Pre-manipulative testing of the cervical spine review, revision and new clinical guidelines

Cervical manipulation versus thoracic or cervicothoracic manipulations for the management of neck pain. A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Cervical and thoracic thrust or non-thrust manipulations have shown to be effective in patients with neck pain, but there is a lack of studies comparing both interventions in patients with neck pain.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the effects of cervical thrust or non-thrust manipulations compared to thoracic or cervicothoracic manipulations for improving pain, disability, and range of motion in patients with neck pain.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

METHOD

Searches were performed in PubMed, PEDro, Cochrane Library, CINHAL, and Web of Science databases from inception to May 22, 2023. Randomized clinical trials comparing cervical thrust or non-thrust manipulations to thoracic or cervicothoracic manipulations were included. Methodological quality was assessed with PEDro scale, and the certainty of evidence was evaluated using GRADE guidelines.

RESULTS

Six studies were included. Meta-analyses revealed no differences between cervical thrust or non-thrust manipulations and thoracic or cervicothoracic manipulations in pain intensity, disability, or cervical range of motion in any plane. The certainty of evidence was downgraded to very low for pain intensity, to moderate or very low for disability and to low or very low for cervical range of motion.

CONCLUSION

There is moderate to very low certainty evidence that there is no difference in effectiveness between cervical thrust or non-thrust manipulations and thoracic or cervicothoracic manipulations for improving pain, disability, and range of motion in patients with neck pain.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION

CRD42023429933.

Identifying Patient Characteristics Associated With the Occurrence of Post Treatment Non-serious Adverse Events After Cervical Spine Manual Therapy Treatment in Patients With Neck Pain

OBJECTIVES

To compare prevalence rates of serious and non-serious adverse events after manipulation and mobilization and to identify risk factors of serious and non-serious adverse events following 4 types of manual therapy treatment in patients with neck pain.

DESIGN

A prospective cohort study in primary care manual therapy practice.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients with neck pain (N=686) provided data on adverse events after 1014 manipulation treatments, 829 mobilization treatments, 437 combined manipulation and mobilization treatments, and 891 treatments consisting of "other treatment modality".

INTERVENTIONS

Usual care manual therapy.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

A chi-square test was performed to explore differences in prevalence rates. Logistic regression analysis was performed within the 4 treatment groups. A priori we defined associations between patient-characteristics and adverse events of odds ratio (OR)>2 or OR<0.5 as clinically relevant.

RESULTS

No serious adverse events, such as cervical artery dissection or stroke, were reported. With regard to non-serious adverse events, we found that these are common after manual therapy treatment: prevalence rates are ranging from 0.3% to 64.7%. We found a statistically significant difference between the 4 types of treatments, detrimental to mobilization treatment. Logistic regression analysis resulted in 3 main predictors related to non-serious adverse events after manual therapy treatment: smoking (OR ranges from 2.10 [95% confidence interval [CI] 1.37-3.11] to 3.33 [95% CI 1.83-5.93]), the presence of comorbidity (OR ranges from 2.32 [95% CI 1.22-4.44] to 3.88 [95% CI 1.62-9.26]), and female sex (OR ranges from 0.22 [95% CI 0.11-0.46] to 0.49 [95% CI 0.28-0.86]).

CONCLUSION

There is a significant difference in the occurrence of non-serious adverse events after mobilization compared with manipulation or a combination of manipulation and mobilization. Non-serious adverse events in manual therapy practice are common and are associated with smoking and the presence of comorbidity. In addition, women are more likely to report non-serious adverse events.

Knowledge, beliefs, and attitudes of spinal manipulation: a cross-sectional survey of Italian physiotherapists

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

High-velocity low-amplitude thrust spinal manipulation (SM) is a recommended and commonly used manual therapy intervention in physiotherapy. Beliefs surrounding the safety and effectiveness of SM have challenged its use, and even advocated for its abandonment. Our study aimed to investigate the knowledge and beliefs surrounding SM by Italian physiotherapists compared with similar practitioners in other countries.

METHODS

An online survey with 41 questions was adapted from previous surveys and was distributed via a mailing list of the Italian Physiotherapists Association (March 22-26, 2020). The questionnaire was divided into 4 sections to capture information on participant demographics, utilization, potential barriers, and knowledge about SM. Questions were differentiated between spinal regions. Attitudes towards different spinal regions, attributes associated with beliefs, and the influence of previous educational background were each evaluated.

RESULTS

Of the 7398 registered physiotherapists, 575 (7.8%) completed the survey and were included for analysis. The majority of respondents perceived SM as safe and effective when applied to the thoracic (74.1%) and lumbar (72.2%) spines; whereas, a smaller proportion viewed SM to the upper cervical spine (56.8%) as safe and effective. Respondents reported they were less likely to provide and feel comfortable with upper cervical SM (respectively, 27.5% and 48.5%) compared to the thoracic (respectively, 52.2% and 74.8%) and lumbar spines (respectively, 46.3% and 74.3%). Most physiotherapists (70.4%) agreed they would perform additional screening prior to upper cervical SM compared to other spinal regions. Respondents who were aware of clinical prediction rules were more likely to report being comfortable with SM (OR 2.38-3.69) and to perceive it as safe (OR 1.75-3.12). Finally, physiotherapists without musculoskeletal specialization, especially those with a traditional manual therapy background, were more likely to perform additional screening prior to SM, use SM less frequently, report being less comfortable performing SM, and report upper cervical SM as less safe (p < 0.001).

DISCUSSION

The beliefs and attitudes of physiotherapists surrounding the use of SM are significantly different when comparing the upper cervical spine to other spinal regions. An educational background in traditional manual therapy significantly influences beliefs and attitudes. We propose an updated framework on evidence-based SM.

Effectiveness of spinal mobilization and postural correction exercises in the management of cervicogenic headache: A randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

The study aims to assess the effect of spinal mobilization and postural correction exercises in patients suffering from cervicogenic headache.

METHODS

A randomized controlled trial was conducted with 72 patients. Patients were randomly allocated into three groups: spinal mobilization (n = 24), postural correction exercises (n = 24), and control group (n = 24). The primary outcome measure was headache impact test-6, and secondary outcomes were headache intensity, neck pain intensity, and neck pain-related disability measured at baseline, postintervention, and follow-up period.

RESULT

Comparison of baseline data (at 0 weeks) among groups showed a statistically nonsignificant difference. There was statistically significant improvement at postintervention (immediately after fourth week) in postural correction exercises group [headache disability: 14.95 ± 7.91 (p < .001); headache intensity: 2.58 ± 1.24 (p < .001); neck disability: 27.66 ± 18.71 (p < .001); neck pain: 1.91 ± 1.44 (p < .001)] and spinal mobilization group [headache disability: 13.83 ± 6.21 (p < .001); headache intensity: 2.29 ± 1.23 (p < .001); neck disability: 23.39 ± 19.51 (p < .001); neck pain: 1.72 ± 0.84 (p < .001)] as compared to the control group. The result of within-group analysis suggests that there was a statistically significant improvement in postintervention (immediately after fourth week) and follow-up (immediately after eighth week) scores as compared to baseline (at 0 weeks) scores for all outcomes in postural correction exercises [headache disability (p < .001), headache intensity (p < .001), neck disability (p < .001), neck pain (p < 0 .001)] as well as in spinal mobilization group [headache disability (p < .001), headache intensity (p < .001), neck disability (p < .001), neck pain (p < .001 for pre versus post; p = .001 for pre versus follow-up)]. There was a statistically nonsignificant difference between postintervention and follow-up scores of all the outcomes in the postural correction exercise and spinal mobilization group, which indicates that improvement in these groups was maintained during the follow-up period.

