The immediate effects of upper thoracic translatoric spinal manipulation on cervical pain and range of motion: a randomized clinical trial

Immediate efficacy of acupuncture combined with active exercise as 10 min rapid therapy for pain and movement disorders in patients suffering from acute stiff neck: protocol for a randomised controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

Stiff neck is a condition mainly characterised by persistent pain and limited neck movement, which can substantially impact patients' daily lives during acute episodes. Accordingly, rapid pain relief and restoration of normal activities are the main needs of patients during doctor visits. This study aims to assess the immediate efficacy of acupuncture combined with active exercises in rapidly relieving pain and improving movement disorders within 10 min in patients with acute stiff neck (ASN).

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This randomised controlled clinical trial is being conducted at a single centre in China. 120 participants diagnosed with ASN will randomly be assigned in a 1:1:1 ratio to one of three groups: the acupuncture combined with active exercise group (group A), sham acupuncture combined with active exercise group (group B) and active exercise only group (group C). Each participant will undergo a single 10 min session. The primary outcome is the effective rate at 10 min of treatment. Secondary outcomes include the effective rate at other time points (0-1, 2, 4, 6 and 8 min), Visual Analogue Scale score and cervical range of motion. The intention-to-treat analysis will include all randomised participants.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethics approval was obtained from the Ethics Committee of the Second Affiliated Hospital of Yunnan University of Chinese Medicine (2022-009). Written informed consent will be obtained from all participants before randomisation. The findings of this study will be disseminated through publication in a peer-reviewed journal and presentation at conferences.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ChiCTR2200066997.

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.

Effects of exercise combined with cervicothoracic spine self-mobilization on chronic non-specific neck pain

To investigate the short-term effects and differences between exercise alone and exercise combined with self-mobilization training on chronic non-specific neck pain (CNSNP). Thirty subjects who met the criteria were recruited and randomly assigned to the exercise training group, the exercise combined with cervical self-mobilization training group (ECCM), and the exercise combined with cervicothoracic self-mobilization training group (ECCTM). The exercise training group received 6 weeks of deep neck flexor under biofeedback and scapular stability training, and the other two groups received 6 weeks of cervical self-mobilization and cervicothoracic self-mobilization, respectively, in addition to exercise training. Neck pain, cervical range of motion (ROM), neck disability, strength and endurance of deep neck flexor and quality of life were assessed before and after 6 weeks of training. The study results showed that all the three training programs for 6 weeks increased the strength and endurance of deep neck flexor, increased cervical ROM, reduced pain, and improved neck function (P < 0.05). The exercise combined with self-mobilization two groups compared with only the exercise training group had better improvement in ROM of extension, lateral flexion, rotation and quality of life (P < 0.05). Compared with exercise alone and exercise combined with cervical self-mobilization training, the exercise combined with cervicothoracic self-mobilization training was the best in improving ROM of right lateral flexion (exercise training group vs ECCTM: P < 0.01, d = 1.61, ECCM vs ECCTM: P < 0.05, d = 1.14) and pain (exercise training group vs ECCTM: P < 0.05, d = 1.34, ECCM vs ECCTM: P < 0.05, d = 1.23). Deep flexor muscle and shoulder stability training can improve the endurance and strength of the deep flexor muscles of the neck and coordinate the movement patterns of the shoulder and neck. Self-mobilization techniques can promote improvements in cervical lateral flexion and rotation range of motion, alleviate neck disability and further improve quality of life. A combination of exercise and cervicothoracic self-mobilization training appears beneficial for the management of neck pain.

Effectiveness and safety of thoracic manipulation in the treatment of neck pain: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of thoracic manipulation (TM) in patients with neck pain (NP).

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of thoracic manipulation (TM) in patients with neck pain (NP).

METHODS

Seven electronic databases were searched from their inception through October 2023 by two authors. The methodological quality assessments were performed with the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) scale. Pain, cervical range of motion (ROM), disability, and quality of life (QOL) were estimated for TM treatment in patients with NP.

RESULTS

Eighteen randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with 914 patients were included with a PEDro score of 6.923 ± 3.120. Pooled effect sizes of pain (SMD =-0.481, 95% CI -0.653 to -0.309, P= 0.000), disability (SMD =-1.435, 95% CI -2.480 to -0.390, P= 0.007), QOL-physical component score (PCS) (SMD = 0.658, 95% CI 0.290 to 1.025, P= 0.000), ROM of flexion (SMD = 0.921, 95% CI 0.287 to 1.555, P= 0.000), ROM of extension (SMD = 0.572, 95% CI 0.321 to 0.822, P= 0.000), ROM of left lateral flexion (SMD = 0.593, 95% CI 0.075 to 1.112, P= 0.025) and ROM of left rotation (SMD = 0.230, 95% CI 0.010 to 0.450, P= 0.04) were favored by the TM group.

CONCLUSIONS

TM provides short-term effect on relieving neck pain, increasing cervical ROM, and disability in patients with NP without serious side effects. Continuous therapy and distraction therapy are recommended as optimal choice on reducing pain and improving cervical ROM, especially in patients with chronic NP (> 3 months). The TM-induced improvements in the QOL of patients with NP should be verified by more further high-quality RCTs.

Effects of Sling-Based Thoracic Active Exercise on Pain and Function and Quality of Life in Female Patients with Neck Pain: A Randomized Controlled Trial

This study aimed to investigate the effects of sling-based thoracic active exercise on pain, function, and quality of life in female patients with neck pain. A total of 27 female patients with neck pain were divided into the sling-based thoracic active exercise group (n = 14) and the control group (n = 13). The study group performed a sling-based thoracic active exercise with cervical manual therapy for 50 min a day, twice a week for 4 weeks, whereas the control group performed a placebo exercise with cervical manual therapy in the same manner as the study group. Evaluation of the degree of pain before and after treatment was based on the pressure pain threshold and numeric pain rating scale scores. The craniovertebral angle and neck disability index (NDI) were used to evaluate neck function, and quality of life was measured using the Short Form-36. Afterwards, the patients’ pressure pain thresholds were significantly increased, and the numeric pain rating scale score was significantly decreased in both groups (p < 0.05). In terms of function, the craniovertebral angle was significantly increased in both groups (p < 0.05), and neck dysfunction significantly decreased (p < 0.05). The quality of life significantly increased in both groups (p < 0.05). The pressure pain threshold, craniovertebral angle, neck dysfunction index, and quality of life scores (p < 0.05) were significantly different between groups, except the numeric pain scale score. Our results showed that sling-based thoracic active exercise is effective in reducing pain and improving function and quality of life in female patients with neck pain, thus emphasizing the need for thoracic treatment for such patients.

