Cervical radiculopathy: study protocol of a randomised clinical trial evaluating the effect of mobilisations and exercises targeting the opening of intervertebral foramen [NCT01500044]

Comparative effectiveness of manual intermittent cervical longitudinal mobilization versus pain modalities in cervical radiculopathy: A double blinded randomized controlled study

BACKGROUND

Cervical radiculopathy is a common condition encountered in clinical practice and is characterized by compression or irritation of the nerve roots in the cervical spine.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effectiveness of manual intermittent cervical longitudinal mobilization (mICLM) and therapeutic modalities in managing acute, sub-acute and chronic radiculopathy pain.

METHODS

This was a multicenter, double-blinded, randomized controlled trial. Individuals with radiculopathies were randomized into interventional; (IG, n= 18) receiving mICLM and control group; (CG, n= 17), receiving Microwave Diathermy (MWD) and transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) at the cervico-dorsal area daily for two weeks. The neck pain disability index (NPDI), numeric pain rating scale (NPRS), and global rating of change score (GRoC) were used as outcome measures. Statistical analysis was conducted using SPSS version 23.0.

RESULTS

Both mICLM and MWD with TENS were equally effective in reducing the pain and disability in either group. However, it was noted that mICLM had a better impact on acute, sub-acute and chronic cases of radiculopathy pain comparatively. Mean age was 42.3 (SD =± 10.9) years. 54.3% were between the age group of 40-60 years out of which 51.4% were male and 48.6% were female. 51.4% were in IG and 48.6% were in CG. The mean comparison of NPAD and NPRS within groups was significant with p< 0.01*. Post treatment mean comparison of NPAD outcomes in IG and CG remain significant with p= 0.004* and p< 0.01* respectively. The post NPAD and NPRS between IG and CG were found statistically insignificant with p= 0.75 and p= 0.57 respectively.

CONCLUSION

mICLM and therapeutic modalities showed similar outcomes in managing radiculopathy pain. The study highlights the need for further research to understand the effectiveness of these interventions in larger patient populations.

A randomised controlled trial of multimodal physiotherapy versus advice for recent onset, painful cervical radiculopathy - the PACeR trial protocol

BACKGROUND

A research gap exists for optimal management of cervical radiculopathy in the first 12 weeks and short term natural history of the condition is somewhat unclear, although thought to be favourable. The primary aim of this assessor blinded, superiority, 2 parallel group randomised controlled trial is to investigate the effects of a 4 week physiotherapy programme (6-8 sessions) of manual therapy, exercise and upper limb neural unloading tape, compared to a control of weekly phone advice; on disability, pain and selected biopsychosocial measures, in acute and sub-acute cervical radiculopathy patients. A secondary aim is to identify whether any baseline variables, symptom duration or group allocation can predict outcome.

METHODS

Participants are recruited from GP referrals in an urban setting, from a neurosurgery non-urgent waiting list and from self-referral through Facebook advertising. Eligible participants (n = 64) are diagnosed with radiculopathy based on a clinical prediction rule and must have symptoms of unilateral, single level, radiculopathy for between 2 and 12 weeks, without having yet received physiotherapy. Random 1:1 group allocation (using variable block sizes), allocation concealment, blinded assessment and intention to treat analysis are being employed. Treatment is provided by clinical specialist physiotherapists in primary and secondary care settings. Outcomes are measured at baseline, 4 (primary endpoint) and 12 weeks. Participants' report of pain, disability and their rating of recovery is also recorded by telephone interview at 6 months. Statistical analysis of between group differences will be performed with ANOVAs and MANOVAs, and multivariable regression analysis will be undertaken to explore predictor variables. Ethical approval for this study has been received from the Beaumont Hospital and Irish College of General Practitioners Research Ethics Committees. The trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02449200).

DISCUSSION

An internal pilot study to test retention and recruitment strategies led to trial expansion and this is now a multi centre trial involving 5 clinical sites.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT02449200 . Registered 20/05/15.

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.