CONCLUSION

Spinal mobilization and postural correction exercises are effective in the management of cervicogenic headache.

Assessing Cranial Nerves in Physical Therapy Practice: Findings from a Cross-Sectional Survey and Implication for Clinical Practice

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Serious pathologies of the neck can potentially result in cranial nerve palsy. Knowledge about cranial nerve examination (CNE) seems sparse, and its use is still unknown. We aim to investigate the knowledge, skills, and utilization of CNE of Italian physiotherapists.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

An online cross-sectional survey.

RESULTS

396 completed the survey, reaching the required sample size. Although Italian physiotherapists consider CNE relevant (mean ± SD = 7.6/10 ± 2.0), over half of all responders (n = 229 (57.8%)) were not trained in the fundamentals and around a third did not use it in their daily practice (n = 138 (34.8%)). Additionally, participants were unconfident and insecure in conducting (n = 152 (38.4%) and n = 147 (37.1%)), interpreting (n = 140 (35.4%) and n = 164 (41.4%)), and managing the CNE (n = 141 (35.6%) and n = 154 (38.9%)). Possessing a musculoskeletal specialization was associated with an increased value attributed to clinical practice guidelines and reduced the lack of confidence in conducting, interpreting, and managing the CNE (respectively, n = 35 (25.5%), p = 0.0001; n = 32 (23.4%) p = 0.0002; n = 32 (23.4%) p = 0.0002). Working in a direct access setting significantly increased the considered relevance of guidelines and the concerns about arterial (p = 0.004) and other serious pathologies (p = 0.021). Pain and visual disturbances were considered the main indicators to CNE, demonstrating limited knowledge of signs and symptoms' indicating CNE. Participants considered specific training in CNE as relevant (mean ± SD = 7.6/10 = 2.1).

CONCLUSIONS

a substantial proportion of Italian physiotherapists are not schooled in the fundamentals of cranial nerve examination. Given the number of physiotherapists who work in first contact roles, this is a professional concern.

Differences in force-time parameters and electromyographic characteristics of two high-velocity, low-amplitude spinal manipulations following one another in quick succession

BACKGROUND

Spinal manipulative therapy is an effective treatment for neck pain. However, the mechanisms underlying its clinical efficacy are not fully understood. Previous studies have not systematically compared force-time parameters and electromyographic responses associated with spinal manipulation. In this study, force-time parameters and electromyographic characteristics associated with multiple manual high-velocity, low-amplitude cervical and upper thoracic spinal manipulations were investigated. The purpose of this analysis was to compare the force-time parameters and electromyographic characteristics between two spinal manipulations delivered following one another in quick succession if the first thrust was not associated with an audible cavitation.

METHODS

Nine asymptomatic and eighteen symptomatic participants received six Diversified-style spinal manipulations to the cervical and upper thoracic spines during data collected February 2018 to September 2019. Peak force, rate of force application and thrust duration were measured using a pressure pad. Bipolar surface electrodes were used to measure the electromyographic responses and reflex delay times in sixteen neck, back and limb outlet muscles bilaterally. Differences in force-time parameters and electromyographic data were analyzed between the first and second thrust.

RESULTS

Fifty-two spinal manipulations were included in this analysis. Peak force was greater (p < 0.001) and rate of force application faster (p < 0.001) in the second thrust. Furthermore, peak electromyographic responses were higher following the second thrust in asymptomatic (p < 0.001) and symptomatic (p < 0.001) subjects. Also, electromyographic delays were shorter in the symptomatic compared to the asymptomatic participants for the second thrust (p = 0.039). There were no adverse patient events.

CONCLUSION

When a second manipulation was delivered because there was not audible cavitation during the first thrust, the second thrust was associated with greater treatment forces and faster thrust rates. Peak electromyographic responses were greater following the second thrust.

Proposing a new algorithm for premanipulative testing in physical therapy practice

In the field of physical therapy, there is debate as to the clinical utility of premanipulative vascular assessments. Cervical artery dysfunction (CAD) risk assessment involves a multi-system approach to differentiate between spontaneous versus mechanical events. The purposes of this inductive analysis of the literature are to discuss the link between cervical spine manipulation (CSM) and CAD, to examine the literature on premanipulative vascular tests, and to suggest an optimal sequence of premanipulative testing based on the differentiation of a spontaneous versus mechanical vascular event. Knowing what premanipulative vascular tests assess and the associated clinical application facilitates an evidence-informed decision for clinical application of vascular assessment before CSM.

Concurrent validity and reliability of measuring range of motion during the cervical flexion rotation test with a novel digital goniometer

BACKGROUND

Headache is a common and costly health problem. Although the pathogenesis of headache is heterogeneous, reported contributing factors are dysfunctions of the upper cervical spine. The flexion rotation test (FRT) is a commonly used diagnostic test to detect upper cervical movement impairment. A digital goniometer may support precise measurement of movement impairment in the upper cervical spine. However, its reliability and validity is not assessed, yet. The aim of this study was to investigate the reliability and validity of the digital goniometer compared to an ultrasound-based movement analysis system.

METHODS

Two separate cross-sectional studies were conducted using the digital goniometer EasyAngle (Meloq AB, Stockholm, Sweden) for a) investigating the concurrent validity of upper cervical range of motion (ROM) during the FRT and b) determining the inter- and intra-rater reliability in the target population of patients with head and neck pain. Sixty-two participants, 39 with and 23 without head and neck pain, were recruited for the concurrent validity study. For the reliability study, a total of 50 participants were recruited. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) and Bland Altmann plots were used to assess validity and ICC values, Bland Altmann plots as well as Kappa coefficients were used for estimating intra-rater and inter-rater reliability.

RESULTS

Concurrent validity was strong with an ICC (2,1) of 0.97 for ROM to either side (95%CI = 0.95-0.98). Bland Altman Plots revealed a mean difference between measurement systems of 0.5° for the left and 0.11° for the right side. The inter-rater ICC (2,1) was 0.66 (95%CI 0.47-0.79, p <  0.001, SEM 6.6°), indicating good reliability. The limits of agreement were between 10.25° and - 11.89°, the mean difference between both raters was - 0.82°. Intra-rater reliability for the measurement of ROM during the FRT was between 0.96 (ICC 3,1) for rater 1 and 0.94 (ICC 3,1) for rater 2.

CONCLUSIONS

The digital goniometer demonstrated strong concurrent validity and good to strong reliability and can be used in clinical practice to accurately determine movement impairment in the upper cervical spine.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

German Registry of Clinical Trials DRKS00013051 .

Should we abandon positional testing for vertebrobasilar insufficiency?

