Literature DB >> 1469341

The immediate effect of manipulation versus mobilization on pain and range of motion in the cervical spine: a randomized controlled trial.

J D Cassidy1, A A Lopes, K Yong-Hing.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The main objective of this study is to compare the immediate results of manipulation to mobilization in neck pain patients.
DESIGN: The patients were compared in a randomized controlled trial without long-term follow-up.
SETTING: The study was conducted at an outpatient teaching clinic on primary and referred patients. PATIENTS: One hundred consecutive outpatients suffering from unilateral neck pain with referral into the trapezius muscle were studied. Fifty-two subjects were manipulated and 48 subjects were mobilized. The mean (SD) age was 34.5 (13.0) yr for the manipulated group and 37.7 (12.5) yr for the mobilized group. Sixteen subjects had neck pain for less than 1 wk, 34 subjects had pain for between 1 wk and 6 mo and 50 subjects had pain for more than 6 mo. Seventy-eight subjects had a past history of neck pain. Thirty-one subjects had been involved in an injurious motor vehicle accident and 28 subjects had other types of minor trauma to the neck. There were no significant differences between the two treatment groups with respect to history of neck pain or level of disability as measured by the Pain Disability Index. INTERVENTION: The patients received either a single rotational manipulation (high-velocity, low-amplitude thrust) or mobilization in the form of muscle energy technique. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Prior to and immediately after the treatments, cervical spine range of motion was recorded in three planes, and pain intensity was rated on the 101-point numerical rating scale (NRS-101). Both pre- and post-test measurements were conducted in a blinded fashion.
RESULTS: The results show that both treatments increase range of motion, but manipulation has a significantly greater effect on pain intensity. Eighty-five percent of the manipulated patients and 69% of the mobilized patients reported pain improvement immediately after treatment. However, the decrease in pain intensity was more than 1.5 times greater in the manipulated group (p = .05).
CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates that a single manipulation is more effective than mobilization in decreasing pain in patients with mechanical neck pain. Both treatments increase range of motion in the neck to a similar degree. Further studies are required to determine any long-term benefits of manipulation for mechanical neck pain.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1992        PMID: 1469341

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Manipulative Physiol Ther        ISSN: 0161-4754            Impact factor:   1.437


  36 in total

Review 1.  A review of treatment interventions in whiplash-associated disorders.

Authors:  Aris Seferiadis; Mark Rosenfeld; Ronny Gunnarsson
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2004-05-05       Impact factor: 3.134

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

Authors:  Andrea D Furlan; Fatemeh Yazdi; Alexander Tsertsvadze; Anita Gross; Maurits Van Tulder; Lina Santaguida; Joel Gagnier; Carlo Ammendolia; Trish Dryden; Steve Doucette; Becky Skidmore; Raymond Daniel; Thomas Ostermann; Sophia Tsouros
Journal:  Evid Based Complement Alternat Med       Date:  2011-11-24       Impact factor: 2.629

3.  Comparative effectiveness of manipulation, mobilisation and the activator instrument in treatment of non-specific neck pain: a systematic review.

Authors:  Hugh Gemmell; Peter Miller
Journal:  Chiropr Osteopat       Date:  2006-04-19

4.  Chronic mechanical neck pain in adults treated by manual therapy: a systematic review of change scores in randomized controlled trials of a single session.

Authors:  Howard Vernon; Barry Kim Humphreys
Journal:  J Man Manip Ther       Date:  2008

5.  Conservative management of mechanical neck pain: systematic overview and meta-analysis.

Authors:  P D Aker; A R Gross; C H Goldsmith; P Peloso
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1996-11-23

6.  What is your research question? An introduction to the PICOT format for clinicians.

Authors:  John J Riva; Keshena M P Malik; Stephen J Burnie; Andrea R Endicott; Jason W Busse
Journal:  J Can Chiropr Assoc       Date:  2012-09

7.  A preliminary study comparing the use of cervical/upper thoracic mobilization and manipulation for individuals with mechanical neck pain.

Authors:  David Griswold; Ken Learman; Bryan O'Halloran; Josh Cleland
Journal:  J Man Manip Ther       Date:  2015-05

Review 8.  Neck pain.

Authors:  Allan I Binder
Journal:  BMJ Clin Evid       Date:  2008-08-04

9.  Relative effectiveness and adverse effects of cervical manipulation, mobilisation and the activator instrument in patients with sub-acute non-specific neck pain: results from a stopped randomised trial.

Authors:  Hugh Gemmell; Peter Miller
Journal:  Chiropr Osteopat       Date:  2010-07-09

10.  Chiropractic care for patients with acute neck pain: results of a pragmatic practice-based feasibility study.

Authors:  Michael T Haneline; Robert Cooperstein
Journal:  J Chiropr Med       Date:  2009-12
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.