Comparison of 2 manual therapy and exercise protocols for cervical radiculopathy: a randomized clinical trial evaluating short-term effects

STUDY DESIGN

Participant- and assessor-blinded randomized clinical trial.

OBJECTIVES

To compare a rehabilitation program thought to increase the size of the intervertebral foramen (IVF) of the affected nerve root to a rehabilitation program that doesn't include any specific techniques thought to increase the size of the IVF in patients presenting with cervical radiculopathy (CR).

BACKGROUND

Clinical approaches for the treatment of CR commonly include exercises and manual therapy techniques thought to increase the size of the IVF, but evidence regarding the effectiveness of these specific manual therapy techniques is scarce.

METHODS

Thirty-six participants with CR were randomly assigned either to a group that received a manual therapy and exercise program aimed at increasing the size of the IVF of the affected nerve root (experimental group, n=18) or to a group that received a manual therapy and exercise program without the specific goal of increasing the size of the IVF of the affected level and side (comparison group, n=18). Primary (Neck Disability Index) and secondary (shortened version of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand questionnaire [QuickDASH] and numeric pain-rating scale) outcomes were evaluated at baseline, at the end of the 4-week program (week 4), and 4 weeks later (week 8). A mixed-model, 2-way analysis of variance was used to analyze treatment effects.

RESULTS

No significant group-by-time interaction or group effect was observed for Neck Disability Index, QuickDASH, and numeric pain-rating scale scores (P≥.14) following the intervention. However, both groups showed statistically and clinically significant improvement from baseline to week 4 and to week 8 in Neck Disability Index, QuickDASH, and numeric pain-rating scale scores (P<.05).

CONCLUSION

Results suggest that manual therapy and exercises are effective in reducing pain and functional limitations related to CR. The addition of techniques thought to increase the size of the IVF of the affected nerve root yielded no significant additional benefits. Given the absence of a "no treatment" group, a spontaneous resolution of symptoms cannot be excluded. However, the magnitude of improvement makes spontaneous resolution unlikely. The trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01500044).

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapy, level 1b-.

The shift of segmental contribution ratio in patients with herniated disc during cervical lateral bending

Background

Abnormal intervertebral movements of spine have been reported to be associated with trauma and pathological conditions. The importance of objective spinal motion imaging assessment in the frontal plane was frequently underestimated. The clinical evaluation of the segmental motion contribution could be useful for detecting the motion pattern of individual vertebrae. Therefore the purpose of this study was to investigate the shift of segmental contribution ratio in patients with herniated disc during cervical lateral bending to provide additional insights to cervical biomechanics.

Methods

A total of 92 subjects (46 healthy adult subjects and 46 disc-herniated patients) were enrolled in this case–control study. The motion images during cervical lateral bending movements were digitized using a precise image protocol to analyze the intervertebral motion and contribution.

Results

Our results showed that the intervertebral angulation during cervical lateral bending for the C2/3 to C6/7 segments were 7.66°±2.37°, 8.37°±2.11°, 8.91°±3.22°, 7.19°±2.29°, 6.31°±2.11°, respectively for the healthy subjects. For the patients with herniated disc, the intervertebral angulation for the C2/3 to C6/7 segments were 6.87°±1.67°, 7.83°±1.79°, 7.73°±2.71°, 5.13°±2.05°, 4.80°±1.93°, respectively. There were significant angulation and translational differences between healthy subjects and the patients with herniated disc in the C5/6 and C6/7 segments (P=0.001-0.029). The segmental contributions of the individual vertebral segments were further analyzed. There was a significant increase in segmental contribution ratio of C3/4 (P=0.048), while a significant decrease in contribution ratio of C5/6 (P=0.037) was observed in the patients with herniated disc. Our results indicated that the segmental contribution shifted toward the middle cervical spine in the patients with herniated disc.

Conclusions

The segmental contributions of cervical spine during lateral bending movement were first described based on the validated radiographic protocol. The detection of the shift of segmental contribution ratio could be helpful for the diagnosis the motion abnormality resulted from the disc or, facet pathologies, and arthritic changes of cervical spine.