Positional testing for vertebrobasilar insufficiency (VBI) is used by physiotherapists as part of pre-manipulative screening protocols. Recently, the validity of the tests have been questioned because a negative test does not infer safety with cervical manipulative therapy but the reasoning surrounding this opinion may be questioned. While the positional tests were developed to test vertebral artery flow contralateral to the direction of head movement and the subsequent effect on cerebral blood supply, as inferred by symptom reproduction, ultrasound studies have shown that vertebral artery flow is inherently variable. Rather, the tests should be considered as testing for adequacy of collateral flow in particular head positions rather than decreased blood flow in a particular artery, with more attention to characteristics of symptom reproduction. We contend that positional testing for VBI remains valuable for testing adequacy of collateral flow, and also has an important place as part of the differential diagnosis of individuals with dizziness or imbalance. The physiotherapist's ability to differentially diagnose dizziness and recognise the presence or not of VBI is not only critical for prompt medical investigation and management because it is a risk factor for transient ischaemic events and stroke, but has important influences over management decisions regarding cervical musculoskeletal treatment including exercise interventions. Importantly, the positional tests should not be considered as tests of arterial integrity and used to assess the risk of damage to the vertebral or internal carotid artery or presence of cervical arterial dissection. Urgent research is needed before we abandon positional testing prematurely.

Reflex Responses of Neck, Back, and Limb Muscles to High-Velocity, Low-Amplitude Manual Cervical and Upper Thoracic Spinal Manipulation of Asymptomatic Individuals-A Descriptive Study

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this research was to determine the extent of reflex responses after spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) of the cervical and upper thoracic spine.

METHODS

Eleven asymptomatic participants received 6 commonly used SMTs to the cervical and upper thoracic spine. Bipolar surface electromyography electrodes were used to measure reflex responses of 16 neck, back, and proximal limb muscles bilaterally. The percentage of occurrence and the extent of reflex responses of these muscles were determined.

RESULTS

Reflex responses after cervical SMT were typically present in all neck and most back muscles, whereas responses in the outlets to the arm and leg were less frequent. This trend was similar, although decreased in magnitude, after thoracic SMT.

CONCLUSION

Reflex responses were greatest after upper cervical SMT and lowest with thoracic SMT.

Comparison of CPG's for the diagnosis, prognosis and management of non-specific neck pain: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Neck pain (NP) is a very common musculoskeletal condition with potential for a high burden in disability and length of disorder. Clinical practice guidelines (CPG) give recommendations to clinicians for providing optimal care for patients however best practice recommendations are often contradictory. The purpose for this review was to conduct a SR of CPGs to assess the management recommendations for NP (diagnosis, treatment, prognosis, imaging).

METHODS

Standard SR methodology was employed including a grey literature search (including the National Guideline Clearing House). Medline, Cinahl, Embase, ILC, Cochrane, Central, and Lilacs were searched from 1995-to March 2018. Two raters evaluated all citations and a third rater resolved any disagreements. The AGREE II was used to assess risk of bias of each CPG. Data was extracted and included CPG purpose, type of NP problem and clinical recommendations. The AGREE II critical appraisal tool was used to assess risk of bias of each CPG.

RESULTS

From 640 articles, 241 were available for screening. A total of 46 guidelines were selected. CPG's were categorized by the NP population (General NP, whiplash, interventional, headache and risk for vertebral insufficiency) and type of clinical aim (diagnosis, prognosis, treatment, imaging). Each clinical NP population had a large overlap of clinical aims presented. The CPGs were directed to a variety of clinicians that included physicians, physiotherapists and chiropractors. Results suggest heterogeneity in CPG recommendations within each clinical aim. CPG characteristics accounting for these differences are outlined.

CONCLUSION

The majority of CPGs were developed for general NP that focused on treatment recommendations, with fewer number aimed at recommendations for diagnosis, prognosis, and outcomes. Heterogeneity of recommendations within the categories were noted as were potential factors associated with these differences, including CPG quality as assessed by the AGREE II.

Australian musculoskeletal physiotherapist's perceptions, attitudes and opinions towards pre-manipulative screening of the cervical spine prior to manual therapy: Report from the focus groups

BACKGROUND

The Australian Physiotherapy Association 2006 VBI Guidelines are used by many of the member organisations of IFOMPT. These Guidelines are due for revision incorporating recent research findings, international guides, and member's recommendations.

PURPOSE

To identify and consider Australian musculoskeletal physiotherapists' recommendations to inform revision of the 2006 VBI Guidelines.

METHODS

Focus groups were conducted in the five larger Australian state capitals by an independent qualitative researcher and a subject expert. Qualitative data were collected from 41 musculoskeletal physiotherapists who were purposefully recruited for their broad range of experience and qualifications. The five stage Framework Analysis approach was used to analyse and interpret data.

RESULTS

Participants recommended that the revised Guidelines have a new title reflecting a broader risk assessment and management approach, encompassing both musculoskeletal and relevant cardio-vascular risks and informed by contemporary research evidence and clinical experience. Participants requested a positively worded stepwise guide to clinical reasoning for all cervical spine manual treatment scenarios including the process of gaining and recording consent. Participants advised on individual components of the Guidelines needing to be revised or removed. The revised Guidelines, once approved, need to be disseminated in written and electronic formats to all clinicians. Training and education are required to ensure appropriate uptake within and beyond the profession.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

To ensure their clinical acceptance and utility, the Revised Guidelines need to reflect the current use and recommendations of musculoskeletal physiotherapists. Sound knowledge translation processes are then needed to ensure that the Guidelines are incorporated into practice.

Considerations to improve the safety of cervical spine manual therapy

Manipulation and mobilisation of the cervical spine are well established interventions in the management of patients with headache and/or neck pain. However, their benefits are accompanied by potential, yet rare risks in terms of serious adverse events, including neurovascular insult to the brain. A recent international framework for risk assessment and management offers directions in the mitigation of this risk by facilitating sound clinical reasoning. The aim of this article is to critically reflect on and summarize the current knowledge about cervical spine manual therapy and to provide guidance for clinical reasoning for cervical spine manual therapy.

Adverse events following cervical manipulative therapy: consensus on classification among Dutch medical specialists, manual therapists, and patients

Objectives

To obtain consensus-based agreement on a classification system of adverse events (AE) following cervical spinal manipulation. The classification system should be comprised of clear definitions, include patients' and clinicians' perspectives, and have an acceptable number of categories.

Methods

Design: A three-round Delphi study. Participants: Thirty Dutch participants (medical specialists, manual therapists, and patients) participated in an online survey. Procedure: Participants inventoried AE and were asked about their preferences for either a three- or a four-category classification system. The identified AE were classified by two analysts following the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF), and the International Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD-10). Participants were asked to classify the severity for all AE in relation to the time duration.

Results

Consensus occurred in a three-category classification system. There was strong consensus for 16 AE in all severities (no, minor, and major AE) and all three time durations [hours, days, weeks]. The 16 AE included anxiety, flushing, skin rash, fainting, dizziness, coma, altered sensation, muscle tenderness, pain, increased pain during movement, radiating pain, dislocation, fracture, transient ischemic attack, stroke, and death. Mild to strong consensus was reached for 13 AE.

Discussion

A consensus-based classification system of AE is established which includes patients' and clinicians' perspectives and has three categories. The classification comprises a precise description of potential AE in accordance with internationally accepted classifications. After international validation, clinicians and researchers may use this AE classification system to report AE in clinical practice and research.

Effects of Head Position on Cerebral Oxygenation and Blood Flow Velocity During Thyroidectomy

OBJECTIVE

Determining the blood flow through intra and extra-cranial arteries during neck extension may be helpful but is a controversial issue. We aimed to elucidate the changes in cerebral blood flow related to head positioning during thyroid surgery by carotid Doppler examination and regional oxygen saturation variations.

