STUDY DESIGN: A single-blinded, quasi-experimental, within- and between-sessions assessment. OBJECTIVES: To investigate potential mechanisms of neural mobilization (NM), using tensioning techniques in comparison to sham NM on a group of asymptomatic volunteers between the ages of 18 and 50. BACKGROUND:NM utilizing tensioning techniques is used by physical therapists in the treatment of patients with cervical and/or upper extremity symptoms. The underlying mechanisms of potential benefits associated with NM tensioning techniques are unknown. METHODS AND MEASURES: Participants (n = 62) received either a NM or sham NM intervention 2 to 3 times a week for a total of 9 sessions, followed by a 1-week period of no intervention to assess carryover effects. A-delta (first pain response) and C-fiber (temporal summation) mediated pain perceptions were tested via thermal quantitative sensory testing procedures. Elbow extension range of motion (ROM) and sensory descriptor ratings were obtained during a neurodynamic test for the median nerve. Data were analyzed with repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA). RESULTS: No group differences were seen for A-delta mediated pain perception at either immediate or carryover times. Group differences were identified for immediate C-fiber mediated pain perception (P = .032), in which hypoalgesia occurred for the NM group but not the sham NM group. This hypoalgesic effect was not maintained at carryover (P = .104). Group differences were also identified for the 3-week and carryover periods for elbow extension ROM (P = .004), and for the participant sensory descriptor ratings (P = .018), in which increased ROM and decreased sensory descriptor ratings were identified in participants in the NM group but not the sham NM group. CONCLUSION: This study provides preliminary evidence that mechanistic effects of tensioning NM differ from sham NM for asymptomatic participants. Specifically, NM resulted in immediate, but not sustained, C-fiber mediated hypoalgesia. Also, NM was associated with increased elbow ROM and a reduction in sensory descriptor ratings at 3-week and carryover assessment times. These differences provide potentially important information on the mechanistic effects of NM, as well as the description of a sham NM for use in future clinical trials.
RCT Entities:
STUDY DESIGN: A single-blinded, quasi-experimental, within- and between-sessions assessment. OBJECTIVES: To investigate potential mechanisms of neural mobilization (NM), using tensioning techniques in comparison to sham NM on a group of asymptomatic volunteers between the ages of 18 and 50. BACKGROUND: NM utilizing tensioning techniques is used by physical therapists in the treatment of patients with cervical and/or upper extremity symptoms. The underlying mechanisms of potential benefits associated with NM tensioning techniques are unknown. METHODS AND MEASURES: Participants (n = 62) received either a NM or sham NM intervention 2 to 3 times a week for a total of 9 sessions, followed by a 1-week period of no intervention to assess carryover effects. A-delta (first pain response) and C-fiber (temporal summation) mediated pain perceptions were tested via thermal quantitative sensory testing procedures. Elbow extension range of motion (ROM) and sensory descriptor ratings were obtained during a neurodynamic test for the median nerve. Data were analyzed with repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA). RESULTS: No group differences were seen for A-delta mediated pain perception at either immediate or carryover times. Group differences were identified for immediate C-fiber mediated pain perception (P = .032), in which hypoalgesia occurred for the NM group but not the sham NM group. This hypoalgesic effect was not maintained at carryover (P = .104). Group differences were also identified for the 3-week and carryover periods for elbow extension ROM (P = .004), and for the participant sensory descriptor ratings (P = .018), in which increased ROM and decreased sensory descriptor ratings were identified in participants in the NM group but not the sham NM group. CONCLUSION: This study provides preliminary evidence that mechanistic effects of tensioning NM differ from sham NM for asymptomatic participants. Specifically, NM resulted in immediate, but not sustained, C-fiber mediated hypoalgesia. Also, NM was associated with increased elbow ROM and a reduction in sensory descriptor ratings at 3-week and carryover assessment times. These differences provide potentially important information on the mechanistic effects of NM, as well as the description of a sham NM for use in future clinical trials.
Authors: Joel E Bialosky; Mark D Bishop; Don D Price; Michael E Robinson; Kevin R Vincent; Steven Z George Journal: J Orthop Sports Phys Ther Date: 2009-10 Impact factor: 4.751
Authors: Fauzia Javed Sheereen; Bibhuti Sarkar; Pallavi Sahay; Mohammad Abu Shaphe; Ahmad H Alghadir; Amir Iqbal; Taimul Ali; Fuzail Ahmad Journal: Pain Res Manag Date: 2022-06-08 Impact factor: 2.667
Authors: Meryl J Alappattu; Mark D Bishop; Joel E Bialosky; Steven Z George; Michael E Robinson Journal: J Pain Res Date: 2011-05-24 Impact factor: 3.133
Authors: Monara Kedma Nunes; Gabrielly Fontenele Dos Santos; Diandra Caroline Martins E Silva; Ana Cláudia Mota de Freitas; Isadora Ferreira Henriques; Peterson Marco Andrade; Dionis de Castro Machado; Silmar Teixeira; Marco Orsini Neves; Gildário Dias; Fernando Silva-Júnior; Victor Hugo Bastos Journal: J Phys Ther Sci Date: 2016-06-28
Authors: Irene Campa-Moran; Etelvina Rey-Gudin; Josué Fernández-Carnero; Alba Paris-Alemany; Alfonso Gil-Martinez; Sergio Lerma Lara; Almudena Prieto-Baquero; José Luis Alonso-Perez; Roy La Touche Journal: Pain Res Treat Date: 2015-11-10
Authors: César Calvo-Lobo; Francisco Unda-Solano; Daniel López-López; Irene Sanz-Corbalán; Carlos Romero-Morales; Patricia Palomo-López; Jesús Seco-Calvo; David Rodríguez-Sanz Journal: Int J Med Sci Date: 2018-03-08 Impact factor: 3.738