Anatomy and clinical relevance of sub occipital soft tissue connections with the dura mater in the upper cervical spine

Background

The upper cervical region is a complex anatomical structure. Myodural bridges between posterior suboccipital muscles and the dura might be important explaining conditions associated with the upper cervical spine dysfunction such as cervicogenic headache. This cadaver study explored the upper cervical spine and evaluated the myodural bridges along with position of spinal cord in response to passive motion of upper cervical spine.

Methods

A total of seven adult cadavers were used in this exploratory study. The suboccipital muscles and nuchal ligament were exposed. Connections between the Rectus Capitis Posterior major/minor and the Obliquus Capitis minor, the nuchal ligament, posterior aspect of the cervical spine, flavum ligament and the dura were explored and confirmed with histology. The position of the spinal cord was evaluated with passive motions of the upper cervical spine.

Outcomes

In all cadavers connective tissues attaching the Rectus Capitis Posterior Major to the posterior atlanto-occipital membrane were identified. In the sagittal dissection we observed connection between the nuchal ligament and the dura. Histology revealed that the connection is collagenous in nature. The spinal cord moves within the spinal canal during passive movement.

Discussion

The presence of tissue connections between ligament, bone and muscles in the suboccipital region was confirmed. The nuchal ligament was continuous with the menigiovertebral ligament and the dura. Passive upper cervical motion results in spinal cord motion within the canal and possible tensioning of nerve and ligamentous connections.

Immediate effects of cervicothoracic junction mobilization versus thoracic manipulation on the range of motion and pain in mechanical neck pain with cervicothoracic junction dysfunction: a pilot randomized controlled trial

Background

Cervicothoracic (CT) junction hypomobility has been proposed as a contributing factor for neck pain. However, there are limited studies that compared the effect of CT junction mobilization against an effective intervention in neck pain. Thoracic spine manipulation is a nonspecific intervention for neck pain where remote spinal segments are treated based on the concept of regional interdependence. The effectiveness of segment-specific spinal mobilization in the cervical spine has been researched in the last few years, and no definite conclusions could be made from the previous studies. The above reasons warrant the investigation of the effects of a specific CT junction mobilization against a nonspecific thoracic manipulation intervention in neck pain. The present study aims to compare the immediate effects of C7-T1 Maitland mobilization with thoracic manipulation in individuals with mechanical neck pain presenting with CT junction dysfunction specifically.

Methods

A randomized clinical trial is conducted where participants with complaints of mechanical neck pain and CT junction dysfunction randomly assigned to either C7-T1 level Maitland mobilization group or mid-thoracic (T3-T6) manipulation group (active control group). In both the groups, the post graduate student (SJ) pursuing Master’s in orthopedic physiotherapy delivered the intervention. The outcomes of cervical flexion, extension, side flexion & rotation range of motion (ROM) were measured before & after the intervention with a cervical range of motion (CROM) device. Self-reported pain intensity was measured with the numerical pain rating scale (NPRS). The post-intervention between-group comparison was performed using a one-way ANCOVA test.

Results

Forty-two participants with mean age CT junction group: 35.14 ± 10.13 and Thoracic manipulation group: 38.47 ± 11.47 were recruited for the study. No significant differences in the post-intervention baseline adjusted outcomes of cervical ROM & self-reported pain intensity were identified between the groups after the treatment (p = 0.08, 0.95, 0.01, 0.39, 0.29, 0.27for flexion, extension, bilateral lateral flexion & rotations respectively) & neck pain intensity (p = 0.68). However, within-group, pre, and post comparison showed significant improvements in cervical ROM and pain in both groups.

Conclusion

This preliminary study identified that CT junction mobilization is not superior to thoracic manipulation on the outcomes of cervical ROM and neck pain when level-specific CT junction mobilization was compared with remote mid-thoracic manipulation in individuals with mechanical neck pain and CT junction dysfunction.

Trial registration

CTRI: 2018/04/013088, Registered 6 April 2018, http://ctri.nic.in/Clinicaltrials/pmaindet2.php?trialid=24418

Thoracic spine manipulation for the management of mechanical neck pain: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Objective

To investigate the role of thoracic spine manipulation (TSM) on pain and disability in the management of mechanical neck pain (MNP).

Data sources

Electronic databases PubMed, CINAHL, Pedro, Embase, AMED, the Cochrane Library, and clinicaltrials.gov were searched in January 2018.

Study selection

Eligible studies were completed RCTs, written in English, had at least 2 groups with one group receiving TSM, had at least one measure of pain or disability, and included patients with MNP of any duration. The search identified 1717 potential articles, with 14 studies meeting inclusion criteria.

Study appraisal and synthesis methods

Methodological quality was evaluated independently by two authors using the guidelines published by the Cochrane Collaboration. Pooled analyses were analyzed using a random-effects model with inverse variance methods to calculate mean differences (MD) and 95% confidence intervals for pain (VAS 0-100mm, NPRS 0-10pts; 0 = no pain) and disability (NDI and NPQ 0–100%; 0 = no disability).

Results

Across the included studies, there was increased risk of bias for inadequate provider and participant blinding. The GRADE approach demonstrated an overall level of evidence ranging from very low to moderate. Meta-analysis that compared TSM to thoracic or cervical mobilization revealed a significant effect favoring the TSM group for pain (MD -13.63; 95% CI: -21.79, -5.46) and disability (MD -9.93; 95% CI: -14.38, -5.48). Meta-analysis that compared TSM to standard care revealed a significant effect favoring the TSM group for pain (MD -13.21; 95% CI: -21.87, -4.55) and disability (MD -11.36; 95% CI: -18.93, -3.78) at short-term follow-up, and a significant effect for disability (MD -4.75; 95% CI: -6.54, -2.95) at long-term follow-up. Meta-analysis that compared TSM to cervical spine manipulation revealed a non-significant effect (MD 3.43; 95% CI: -7.26, 14.11) for pain without a distinction between immediate and short-term follow-up.

Limitations

The greatest limitation in this systematic review was the heterogeneity among the studies making it difficult to assess the true clinical benefit, as well as the overall level of quality of evidence.

Conclusions

TSM has been shown to be more beneficial than thoracic mobilization, cervical mobilization, and standard care in the short-term, but no better than cervical manipulation or placebo thoracic spine manipulation to improve pain and disability.

Trial registration

PROSPERO CRD42017068287

Reliability and diagnostic accuracy of cervicothoracic differentiation testing and regional unloading for identifying improvement after thoracic manipulation in individuals with neck pain

BACKGROUND & PURPOSE

The cervicothoracic differentiation test (CTDT), cervical and thoracic unloading are used clinically to guide treatment. This study sought to determine the reliability and diagnostic accuracy of these tests.