METHODS

Thirty patients were recruited to the study. Patients were positioned with a final position of thyroidectomy consisting a 30° semi Fowler with the extension of neck and head. Values of peak systolic velocity, average velocity, arterial diameter and blood flow volume of the common carotid artery were calculated. Bilateral regional cerebral oxygen saturation were monitored continuously.

RESULTS

At the end of the operation, peak systolic velocity, average velocity and blood flowvolume of the common carotid artery decreased significantly compared to the baseline measurement (p<0.001). Both left and right cerebral oximetry measurements showed a significant increase after induction and the increased oxymetric values persisted at the end of the operation (p<0.001). Age, body mass index, surgical duration and anaesthesia duration were found not to be correlated with the changes occurred in the values of peak systolic velocity, average velocity, arterial diameter, blood flow volume of the common carotid artery, left and right regional cerebral oxygen saturation after induction and at the end of surgery.

CONCLUSION

The head and neck extension given for thyroidectomy negatively affect carotid blood flow and cerebral oxygenation gradually and become pronounced especially at the end of surgery. In conclusion, it is important to maintain the cerebral perfusion pressure and cerebral blood flow.

An anatomical study of arcuate foramen and its clinical implications: a case report

BACKGROUND

The objective of this paper is to describe the relationship of the vertebral artery (VA) to the Atlas (C1) in the sub-occipital region in the presence of arcuate foramen; and discuss the clinical implications related to manual therapies and surgical implications related to screw placement. This study is an anatomical cadaveric case report of symmetrical bilateral lateral and dorsal arcuate foramina on the C1 dorsal arch.

CASE PRESENTATION

Out of 40 cadavers that were available for use in teaching anatomy in the university setting, three presented with anomalies of the C1 dorsal arch. The sub-occipital regions were skillfully prosected to preserve related structures, especially VAs, sub-occipital and greater occipital nerves. Visual observations, photographs, measurements, and radiographic examinations were performed between January 15, 2014 and August 25, 2014. One cadaver (Specimen A) presented with complete bilateral ossified arcuate foramina, and two presented with partial ossification of the atlanto-occipital membrane. Specimen A presented the bilateral anomaly which is almost symmetrical. The VAs were found passing through double foramina (lateral and dorsal) on each side.

CONCLUSIONS

Arcuate foramina have been shown to be commonly found anomalies with highly variable shapes and sizes, even in the same individual with a bilateral condition. This study found a rare type of the anomaly associated with the C1 dorsal arch, which protected the VA against manual pressure. However, VA, in this case, would be more susceptible to dissection. The presence of the arcuate foramen would also complicate screw placement during surgery. Clinical pre-screening for signs of vertebrobasilar insufficiency is important for chiropractic and manual therapies.

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.

Comparison of cervical spine stiffness in individuals with chronic nonspecific neck pain and asymptomatic individuals

STUDY DESIGN

Clinical measurement, cross-sectional.

OBJECTIVE

To determine if spinal joint stiffness is different in individuals with nonspecific neck pain, and whether stiffness magnitude is associated with pain intensity and disability.

BACKGROUND

Manual therapists commonly evaluate spinal joint stiffness in patients presenting with nonspecific neck pain. However, a relationship between stiffness and neck pain has not yet been demonstrated.

METHODS

Spinal stiffness at C7 was objectively measured in participants with chronic nonspecific neck pain whose symptomatic spinal level was identified as C7 (n = 12) and in age- and sex-matched asymptomatic controls (n = 12). Stiffness (slope of the linear region of the force-displacement curve) was quantified using a device that applied 5 standardized mechanical force cycles to the C7 spinous process, while concurrently measuring displacement and resistance to movement. Stiffness was compared between groups using an independent t test. Spearman rho and Pearson r were used to determine the extent to which stiffness magnitude was associated with pain intensity (visual analog scale) and level of disability (Neck Disability Index), respectively, in the group with neck pain.

RESULTS

Participants with nonspecific neck pain had greater spinal joint stiffness at C7 compared with asymptomatic individuals (mean difference, 1.78 N/mm; 95% confidence interval: 0.28, 3.27; P = .022). However, stiffness magnitude in the group with neck pain was not associated (P>.05) with pain intensity or level of disability.

CONCLUSION

These preliminary results suggest that cervical spine stiffness may be greater in the presence of nonspecific neck pain. However, judgments regarding pain intensity and level of disability should not be inferred from examinations of spinal joint stiffness.

Quantifying strain in the vertebral artery with simultaneous motion analysis of the head and neck: a preliminary investigation

BACKGROUND

Spontaneous vertebral artery dissection has significant mortality and morbidity among young adults. Unfortunately, causal mechanisms remain unclear. The purpose of this study was to quantify mechanical strain in the vertebral artery while simultaneously capturing motion analysis data during passive movements of the head and neck relative to the trunk during spinal manipulation and cardinal planes of motion.

METHODS

Eight piezoelectric crystals (four per vertebral artery) were sutured into the lumen of the left and right vertebral arteries of 3 cadaveric specimens. Strain was then calculated as changes in length between neighboring crystals from a neutral head/neck reference position using ultrasound pulses. Simultaneously, passive motion of the head and neck on the trunk was captured using eight infrared cameras. The instantaneous strain arising in the vertebral artery was correlated with the relative changes in head position.

FINDINGS

Strain in the contralateral vertebral artery during passive flexion-rotation compared to that of extension-rotation is variable ([df=32]: -0.61<r<0.55). Peak strain does not coincide with peak angular displacement during spinal manipulation and cardinal planes of motion. Axial rotation displayed the greatest amount of strain. The greatest amount of strain achieved during spinal manipulation was comparably lower than strains achieved during passive end range motions and previously reported failure limits.

INTERPRETATION

The results of this study suggest that vertebral artery strains during head movements including spinal manipulation, do not exceed published failure strains. This study provides new evidence that peak strain in the vertebral artery may not occur at the end range of motion, but rather at some intermediate point during the head and neck motion.

Comparison of mulligan sustained natural apophyseal glides and maitland mobilizations for treatment of cervicogenic dizziness: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

There is short-term evidence for treatment of cervicogenic dizziness with Mulligan sustained natural apophyseal glides (SNAGs) but no evidence for treatment with Maitland mobilizations.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to compare the effectiveness of SNAGs and Maitland mobilizations for cervicogenic dizziness.

DESIGN

A double-blind, parallel-arm randomized controlled trial was conducted.

SETTING

The study was conducted at a university in Newcastle, Australia.

PARTICIPANTS

Eighty-six people with cervicogenic dizziness were the study participants.

INTERVENTIONS

Included participants were randomly allocated to receive 1 of 3 interventions: Mulligan SNAGs (including self-administered SNAGs), Maitland mobilizations plus range-of-motion exercises, or placebo.

MEASUREMENTS

The primary outcome measure was intensity of dizziness. Other outcome measures were: frequency of dizziness, the Dizziness Handicap Inventory (DHI), intensity of pain, and global perceived effect (GPE).

