Does Upper Cervical Manual Therapy Provide Additional Benefit in Disability and Mobility over a Physiotherapy Primary Care Program for Chronic Cervicalgia? A Randomized Controlled Trial

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

How to Evaluate the Efficacy of Manipulations in Spine Disorders-A Comprehensive Review of New and Traditional Outcome Measures

Spine pain (SP) is the most common musculoskeletal disorder that causes transitional forms of motor disability. Considering its affordability and safety, manipulative therapy (MT) stands as one of the primary therapeutic approaches for SP and the related dysfunctional consequences. However, it is still difficult to assess and quantify the results of this treatment since there is a lack of objective evaluation tools in the available scientific literature. Thus, the purpose of this comprehensive review is to summarize the main outcomes used to evaluate the effectiveness of spine manipulations, focusing on their strengths and weaknesses. An extensive review of the PubMed, Cochrane, and Embase databases was performed to identify the literature of the last ten years regarding MT and the related assessment tools. A total of 12 studies met the inclusion criteria. The analyzed literature indicates that a wide range of outcome measures have been used to assess the effectiveness of spine MT. Pain is the main aspect to be investigated but it remains difficult to elucidate since it is strongly linked to various dimensions such as self-perception and psychological aspects. Therefore, it seems necessary to include new tools for evaluating the effects of spine MT, with the aim of exploiting new technologies and taking into consideration the SP biomechanical and biopsychosocial aspects.

Benefits and Harms of Spinal Manipulative Therapy for Treating Recent and Persistent Nonspecific Neck Pain: A Systematic Review With Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to estimate the benefits and harms of cervical spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) for treating neck pain. DESIGN: Intervention systematic review with meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). LITERATURE SEARCH: We searched the MEDLINE, Cochrane CENTRAL, Embase, CINAHL, PEDro, Chiropractic Literature Index bibliographic databases, and grey literature sources, up to June 6, 2022. STUDY SELECTION CRITERIA: RCTs evaluating SMT compared to guideline-recommended and nonrecommended interventions, sham SMT, and no intervention for adults with neck pain were eligible for our systematic review. Prespecified outcomes included pain, range of motion, disability, health-related quality of life. DATA SYNTHESIS: Random-effects meta-analysis for clinically homogenous RCTs at short-term and long-term outcomes. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 Tool. We used the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations approach to judge the certainty of evidence. RESULTS: We included 28 RCTs. There was very low to low certainty evidence that SMT was more effective than recommended interventions for improving pain at short term (standardized mean difference [SMD], 0.66; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.35, 0.97) and long term (SMD, 0.73; 95% CI: 0.31, 1.16), and for reducing disability at short-term (SMD, 0.95; 95% CI: 0.48, 1.42) and long term (SMD, 0.65; 95% CI: 0.23, 1.06). Transient side effects only were found (eg, muscle soreness). CONCLUSION: There was very low certainty evidence supporting cervical SMT as an intervention to reduce pain and improve disability in people with neck pain. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2023;53(9):510-528. Epub: 10 August 2023. doi:10.2519/jospt.2023.11708.

Are there differences between a real C0-C1 mobilization and a sham technique in function and pressure pain threshold in patients with chronic neck pain and upper cervical restriction? A randomised controlled clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Chronic neck pain is one of the main reasons for visiting a healthcare professional. In recent years, it has been shown that upper cervical restriction may be a factor involved in neck pain.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the immediate effects of a real cervical mobilization technique versus a sham cervical mobilization technique in patients with chronic neck pain and upper cervical restriction.

METHODS

This was a randomised, controlled, double-blind clinical trial. Twenty-eight patients with chronic neck pain were recruited and divided into two groups (14 = real cervical mobilization; 14 = sham mobilization). Both groups received a single 5-minute treatment session. Upper cervical range motion, flexion-rotation test, deep cervical activation and pressure pain threshold were measured.

RESULTS

In the between-groups comparison, statistically significant differences were found in favour of the real cervical mobilization group in upper cervical extension (p= 0.003), more restricted side of flexion-rotation test (p< 0.001) and less restricted side of flexion-rotation test (p= 0.007) and in the pressure pain threshold of the right trapezius (p= 0.040) and right splenius (p= 0.049). No differences in deep muscle activation were obtained.