METHODS

A prospective diagnostic accuracy study was performed at two outpatient clinics and one university research center. A convenience sample of 48 individuals with neck pain was recruited. Cervical and thoracic unloading tests and CTDT were performed with symptom relief considered a positive test. Pain was assessed using a visual analog pain scale (VAS) at rest and during provocative movements. The reference standard was pain relief following thoracic manipulation. Change in pain was used to identify improvement at the MCID (15 mm) and 50% improvement thresholds.

RESULTS

All three tests demonstrated high levels of inter-rater reliability, K = 0.90[0.77-1.00]. Of 48 individuals who completed the study, 39 (81.3%) were improved ≥ MCID; compared to 34 (70.8%) at the 50% threshold. As a single test, the CTDT yielded the strongest diagnostic utility (at MCID threshold) based on ROC curve: AUC 0.791 s.e. 0.078; with high specificity (0.89[51.75-99.72]); LR+ 6.23 [0.97-40]; LR- 0.35 [0.20-0.58]; and PPV 96.43. Unloading tests demonstrated high sensitivity, but poor specificity and likelihood ratios. Composite tests improved specificity, but with lower accuracy and minimal changes in ROC area compared to the CTDT in isolation.

CONCLUSIONS

The CTDT is a specific test with significant diagnostic utility to identify individuals who will experience immediate pain relief following thoracic manipulation. The CTDT should be considered during the clinical decision making process when treating individuals with neck pain.

Comparison of range of motion during the cervical flexion rotation versus the side-bending rotation test in individuals with and without hyperlaxity

Objective: The flexion rotation test (FRT) is used to determine C1-2 involvement in individuals with neck pain and headaches. Some individuals present with generalized joint hyperlaxity (GJH) which could influence the results of this test, which relies on a soft tissue locking mechanism. The purpose of this study was to examine the side-bend rotation test (SBRT), which utilizes osseous locking, compared to the FRT. Methods: Thirty-eight healthy individuals (25 female, 26.03 years) were assessed for GJH via the Beighton Hypermobility Index (BHI). A blinded examiner performed the FRT and SBRT bilaterally, measuring ROM using a digital goniometer device. Results: Statistically significant differences in ROM were present for the FRT based on negative (0-3) and positive (4-9) BHI score: (Right 46.4±3.6, 49.6±4.8, p=.031), (Left 45.5±3.5, 49.0±5.2, p=.023); no differences were observed for the SBRT (Right 37.6±4.3, 38.9±3.4), (Left 37.7±4.2, 37.6±3.4).  When further stratifying the groups, a one-way ANOVA and post-hoc testing revealed significant differences of FRT range of motion between the BHI 7-9 group(52.4 ± 4.4 -53.9 ± 3.4) compared to BHI 0-3 (45.4 ± 3.6-46.2 ± 3.5) and 4-6 groups (46.0 ± 3.7-46.4 ± 2.2), p < .001; there were no significant differences between the 0-3 and 4-6 groups. There were no between group differences for the SBRT, BHI 0-3 (37.5 ± 4.4-37.7 ± 4.3), BHI 7-9 (39.9 ± 3.7-39.2 ± 3.5). Discussion: Individuals with GJH demonstrated significant differences in ROM for the FRT, but not the SBRT. The SBRT may be a useful alternative to the FRT for individuals with hyperlaxity. However, further research needs to be conducted to assess the diagnostic ability of this test in individuals with cervical pathology.

The immediate and 1-week effects of mid-thoracic thrust manipulation on lower extremity passive range of motion

BACKGROUND

Research suggests that spinal manipulation may effect motion. Less clear is whether this effect is limited to localized responses or may involve generalizable changes. Objective: To determine whether Mid-thoracic manipulation (MTM) would result in a significant change in the lower extremity passive straight leg raise (PSLR) range of motion immediately and after 1 week. Methods: Twenty-three healthy subjects were randomly assigned in a double-blinded study. An experimental group received MTM and a control group received a sham intervention. PSLR measurements were taken prior to, immediately after, and one week after the intervention. Results: Mixed model repeated measure analysis of variance was used to determine that there was a significant interaction between MTM and time (F(2, 21) = 3.84, p < 0.05). Post hoc tests revealed a significant difference between the pretest to immediate posttest values (p < 0.05, SE = 1.47). PSLR in the MTM group increased 10.3° while the sham group increased 1.9°. Difference was non-significant between pretest and 1-week follow-up (p = 0.129, SE = 2.46). Conclusions: MTM may immediately increase lower extremity passive range of motion, but the effect was lost by the 1-week follow-up. This supports evolving research suggesting that spinal manipulation may have a generalized but transient physiological effect.

The clinical reasoning process in randomized clinical trials with patients with non-specific neck pain is incomplete: A systematic review

OBJECTIVE

Primarily to evaluate the completeness of the description of the clinical reasoning process in RCTs with patients with non-specific neck pain with an argued or diagnosed cause i.e. an impairment or activity limitation. Secondly, to determine the association between the completeness of the clinical reasoning process and the degree of risk of bias.

DATA SOURCES

Pubmed, Cinahl and PEDro were systematically searched from inception to July 2016.

STUDY SELECTION

RCTs (n = 122) with patients with non-specific neck pain receiving physiotherapy treatment published in English were included.

DATA EXTRACTION

Data extraction included study characteristics and important features of the clinical reasoning process based on the Hypothesis-Oriented Algorithm for Clinicians II (HOAC II)].

DATA SYNTHESIS

Thirty-seven studies (30%) had a complete clinical reasoning process of which 8 (6%) had a 'diagnosed cause' and 29 (24%) had an 'argued cause'. The Spearmans rho association between the extent of the clinical reasoning process and the risk of bias was -0.2.

CONCLUSIONS

In the majority of studies (70%) the described clinical reasoning process was incomplete. A very small proportion (6%) had a 'diagnosed cause'. Therefore, a better methodological quality does not necessarily imply a better described clinical reasoning process.

The effect of direction specific thoracic spine manipulation on the cervical spine: a randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVES

To determine the difference on neck outcomes with directional manipulation to the thoracic spine. There is evidence that thoracic spine manipulation is effective in treating patients with neck pain. However, there is no research that determines if the assessment of directional hypomobility and the selection of thrust direction offer improved outcomes.

