Cervical Lateral Glide Neural Mobilization Is Effective in Treating Cervicobrachial Pain: A Randomized Waiting List Controlled Clinical Trial

The majority of clinical trials assessing mobilization and manipulation for neck pain lack a pragmatic approach: a systematic review of 174 trials

BACKGROUND

Disorders of the cervical spine are some of the costliest musculoskeletal conditions to manage globally. Joint mobilization and manipulation have been shown to be an effective treatment for neck pain. However, the generalizability and clinical translation depends on the nature of the trial designs that inform its use. The extent to which randomized control trials (RCTs) assessing manual therapy treatments for cervical spine disorders fall on the efficacy (explanatory) -effectiveness (pragmatic) spectrum often informs how the findings are translated into clinical practice.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this systematic review was to determine where RCTs of manual therapy for neck disorders fall on the efficacy-effectiveness spectrum.

METHODS

A search of three electronic databases including PubMed, CINAHL, and CENTRAL were completed for trials published from inception to May 2023. RCTs in which joint mobilization or manipulation were used to treat cervical spine disorders were assessed on the effectiveness-efficacy spectrum using the Rating of Included Trials on the Efficacy-Effectiveness Spectrum (RITES) tool and risk of bias using the Revised Cochrane Risk of Bias tool.

RESULTS

A total of 174 trials met eligibility. RITES domain two trial setting (71.3% vs 16.1%), domain three flexibility of intervention(s) (62.1% vs 23%), and domain four clinical relevance of experimental and comparison intervention(s) (51.7% vs 29.3%) all favored efficacy over effectiveness. Domain one participant characteristic(s) had a slightly greater emphasis on effectiveness compared to efficacy (36.8% vs 44.8%). Most studies (96%) had at least some risk of bias.

CONCLUSION

Over half of the RCTs assessing the treatment effect of joint mobilization and manipulation for neck pain favor efficacy (explanatory) over effectiveness (pragmatic) designs. Future RCTs on this topic should consider a greater emphasis on pragmatic trial design components in order to better reflect real-world translation to clinical practice.

Effectiveness of neural mobilisation for the treatment of nerve-related cervicobrachial pain: a systematic review with subgroup meta-analysis

ABSTRACT

Neural mobilisations (NM) have been advocated for the treatment of nerve-related cervicobrachial pain; however, it is unclear what types of patients with nerve-related cervicobrachial pain (if any) may benefit. Medline, Web of Science, Scopus, PeDro, Cinahl, and Cochrane databases were searched from inception until December 2022. Randomised controlled trials were included if they assessed the effectiveness of NM in nerve-related cervicobrachial pain, and outcome measures were pain intensity and/or disability. Studies were classified according to their inclusion/exclusion criteria as radiculopathy , Wainner cluster , Hall , and Elvey cluster or other . Meta-analyses with subgroup analyses were performed. Risk of bias was assessed using Cochrane Rob2 tool. Twenty-seven studies were included. For pain and disability reduction, NM was found to be more effective than no treatment (pooled pain mean difference [MD] = -2.81, 95% confidence interval [CI] = -3.81 to -1.81; pooled disability standardized mean difference = -1.55, 95% CI = -2.72 to -0.37), increased the effectiveness of standard physiotherapy as an adjuvant when compared with standard physiotherapy alone (pooled pain MD = -1.44, 95% CI = -1.98 to -0.89; pooled disability MD = -11.07, 95% CI = -16.38 to -5.75) but was no more effective than cervical traction (pooled pain MD = -0.33, 95% CI = -1.35 to 0.68; pooled disability MD = -10.09, 95% CI = -21.89 to 1.81). For disability reduction, NM was found to be more effective than exercise (pooled MD = -18.27, 95% CI = -20.29 to -17.44). In most comparisons, there were significant differences in the effectiveness of NM between the subgroups. Neural mobilisations was consistently more effective than all alternative interventions (no treatment, traction, exercise, and standard physiotherapy alone) in 13 studies classified as Wainner cluster . PROSPERO registration: CRD42022376087.

