Investigating the effects of neuromobilization in lateral epicondylitis

Comparison of wrist range of motion and muscle strength in assembly workers with and without lateral epicondylitis

BACKGROUND

Lateral epicondylitis (LE), also called tennis elbow, is a common musculoskeletal disorder that causes pain in the elbow area and is highly prevalent in assembly workers who repeatedly move their wrists.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to compare the wrist ROM and muscle strength of assembly workers with and without LE.

METHODS

Forty-five male assembly line workers (23 with LE) participated in the study. Participants had their wrist range of motion (flexion, extension, ulnar deviation, and radial deviation) and strength (wrist flexors, extensors, and hand grip) measured using Smart KEMA sensors.

RESULTS

Workers with LE showed significantly reduced wrist extension and radial deviation ROM compared to workers without LE, with no significant differences in wrist flexion and ulnar deviation ROM between groups. Workers with LE had significantly lower wrist extensor strength compared to workers without LE, and there was no significant difference in wrist flexor and grip strength between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

For workers with LE, the difference in wrist ROM and muscle strength will be useful for planning intervention and evaluating treatment outcomes for assembly workers with LE.

Manual therapy and exercise for lateral elbow pain

BACKGROUND

Manual therapy and prescribed exercises are often provided together or separately in contemporary clinical practice to treat people with lateral elbow pain.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of manual therapy, prescribed exercises or both for adults with lateral elbow pain.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the databases CENTRAL, MEDLINE and Embase, and trial registries until 31 January 2024, unrestricted by language or date of publication.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised or quasi-randomised trials. Participants were adults with lateral elbow pain. Interventions were manual therapy, prescribed exercises or both. Primary comparators were placebo or minimal or no intervention. We also included comparisons of manual therapy and prescribed exercises with either intervention alone, with or without glucocorticoid injection. Exclusions were trials testing a single application of an intervention or comparison of different types of manual therapy or prescribed exercises.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected studies for inclusion, extracted trial characteristics and numerical data, and assessed study risk of bias and certainty of evidence using GRADE. The main comparisons were manual therapy, prescribed exercises or both compared with placebo treatment, and with minimal or no intervention. Major outcomes were pain, disability, heath-related quality of life, participant-reported treatment success, participant withdrawals, adverse events and serious adverse events. The primary endpoint was end of intervention for pain, disability, health-related quality of life and participant-reported treatment success and final time point for adverse events and withdrawals.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty-three trials (1612 participants) met our inclusion criteria (mean age ranged from 38 to 52 years, 47% female, 70% dominant arm affected). One trial (23 participants) compared manual therapy to placebo manual therapy, 12 trials (1124 participants) compared manual therapy, prescribed exercises or both to minimal or no intervention, six trials (228 participants) compared manual therapy and exercise to exercise alone, one trial (60 participants) compared the addition of manual therapy to prescribed exercises and glucocorticoid injection, and four trials (177 participants) assessed the addition of manual therapy, prescribed exercises or both to glucocorticoid injection. Twenty-one trials without placebo control were susceptible to performance and detection bias as participants were not blinded to the intervention. Other biases included selection (nine trials, 39%, including two quasi-randomised), attrition (eight trials, 35%) and selective reporting (15 trials, 65%) biases. We report the results of the main comparisons. Manual therapy versus placebo manual therapy Low-certainty evidence, based upon a single trial (23 participants) and downgraded due to indirectness and imprecision, indicates manual therapy may reduce pain and elbow disability at the end of two to three weeks of treatment. Mean pain at the end of treatment was 4.1 points with placebo (0 to 10 scale) and 2.0 points with manual therapy, MD -2.1 points (95% CI -4.2 to -0.1). Mean disability was 40 points with placebo (0 to 100 scale) and 15 points with manual therapy, MD -25 points (95% CI -43 to -7). There was no follow-up beyond the end of treatment to show if these effects were sustained, and no other major outcomes were reported. Manual therapy, prescribed exercises or both versus minimal intervention Low-certainty evidence indicates manual therapy, prescribed exercises or both may slightly reduce pain and disability at the end of treatment, but the effects were not sustained, and there may be little to no improvement in health-related quality of life or number of participants reporting treatment success. We downgraded the evidence due to increased risk of performance bias and detection bias across all the trials, and indirectness due to the multimodal nature of the interventions included in the trials. At four weeks to three months, mean pain was 5.10 points with minimal treatment and manual therapy, prescribed exercises or both reduced pain by a MD of -0.53 points (95% CI -0.92 to -0.14, I2 = 43%; 12 trials, 1023 participants). At four weeks to three months, mean disability was 63.8 points with minimal or no treatment and manual therapy, prescribed exercises or both reduced disability by a MD of -5.00 points (95% CI -9.22 to -0.77, I2 = 63%; 10 trials, 732 participants). At four weeks to three months, mean quality of life was 73.04 points with minimal treatment on a 0 to 100 scale and prescribed exercises reduced quality of life by a MD of -5.58 points (95% CI -10.29 to -0.99; 2 trials, 113 participants). Treatment success was reported by 42% of participants with minimal or no treatment and 57.1% of participants with manual therapy, prescribed exercises or both, RR 1.36 (95% CI 0.96 to 1.93, I2 = 73%; 6 trials, 770 participants). We are uncertain if manual therapy, prescribed exercises or both results in more withdrawals or adverse events. There were 83/566 participant withdrawals (147 per 1000) from the minimal or no intervention group, and 77/581 (126 per 1000) from the manual therapy, prescribed exercises or both groups, RR 0.86 (95% CI 0.66 to 1.12, I2 = 0%; 12 trials). Adverse events were mild and transient and included pain, bruising and gastrointestinal events, and no serious adverse events were reported. Adverse events were reported by 19/224 (85 per 1000) in the minimal treatment group and 70/233 (313 per 1000) in the manual therapy, prescribed exercises or both groups, RR 3.69 (95% CI 0.98 to 13.97, I2 = 72%; 6 trials).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Low-certainty evidence from a single trial in people with lateral elbow pain indicates that, compared with placebo, manual therapy may provide a clinically worthwhile benefit in terms of pain and disability at the end of treatment, although the 95% confidence interval also includes both an important improvement and no improvement, and the longer-term outcomes are unknown. Low-certainty evidence from 12 trials indicates that manual therapy and exercise may slightly reduce pain and disability at the end of treatment, but this may not be clinically worthwhile and these benefits are not sustained. While pain after treatment was an adverse event from manual therapy, the number of events was too small to be certain.