METHODS

A total of 69 patients with cervical spine pain were randomly assigned to receive either a manipulation that was consistent with their thoracic spine motion loss (matched) or opposite their motion loss (unmatched). The patient was given care consistent with the orthopedic section guidelines for neck pain and the physical therapist's clinical reasoning. Baseline outcome measures (NPRS, NDI, GROC) were taken and reassessed two days and two weeks after treatment.

RESULTS

Both groups had positive results when pain, neck disability index, and global rating of change were assessed. There was no difference between the matched and unmatched groups.

DISCUSSION

Directional manipulation of hypomobile thoracic spine segments may not be required to improved outcomes in patients with neck pain. Future studies should assess a variety of factors when determining the best available treatment, including manual therapy procedures, exercise, and patient selection.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

1b.

Examination and physical therapy management of a young gymnast with bilateral wrist pain: A case report

BACKGROUND

Wrist pain associated with weight-bearing gymnastic activities may be linked to musculoskeletal impairments, faulty movement patterns, and poor training techniques. Inadequate proximal control may adversely impact the loading mechanics throughout the upper extremities and contribute to a gymnast's complaint of wrist pain. The purpose of this case report is to describe the management of a young gymnast with primary complaint of bilateral wrist pain associated with upper extremity weight-bearing activities.

CASE DESCRIPTION

A 10 year-old male gymnast presented with a 6-month history of bilateral wrist pain aggravated by weight-bearing gymnastic activities. Based on the findings from a physical therapy examination, a 3-stage progressive rehabilitation program was designed using an impairment-based, multi-modal approach to treat key musculoskeletal impairments and movement deficiencies. Consistent with the principle of activity simulation, treatment targeted areas of weakness considered key to activity performance and included a progression of exercises and techniques that simulated activities reported by the gymnast to be painful.

OUTCOMES

The gymnast was treated for 11 visits over 8 weeks. He demonstrated improved strength, motor control, and self-reported outcome scores that allowed pain-free return to all gymnastic activities.

A CONCEPTUAL MODEL FOR PHYSICAL THERAPISTS TREATING ATHLETES WITH PROTRACTED RECOVERY FOLLOWING A CONCUSSION

Sports-related concussions are receiving growing attention in healthcare. Most concussions resolve spontaneously with little or no treatment, but twenty percent of concussions take longer than three weeks to resolve. In some cases, symptoms can last for five years following a traumatic brain injury. Physical Therapists have unique skills that can assist patients experiencing protracted recovery. The purpose of this clinical commentary is to describe a new conceptual model that provides a framework for Physical Therapy management of patients with protracted recovery following a sports-related concussion. The end product is a visual diagram that represents the full scope of clinical practice that Physical Therapy can provide to an athlete following a concussion.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

5.

Effect of the craniocervical brace on craniocervical angle, thoracic kyphosis angle, and trunk extensor muscle activity during typing in subjects with forward head posture

BACKGROUND

The relationship between forward head posture (FHP) and thoracic kyphosis has been a subject of interest in the rehabilitation field for visual display terminal workers.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to investigate the immediate effects of the craniocervical brace use on craniocervical angle (CCA), thoracic kyphosis angle (TKA), and trunk extensor muscle activity.

METHODS

Twelve young male subjects with forward head posture (21.6±1.9 years) participated in this study. We compared CCA & TKA and trunk extensor muscle activity between with and without application of the craniocervical brace during visual display terminal work.

RESULTS

When wearing the craniocervical brace, the subjects demonstrated significantly greater CCA at the start and the end of the task and less change in CCA during the task (p < 0.05). While non-significantly less TKA was seen at the start of the task, significantly less TKA was observed at the end of the task when using the craniocervical brace (p < 0.05). The craniocervical brace use also led to significantly less change in TKA (p < 0.05). There was no significant difference in the trunk extensor muscle activity.

CONCLUSIONS

Use of the craniocervical brace decreased FHP immediately, lessened thoracic kyphosis over time, and prevented the worsening of FHP and thoracic kyphosis during visual display terminal work.

A Knowledge Translation Programme to Increase the Utilization of Thoracic Spine Mobilization and Manipulation for Patients with Neck Pain

BACKGROUND

There is extensive evidence that mobilization and manipulation of the thoracic spine is associated with improved outcomes in patients with neck pain. However, these evidence-based techniques are not always utilized. Successful knowledge translation programmes are needed to move the best available evidence to clinical practice. The purpose of the present research was to evaluate the effects of a structured knowledge translation programme on the frequency of manual therapy techniques performed by physical therapists on patients with neck pain.

METHODS

Prior to our intervention, we assessed physical therapists' use of thoracic spine intervention for the treatment of neck pain and their knowledge of the evidence. We delivered a multimodal knowledge translation programme and then reassessed their use and knowledge of the interventions.

RESULTS

The majority of our physical therapists increased the use of thoracic spine techniques for their patients with neck pain. The increase was greater in those who used the techniques infrequently. Overall knowledge of the evidence appeared unchanged.

DISCUSSION

Knowledge translation programmes are essential in ensuring clinical use of evidence-based practice. Our programme results, although on a small scale and not statistically significant, showed a positive trend toward increased thoracic spine manual therapy use for neck pain. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Effect of thoracic and cervical joint mobilization on pulmonary function in stroke patients

[Purpose] This study aimed to conduct thoracic and cervical mobilization in stroke patients and determine its effects on respiratory function. [Subjects and Methods] Twenty-one stroke patients were studied. Subjects were divided into a control group (control group, n=11) who did not undergo thoracic and cervical joint mobilization, and an experimental group (thoracic and cervical mobilization group, n=10) who underwent thoracic and cervical joint mobilization. Forced vital capacity and forced expiratory volume in the first second, well-known indicators of respiratory capabilities, were measured. Peak cough flow was measured as an indicator of cough capability. [Results] After the exercise, respiratory function in the thoracic and cervical mobilization group showed statistically significant improvements demonstrated by increases in forced vital capacity, forced expiratory volume in the first second, and peak cough flow. [Conclusion] The findings indicate that thoracic and cervical mobilization can improve the thoracic movements of stroke patients resulting in improved pulmonary function.

Manipulation and mobilisation for neck pain contrasted against an inactive control or another active treatment

BACKGROUND

Manipulation and mobilisation are commonly used to treat neck pain. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2003, and previously updated in 2010.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of manipulation or mobilisation alone compared wiith those of an inactive control or another active treatment on pain, function, disability, patient satisfaction, quality of life and global perceived effect in adults experiencing neck pain with or without radicular symptoms and cervicogenic headache (CGH) at immediate- to long-term follow-up. When appropriate, to assess the influence of treatment characteristics (i.e. technique, dosage), methodological quality, symptom duration and subtypes of neck disorder on treatment outcomes.