RESULTS

Both manual therapy groups had reduced dizziness intensity and frequency posttreatment and at 12 weeks compared with baseline. There was no change in the placebo group. Both manual therapy groups had less dizziness intensity posttreatment (SNAGs: mean difference=-20.7, 95% confidence interval [95% CI]=-33.6, -7.7; mobilizations: mean difference=-15.2, 95% CI=-27.9, -2.4) and at 12 weeks (SNAGs: mean difference=-18.4, 95% CI=-31.3, -5.4; mobilizations: mean difference=-14.4, 95% CI=-27.4, -1.5) compared with the placebo group. Compared with the placebo group, both the SNAG and Maitland mobilization groups had less frequency of dizziness at 12 weeks. There were no differences between the 2 manual therapy interventions for these dizziness measures. For DHI and pain, all 3 groups improved posttreatment and at 12 weeks. Both manual therapy groups reported a higher GPE compared with the placebo group. There were no treatment-related adverse effects lasting longer than 24 hours.

LIMITATIONS

The therapist performing the interventions was not blind to group allocation.

CONCLUSIONS

Both SNAGs and Maitland mobilizations provide comparable immediate and sustained (12 weeks) reductions in intensity and frequency of chronic cervicogenic dizziness.

Dose optimization for spinal treatment effectiveness: a randomized controlled trial investigating the effects of high and low mobilization forces in patients with neck pain

STUDY DESIGN

Randomized controlled trial. Objective To determine if force magnitude during posterior-to-anterior mobilization affects immediate and short-term outcomes in patients with chronic, nonspecific neck pain.

BACKGROUND

The optimal dose of mobilization to effectively treat patients with neck pain is not known.

METHODS

Patients with neck pain of at least 3 months in duration (n = 64) were randomized to receive a single treatment of posterior-to-anterior mobilization applied with 30 N or 90 N of mean peak force (3 sets of 30 seconds) or a placebo (detuned laser) on the spinous process at the painful spinal level. Pressure pain threshold, pain measured with a visual analog scale (range, 0-100 mm), cervical range of motion, and spinal stiffness at the painful spinal level (measured with a custom device and normalized as a percentage of C7 stiffness) were assessed before, immediately after, and at a mean ± SD follow-up of 4.0 ± 1.8 days following treatment. Repeated-measures analysis of covariance and Bonferroni-adjusted post hoc tests determined group differences for each outcome measure after treatment and at follow-up.

RESULTS

At follow-up, the 90-N group had less pain than the 30-N group (mean difference, 11.3 mm; 95% confidence interval: 0.1, 22.6 mm; P = .048) and lower stiffness than the placebo group (mean difference, 17.5%; 95% confidence interval: 4.2%, 30.9%; P = .006). These differences were not present immediately after treatment. There were no significant between-group differences in pressure pain threshold or range of motion after treatment or at follow-up.

CONCLUSION

A specific dose of mobilization, in terms of applied force, appears necessary for reducing stiffness and potentially pain in patients with chronic neck pain. Changes were not observed immediately after mobilization, suggesting that its effects are not directly mechanical.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ( http://www.anzctr.org.au/): ACTRN12611000374965.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapy, level 1b-.

Effect of selected manual therapy interventions for mechanical neck pain on vertebral and internal carotid arterial blood flow and cerebral inflow

BACKGROUND

Manual therapy of the cervical spine has occasionally been associated with serious adverse events involving compromise of the craniocervical arteries. Ultrasound studies have shown certain neck positions can alter craniocervical arterial blood flow velocities; however, findings are conflicting. Knowledge about the effects of neck position on blood flow may assist clinicians in avoiding potentially hazardous practices.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of selected manual therapeutic interventions on blood flow in the craniocervical arteries and blood supply to the brain using magnetic resonance angiography (MRA).

DESIGN

This was an experimental, observational magnetic resonance imaging study.

METHOD

Twenty adult participants who were healthy and had a mean age of 33 years were imaged using MRA in the following neck positions: neutral, rotation, rotation/distraction (similar to a Cyriax manipulation), C1-C2 rotation (similar to a Maitland or osteopathic manipulation), and distraction.

RESULTS

The participants were imaged using 3T MRA. All participants had normal vascular anatomy. Average inflow to the brain in neutral was 6.98 mL/s and was not significantly changed by any of the test positions. There was no significant difference in flow in any of the 4 arteries in any position from neutral, despite large individual variations.

LIMITATIONS

Only individuals who were asymptomatic were investigated, and a short section of the arteries only were imaged.

CONCLUSIONS

Blood flow to the brain does not appear to be compromised by positions commonly used in manual therapy. Positions using end-range neck rotation and distraction do not appear to be more hazardous to cerebral circulation than more segmentally localized techniques.

Safety of cervical spine manipulation: are adverse events preventable and are manipulations being performed appropriately? A review of 134 case reports

BACKGROUND

Cervical spine manipulation (CSM) is a commonly utilized intervention, but its use remains controversial.

PURPOSE

To retrospectively analyze all available documented case reports in the literature describing patients who had experienced severe adverse events (AEs) after receiving CSM to determine if the CSM was used appropriately, and if these types of AEs could have been prevented using sound clinical reasoning on the part of the clinician.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health were systematically searched for case reports between 1950 and 2010 of AEs following CSM.

STUDY SELECTION

Case reports were included if they were peer-reviewed; published between 1950 and 2010; case reports or case series; and had CSM as an intervention. Articles were excluded if the AE occurred without CSM (e.g. spontaneous); they were systematic or literature reviews. Data extracted from each case report included: gender; age; who performed the CSM and why; presence of contraindications; the number of manipulation interventions performed; initial symptoms experienced after the CSM; and type of resultant AE.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Based on the information gathered, CSMs were categorized as appropriate or inappropriate, and AEs were categorized as preventable, unpreventable, or unknown. Chi-square analysis with an alpha level of 0.05 was used to determine if there was a difference in proportion between six categories: appropriate/preventable, appropriate/unpreventable, appropriate/unknown, inappropriate/preventable, inappropriate/unpreventable, and inappropriate/unknown.

RESULTS

One hundred thirty four cases, reported in 93 case reports, were reviewed. There was no significant difference in proportions between appropriateness and preventability, P = .46. Of the 134 cases, 60 (44.8%) were categorized as preventable, 14 (10.4%) were unpreventable and 60 (44.8%) were categorized as 'unknown'. CSM was performed appropriately in 80.6% of cases. Death resulted in 5.2% (n = 7) of the cases, mostly caused by arterial dissection.

LIMITATIONS

There may have been discrepancies between what was reported in the cases and what actually occurred, since physicians dealing with the effects of the AE, rather than the clinician performing the CSM, published many of the cases.

CONCLUSIONS

This review showed that, if all contraindications and red flags were ruled out, there was potential for a clinician to prevent 44.8% of AEs associated with CSM. Additionally, 10.4% of the events were unpreventable, suggesting some inherent risk associated with CSM even after a thorough exam and proper clinical reasoning.

Bilateral and multiple cavitation sounds during upper cervical thrust manipulation

Background

The popping produced during high-velocity, low-amplitude (HVLA) thrust manipulation is a common sound; however to our knowledge, no study has previously investigated the location of cavitation sounds during manipulation of the upper cervical spine. The primary purpose was to determine which side of the spine cavitates during C1-2 rotatory HVLA thrust manipulation. Secondary aims were to calculate the average number of pops, the duration of upper cervical thrust manipulation, and the duration of a single cavitation.

