Comparison of conservative treatment with and without neural mobilization for patients with low back pain: A prospective, randomized clinical trial

Efficacy of neuromobilization in the treatment of low back pain: Systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Low back pain (LBP) is a leading cause of disability. Neuromobilization (NM) as a physical therapy technique, offers some degree of symptom improvement. However, some studies have shown that NM can significantly reduce the symptoms of LBP, while others have failed to find similar positive effects.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to investigate the effectiveness of NM for LBP.

DATA SOURCES

A literature search was conducted across five databases (MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, PubMed, and Web of Science) from their inception to December 2023. Study main measures assessed pain, disability, and straight leg raise angle to determine the degree of improvement in patients.

RESULTS

Seven randomized controlled trials were included in the analysis. The findings indicated that NM interventions in patients with LBP were more effective than control groups in improving Visual Analog Scale scores (mean difference = 0.62, 95% CI (0.03, 1.21)) and Oswestry Disability Index scores (mean difference = 7.54, 95% CI (4.98, 10.10)). There was no significant difference in straight leg raise results (mean difference = 0.18, 95% CI (-0.08, 0.44)).

CONCLUSIONS

NM demonstrated effectiveness in improving Visual Analog Scale and Oswestry Disability Index outcomes in patients with LBP, but straight leg raise outcomes are still uncertain and until more high-quality studies are included, the effectiveness of NM for SLR remains unknown.

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

OBJECTIVE

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

DATA SOURCES

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Mechanism, application and effect evaluation of nerve mobilization in the treatment of low back pain: A narrative review

Lower back pain is a prevalent condition affecting people across all age groups and causing significant personal and societal burdens. While numerous treatments exist, nerve mobilization has emerged as a promising approach for managing lower back pain. Nerve mobilization involves applying gentle and rhythmic movements to the affected nerves, promoting normal nerve function and releasing tension. It has been well documented that nerve mobilization can be effective in reducing pain and improving function in patients with lower back pain, but the underlying mechanisms have not been clarified. This study aims to review the mechanisms of nerve mobilization in the management of lower back pain, its application, and effectiveness evaluation, and provide a potential solution for managing lower back pain.

Effectiveness of neural mobilization on pain intensity, disability, and physical performance in adults with musculoskeletal pain-A protocol for a systematic review of randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials and planned meta-analysis

Recent studies show that musculoskeletal conditions contribute significantly to years lived with disability considering the entire global population. Pain and functional disability are the main problems that people with these conditions suffer. Neural mobilization has been shown to be an effective intervention in the treatment of musculoskeletal pain within individual trials, also contributing to improved functionality. Some systematic reviews have been carried out during the last years with the aim of synthesizing the scientific evidence on the use of neural mobilization techniques in the treatment of musculoskeletal disorders. However, they varied a lot in the methodological approaches and, consequently, in the findings and conclusions. Thus, this document is a planned protocol of a comprehensive systematic review with meta-analysis that we intend to carry out to review the scientific literature regarding up-to-date evidence on the use of neural mobilization in the management of people suffering from musculoskeletal pain disorders. The study designs that we will consider as inclusion criteria will be randomized and quasi-randomized clinical trials. The target population will be adults and older adults with musculoskeletal pain. Any controlled trial using any neural mobilization technique as an intervention in one of the trial groups will be included. The main outcomes of interest will be pain, functional status, and physical performance tests (muscle strength, flexibility, and balance). There will be no restrictions on follow-up time or type of setting. The risk of bias of the included studies will be assessed by the RoB 2 tool and the certainty of the evidence will be evaluated using the comprehensive Assessment, Development and Assessment of Assessment Recommendation (GRADE) approach. We intend to present the findings through narrative descriptions and, if possible, through meta-analytic statistics. Trial registration: PROSPERO registration number. CRD42021288387.

Hypoalgesic and Motor Effects of Neural Mobilisation versus Soft-Tissue Interventions in Experimental Craniofacial Hyperalgesia: A Single-Blinded Randomised Controlled Trial

Objective: The present trial aimed to compare the effects of the mobilisation of the nervous system (NS) to those of a soft-tissue intervention in subjects exposed to an experimentally induced hyperalgesia of the masticatory muscles. Methods: The study was a single-blinded randomised controlled trial. A total of 49 participants (mean ± SD age: 41 ± 11 years; 61% female) with latent myofascial trigger points (LMTrPs) in the craniofacial region were randomly assigned to one of three groups: neural mobilisation (NM), soft-tissues techniques and stretching (STT-S), and control group (CG). An initial assessment (baseline) was performed before the provocation chewing masticatory test. The pre-treatment measurements were registered 24 h later. Next, the randomised intervention was applied, and afterwards, post-treatment data were obtained. Outcome measures included pain-free maximum mouth opening (MMO), pressure pain thresholds (PPTs) in the trigeminal and cervical region, and trigeminal and cervical two-point discrimination (TPD). Results: ANOVA revealed significant differences for the time × group interaction for pain-free MMO and PPTs. The results showed an improvement in the MMO and the PPTs for NM and STT-S groups but not for the CG. There were no differences between the NM and STT-S groups. However, the effect sizes were large for the NM and medium for the STT-S. No differences were found for TDP between groups nor over time. Conclusions: The results show that with NM and STT-S techniques, we could influence motor and sensory variables in asymptomatic subjects with LMTrPs after a masticatory provocation test. Both techniques increased MMO and PPTs in the short term. These beneficial effects lead us to consider the importance of including these methods in clinical practice.