SEARCH METHODS

Review authors searched the following computerised databases to November 2014 to identify additional studies: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL). We also searched ClinicalTrials.gov, checked references, searched citations and contacted study authors to find relevant studies. We updated this search in June 2015, but these results have not yet been incorporated.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) undertaken to assess whether manipulation or mobilisation improves clinical outcomes for adults with acute/subacute/chronic neck pain.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected studies, abstracted data, assessed risk of bias and applied Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methods (very low, low, moderate, high quality). We calculated pooled risk ratios (RRs) and standardised mean differences (SMDs).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 51 trials (2920 participants, 18 trials of manipulation/mobilisation versus control; 34 trials of manipulation/mobilisation versus another treatment, 1 trial had two comparisons). Cervical manipulation versus inactive control: For subacute and chronic neck pain, a single manipulation (three trials, no meta-analysis, 154 participants, ranged from very low to low quality) relieved pain at immediate- but not short-term follow-up. Cervical manipulation versus another active treatment: For acute and chronic neck pain, multiple sessions of cervical manipulation (two trials, 446 participants, ranged from moderate to high quality) produced similar changes in pain, function, quality of life (QoL), global perceived effect (GPE) and patient satisfaction when compared with multiple sessions of cervical mobilisation at immediate-, short- and intermediate-term follow-up. For acute and subacute neck pain, multiple sessions of cervical manipulation were more effective than certain medications in improving pain and function at immediate- (one trial, 182 participants, moderate quality) and long-term follow-up (one trial, 181 participants, moderate quality). These findings are consistent for function at intermediate-term follow-up (one trial, 182 participants, moderate quality). For chronic CGH, multiple sessions of cervical manipulation (two trials, 125 participants, low quality) may be more effective than massage in improving pain and function at short/intermediate-term follow-up. Multiple sessions of cervical manipulation (one trial, 65 participants, very low quality) may be favoured over transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) for pain reduction at short-term follow-up. For acute neck pain, multiple sessions of cervical manipulation (one trial, 20 participants, very low quality) may be more effective than thoracic manipulation in improving pain and function at short/intermediate-term follow-up. Thoracic manipulation versus inactive control: Three trials (150 participants) using a single session were assessed at immediate-, short- and intermediate-term follow-up. At short-term follow-up, manipulation improved pain in participants with acute and subacute neck pain (five trials, 346 participants, moderate quality, pooled SMD -1.26, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.86 to -0.66) and improved function (four trials, 258 participants, moderate quality, pooled SMD -1.40, 95% CI -2.24 to -0.55) in participants with acute and chronic neck pain. A funnel plot of these data suggests publication bias. These findings were consistent at intermediate follow-up for pain/function/quality of life (one trial, 111 participants, low quality). Thoracic manipulation versus another active treatment: No studies provided sufficient data for statistical analyses. A single session of thoracic manipulation (one trial, 100 participants, moderate quality) was comparable with thoracic mobilisation for pain relief at immediate-term follow-up for chronic neck pain. Mobilisation versus inactive control: Mobilisation as a stand-alone intervention (two trials, 57 participants, ranged from very low to low quality) may not reduce pain more than an inactive control. Mobilisation versus another active treatment: For acute and subacute neck pain, anterior-posterior mobilisation (one trial, 95 participants, very low quality) may favour pain reduction over rotatory or transverse mobilisations at immediate-term follow-up. For chronic CGH with temporomandibular joint (TMJ) dysfunction, multiple sessions of TMJ manual therapy (one trial, 38 participants, very low quality) may be more effective than cervical mobilisation in improving pain/function at immediate- and intermediate-term follow-up. For subacute and chronic neck pain, cervical mobilisation alone (four trials, 165 participants, ranged from low to very low quality) may not be different from ultrasound, TENS, acupuncture and massage in improving pain, function, QoL and participant satisfaction at immediate- and intermediate-term follow-up. Additionally, combining laser with manipulation may be superior to using manipulation or laser alone (one trial, 56 participants, very low quality).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Although support can be found for use of thoracic manipulation versus control for neck pain, function and QoL, results for cervical manipulation and mobilisation versus control are few and diverse. Publication bias cannot be ruled out. Research designed to protect against various biases is needed. Findings suggest that manipulation and mobilisation present similar results for every outcome at immediate/short/intermediate-term follow-up. Multiple cervical manipulation sessions may provide better pain relief and functional improvement than certain medications at immediate/intermediate/long-term follow-up. Since the risk of rare but serious adverse events for manipulation exists, further high-quality research focusing on mobilisation and comparing mobilisation or manipulation versus other treatment options is needed to guide clinicians in their optimal treatment choices.

Regional interdependence and manual therapy directed at the thoracic spine

Thoracic spine manipulation is commonly used by physical therapists for the management of patients with upper quarter pain syndromes. The theoretical construct for using thoracic manipulation for upper quarter conditions is a mainstay of a regional interdependence (RI) approach. The RI concept is likely much more complex and is perhaps driven by a neurophysiological response including those related to peripheral, spinal cord and supraspinal mechanisms. Recent evidence suggests that thoracic spine manipulation results in neurophysiological changes, which may lead to improved pain and outcomes in individuals with musculoskeletal disorders. The intent of this narrative review is to describe the research supporting the RI concept and its application to the treatment of individuals with neck and/or shoulder pain. Treatment utilizing both thrust and non-thrust thoracic manipulation has been shown to result in improvements in pain, range of motion and disability in patients with upper quarter conditions. Research has yet to determine optimal dosage, techniques or patient populations to which the RI approach should be applied; however, emerging evidence supporting a neurophysiological effect for thoracic spine manipulation may negate the need to fully answer this question. Certainly, there is a need for further research examining both the clinical efficacy and effectiveness of manual therapy interventions utilized in the RI model as well as the neurophysiological effects resulting from this intervention.

A comparison of two non-thrust mobilization techniques applied to the C7 segment in patients with restricted and painful cervical rotation

OBJECTIVES

Cervical mobilization and manipulation have been shown to improve cervical range of motion and pain. Rotatory thrust manipulation applied to the lower cervical segments is associated with controversy and the potential for eliciting adverse reactions (AR). The purpose of this clinical trial was to describe two translatory non-thrust mobilization techniques and evaluate their effect on cervical pain, motion restriction, and whether any adverse effects were reported when applied to the C7 segment.