Methods

Nineteen asymptomatic participants received two upper cervical thrust manipulations targeting the right and left C1-2 articulation, respectively. Skin mounted microphones were secured bilaterally over the transverse process of C1, and sound wave signals were recorded. Identification of the side, duration, and number of popping sounds were determined by simultaneous analysis of spectrograms with audio feedback using custom software developed in Matlab.

Results

Bilateral popping sounds were detected in 34 (91.9%) of 37 manipulations while unilateral popping sounds were detected in just 3 (8.1%) manipulations; that is, cavitation was significantly (P < 0.001) more likely to occur bilaterally than unilaterally. Of the 132 total cavitations, 72 occurred ipsilateral and 60 occurred contralateral to the targeted C1-2 articulation. In other words, cavitation was no more likely to occur on the ipsilateral than the contralateral side (P = 0.294). The mean number of pops per C1-2 rotatory HVLA thrust manipulation was 3.57 (95% CI: 3.19, 3.94) and the mean number of pops per subject following both right and left C1-2 thrust manipulations was 6.95 (95% CI: 6.11, 7.79). The mean duration of a single audible pop was 5.66 ms (95% CI: 5.36, 5.96) and the mean duration of a single manipulation was 96.95 ms (95% CI: 57.20, 136.71).

Conclusions

Cavitation was significantly more likely to occur bilaterally than unilaterally during upper cervical HVLA thrust manipulation. Most subjects produced 3–4 pops during a single rotatory HVLA thrust manipulation targeting the right or left C1-2 articulation; therefore, practitioners of spinal manipulative therapy should expect multiple popping sounds when performing upper cervical thrust manipulation to the atlanto-axial joint. Furthermore, the traditional manual therapy approach of targeting a single ipsilateral or contralateral facet joint in the upper cervical spine may not be realistic.

An investigation into the kinematics of 2 cervical manipulation techniques

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to quantify the kinematics of the premanipulative position, the angular displacement, and velocity of thrust of 2 commonly used cervical spine manipulative procedures using inertial sensor technology.

METHODS

Thirteen asymptomatic subjects (7 females; mean age, 25.3 years; mean height, 170.9 cm; mean weight, 65.3 kg) received a right-handed and left-handed downslope and upslope manipulation, aimed at C4/5 while cervical kinematics were measured using an inertial sensor mounted on the forehead of the subject. One therapist used the upslope, and another therapist, the downslope, as was their preferred method. t tests were used to compare techniques and handiness.

RESULTS

The results demonstrated differences in the kinematics between the 2 techniques. The downslope manipulation was associated with a mean premanipulative position of 24.8° side bending and 2.7° rotation, thrust displacement magnitude comprising of 4.5° side bending and 5.4° rotation with thrust velocity comprising, on average, of 57.5°/s side bending and 74.8°/s rotation. Upslope premanipulation was on average comprised of 30.1° side bending and 8.4° rotation, thrust displacement comprised of 4.5° side bending and 12.7° rotation with thrust velocity comprising of 75.9°/s side bending and 194.7°/s rotation.

CONCLUSION

The results of this study demonstrate that there are different kinematic patterns for these 2 manipulative techniques.

Assessing the risk of stroke from neck manipulation: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Strokes, typically involving vertebral artery dissection, can follow cervical spinal manipulative therapy, and these types of stroke occur rarely. There is disagreement about whether a strong association between neck manipulation and stroke exists. An earlier systematic review found two relevant studies of association that used controls, which also discussed the limitations of the two papers. Our systematic review updates the earlier review, and aims to determine whether conclusive evidence of a strong association exists.

METHODS

PRISMA guidelines for systematic reviews were followed, and the literature was searched using a strategy that included the terms 'neck manipulation' and 'stroke' from the PubMed, Embase, CINAHL Plus and AMED databases. Citations were included if they met criteria such as being case-control studies, and dealt with neck manipulation and/or neck movement/positioning. Papers were scored for their quality, using similar criteria to the earlier review. For individual criteria, each study was assigned a full positive score if the criterion was satisfied completely.

RESULTS

Four case-control studies and one case-control study, which included a case- crossover design, met the selection criteria, but all of them had at least three items in the quality assessment that failed to be completely positive. Two studies were assessed to be the most robustly designed, one indicating a strong association between stroke and various intensities of neck movement, including manipulation, and the other suggesting a much reduced relative association when using primary care practitioners' visits as controls. However, potential biases and confounders render the results inconclusive.

CONCLUSION

Conclusive evidence is lacking for a strong association between neck manipulation and stroke, but is also absent for no association. Future studies of association will need to minimise potential biases and confounders, and ideally have sufficient numbers of cases to allow subgroup analysis for different types of neck manipulation and neck movement.

Upper cervical and upper thoracic thrust manipulation versus nonthrust mobilization in patients with mechanical neck pain: a multicenter randomized clinical trial

STUDY DESIGN

Randomized clinical trial.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the short-term effects of upper cervical and upper thoracic high-velocity low-amplitude (HVLA) thrust manipulation to nonthrust mobilization in patients with neck pain.

BACKGROUND

Although upper cervical and upper thoracic HVLA thrust manipulation and nonthrust mobilization are common interventions for the management of neck pain, no studies have directly compared the effects of both upper cervical and upper thoracic HVLA thrust manipulation to nonthrust mobilization in patients with neck pain.

METHODS

Patients completed the Neck Disability Index, the numeric pain rating scale, the flexion-rotation test for measurement of C1-2 passive rotation range of motion, and the craniocervical flexion test for measurement of deep cervical flexor motor performance. Following the baseline evaluation, patients were randomized to receive either HVLA thrust manipulation or nonthrust mobilization to the upper cervical (C1-2) and upper thoracic (T1-2) spines. Patients were reexamined 48-hours after the initial examination and again completed the outcome measures. The effects of treatment on disability, pain, C1-2 passive rotation range of motion, and motor performance of the deep cervical flexors were examined with a 2-by-2 mixed-model analysis of variance (ANOVA).

RESULTS

One hundred seven patients satisfied the eligibility criteria, agreed to participate, and were randomized into the HVLA thrust manipulation (n = 56) and nonthrust mobilization (n = 51) groups. The 2-by-2 ANOVA demonstrated that patients with mechanical neck pain who received the combination of upper cervical and upper thoracic HVLA thrust manipulation experienced significantly (P<.001) greater reductions in disability (50.5%) and pain (58.5%) than those of the nonthrust mobilization group (12.8% and 12.6%, respectively) following treatment. In addition, the HVLA thrust manipulation group had significantly (P<.001) greater improvement in both passive C1-2 rotation range of motion and motor performance of the deep cervical flexor muscles as compared to the group that received nonthrust mobilization. The number needed to treat to avoid an unsuccessful outcome was 1.8 and 2.3 at 48-hour follow-up, using the global rating of change and Neck Disability Index cut scores, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The combination of upper cervical and upper thoracic HVLA thrust manipulation is appreciably more effective in the short term than nonthrust mobilization in patients with mechanical neck pain.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapy, level 1b.

Partial tetraplegic syndrome as a complication of a mobilizing/manipulating procedure of the cervical spine in a man with Forestier's disease: a case report

INTRODUCTION

Even if performed by qualified physical therapists, spinal manipulation and mobilization can cause adverse events. This holds true particularly for the cervical spine. In light of the substantial risks, the benefits of cervical spine manipulation may be outweighed by the possibility of further injury.

