Immediate effects of a thoracic spine thrust manipulation on the autonomic nervous system: a randomized clinical trial

Thoracic spine manipulation has been shown to be effective for the management of neck pain. The purpose of this study was to investigate the immediate effect of a T3–T4 spinal thrust manipulation on autonomic nervous system activity in subjects with chronic cervical pain. An additional aim was to determine if the manipulation resulted in an immediate pain relief in patients with chronic neck pain when compared to a placebo intervention. One hundred subjects with chronic neck pain were randomly assigned to receive either a thoracic thrust manipulation or a placebo intervention. The Friedman’s test was used to evaluate the change in pupil diameter within both groups. The Wilcoxen signed-ranks test was used to explore pupil changes over time and to make paired comparisons of the pupil change between the groups. The Mann–Whitney U test was used to compare the change in pain perception for the chronic cervical pain group subjects receiving either the thrust manipulation or the placebo intervention. The results demonstrated that manipulation did not result in a change in sympathetic activity. Additionally, there was no significant difference in the subject’s pain perception (P = 0.961) when comparing the effects of the thrust manipulation to the placebo intervention within this group of subjects with chronic neck pain. The clinical impression of this study is that manipulation of the thoracic spine may not be effective in immediately reducing pain in patients with chronic neck pain.     

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.     

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.     

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     

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.     

Development of a clinical prediction rule for guiding treatment of a subgroup of patients with neck pain: use of thoracic spine manipulation, exercise, and patient education

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: To date, no studies have investigated the predictive validity of variables from the initial examination to identify patients with neck pain who are likely to benefit from thoracic spine thrust manipulation. The purpose of this study was to develop a clinical prediction rule (CPR) to identify patients with neck pain who are likely to experience early success from thoracic spine thrust manipulation. SUBJECTS: This was a prospective, cohort study of patients with mechanical neck pain who were referred for physical therapy. METHODS: Subjects underwent a standardized examination and then a series of thoracic spine thrust manipulation techniques. They were classified as having experienced a successful outcome at the second and third sessions based on their perceived recovery. Potential predictor variables were entered into a stepwise logistic regression model to determine the most accurate set of variables for prediction of treatment success. RESULTS: Data for 78 subjects were included in the data analysis, of which 42 had a successful outcome. A CPR with 6 variables was identified. If 3 of the 6 variables (positive likelihood ratio=5.5) were present, the chance of experiencing a successful outcome improved from 54% to 86%. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: The CPR provides the ability to a priori identify patients with neck pain who are likely to experience early success with thoracic spine thrust manipulation. However, future studies are necessary to validate the rule.     

Immediate effects of the audible pop from a thoracic spine thrust manipulation on the autonomic nervous system and pain: a secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial

Purpose

This study investigated the immediate effects of audible joint sounds following a supine T3-T4 spinal thrust manipulation on the autonomic nervous system activity using a fully automated pupillometry system in patients with chronic neck pain. An additional aim was to determine if audible sounds as perceived by the therapist were associated with the reduction of pain following manipulation.

Methods

One hundred subjects with chronic neck pain completed the study protocol. The Mann-Whitney U test was used to compare the change scores of the 3 measuring points between the one-pop and multiple-pop groups. Subjects were randomized into either a manipulation or a mobilization group. A method of automated pupillometry was used in this study to capture pupil responsiveness.

Results

The analysis showed that there was no significant difference between the 2 groups (P > .05). The Kruskal-Wallis test was used to compare the median change scores between the mobilization, no-pop, and pop groups. The analysis showed that there was no statistically significant difference in the amount of change in pupil diameter between the 3 groups (P > .05).The Mann-Whitney U test demonstrated that the no-pop group (P = .031) and the multiple-pop group (P = .014) had a significant reduction of pain; however, it did not reach the minimal clinically significant level of 13 mm on the visual analog scale.

Conclusions

The results of this study provided evidence that the presence of joint sounds does not influence the overall activity of the autonomic nervous system following a thrust manipulation or contribute to the reduction of pain in patients with chronic neck pain.     

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.     

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.

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.     

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.     