CONCLUSION

The real cervical mobilization group generates improvements in upper cervical spine movement and pressure pain threshold of right trapezius and right splenius compared to the sham group in patients with chronic neck pain and upper cervical restriction.

Effectiveness of isometric exercises on disability and pain of cervical spondylosis: a randomized controlled trial

Background

Neck pain and disability is a significant public health problem with only very few evidence-based treatment option. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of isometric exercise on pain and disability of cervical spondylosis.

Methods

Twenty four patients with cervical osteoarthritis and neck pain (22 females and 2 males; mean age, 46.70 ± 13.71 years) were recruited and randomly allocated into 2 arms: neck isometric exercises (n = 12) and conservative management without exercise (n = 12). The Neck Disability Index (NDI) and Neck Pain and Disability Scale (NPAD) were used to assess participants at baseline and after 4 weeks.

Results

Basic characteristics, NDI score and NPAD score were not significantly different between groups at baseline. The exercise arm demonstrated significantly lower scores regarding NDI (mean, 17.41 vs. 25.58; P-value = 0.035) and NPAD (mean, 25.33 vs. 66.67; P < 0.001), compared to the control arm after 4 weeks. The exercise arm also showed significant within group reduction considering NDI and NPAD scores after 4 weeks (Both, P < 0.001).

Conclusion

Our findings suggested that isometric exercises might be a beneficial treatment for improving pain and disability caused by cervical spondylosis.

Trial registration This study was registered at irct.ir (Iranian Registry of Clinical Trials) with the code IRCT20220206053950N1, 07.05.2022, retrospectively registered.

Comparison of an exercise program with and without manual therapy for patients with chronic neck pain and upper cervical rotation restriction. Randomized controlled trial

Background

Cervical exercise has been shown to be an effective treatment for neck pain, but there is still a need for more clinical trials evaluating the effectiveness of adding manual therapy to the exercise approach. There is a lack of evidence on the effect of these techniques in patients with neck pain and upper cervical rotation restriction.

Purpose

To compare the effectiveness of adding manual therapy to a cervical exercise protocol for the treatment of patients with chronic neck pain and upper cervical rotation restriction.

Methods

Single-blind randomized clinical trial. Fifty-eight subjects: 29 for the Manual Therapy+Exercise (MT+Exercise) Group and 29 for the Exercise group. Neck disability index, pain intensity (0–10), pressure pain threshold (kPa), flexion-rotation test (°), and cervical range of motion (°) were measured at the beginning and at the end of the intervention, and at 3-and 6-month follow-ups. The MT+Exercise Group received one 20-min session of manual therapy and exercise once a week for 4 weeks and home exercise. The Exercise Group received one 20-min session of exercise once a week for 4 weeks and home exercise.

Results

The MT+Exercise Group showed significant better values post-intervention in all variables: neck disability index: 0% patient with moderate, severe, or complete disability compared to 31% in the Exercise Group (p = 0.000) at 6-months; flexion-rotation test (p = 0.000) and pain intensity (p = 0.000) from the first follow-up to the end of the study; cervical flexion (p = 0.002), extension (p = 0.002), right lateral-flexion (p = 0.000), left lateral-flexion (p = 0.001), right rotation (p = 0.000) and left rotation (p = 0.005) at 6-months of the study, except for flexion, with significative changes from 3-months of follow up; pressure pain threshold from the first follow-up to the end of the study (p values range: 0.003–0.000).

Conclusion

Four 20-min sessions of manual therapy and exercise, along with a home-exercise program, was found to be more effective than an exercise protocol and a home-exercise program in improving the neck disability index, flexion-rotation test, pain intensity, and pressure pain threshold, in the short, medium, and medium-long term in patients with chronic neck pain and upper rotation restriction. Cervical range of motion improved with the addition of manual therapy in the medium and medium-long term. The high dropout rate may have compromised the external validity of the study.