CASE PRESENTATION

We present the case of a 56-year-old Caucasian man with Forestier's disease who went to see a physiotherapist to relieve his aching neck while on a holiday trip. Following the procedure, he was transferred to a local hospital with a partial tetraplegic syndrome due to a cervical 6/7 luxation fracture. Reportedly, the physiotherapist took neither a detailed history, nor adequate diagnostic measures.

CONCLUSIONS

This case highlights the potentially dangerous complications associated with cervical spine mobilization/manipulation. If guidelines concerning cervical spine mobilization and manipulation practices had been followed, this adverse event could have been avoided.

The effect of an analgesic mobilization technique when applied at symptomatic or asymptomatic levels of the cervical spine in subjects with neck pain: a randomized controlled trial

The purpose of this single-blinded, randomized controlled trial was to compare the effects of a manual treatment technique on neck pain and movement sensation when applied in different segments of the cervical spine. Consecutive patients with neck pain (n=126) were recruited and randomly allocated to two groups (A or B). Group A received a single 4-minute pain-alleviating traction at the most symptomatic zygopophyseal joint of the cervical segment, where movement was correlated with pain. Group B received the same treatment 3 segments away from the concordant segment. Pain intensity and sensation of movement were assessed with a numeric rating scale (NRS). Statistical analysis included a t-test for paired and unpaired samples. Pre- and post-test findings demonstrated significant improvements in both types of mobilization although there was no significant difference between the two groups. Similar results have been reported in the literature for cervical manipulation. The findings of this study question the necessity of precise symptom localization tests for a pain treatment. however, limitations of the study prevent generalization of these results.

Changes in bending stiffness and lumbar spine range of movement following lumbar mobilization and manipulation

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of lumbar rotational manipulation and lumbar central posteroanterior mobilization on lumbar bending stiffness and flexion and extension range of motion (ROM).

METHODS

A same-subject, repeated-measures, crossover design was used using 32 asymptomatic subjects (16 female and 16 male; mean [SD] age, 25.5 [4.5] years; weight, 65.7 [11.8] kg; and height, 1.70 [0.08] m). Each subject received mobilization or manipulation on 2 different occasions. Bending stiffness was calculated using a 3-point bending model using an electromagnetic tracking device and a force platform; lumbar flexion and extension ROM was measured using an electromagnetic tracking device. All variables were measured pre- and postintervention. Their effect was compared using paired t tests.

RESULTS

Manipulation and mobilization did not significantly alter either bending stiffness or lumbar flexion and extension ROM (mobilization: P = .175, P = .613, and P = .535; manipulation: P = .973, P = .323, and P = .439). Bending stiffness changes were not correlated to changes in ROM (Pearson r for stiffness-flexion = -0.102, P = .586; Pearson r for stiffness-extension = 0.014, P = .941).

CONCLUSIONS

Manipulation and mobilization had no significant effect on bending stiffness or flexion and extension ROM for this group of subjects. Some individual variations in effect were observed.

Manipulative practice in the cervical spine: a survey of IFOMPT member countries

The International Federation of Orthopaedic Manipulative Physical Therapists (IFOMPT) aims to achieve worldwide promotion of excellence and unity in clinical and academic standards for manual and musculoskeletal physical therapists. To this end, IFOMPT has sponsored several conference panel sessions and a survey of Member Organizations (MOs) and Registered Interest Groups (RIGs) regarding current cervical spine manipulation and pre-manipulative screening practice in each country. The purpose of this study was to determine common elements of cervical spine manipulative practice and pre-manipulative screening between countries. In late 2007, a questionnaire investigating recommended pre-manipulative screening protocol/guideline use, informed consent regarding risks, screening procedures, and treatment/manipulation technique was sent to all twenty MOs and five RIGs. The response rate was 88%. The main findings of the survey included: 77% of respondent organizations use pre-manipulative guidelines, with Australian guidelines the most frequently adopted internationally (36%); recommendations concerning the provision of information about the possibility of serious adverse events is not standard practice in all countries (50%); positional tests for vertebrobasilar insufficiency are used by all respondent organizations; craniovertebral ligament testing is sometimes taught as a pre-manipulative screening tool (36%); the use of upper cervical spine manipulation has declined in some countries (41%); and of the respondent organizations that continue to teach upper cervical manipulation, most (70%) minimize the rotation component. The findings of this research will inform an IFOMPT international standard for screening the cervical region prior to orthopaedic manual therapy intervention. The development of an IFOMPT endorsed document will be of assistance to manual therapy clinicians worldwide in safely managing disorders of the cervical spine.

A randomized controlled trial comparing manipulation with mobilization for recent onset neck pain

A randomized controlled trial comparing manipulation with mobilization for recent onset neck pain.

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether neck manipulation is more effective for neck pain than mobilization.

DESIGN

Randomized controlled trial with blind assessment of outcome.

SETTING

Primary care physiotherapy, chiropractic, and osteopathy clinics in Sydney, Australia.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients (N=182) with nonspecific neck pain less than 3 months in duration and deemed suitable for treatment with manipulation by the treating practitioner.

INTERVENTIONS

Participants were randomly assigned to receive treatment with neck manipulation (n=91) or mobilization (n=91). Patients in both groups received 4 treatments over 2 weeks.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

The number of days taken to recover from the episode of neck pain.

RESULTS

The median number of days to recovery of pain was 47 in the manipulation group and 43 in the mobilization group. Participants treated with neck manipulation did not experience more rapid recovery than those treated with neck mobilization (hazard ratio=.98; 95% confidence interval, .66-1.46).

CONCLUSIONS

Neck manipulation is not appreciably more effective than mobilization. The use of neck manipulation therefore cannot be justified on the basis of superior effectiveness.

A comparison of cervical spine mobilization forces applied by experienced and novice physiotherapists

STUDY DESIGN

Clinical measurement, cross-sectional.

OBJECTIVES

To compare cervical mobilization forces applied by physiotherapists and students, and the factors associated with forces for each group.

BACKGROUND

Cervical spine joint mobilization is a common manual technique for treating patients with mechanical neck pain. But little is known about the forces applied during this technique. Potential variability between therapists may result from clinical experience or may be due to factors present in individuals prior to clinical practice exposure.

METHODS

One hundred sixteen practicing physiotherapists and 120 physiotherapy students without clinical experience applied grades I through IV posteroanterior mobilization to the premarked C2 and C7 spinous and articular processes of 1 of 67 asymptomatic subjects. An instrumented table recorded applied forces (N), force amplitudes (N), and oscillation frequencies (Hz), and a custom device measured subjects' spinal stiffness (N/mm). Independent t tests were used to compare the forces applied by therapists and students, intraclass correlation coefficients were used to determine variability, and linear regression was used to establish factors associated with applied forces.

RESULTS

Students' forces were generally lower (mean difference, 15.7 N for grades III and IV; P<.001) and applied with slower oscillation frequencies (0.12 Hz; P<.001) than therapists' forces. Similar factors were associated with applied forces for both groups: male gender and greater subject body weight were associated with higher applied forces, and greater C2 stiffness with lower forces. Having thumb pain was associated with lower applied forces for therapists but higher ones for students.

CONCLUSIONS

Students apply lower forces than therapists. Similar factors appear to affect applied forces regardless of clinical experience.

