × time interactions for cervical flexion active ROM (p = 0.005) and cervical extension active ROM (p = 0.036) were significant. The tests of simple main effect in cervical flexion active ROM (p < 0.0001) and cervical extension active ROM (p < 0.0001) showed a significant difference before and after intervention in the thoracic spine self-mobilization group.ConclusionPatients with mechanical neck pain who carried out thoracic spine self-mobilization showed increases in active cervical flexion and extension ROM.     

Do changes within a manual therapy treatment session predict between-session changes for patients with cervical spine pain?

Physiotherapists often use within-session changes to provide a guide for refining treatment application. This study tested the validity of within-session changes as predictors of between-session changes for patients with neck pain receiving manual therapy treatment. A total of 70 pairs of treatments from 29 patients with sub-acute non-specific neck pain receiving manual therapy were assessed to determine the relationship between within-session and between-session changes in range of motion (ROM), pain intensity, and centralisation. Measurements were taken of ROM of the more limited direction on each axis of flexion, extension, lateral-flexion and rotation, and pain (intensity and location) before and after treatment. The same measurements were repeated before the following treatment. Regression analysis demonstrated that within-session change accounted for 26% to 48% of the variability in between-session change for ROM and six per cent for pain intensity. The proportion of the within-session change for ROM maintained between sessions ranged from 42% to 63% (95% CI 25% to 88%). The odds ratios for within-session improved/not improved categorisation to predict between-session category for ROM ranged from 2.5 (95% CI 0.6 to 4.3) to 21.3 (95% CI 10.1 to 96.1), for pain intensity 4.5 (95% CI 1.2 to 14.4) and for pain centralisation 9.2 (95% CI 2.2 to 38.7) indicating greater likelihood of between-session improvement after within-session improvement. The between-session results for most patients (71% to 83%) could be classified correctly by their within-session category. The results support the use of within-session changes in ROM, centralisation, and possibly pain intensity as predictors of between-session changes for musculoskeletal disorders of the cervical spine.     

Immediate effects of dry needling and acupuncture at distant points in chronic neck pain: results of a randomized,double-blind,sham-controlled crossover trial

To evaluate immediate effects of two different modes of acupuncture on motion-related pain and cervical spine mobility in chronic neck pain patients compared to a sham procedure. Thirty-six patients with chronic neck pain and limited cervical spine mobility participated in a prospective, randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled crossover trial. Every patient was treated once with needle acupuncture at distant points, dry needling (DN) of local myofascial trigger points and sham laser acupuncture (Sham). Outcome measures were motion-related pain intensity (visual analogue scale, 0-100 mm) and range of motion (ROM). In addition, patients scored changes of general complaints using an 11-point verbal rating scale. Patients were assessed immediately before and after each treatment by an independent (blinded) investigator. Multivariate analysis was used to assess the effects of true acupuncture and needle site independently. For motion-related pain, use of acupuncture at non-local points reduced pain scores by about a third (11.2 mm; 95% CI 5.7, 16.7; P = 0.00006) compared to DN and sham. DN led to an estimated reduction in pain of 1.0 mm (95% CI -4.5, 6.5; P = 0.7). Use of DN slightly improved ROM by 1.7 degrees (95% CI 0.2, 3.2; P = 0.032) with use of non-local points improving ROM by an additional 1.9 degrees (95% CI 0.3, 3.4; P = 0.016). For patient assessment of change, non-local acupuncture was significantly superior both to Sham (1.7 points; 95% CI 1.0, 2.5; P = 0.0001) and DN (1.5 points; 95% CI 0.4, 2.6; P = 0.008) but there was no difference between DN and Sham (0.1 point; 95% CI -1.0, 1.2; P = 0.8). Acupuncture is superior to Sham in improving motion-related pain and ROM following a single session of treatment in chronic neck pain patients. Acupuncture at distant points improves ROM more than DN; DN was ineffective for motion-related pain.     

The Effects of Thoracic Manipulation Versus Mobilization for Chronic Neck Pain: a Randomized Controlled Trial Pilot Study

[Purpose] To investigate effects of thoracic manipulation versus mobilization on chronic neck pain. [Methods] Thirty-nine chronic neck pain subjects were randomly assigned to single level thoracic manipulation, single level thoracic mobilization, or a control group. The cervical range of motion (CROM) and pain ratings (using a visual analog scale: VAS) were measured before, immediately after and at a 24-hour follow-up. [Results] Thoracic manipulation significantly decreased VAS pain ratings and increased CROM in all directions in immediate and 24-hour follow-ups. The thoracic mobilization group significantly increased in CROM in most directions at immediate follow-up and right and left rotational directions at the 24-hour follow-up. Comparisons between groups revealed the CROM for the manipulation group to increase significantly more than for control subjects in most directions at immediate follow-up and flexion, left lateral flexion and left rotation at the 24-hour follow-up. The CROM for the thoracic mobilization group significantly increased in comparison to the control group in flexion at immediate follow-up and in flexion and left rotation at the 24-hour follow-up. [Conclusion] The study demonstrated reductions in VAS pain ratings and increases in CROM at immediate and 24-hour follow-ups from both single level thoracic spine manipulation and thoracic mobilization in chronic neck pain.Key words: Single level thoracic manipulation, Single level thoracic mobilization, Chronic neck pain     

Changes in Cervicocephalic Kinesthetic Sensibility,Widespread Pressure Pain Sensitivity,and Neck Pain After Cervical Thrust Manipulation in Patients With Chronic Mechanical Neck Pain: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Objective

The purpose of the current randomized clinical trial was to examine the effects of cervical thrust manipulation or sham manipulation on cervicocephalic kinaesthetic sense, pain, pain-related disability, and pressure pain sensitivity in patients with mechanical neck pain.