Effects of Instrumental, Manipulative and Soft Tissue Approaches for the Suboccipital Region in Subjects with Chronic Mechanical Neck Pain. A Randomized Controlled Trial

The INYBI is an instrument used to release the suboccipital myofascial area. There is scarce evidence of its efficacy. A randomized controlled, double-blinded, longitudinal and prospective trial was performed. Ninety-six subjects (aged 29.47 ± 5.16 years) (70 women) with chronic neck pain were randomly assigned to the manual suboccipital inhibition technique (MSIT), instrumental suboccipital inhibition (INYBI) or the INYBI plus upper cervical manipulation technique (INYBI + UCMT) groups and received two sessions with a week interval between them. The Neck Disability Index was used before the first intervention and two weeks after the second intervention. Pre- and post-measurements were taken on both intervention days for pressure pain threshold of the upper trapezius and suboccipital muscles, self-perceived pain and cervical range of motion. In spite of a significant general improvement in time that was found for the three groups for all of the outcome measurements (p < 0.05 in all cases), no between-groups differences were found (p > 0.05 in all cases), with the exception of self-perceived pain for left rotation (p = 0.024), with the MSIT group showing the lower improvement. However, the higher degree of within-group improvements was found for the INYBI + UCMT group. It was concluded that the myofascial release therapy in the suboccipital area is effective in patients with chronic neck pain, either through a manual application or by means of the INYBI tool. Moreover, the addition of craniocervical manipulation achieved the higher within-group improvements, but with no statistical significance.

Effects of occipital-atlas stabilization in the upper cervical spine kinematics: an in vitro study

This study compares upper cervical spine range of motion (ROM) in the three cardinal planes before and after occiput-atlas (C0–C1) stabilization. After the dissection of the superficial structures to the alar ligament and the fixation of C2, ten cryopreserved upper cervical columns were manually mobilized in the three cardinal planes of movement without and with a screw stabilization of C0–C1. Upper cervical ROM and mobilization force were measured using the Vicon motion capture system and a load cell respectively. The ROM without C0–C1 stabilization was 19.8° ± 5.2° in flexion and 14.3° ± 7.7° in extension. With stabilization, the ROM was 11.5° ± 4.3° and 6.6° ± 3.5°, respectively. The ROM without C0–C1 stabilization was 4.7° ± 2.3° in right lateral flexion and 5.6° ± 3.2° in left lateral flexion. With stabilization, the ROM was 2.3° ± 1.4° and 2.3° ± 1.2°, respectively. The ROM without C0–C1 stabilization was 33.9° ± 6.7° in right rotation and 28.0° ± 6.9° in left rotation. With stabilization, the ROM was 28.5° ± 7.0° and 23.7° ± 8.5° respectively. Stabilization of C0–C1 reduced the upper cervical ROM by 46.9% in the sagittal plane, 55.3% in the frontal plane, and 15.6% in the transverse plane. Also, the resistance to movement during upper cervical mobilization increased following C0–C1 stabilization.

Effects of the Manual Therapy Approach of Segments C0-1 and C2-3 in the Flexion-Rotation Test in Patients with Chronic Neck Pain: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Background: Flexion-rotation test predominantly measures rotation in C1-2 segment. Restriction in flexion-rotation may be due to direct limitation in C1-2, but also to a premature tightening of the alar ligament as a result of lack of movement in C0-1 or C2-3. The aim of this study was to compare the effect of a 20-min single cervical exercise session, with or without manual therapy of C0-1 and C2-3 segment in flexion-rotation test, in patients with chronic neck pain and positive flexion-rotation test. Methods: Randomized controlled clinical trial in 48 subjects (24 manual therapy+exercise/24 exercise). Range of motion and pain during flexion-rotation test, neck pain intensity and active cervical range of motion were measured before and after the intervention. Results: Significant differences were found in favour of the manual therapy group in the flexion-rotation test: right (p < 0.001) and left rotation (p < 0.001); pain during the flexion-rotation test: right (p < 0.001) and left rotation (p < 0.001); neck pain intensity: (p < 0.001); cervical flexion (p < 0.038), extension (p < 0.010), right side-bending (p < 0.035), left side-bending (p < 0.002), right rotation (p < 0.001), and left rotation (p < 0.006). Conclusions: Addition of one C0-C1 and C2-C3 manual therapy session to cervical exercise can immediately improve flexion-rotation test and cervical range of motion and reduce pain intensity.