The immediate effects of atlanto-occipital joint manipulation and suboccipital muscle inhibition technique on active mouth opening and pressure pain sensitivity over latent myofascial trigger points in the masticatory muscles

DESIGN

A randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the immediate effects on pressure pain thresholds over latent trigger points (TrPs) in the masseter and temporalis muscles and active mouth opening following atlanto-occipital joint thrust manipulation or a soft tissue manual intervention targeted to the suboccipital muscles.

BACKGROUND

Previous studies have described hypoalgesic effects of neck manipulative interventions over TrPs in the cervical musculature. There is a lack of studies analyzing these mechanisms over TrPs of muscles innervated by the trigeminal nerve.

METHODS

One hundred twenty-two volunteers, 31 men and 91 women, between the ages of 18 and 30 years, with latent TrPs in the masseter muscle, were randomly divided into 3 groups: a manipulative group who received an atlanto-occipital joint thrust, a soft tissue group who received an inhibition technique over the suboccipital muscles, and a control group who did not receive an intervention. Pressure pain thresholds over latent TrPs in the masseter and temporalis muscles, and active mouth opening were assessed pretreatment and 2 minutes posttreatment by a blinded assessor. Mixed-model analyses of variance (ANOVA) were used to examine the effects of interventions on each outcome, with group as the between-subjects variable and time as the within-subjects variable. The primary analysis was the group-by-time interaction.

RESULTS

The 2-by-3 mixed-model ANOVA revealed a significant group-by-time interaction for changes in pressure pain thresholds over masseter (P<.01) and temporalis (P = .003) muscle latent TrPs and also for active mouth opening (P<.001) in favor of the manipulative and soft tissue groups. Between-group effect sizes were small.

CONCLUSIONS

The application of an atlanto-occipital thrust manipulation or soft tissue technique targeted to the suboccipital muscles led to an immediate increase in pressure pain thresholds over latent TrPs in the masseter and temporalis muscles and an increase in maximum active mouth opening. Nevertheless, the effects of both interventions were small and future studies are required to elucidate the clinical relevance of these changes.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapy, level 1b.J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2010;40(5):310-317, Epub 12 April 2010. doi:10.2519/jospt.2010.3257.

Patients with benign paroxysmal positional vertigo and cervical spine problems: is Epley's manoeuvre contraindicated, and is a proposed new manoeuvre effective and safer?

BACKGROUND

Benign paroxysmal positional vertigo is one of the commonest peripheral vestibular causes of vertigo. The particle repositioning manoeuvre (Epley's manoeuvre) has become the 'gold standard' treatment for this disorder. Benign paroxysmal positional vertigo can affect any age group but is commoner in older patients. Cervical spine problems (e.g. spondylosis and disc prolapse) are commoner in this age group. Epley's manoeuvre necessitates passive neck movements. Such movements may not be wise in patients at risk of cervical spine fracture.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This study included 40 patients complaining of vertigo and diagnosed as having benign paroxysmal positional vertigo. A new particle repositioning manoeuvre was designed for these patients, as an alternative to Epley's manoeuvre.

RESULTS

At one week review, 36 patients (90 per cent) reported total relief from vertigo. Three patients reported a major improvement in their vertigo, and their residual vertigo was relieved by performing the new manoeuvre again after two weeks. Further clinical reviews at one month, three months, six months and one year found that seven patients had suffered minor attacks of typical benign paroxysmal positional vertigo after three months. All seven were relieved of their symptoms after undergoing the new particle repositioning manoeuvre again.

CONCLUSION

The proposed new manoeuvre is simple, effective and safe for treating patients with benign paroxysmal positional vertigo and cervical spine problems.

The effectiveness of a posted information package on the beliefs and behavior of musculoskeletal practitioners: the UK Chiropractors, Osteopaths, and Musculoskeletal Physiotherapists Low Back Pain ManagemENT (COMPLeMENT) randomized trial

STUDY DESIGN

Randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the effect of a printed information package on the low back pain (LBP)-related beliefs and reported behavior of musculoskeletal practitioners (chiropractors, osteopaths, and musculoskeletal physiotherapists) across the United Kingdom.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

A substantial proportion of musculoskeletal practitioners in United Kingdom does not follow current LBP guideline recommendations.

METHODS

In total, 1758 practitioners were randomly allocated to either of the 2 study arms. One arm was posted a printed information package containing guideline recommendations for the management of LBP (n = 876) and the other received no intervention (n = 882). The primary outcome measure consisted of 3 "quality indicators" (activity, work, and bed-rest) relating to a vignette of a patient with LBP, in which responses were dichotomized into either "guideline-inconsistent" or "guideline-consistent." The secondary outcome was the practitioners' LBP-related beliefs, measured using the Health Care Providers Pain and Impairment Relationship Scale. Outcomes were measured at baseline and at 6 months.

RESULTS

Follow-up at 6 months was 89%. The changes in reported behavior on the quality indicators were as follows: activity, odds ratio (OR) 1.29 (95% confidence interval, 1.03-1.61) and number needed to be treated (NNT), 19 (15-28); work, OR 1.35 (1.07-1.70) and NNT 19 (14-29); and bed-rest, OR 1.31 (0.97-1.76) and NNT 47 (33-103). The composite NNT for a change from guideline-inconsistent to guideline-consistent behavior on at least 1 of the 3 quality indicators was 10 (9-14). LBP-related beliefs were significantly improved in those who were sent the information package (P = 0.002), but only to a small degree (mean difference, 0.884 scale points; 95% confidence interval, 0.319-1.448).

CONCLUSION

Printed educational material can shift LBP-related beliefs and reported behaviors of musculoskeletal practitioners, toward practice that is more in line with guideline recommendations.

Cervical spine mobilisation forces applied by physiotherapy students

OBJECTIVES

Postero-anterior (PA) mobilisation is commonly used in cervical spine treatment and included in physiotherapy curricula. The manual forces that students apply while learning cervical mobilisation are not known. Quantifying these forces informs the development of strategies for learning to apply cervical mobilisation effectively and safely. This study describes the mechanical properties of cervical PA mobilisation techniques applied by students, and investigates factors associated with force application.

PARTICIPANTS

Physiotherapy students (n=120) mobilised one of 32 asymptomatic subjects.

METHODS

Students applied Grades I to IV central and unilateral PA mobilisation to C2 and C7 of one asymptomatic subject. Manual forces were measured in three directions using an instrumented treatment table. Spinal stiffness of mobilised subjects was measured at C2 and C7 using a device that applied a standard oscillating force while measuring this force and its concurrent displacement. Analysis of variance was used to determine differences between techniques and grades, intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) were used to calculate the inter- and intrastudent repeatability of forces, and linear regression was used to determine the associations between applied forces and characteristics of students and mobilised subjects.

RESULTS

Mobilisation forces increased from Grades I to IV (highest mean peak force, Grade IV C7 central PA technique: 63.7N). Interstudent reliability was poor [ICC(2,1)=0.23, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.14 to 0.43], but intrastudent repeatability of forces was somewhat better (0.83, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.86). Higher applied force was associated with greater C7 stiffness, increased frequency of thumb pain, male gender of the student or mobilised subject, and a student being earlier in their learning process. Lower forces were associated with greater C2 stiffness.

CONCLUSION

This study describes the cervical mobilisation forces applied by students, and the characteristics of the student and mobilised subject associated with these forces. These results form a basis for the development of strategies to provide objective feedback to students learning to apply cervical mobilisation.