Effectiveness of Neural Mobilisation on Pain Intensity, Functional Status, and Physical Performance in Adults with Musculoskeletal Pain - A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVE

To investigate up-to-date evidence of the effectiveness of neural mobilisation techniques compared with any type of comparator in improving pain, function, and physical performance in people with musculoskeletal pain.

DATA SOURCES

The following sources were consulted: PubMed, Web of Science, CENTRAL, CINAHL, Scopus, and PEDro databases; scientific repositories; and clinical trial registers. The last search was performed on 01/06/2023.

METHODS

Two reviewers independently assessed the studies for inclusion. We included randomised, quasi-randomised, and crossover trials on musculoskeletal pain in which at least one group received neural mobilisation (alone or as part of multimodal interventions). Meta-analyses were performed where possible. The RoB 2 and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation tools were used to assess risk of bias and to rate the certainty of evidence, respectively.

RESULTS

Thirty-nine trials were identified. There was a significant effect favouring neural mobilisation for pain and function in people with low back pain, but not for flexibility. For neck pain, there was a significant effect favouring neural mobilisation as part of multimodal interventions for pain, but not for function and range of motion. Regarding other musculoskeletal conditions, it was not possible to conclude whether neural mobilisation is effective in improving pain and function. There was very low confidence for all effect estimates.

CONCLUSIONS

Neural mobilisation as part of multimodal interventions appears to have a positive effect on pain for patients with low back pain and neck pain and on function in people with low back pain. For the other musculoskeletal conditions, results are inconclusive.

Position statement: nonoperative management of lateral epicondylitis in adults

We sought to compare methods of nonsurgical treatment of lateral epicondylitis in men and women older than 18 years to develop a guideline intended for orthopedic surgeons and other health care providers who assess, counsel and care for these patients. We searched Medline, Embase and Cochrane through to Mar. 9, 2021, and included all English-language studies comparing nonsurgical approaches. We compared physiotherapy versus no active treatment, corticosteroids versus placebo, platelet-rich plasma (PRP) versus placebo, and autologous blood injection versus placebo. Outcomes of interest were pain outcomes (visual analogue scale scores) and functional outcomes. We rated the quality of the evidence and strength of recommendations using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. This guideline will benefit patients seeking nonsurgical intervention for lateral epicondylitis by improving counselling on nonsurgical treatment options and possible outcomes. It will also benefit surgical providers by improving their knowledge of various nonsurgical approaches. Data presented could be used to develop frameworks and tools for shared decision-making.