METHODS

This trial included 30 participants with painful and restricted cervical rotation. Participants were randomly assigned to receive one of the two mobilization techniques. Active cervical rotation and pain intensity measurements were recorded pre- and post-intervention. Within group comparisons were determined using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test and between group comparisons were analyzed using the Mann-Whitney U test. Significance was set at P = 0.05.

RESULTS

Thirty participants were evaluated immediately after one of the two mobilization techniques was applied. There was a statistically significant difference (improvement) for active cervical rotation after application of the C7 facet distraction technique for both right (P = 0.022) and left (P = 0.022) rotation. Statistically significant improvement was also found for the C7 facet gliding technique for both right (P = 0.022) and left rotation (P = 0.020). Pain reduction was statistically significant for both right and left rotation after application of both techniques. Both mobilization techniques produced similar positive effects and one was not statistically superior to the other.

DISCUSSION

A single application of both C7 mobilization techniques improved active cervical rotation, reduced perceived pain, and did not produce any AR in 30 patients with neck pain and movement limitation. These two non-thrust techniques may offer clinicians an additional safe and effective manual intervention for patients with limited and painful cervical rotation. A more robust experimental design is recommended to further examine these and similar cervical translatory mobilization techniques.

The Effect of Thoracic Joint Mobilization and Self-stretching Exercise on Pulmonary Functions of Patients with Chronic Neck Pain

[Purpose] The objective of this study was to determine the effect of thoracic joint mobilization and self-stretching exercise on the pulmonary functions of patients with chronic neck pain. [Subjects] The present study was performed with 34 patients with chronic neck pain featuring thoracic kyphosis; we divided them into a thoracic joint mobilization group (TJMG, n = 11), self-stretching exercise group (SSEG, n = 11), and thoracic joint mobilization and self-stretching exercise group (TJMSSEG, n = 12). [Methods] Treatments and exercise were conducted three times a week for six weeks in TJMG, SSEG, and TJMSSEG; the subjects' pulmonary functions in terms of forced vital capacity (FVC), forced expiratory volume at one second (FEV1), and peak expiratory flow (PEF) were measured using CardioTouch equipment. [Results] Comparisons of the individuals within each of the TJMG, SSEG, and TJMSSEG showed that all of FVC, FEV1, and PEF increased significantly; Comparisons within each of the showed that FVC, FEV1, and PEF increased significantly. Among the study groups, FVC was significantly higher in TJMSSEG than in TJMG after six weeks; FEV1 was significantly higher in TJMSSEG than in TJMG and SSEG after four and six weeks; and PEF was significantly higher in TJMSSEG than in TJMG and SSEG after six weeks. [Conclusion] The study results indicate that thoracic joint mobilization and self-stretching exercise are effective interventions for increasing FVC, FEV1, and PEF among pulmonary functions.

Thoracic manipulation versus mobilization in patients with mechanical neck pain: a systematic review

OBJECTIVES

Thoracic manipulation is widely used in physical therapy and has been shown to be effective at addressing mechanical neck pain. However, thoracic mobilization may produce similar effects. The purpose of this systematic review was to evaluate the current literature regarding the effectiveness of thoracic manipulation versus mobilization in patients with mechanical neck pain.

METHODS

ProQuest, NCBI-PubMed, APTA's Hooked on Evidence, Cochrane Library, CINAHL and SPORTDiscus were searched to identify relevant studies. Fourteen studies meeting the inclusion criteria were analyzed using the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) scale and the GRADE approach.

RESULTS

The literature as assessed by the PEDro scale was fair and the GRADE method showed overall quality ranging from very low to moderate quality. The 14 included studies showed positive outcomes on cervical pain levels, range of motion, and/or disability with the use of thoracic manipulation or mobilization. There was a paucity of literature directly comparing thoracic manipulation and mobilization.

DISCUSSION

Current limitations in the body of research, specifically regarding the use of thoracic mobilization, limit the recommendation of its use compared to thoracic manipulation for patients with mechanical neck pain. There is, however, a significant amount of evidence, although of varied quality, for the short-term benefits of thoracic manipulation in treating patients with this condition. Further high quality research is necessary to determine which technique is more effective in treating patients with mechanical neck pain.

A randomized clinical trial to compare the immediate effects of seated thoracic manipulation and targeted supine thoracic manipulation on cervical spine flexion range of motion and pain

DESIGN

Randomized clinical trial.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness of seated thoracic manipulation versus targeted supine thoracic manipulation on cervical spine pain and flexion range of motion (ROM). There is evidence that thoracic spine manipulation is an effective treatment for patients with cervical spine pain. This evidence includes a variety of techniques to manipulate the thoracic spine. Although each of them is effective, no research has compared techniques to determine which produces the best outcomes.

METHODS

A total of 39 patients with cervical spine pain were randomly assigned to either a seated thoracic manipulation or targeted supine thoracic manipulation group. Pain and flexion ROM measures were taken before and after the intervention.

RESULTS

Pain reduction (post-treatment-pre-treatment) was significantly greater in those patients receiving the targeted supine thoracic manipulation compared to the seated thoracic manipulation (P<0.05). Although not significant, we did observe greater improvement in flexion ROM in the targeted supine thoracic manipulation group. The results of this study indicate that a targeted supine thoracic manipulation may be more effective in reducing cervical spine pain and improving cervical flexion ROM than a seated thoracic manipulation. Future studies should include a variety of patients and physical therapists (PTs) to validate our findings.

Use of thoracic spine thrust manipulation for neck pain and headache in a patient following multiple-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: a case report

STUDY DESIGN

Case report.

BACKGROUND

Thoracic spine thrust manipulation has been shown to be an effective intervention for individuals experiencing mechanical neck pain.

CASE DESCRIPTION

The patient was a 46-year-old woman referred to outpatient physical therapy 2 months following multiple-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. At initial evaluation, primary symptoms consisted of frequent headaches, neck pain, intermittent referred right elbow pain, and muscle fatigue localized to the right cervical and upper thoracic spine regions. Initial examination findings included decreased passive joint mobility of the thoracic spine, limited cervical range of motion, and limited right shoulder strength. Outcome measures consisted of the numeric pain rating scale, the Neck Disability Index, and the global rating of change scale. Treatment consisted of a combination of manual therapy techniques aimed at the thoracic spine, therapeutic exercises for the upper quarter, and patient education, including a home exercise program, over a 6-week episode of care.

OUTCOMES

Immediate reductions in cervical-region pain (mean ± SD, 2.0 ± 1.1) and headache (2.0 ± 1.3) intensity were reported every treatment session immediately following thoracic spine thrust manipulation. At discharge, the patient reported 0/10 cervical pain and headache symptoms during all work-related activities. From initial assessment to discharge, Neck Disability Index scores improved from 46% to 16%, with an associated global rating of change scale score of +7 ("a very great deal better").