Repeated Applications of Thoracic Spine Thrust Manipulation do not Lead to Tolerance in Patients Presenting with Acute Mechanical Neck Pain: A Secondary Analysis

It has been demonstrated that patients receiving mobilization techniques do not exhibit tolerance to repeated applications. However, this phenomenon has not been investigated for thoracic manipulation. Our aim was to determine if patients receiving thoracic thrust manipulation exhibit tolerance to repeated applications in acute mechanical neck pain. Forty-five patients were randomly assigned to two groups. The control group received electro- and thermotherapy for 5 sessions, and the experimental group received the same program and also received a thoracic thrust manipulation once a week for 3 consecutive weeks. Outcome measures included neck pain and cervical mobility. Within-session change scores for pain and mobility during treatment sessions #1, 3, and 5 were examined with a one-way repeated measured ANOVA. A 2-way ANOVA with session as within-subject variable and group as between-subject variable was used to compare change scores for each visit between groups to ascertain if there were significant between-group differences in within-session changes for the experimental versus the control group. The ANOVA showed that for either group the 3 within-session change scores were not significantly different (P > 0.1). The 2-way ANOVA revealed significant differences between groups for both pain and neck mobility in within-session change scores (all, P < 0.001). Change scores in each session were superior in the experimental group as compared to those in the control group. The results suggest that patients receiving thoracic manipulation do not exhibit tolerance to repeated applications with regard to pain and mobility measures in acute mechanical neck pain. Further studies should investigate the dose-response relationship of thoracic thrust manipulation in this population.KEYWORDS: Neck Pain, Thoracic Thrust Manipulation, ToleranceNeck pain is a significant problem in society. The incidence rate for self-reported neck pain in the general population has been reported to be between 146 and 213 per 1,000 patient years¹. The reported point prevalence of neck pain varies between 9.5–35%^2,3. The 12-month prevalence for neck pain ranges from 30–50%, and the 12-month prevalence of activity-limiting pain is reported to be between 1.7% and 11.5%¹. Nearly half of patients with neck pain will go on to develop chronic symptoms⁴, and many will continue to exhibit moderate disability at long-term follow-up⁵. In the United States, neck pain accounts for almost 1% of all visits to primary care physicians⁶. After lumbar spine-related diagnoses at 19%, cervical spine diagnoses were the second most common reason for referral at 16% in a US study on outpatient physical therapy⁷. Similarly, the economic burden associated with the management of neck pain patients is second only to low back pain in annual workers'' compensation costs in the United States⁸.In the majority of patients with neck pain, no patho-anatomic diagnosis can be provided resulting in a diagnostic label of non-specific or mechanical neck pain for many patients. Childs et al⁹ have proposed a treatment-based classification system to further differentiate among this likely heterogeneous group of patients. In this classification, manual therapy to the cervical and thoracic spine, particularly thrust and non-thrust manipulation, is the main treatment intervention proposed for management of the mobility subgroup. There is growing evidence supporting the use of thoracic thrust manipulation in the management of this subgroup of patients with mechanical neck pain with multiple studies showing noted improvements in pain, range of motion, and function^10–13.However, the design of previous studies^10–13 has varied in that the researchers have used different numbers of manipulations. This makes it difficult for clinicians to determine how many applications of thrust manipulation are likely to maximize patient outcomes. In this context, one issue we need to consider is whether repeated application of thoracic manipulation leads to tolerance. Tolerance is defined here as a decrease in the effect size or magnitude of the intervention over time, as measured within sessions. Tolerance should affect the number of interventions provided. In the context of thoracic manipulation for patients with mechanical neck pain, tolerance to thoracic manipulation would logically decrease the number of manipulations that are applied and that are required for the demonstrated positive study outcomes.Paungmali et al¹⁴ studied tolerance to repeated applications of a manual non-thrust technique directed at the elbow region. They showed that the technique had a hypoalgesic effect measured as an increase in pressure pain threshold levels at each session that was of similar magnitude to the first time the technique was administered, suggesting that non-thrust techniques do not cause tolerance to repeated applications. It should be noted that this study did not include a control group so the possibility of consistent improvements in their cohort could have potentially been related to a placebo effect. Irrespective, this phenomenon of cumulative tolerance has yet to be investigated with regards to thrust techniques. Studying thrust in addition to non-thrust techniques is relevant, since non-thrust and thrust interventions stimulate different axial sensory beds¹⁵. Also, thoracic spine manipulation was shown to result in significantly greater short-term reductions in pain and disability than thoracic non-thrust manipulation in neck pain patients¹⁶. From a clinical perspective, one could argue that it is necessary to investigate the tolerance aspect not only with regard to neurophysiological measures, such as pressure pain thresholds, but also with regard to clinically relevant outcomes, such as pain and mobility.We recently conducted a randomized clinical controlled trial comparing the effectiveness of an electro- and thermotherapy program alone or in combination with thoracic spine thrust manipulation in patients with acute neck pain¹⁷. This paper presents a secondary analysis of data related to the tolerance aspect of the thoracic spine thrust manipulation. The purpose of this paper is to analyze whether repeated application of thoracic manipulation causes tolerance with regard to pain and mobility outcomes in patients with acute neck pain. We hypothesized that repeated application of thoracic spine manipulation would not lead to tolerance to repeated applications both with regard to pain and neck mobility outcomes.     