Effects of adding neural mobilization to traditional physical therapy on pain, functional disability, and H-reflex in patients after lumbar laminectomy: A randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To investigate whether adding neural mobilization to a standard postoperative physical therapy program could improve the outcomes of patients after lumbar laminectomy.

DESIGN

A single blinded randomized controlled trial.

SETTING

Outpatient setting.

PARTICIPANTS

Sixty participants of both sexes who had undergone lumbar laminectomy.

INTERVENTIONS

Participants were allocated randomly to two groups; study and control groups. All patients received a standard postoperative physical therapy program. Those in the study group received additional neural mobilization in the form of straight leg raising and dorsiflexion with two-ended slider. Treatment was administered three times/week for six successive weeks.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Visual analog scale (VAS), Oswestry disability index (ODI), and H-reflex latency were measured pre and post-treatment.

RESULTS

The mean age of participants was 44.23 ± 4.64 and 45.3 ± 5.3 in study and control groups respectively (P > 0.05). There were statistically significant differences in VAS, ODI, and H-reflex latency in favor of the study group (P < 0.05). The mean ± SD for VAS, ODI, and H-reflex latency pre vs post treatment was 6.13 ± 1.22 vs 1.40 ± 0.77, 64.46 ± 4.05 vs 16.86 ± 2.55, and 32.07 ± 2.76 vs 27.46 ±1.79 in study group and 5.86 ± 1.07 vs 2.46 ± 0.73, 63.93 ± 3.91 vs 23.40 ± 2.93, and 31.76 ± 2.69 vs 29.4 ± 1.94 in control group, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Neural mobilization combined with traditional physical therapy program achieved better improvement in pain, functional disability and H-reflex in patients who underwent decompressive laminectomy than traditional physical therapy program only.

Effects of neural mobilization in patients after lumbar microdiscectomy due to intervertebral disc lesion

BACKGROUND

Neural mobilization (NM) techniques have been shown to improve the neural tissue's viscoelastic properties that may lead to recover of the function of the nerve after lumbar spine surgery. This study aimed to determine the effects of NM in addition to standard rehabilitation on lumbar and sciatic pain intensity, disability level, and quality of life in patients after receiving a microdiscectomy of the intervertebral lumbar disc (IVD).

METHODS

Twenty-four participants (age 41.3 ± 8.3 years old) within 3-4 weeks of a microdiscectomy of an IVD were randomly allocated to control (CTRL; n = 12) or NM group (n = 12). The CTRL group received ten standard rehabilitation sessions. The NM group received the same rehabilitation sessions with the addition of NM techniques. The intensity of lumbar and sciatic pain (visual analogue scale), disability level (Oswestry disability index), and health-related quality of life (SF-36 questionnaire) were measured before and after the intervention.

RESULTS

Within-group analysis revealed a significant reduction in lumbar (p < 0.05) and sciatic pain intensity (p < 0.001), disability level (p < 0.001), and improvement in the physical function and problems, vitality, emotional well-being, and pain SF-36 items (p < 0.05) in both groups. There were no statistical differences between groups in all outcomes.

CONCLUSION

A standard rehabilitation protocol alone or in combination with NM techniques are equally effective in reducing pain and disability level, as well as improving quality of life in patients after a microdiscectomy due to intervertebral lumbar disc lesion.

Effect of Adding Neural Mobilization Versus Myofascial Release to Stabilization Exercises after Lumbar Spine Fusion: A Randomized Controlled Trial

OBJECTIVES

To test the effect of adding neural mobilization (NM) versus myofascial release (MFR) to stabilization exercises (SE) on disability, pain, and lumbar range of motion (ROM) in patients with lumbar spine fusion (LSF).

DESIGN

A single blinded, parallel groups, randomized controlled trial.

SETTING

Outpatient public and governmental hospital clinics.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients (N=60) who had undergone LSF were randomly assigned into 3 equal groups.

INTERVENTION

Group I received NM plus SE, group II received MFR and SE, and group III received SE only. Each group visited the hospital 3 times a week for 4 weeks.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Oswestry disability index (ODI), visual analog scale, and back range of motion (BROM) were assessed before starting treatment, immediately after finishing treatment, and 1 month later.

RESULTS

There were statistically significant differences among the groups regarding the ODI and pain (P<.05) in favor of the study groups, but no statistically significant differences were found among groups regarding the BROM outcome (P>.05). Regarding the within-group effect, statistically significant differences were found in all outcomes after 1 month of treatment, as well as after 1 month of follow-up in each group (P<.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients who received NM or MFR combined with SE demonstrated better improvement, in favor of the NM group, regarding disability and pain than patients who received SE alone after LSF. No differences were found among the groups regarding lumbar ROM.