DISCUSSION

This case report describes the immediate and short-term clinical outcomes for a patient presenting with symptoms of neck pain and headache following anterior cervical discectomy and fusion surgical intervention. Clinical rationale and patient preference aided the decision to incorporate thoracic spine thrust manipulation as a treatment for this patient. Level of Evidence Therapy, level 4.

Analysis of scientific truth status in controlled rehabilitation trials

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

Systematic reviews, meta-analyses and clinical guidelines (reviews) are intended to inform clinical practice, and in this sense can be thought of as scientific truthmakers. High-quality controlled trials should align to this truth, and method quality markers should predict truth status. We sought to determine in what way controlled trial quality relates to scientific truth, and to determine predictive utility of trial quality and bibliographic markers.

METHOD

A sample of reviews in rehabilitation medicine was examined. Two scientific truth dimensions were established based on review outcomes. Quality and bibliographic markers were extracted from associated trials for use in a regression analysis of their predictive utility for trial truth status. Probability analysis was undertaken to examine judgments of future trial truth status.

RESULTS

Of the 93 trials included in contemporaneous reviews, overall, n = 45 (48%) were true. Randomization was found more in true trials than false trials in one truth dimension (P = 0.03). Intention-to-treat analysis was close to significant in one truth dimension (P = 0.058), being more commonly used in false trials. There were no other significant differences in quality or bibliographic variables between true and false trials. Regression analysis revealed no significant predictors of trial truth status. Probability analysis reported that the reasonable chance of future trials being true was between 2 and 5%, based on a uniform prior.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings are at odds with what is considered gold-standard research methods, but in line with previous reports. Further work should focus on scientific dynamics within healthcare research and evidence-based practice constructs.

What are the clinical criteria justifying spinal manipulative therapy for neck pain?- a systematic review of randomized controlled trials

OBJECTIVE

Manipulation and mobilization are used to treat neck pain. However, little is known about the diagnostic criteria used to determine the need for manipulation in cases of neck pain. The primary aim of this study was to determine what diagnostic criteria are used to identify which neck pain sufferers should receive spinal manipulation or mobilization.

DESIGN

We systematically reviewed randomized controlled trials (RCT) involving mobilization or manipulation for neck pain. A data extraction pro forma was developed and trialled before two independent assessors extracted data sets from each RCT. A descriptive analysis was undertaken.

RESULTS

Thirty RCTs met the inclusion criteria. Acute and chronic "Mechanical" neck pain was the most common (43%) diagnosis at recruitment to the RCTs but some (10%) included patients with cervicogenic headache. Clinical criteria were used to determine the need for neck manipulation in over half (63%) of the RCTs. This usually involved exclusion of serious conditions, manual examination for tenderness on palpation, and/or altered vertebral motion in the neck or upper thoracic region which are known to lack validity. The remainder of the RCTs did not report a diagnostic strategy. All RCTs lacked detail descriptions of diagnostic criteria or interventions used.

CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review highlights the absence of reliable and valid diagnostic protocols to determine the need for spinal manipulation in persons presenting with non-serious, idiopathic, or whiplash-associated (grade II) neck pain. Guidelines requiring the reporting of valid diagnostic criteria are needed to improve the quality of RCTs concerning manual therapy.

The effect of thoracic spine manipulation on pain and disability in patients with non-specific neck pain: a systematic review

PURPOSE

The aim of this systematic review was to determine the efficacy of thoracic spine manipulation (TSM) in reducing pain and disability in patients diagnosed with non-specific neck pain.

METHODS

An extensive literature search of PubMed, The Cochrane Library, CINAHL and EMBASE was conducted in February 2012. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or controlled clinical trials evaluating the effect of TSM in patients aged 18 to 65 years with non-specific neck pain were eligible. Methodological quality of the studies was assessed according to the Physiotherapy Evidence Database scale (PEDro). Qualitative analyses were conducted by means of the best evidence synthesis of van Peppen et al.

RESULTS

The methodological quality of the 10 included RCTs (677 patients) varied between four and eight points. Eight studies reported significant reduction in pain and/or disability by TSM. Overall, according to the best evidence synthesis, there is insufficient evidence that TSM is more effective than control interventions in reducing pain and disability in patients with non-specific neck pain.

CONCLUSIONS

TSM has a therapeutic benefit to some patients with neck pain, when compared to the effect of interventions such as electrotherapy/thermal programme, infrared radiation therapy, spinal mobilization and exercises. However, in comparison to cervical spine manipulation, no evidence is found that TSM is more effective in reducing pain and disability. Implications for Rehabilitation TSM is often used in the treatment of non-specific neck pain, which is a major health problem in the Western society. There is insufficient evidence that TSM is more effective in reducing pain and disability than control treatments in patients with non-specific neck pain. Despite the insufficient evidence that TSM is more effective than control treatments, TSM has a therapeutic benefit to some patients with neck pain. Therefore, TSM alone or in combination with other interventions is a suitable intervention to use in the treatment of non-specific neck pain.

Short-term effects of spinal thrust joint manipulation in patients with chronic neck pain: a randomized clinical trial

Objective:

To compare the effects of an isolated application of cervical spine thrust joint manipulation vs. the application of cervical, cervico-thoracic junction and thoracic manipulation on neck pain, disability and cervical range of motion in chronic neck pain.

Design:

Randomized clinical trial.

Setting:

Clinical practice.

Participants:

Eighty-two patients (41 females) with chronic mechanical neck pain.

Interventions:

Patients were randomly assigned to a cervical spine manipulation group or a full manipulative group who received mid-cervical, cervico-thoracic and thoracic joint manipulations.

Measurements:

Neck pain intensity (11-point numeric pain rating scale), self-reported disability (Neck Disability Index) and cervical range of motion were collected at baseline and one week after the intervention by an assessor blinded to the allocation of the patients.

Results:

A significant Group * Time interaction for Neck Disability Index ( P = 0.022), but not for neck pain ( P = 0.612), was found: patients in the full manipulative group exhibited greater reduction in disability than those who received the cervical spine manipulation alone, whereas both groups experienced similar decreases in neck pain. Patients in both groups experienced similar increases in cervical range of motion ( P > 0.4). No effect of gender was observed ( P > 0.299).

Conclusions:

In patients with chronic mechanical neck pain, manipulation of the cervical and thoracic spine leads to a greater reduction in disability at one week than after manipulation of the cervical spine alone, whereas changes in pain and range of motion are not affected differently.