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.     

Predictors for identifying patients with mechanical neck pain who are likely to achieve short-term success with manipulative interventions directed at the cervical and thoracic spine

Objective

The purpose of this study was to identify the prognostic factors for individuals with mechanical neck pain likely to experience improvements in both pain and disability after the application of an intervention including cervical and thoracic spine thrust manipulations.

Methods

Patients presenting with mechanical neck pain participated in a prospective single-arm trial. Participants underwent a standardized examination and then received a series of thrust manipulations directed toward the cervical, cervicothoracic, and thoracic spine. Participants were classified as having achieved a successful outcome at the second and third sessions based on their perceived recovery. Potential prognostic variables were entered into a stepwise logistic regression model to determine the most accurate set of variables for the prediction of treatment success.

Results

Data from 81 subjects were included in the analysis, of which 50 experienced a successful outcome (61.7%). Five variables including pain intensity greater than 4.5 points; cervical extension less than 46°; presence of hypomobility at T1; a negative upper limb tension test and female sex were identified. If 4 of 5 variables were present (likelihood ratio, +1.9), the likelihood of success increased from 61.7% to 75.4%.

Conclusions

This study identified several prognostic clinical factors that can potentially identify, a priori, patients with neck pain who are likely to experience a rapid response to the application of an intervention including both cervical and thoracic spine manipulations. However, no combination of the variables was able to dramatically increase the posttest probability.     

Pressure pain threshold evaluation of the effect of spinal manipulation in the treatment of chronic neck pain: a pilot study

Nine subjects with chronic mechanical neck pain syndromes were evaluated for pressure pain threshold (PPT) over standardized tender points in the paraspinal area surrounding a manipulable spinal lesion. The subjects were then allocated randomly to an intervention consisting of either an oscillatory mobilization of the cervical spine (n = 4), which was designated as the control procedure, or a rotational manipulation of the cervical spine (n = 5). An assessor-blinded re-evaluation of the pressure pain threshold levels was conducted after 5 min. In the group receiving a manipulation the mean increases in pressure pain threshold ranged from 40-56% with an average of 45%. In the control group no change in any of the pressure pain thresholds was found. These results were analyzed using ANOVA and were found to be statistically significant (p less than 0.0001). This study confirms that manipulation can increase local paraspinal pain threshold levels. The use of the pressure pain threshold meter allows for the determination of such a beneficial effect in the deeper tissues.     

Subject Index

Abstract

Shoulder pain is a common orthopedic condition seen by physical therapists, with many potential contributing factors and proposed treatments. Although manual physical therapy interventions for the cervicothoracic spine and ribs have been investigated for this patient population, the specific effects of these treatments have not been reported. The purpose of this investigational study is to report the immediate effects of thoracic spine and rib manipulation in patients with primary complaints of shoulder pain. Using a test-retest design, 21 subjects with shoulder pain were treated during a single treatment session with high-velocity thrust manipulation to the thoracic spine or upper ribs. Post-treatment effects demonstrated a 51% (32mm) reduction in shoulder pain, a corresponding increase in shoulder range of motion (30°-38°), and a mean patient-perceived global rating of change of 4.2 (median 5). These immediate post-treatment results suggest that thoracic and rib manipulative therapy is associated with improved shoulder pain and motion in patients with shoulder pain, and further these interventions support the concept of a regional interdependence between the thoracic spine, upper ribs, and shoulder.     

Movement coordination and differential kinematics of the cervical and thoracic spines in people with chronic neck pain

Background

Research on the kinematics and inter-regional coordination of movements between the cervical and thoracic spines in motion adds to our understanding of the performance and interplay of these spinal regions. The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of chronic neck pain on the three-dimensional kinematics and coordination of the cervical and thoracic spines during active movements of the neck.

Methods

Three-dimensional spinal kinematics and movement coordination between the cervical, upper thoracic, and lower thoracic spines were examined by electromagnetic motion sensors in thirty-four individuals with chronic neck pain and thirty-four age- and gender-matched asymptomatic subjects. All subjects performed a set of free active neck movements in three anatomical planes in sitting position and at their own pace. Spinal kinematic variables (angular displacement, velocity, and acceleration) of the three defined regions, and movement coordination between regions were determined and compared between the two groups.

Findings

Subjects with chronic neck pain exhibited significantly decreased cervical angular velocity and acceleration of neck movement. Cross-correlation analysis revealed consistently lower degrees of coordination between the cervical and upper thoracic spines in the neck pain group. The loss of coordination was most apparent in angular velocity and acceleration of the spine.

Interpretation

Assessment of the range of motion of the neck is not sufficient to reveal movement dysfunctions in chronic neck pain subjects. Evaluation of angular velocity and acceleration and movement coordination should be included to help develop clinical intervention strategies to promote restoration of differential kinematics and movement coordination.     