Peripheral and central changes induced by neural mobilization in animal models of neuropathic pain: a systematic review

Introduction

Neural mobilization (NM) is a physiotherapy technique involving the passive mobilization of limb nerve structures with the aim to attempt to restore normal movement and structural properties. In recent years, human studies have shown pain relief in various neuropathic diseases and other pathologies as a result of this technique. Improvement in the range of motion (ROM), muscle strength and endurance, limb function, and postural control were considered beneficial effects of NM. To determine which systems generate these effects, it is necessary to conduct studies using animal models. The objective of this study was to gather information on the physiological effects of NM on the peripheral and central nervous systems (PNS and CNS) in animal models.

Methods

The search was performed in Medline, Pubmed and Web of Science and included 8 studies according to the inclusion criteria.

Results

The physiological effects found in the nervous system included the analgesic, particularly the endogenous opioid pathway, the inflammatory, by modulation of cytokines, and the immune system.

Conclusion

On the basis of these results, we can conclude that NM physiologically modifies the peripheral and central nervous systems in animal models.

The Effectiveness of Neuromobilization in Patients With Cervical Radiculopathy: A Systematic Review With Meta-Analysis

CONTEXT

Neuromobilization exercises (NE) could be a useful therapeutic tool to induce analgesia and increase function and range of motion (ROM) in patients with musculoskeletal pathologies with neuropathic components; however, the effectiveness of this intervention in patients with cervical radiculopathy (CR) is unknown.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the effectiveness of NE in CR on pain, function, and ROM.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

An electronic search was performed in the MEDLINE, Scopus, PEDro, and EBSCO databases from inception until June 2022. The authors included randomized clinical trials that evaluated the effectiveness of NE against control groups or other interventions that aimed to treat patients with CR.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Seven clinical trials met the eligibility criteria, and for the quantitative synthesis, 5 studies were included. For the studies that compared NE with a control group, the standardized mean difference for pain was -1.33/10 (95% confidence interval [CI], -1.80 to -0.86; P < .01; I2 = 0%), for function with the Neck Disability Index was -1.21/50 (95% CI, -1.67 to -0.75; P < .01; I2 = 0%), and for neck flexion and extensions was 0.66 (95% CI, 0.23 to 1.10; P < .01; I2 = 0%) and 0.47 (95% CI, 0.04 to 0.90; P < .01; I2 = 0%), respectively, with evidence of clinical effectiveness. These findings were based on moderate-quality evidence according to the Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation rating. In studies that compared NE with other interventions, the meta-analysis failed to demonstrate the statistical or clinical superiority of NE.

CONCLUSIONS

Moderate quality of evidence suggests that NE may be superior to no treatment for pain, function, and ROM in patients with CR. In contrast, NE are not superior to other interventions in the same outcomes, based on low- to very low-quality evidence. More high-quality research is needed to assess the consistency of these results.

Median Nerve Neural Mobilization Adds No Additional Benefit When Combined with Cervical Lateral Glide in the Treatment of Neck Pain: A Randomized Clinical Trial

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of cervical lateral glide (CLG) added to median nerve neural mobilization (MNNM) in patients with neck pain (NP).

METHODS

A single-blinded randomized controlled clinical trial was carried out in a Pain Management Unit from a Hospital. A total sample of 72 patients with NP was recruited from a hospital. Patients were randomized to receive isolated CLG (n = 36) or CLG + MNNM (n = 36). Bilateral elbow extension range of motion (ROM) on upper limb neurodynamic test 1 (ULNT1), bilateral pressure pain thresholds (PPT) on the median nerve at elbow joint, C6 zygapophyseal joint and tibialis anterior, Visual analogue scale (VAS), body chart distribution of pain, active cervical ROM (CROM), Neck Disability Index (NDI), and Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia (TSK-11) were measured at baseline as well as immediately, 15 days, and 1 month after treatment.

RESULTS

There were no statistically significant interactions (p > 0.05) between treatment and time for median nerve mechanosensitivity outcomes, pain intensity, symptom distribution, and PPT of the widespread pain assessment, as well as cervical function, and kinesiophobia.

CONCLUSIONS

MNNM gave no additional benefit to CLG in patients with NP regarding pain intensity, symptom distribution, mechanosensitivity, functionality, and kinesiophobia. Only two treatment sessions and the short follow-up are important issues, therefore, justifying further studies to answer the research question with better methodology.

Effectiveness of Neural Mobilisation Techniques in the Management of Musculoskeletal Neck Disorders with Nerve-Related Symptoms: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis with a Mapping Report

OBJECTIVE

The objective was to assess the effectiveness of neural mobilisation (NM) techniques in the management of musculoskeletal neck disorders with nerve-related symptoms (MND-NRS).