Clinical presentation and manual therapy for upper quadrant musculoskeletal conditions

In recent years, increased knowledge of the pathogenesis of upper quadrant pain syndromes has translated to better management strategies. Recent studies have demonstrated evidence of peripheral and central sensitization mechanisms in different local pain syndromes of the upper quadrant such as idiopathic neck pain, lateral epicondylalgia, whiplash-associated disorders, shoulder impingement, and carpal tunnel syndrome. Therefore, a treatment-based classification approach where subjects receive matched interventions has been developed and, it has been found that these patients experience better outcomes than those receiving non-matched interventions. There is evidence suggesting that the cervical and thoracic spine is involved in upper quadrant pain. Spinal manipulation has been found to be effective for patients with elbow pain, neck pain, or cervicobrachial pain. Additionally, it is known that spinal manipulative therapy exerts neurophysiological effects that can activate pain modulation mechanisms. This paper exposes some manual therapies for upper quadrant pain syndromes, based on a nociceptive pain rationale for modulating central nervous system including trigger point therapy, dry needling, mobilization or manipulation, and cognitive pain approaches.

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

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

Ultrasound analysis of the vertebral artery during non-thrust cervical translatoric spinal manipulation

OBJECTIVE

Cervical translatoric spinal manipulation (TSM) techniques have been suggested as a safer alternative to cervical thrust rotatory techniques. The objective of this study was to determine the effect of three C5-C6 non-thrust TSM techniques on vertebral artery (VA) lumen diameter (LD) and two blood flow velocity parameters. The two-tailed research hypothesis was that the TSM techniques would result in a significant change (increase or decrease) in blood flow velocity and arterial LD at the C5-C6 intertransverse portion of the VA.

METHODS

In a sample of 30 subjects representative of a clinical population, color-coded duplex Doppler diagnostic ultrasound imaging was used to collect data on LD, peak systolic velocity (PSV), and end diastolic velocity with the cervical spine positioned in neutral and in three different manipulation positions. Pair-wise mean differences between measurements at baseline (neutral position) and in all three manipulation positions were analyzed using two-tailed paired t-tests with alpha set at 0·05.

RESULTS

Of the 18 paired comparisons, there were four statistically significant differences between measurements in the neutral position and a manipulation position, three concerning LD and one PSV.

DISCUSSION

The three significant differences in LD ranged from 4·6 to 3·2% and were not associated with changes in blood flow velocity. The one significant change in PSV was only 6·6 cm/s. A value that still greatly exceeded the end diastolic velocity. No subject experienced symptoms associated with VA compromise. This study has provided evidence for the safety of the three lower cervical non-thrust TSM techniques on the current population studied. Further study is required on thrust versus non-thrust TSM techniques and on levels other than C5-C6.

Safe physiotherapy interventions in large cervical disc herniations

A 34-year-old woman was seen in a physiotherapy department with signs and symptoms of cervical radiculopathy. Loss of cervical lordosis and a large paracentral to intraforaminal disc prolapse (8&emsp14;mm) at C5-C6 level was reported on MRI. She was taking diclofenac sodium, tramadol HCl, diazepam and pregabalin for the preceding 2&emsp14;months and no significant improvement, except temporary relief, was reported. She was referred to physiotherapy while awaiting a surgical opinion from a neurosurgeon. In physiotherapy she was treated with mobilisation of the upper thoracic spine from C7 to T6 level. A cervical extension exercise was performed with prior voluntary extension of the thoracic spine and elevated shoulders. She was advised to continue the same at home. General posture advice was given. Signs and symptoms resolved within the following four sessions of treatment over 3&emsp14;weeks. Surgical intervention was subsequently deemed unnecessary.

The effect of spinal manipulative therapy on spinal range of motion: a systematic literature review

BACKGROUND

Spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) has been shown to have an effect on spine-related pain, both clinically and in experimentally induced pain. However, it is unclear if it has an immediate noticeable biomechanical effect on spinal motion that can be measured in terms of an increased range of motion (ROM).

OBJECTIVE

To assess the quality of the literature and to determine whether or not SMT is associated with an immediate increase in ROM.

DESIGN

A systematic critical literature review.

METHOD

Systematic searches were performed in Pubmed, the Cochrane Library and EMBASE using terms relating to manipulation, movement and the spine. Selection of articles was made according to specific criteria by two independent reviewers. Two checklists were created based on the needs of the present review. Articles were independently reviewed by two reviewers. Articles were given quality scores and the data synthesized for each region treated in the literature. Findings were summarized in tables and reported in a narrative fashion.

RESULTS

Fifteen articles were retained reporting on experiments on the neck, lumbar spine, hip and jaw. The mean quality score was 71/100 (ranges 33/100 - 92/100). A positive effect of SMT was reported in both studies where mouth opening was assessed after cervical manipulation. In five of the nine studies on cervical ROM a positive effect was reported, whereas the remaining four studies did not show improvement. None of the three studies of the lumbar spine showed an effect of SMT on lumbar ROMs and one study of sacroiliac manipulation reported no effect on the ROM of the hip joint.In relation to the quality score, the seven highest ranked studies, showed significant positive effects of SMT on ROM. Continuing down the list, the other studies reported no significant differences in the outcomes between groups.

CONCLUSION

SMT seems sometimes to have a small effect on ROM, at least in the cervical spine. Further research should concentrate on areas of the spine that have the potential of actually improving to such a degree that a change can be easily uncovered.

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.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of efficacy, cost-effectiveness, and safety of selected complementary and alternative medicine for neck and low-back pain

Background. Back pain is a common problem and a major cause of disability and health care utilization. Purpose. To evaluate the efficacy, harms, and costs of the most common CAM treatments (acupuncture, massage, spinal manipulation, and mobilization) for neck/low-back pain. Data Sources. Records without language restriction from various databases up to February 2010. Data Extraction. The efficacy outcomes of interest were pain intensity and disability. Data Synthesis. Reports of 147 randomized trials and 5 nonrandomized studies were included. CAM treatments were more effective in reducing pain and disability compared to no treatment, physical therapy (exercise and/or electrotherapy) or usual care immediately or at short-term follow-up. Trials that applied sham-acupuncture tended towards statistically nonsignificant results. In several studies, acupuncture caused bleeding on the site of application, and manipulation and massage caused pain episodes of mild and transient nature. Conclusions. CAM treatments were significantly more efficacious than no treatment, placebo, physical therapy, or usual care in reducing pain immediately or at short-term after treatment. CAM therapies did not significantly reduce disability compared to sham. None of the CAM treatments was shown systematically as superior to one another. More efforts are needed to improve the conduct and reporting of studies of CAM treatments.