Inclusion of thoracic spine thrust manipulation into an electro-therapy/thermal program for the management of patients with acute mechanical neck pain: a randomized clinical trial

Our aim was to examine the effects of a seated thoracic spine distraction thrust manipulation included in an electrotherapy/thermal program on pain, disability, and cervical range of motion in patients with acute neck pain. This randomized controlled trial included 45 patients (20 males, 25 females) between 23 and 44 years of age presenting with acute neck pain. Patients were randomly divided into 2 groups: an experimental group which received a thoracic manipulation, and a control group which did not receive the manipulative procedure. Both groups received an electrotherapy program consisting of 6 sessions of TENS (frequency 100Hz; 20min), superficial thermo-therapy (15min) and soft tissue massage. The experimental group also received a thoracic manipulation once a week for 3 consecutive weeks. Outcome measures included neck pain (numerical pain rate scale; NPRS), level of disability (Northwick Park Neck Pain Questionnaire; NPQ) and neck mobility. These outcomes were assessed at baseline and 1 week after discharge. A 2-way repeated-measures ANOVA with group as between-subject variable and time as within-subject variable was used. Patients receiving thoracic manipulation experienced greater reductions in both neck pain, with between-group difference of 2.3 (95% CI 2-2.7) points on a 11-NPRS, and perceived disability with between-group differences 8.5 (95% CI 7.2-9.8) points. Further, patients receiving thoracic manipulation experienced greater increases in all cervical motions with between-group differences of 10.6 degrees (95% CI 8.8-12.5 degrees) for flexion; 9.9 degrees (95% CI 8.1-11.7 degrees) for extension; 9.5 degrees (95% CI 7.6-11.4 degrees) for right lateral-flexion; 8 degrees (95% CI 6.2-9.8 degrees) for left lateral-flexion; 9.6 degrees (95% CI 7.7-11.6 degrees) for right rotation; and 8.4 degrees (95% CI 6.5-10.3 degrees) for left rotation. We found that the inclusion of a thoracic manipulation into an electrotherapy/thermal program was effective in reducing neck pain and disability, and in increasing active cervical mobility in patients with acute neck pain.     

Mobilizations of the asymptomatic cervical spine can reduce signs of shoulder dysfunction in adults

Generalized shoulder pain is a common problem that is difficult to treat and frequently recurrent. The asymptomatic cervical spine must be ruled out as a cause of any shoulder pain, as it can have a similar presentation to an isolated shoulder disorder. Previous studies have shown that lateral cervical glide mobilizations to the asymptomatic cervical spine at C5/6 can affect peripheral pain, but none have examined shoulder pain. A randomized, blinded, placebo-controlled, cross-over trial was used to examine the immediate effects of cervical lateral glide mobilizations on pain intensity and shoulder abduction painful arc in subjects with shoulder pain. Twenty-one subjects received interventions of both cervical mobilization and placebo over two sessions. Pain intensity using a visual analog scale (VAS) and painful arc were assessed prior to and following application of cervical mobilization or placebo intervention. Evaluation of cervical mobilization revealed the shoulder abduction painful arc (12.5 degrees +/-15.6 degrees, p=0.002) and shoulder pain intensity (1.3+/-1.1cm, p<0.001) were significantly decreased. The results of this study suggest that any immediate change in shoulder pain or active shoulder range of motion following cervical mobilizations indicate that treatment directed toward the asymptomatic cervical spine may expedite recovery.     

Immediate effects of active cranio-cervical flexion exercise versus passive mobilisation of the upper cervical spine on pain and performance on the cranio-cervical flexion test

This study compared the immediate effects of an assisted plus active cranio-cervical flexion exercise (exercise group) versus a passive mobilisation plus assisted cranio-cervical flexion (mobilisation group) on performance of the cranio-cervical flexion test (CCFT), cervical range of motion (ROM) and pain in patients with chronic neck pain. Eighteen volunteers with chronic idiopathic neck pain participated in the study and were randomised to one of the two intervention groups. Current level of pain, cervical ROM and pain perceived during movement, pressure pain threshold (PPT) and surface electromyography (EMG) during performance of the CCFT were measured before and immediately after the intervention. A significant reduction in resting pain and PPT measured over cervical sites was observed immediately following both interventions, although a greater change was observed for the exercise group. No change in cervical ROM was observed after either intervention. Reduced sternocleidomastoid and anterior scalene EMG amplitude were observed during stages of the CCFT but only for the participants in the active exercise group. Although both active and passive interventions offered pain relief, only the exercise group improved on a task of motor function highlighting the importance of specific active treatment for improved motor control of the cervical spine.