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review with meta-analysis, using pain intensity, disability, perceived function, cervical range of motion and mechanosensitivity as the main outcome measures.

RESULTS

The systematic review included 22 studies (n = 978). More favourable outcomes were observed for NM on pain intensity compared with control interventions (standardised mean differences (SMDs) -0.92; 95% CI - 1.66--0.18), but not compared with other treatments (OTs) (SMD 1.06; 95% CI - 0.02-2.15). Regarding neck pain intensity, no significant differences were found in favour of NM compared with OTs (SMD 0.37; 95% CI - 0.35-1.1). However, between-treatment differences were found in favour of OT on arm-pain intensity (SMD 0.57; 95% CI 0.08-1.05). In addition, the grouped MA did not show statistically significant differences between NM and OT outcomes on the cervical range of motion (SMD 0.16; 95% CI - 0.06-0.38). However, compared with no intervention, NM was associated with significantly improved outcomes in cervical rotation (SMD 0.91; 95% CI 0.61-1.22). Similar results were found regarding disability (SMD -0.08; 95% CI - 0.36--0.20, and SMD -1.44; 95% CI - 2.28--0.6, respectively). Finally, NM was associated with more favourable outcomes on mechanosensitivity compared with OT (SMD 0.79; 95% CI 0.15-1.42) and greater improvements in function compared with no intervention (SMD 0.89; 95% CI 0.16-1.62).

CONCLUSIONS

NM appeared to be effective to improve overall pain intensity when embedded in a physiotherapy treatment in the management of MND-NRS. When compared with no intervention, it was effective to improve neck rotation, disability, and function. However, it was not superior to other types of treatments in improving overall pain intensity, neck pain intensity, arm pain intensity, cervical range of motion and disability, except for mechanosensitivity.

Manual Therapy in Cervical and Lumbar Radiculopathy: A Systematic Review of the Literature

The aim of this study was to describe and update current knowledge of manual therapy accuracy in treating cervical and lumbar radiculopathy, to identify the limitations in current studies, and to suggest areas for future research. The study was conducted according to PRISMA guidelines for systematic reviews. A comprehensive literature review was conducted using PubMed and Web of Science databases up to April 2020. The following inclusion criteria were used: (1) presence of radiculopathy; (2) treatment defined as manual therapy (i.e., traction, manipulation, mobilization); and (3) publication defined as a Randomized Controlled Trial. The electronic literature search resulted in 473 potentially relevant articles. Finally, 27 articles were accepted: 21 on cervical (CR) and 6 in lumbar radiculopathy (LR). The mean PEDro score for CR was 6.6 (SD 1.3), and for LR 6.7 (SD 1.6). Traction-oriented techniques are the most frequently chosen treatment form for CR and are efficient in reducing pain and improving functional outcomes. In LR, each of the included publications used a different form of manual therapy, which makes it challenging to summarize knowledge in this group. Of included publications, 93% were either of moderate or low quality, which indicates that quality improvement is necessary for this type of research.

Analysis and evaluation of the systems used for the assessment of the cervical spine function: a systematic review

Neck injuries and pathologies are widespread and cause disability. Clinicians use different tools to measure the cervical spine' mobility to diagnose different disorders. There are many reliable assessment methods for this purpose, but their benefits have not been deeply investigated and compared, as well as their measurement results. This review aims to summarise the advantages, accuracy, and reliability, of measurement tools and devices used in studies or trails related to the neck and cervical spine evaluation, to evidence the use of inertial sensors and compare them, to highlight the best assessment systems and their characteristics. A literature review has been performed in a range of five years, to obtain information about cervical spine evaluation. Studies that met the established inclusion criteria were selected and classified according their pathology studied, objectives and methodologies followed when evaluating the cervical spine functionality. Studies were described chronologically highlighting the tools employed, where the motion capture systems and cervical range of motion devices stood out as the most used and reliable methods. Cervical spine assessment studies employing systems with inertial sensors as an accurate method, is not evidenced in the sample. However, they are widely tested and different studies validate these systems for their clinical area use, obtaining high reliability and repeatability. Thereby, this review argues that inertial sensors have proven to be a portable, and easy to use tool for the evaluation of neck and its related pathologies, with a great accuracy level.

Variables predicting prognosis following nerve mobilisation in individuals with cervicobrachial pain

Background/Aims

The causes of cervicobrachial pain are highly variable and it is often difficult to predict patient response to multimodal treatments, such as neural mobilisation. Little research has focused on identifying subgroups of patients who may show improvement following neural mobilisation. This study aimed to identify the variables that may influence response to nerve mobilisation in individuals with cervicobrachial pain.

Methods

A quasi-experimental prospective single-arm study was conducted with 50 participants. Data were collected on various potentially prognostic variables from baseline questionnaires, medical history and physical examination. Participants received 10 days of pain modulation treatment and nerve mobilisation exercises. The Neck Disability Index, Numeric Pain Rating Scale and Upper Limb Tension Test were performed before and after treatment to determine the effect of nerve mobilisation. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics, univariate correlation, multivariate stepwise logistic regression and non-parametric testing at α≤0.05.

Results

Four variables had a positive influence on treatment outcome: age <41 years, duration of symptoms ≤1 year, fasting blood glucose level ≤5.6 mmol/L (≤100 mg/dL) and systolic blood pressure ≤140 mmHg. On multiple linear regression, the presence of hypertension and diabetes were strongly associated with poor outcomes following nerve mobilisation.

Conclusions

Younger individuals with normal fasting blood glucose and systolic blood pressure who have had cervicobrachial pain for less than a year are more likely to benefit from pain modulation and neural mobilisation.

Kinesiophobia and Pain Intensity Are Increased by a Greater Hallux Valgus Deformity Degree- Kinesiophobia and Pain Intensity in Hallux Valgus

Background: Hallux valgus (HV) has been previously associated with psychological disorders. Thus, the purposes of this study were to associate kinesiophobia and pain intensity with HV deformity degrees, as well as predict kinesiophobia and pain intensity based on HV deformity and demographic features. Methods: A cross-sectional study was carried out recruiting 100 subjects, who were divided into HV deformity degrees, such as I-no HV (n = 25), II-mild (n = 25), III-moderate (n = 25), and IV-severe (n = 25) HV. Kinesiophobia total and domains (activity avoidance and harm) scores and levels were self-reported by the Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia (TSK-11). Pain intensity was self-reported by the numeric rating scale (NRS). Results: Statistically significant differences (p < 0.01; η² = 0.132–0.850) were shown for between-groups comparison of kinesiophobia total and domain scores (activity avoidance and harm) and levels, as well as pain intensity among HV deformity degrees. Post hoc comparisons showed statistically significant differences with a large effect size (p < 0.05; d = 0.85–4.41), showing higher kinesiophobia symptoms and levels and pain intensity associated with greater HV deformity degrees, especially for III-moderate and/or IV-severe HV deformity degrees versus I-no HV and/or II-mild deformity degrees. Both statistically significant prediction models (p < 0.05) for kinesiophobia (R² = 0.300) and pain intensity (R² = 0.815) were predicted by greater HV deformity degree and age. Conclusions: Greater kinesiophobia symptoms and levels and pain were associated with higher HV deformity degrees, especially severe and/or moderate HV with respect to no and/or mild HV. The kinesiophobia and pain intensity were predicted by greater HV deformity degree and age.

Effects of a Multimodal Exercise Program Plus Neural Gliding on Postural Control, Pain, and Flexibility of Institutionalized Older Adults: A Randomized, Parallel, and Double-Blind Study

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

The effect of adding neural mobilization to a multimodal program of exercises has not been investigated, despite its potential positive effects. The aim of this study was to compare the acute effects of a multimodal exercise program and neural gliding against a multimodal exercise program only, on pain intensity, gait speed, Timed Up and Go (TUG) test, lower limb flexibility, and static balance of institutionalized older adults.

METHODS

Older adults who were institutionalized (n = 26) were randomized to receive a multimodal exercise program plus neural gliding or a multimodal exercise program only. Both interventions were delivered twice a week for 8 weeks. Participants were assessed for pain, gait velocity, balance, flexibility, and TUG at baseline and postintervention.

RESULTS

A significant main effect of time for pain intensity (F1,24 = 8.95, P = .006), balance (F1,24 = 10.29, P = .004), and gait velocity (F1,24 = 5.51, P = .028) was observed, indicating a positive impact of both interventions. No other significant effects were found (TUG and flexibility; P > .05).

DISCUSSION

A 45-minute multimodal exercise program, twice a week for 8 weeks, has a positive impact on pain intensity, balance, and gait velocity, but neural gliding has no additional benefit. It is unclear whether dose and type of neural mobilization may have had an impact on results. Considering the structural and physiological changes that tend to occur with age, future studies could explore the effects of neural tensioning or of higher doses of neural mobilization.

CONCLUSIONS

This study suggests that adding neural gliding to a multimodal exercise program has no additional benefit.

Neural gliding and neural tensioning differently impact flexibility, heat and pressure pain thresholds in asymptomatic subjects: A randomized, parallel and double-blind study

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effect of neural gliding and tensioning on hamstring flexibility, nerve function (heat and cold thresholds) and pain sensitivity (pain intensity and pressure pain threshold) of the mobilized and non-mobilized lower limbs at post-intervention and 24 h follow up.

DESIGN

Randomized, parallel and double blinded trial.

SETTING/PARTICIPANTS

Forty-eight asymptomatic participants.

INTERVENTION(S)

Participants received neural gliding (n = 23) or tensioning (n = 25). Main Outcome Measures - Straight leg raising (SLR; in degrees), heat and cold threshold (ºC), pressure pain threshold (PPT; in Kgf) and pain intensity (visual analogue scale), taken at baseline, post-intervention and at 24 h follow up.

RESULTS

There was a significant interaction between time, intervention and limb for SLR (F2,45 = 3.83; p = 0.029). A significant interaction between time and intervention for PPT (F2,45 = 3.59; p = 0.036) and heat threshold (F2,45 = 5.10; p = 0.01). A significant effect of time (F2,45 = 9.42; p < 0.001) and of limb (F1,46 = 4.78; p = 0.035) for pain intensity during SLR, and a significant effect of time (F2,45 = 3.65; p = 0.034) for pain intensity during PPT.

CONCLUSION

Gliding and tensioning had similar and positive effects for flexibility in the mobilized limb, but tensioning was superior for the non-mobilized limb. Gliding was superior to tensioning for pressure pain and heat thresholds.

Is pharmacologic treatment better than neural mobilization for cervicobrachial pain? A randomized clinical trial

Purpose: This study aim was to compare the effectiveness of the median nerve neural mobilization (MNNM) and cervical lateral glide (CLG) intervention versus oral ibuprofen (OI) in subjects who suffer cervicobrachial pain (CP). Methods: This investigation was a, multicenter, blinded, randomized controlled clinical trial (NCT02595294; NCT02593721). A number of 105 individuals diagnosed with CP were enrolled in the study and treated in 2 different medical facilities from July to November 2015. Participants were recruited and randomly assigned into 3 groups of 35 subjects. Intervention groups received MNNM or CLG neurodynamic treatments, and the (active treatment) control group received an OI treatment for 6 weeks. Primary outcome was pain intensity reported through the Numeric Rating Scale for Pain (NRSP). Secondary outcomes were physical function involving the affected upper limb using the Quick DASH scale, and ipsilateral cervical rotation (ICR) using a cervical range of motion (CROM) device. Assessments were performed before and 1 hour after treatment for NRSP (baseline, 3 and 6 weeks) and CROM (baseline and 6 weeks), as well as only 1 assessment for Quick DASH (baseline and 6 weeks). Results: Repeated-measures ANOVA intergroup statistically significant differences were shown for CP intensity (F(2,72) = 22.343; P < .001; Eta2 = 0.383) and Quick DASH (F(2,72) = 15.338; P < .001; Eta2 = 0.299), although not for CROM (F(2,72) = 1.434; P = .245; Eta2 = 0.038). Indeed, Bonferroni´s correction showed statistically significant differences for CP intensity (P < .01; 95% CI = 0.22 - 3.26) and Quick DASH reduction (P < .01; 95% CI = 8.48 - 24.67) in favor of the OI treatment at all measurement moments after baseline. Conclusions: OI pharmacologic treatment may reduce pain intensity and disability with respect to neural mobilization (MNNM and CLG) in patients with CP during six weeks. Nevertheless, the non-existence of between-groups ROM differences and possible OI adverse effects should be considered.