PURPOSE: To determine the immediate effects of the central posteroanterior (PA) mobilization technique on both pain and active cervical range of motion in patients with mechanical neck pain presenting with central or bilateral symptoms. METHODS: A randomized controlled trial was conducted in 60 patients who were randomly allocated into either 'central PA' or 'random' mobilization group. Two physical therapists and one assessor participated. Outcome measures included neck pain at rest, pain on the most painful movement, and active cervical range of motion taken before and immediately 5 min after the mobilization treatment. RESULTS: Significant reductions in pain at rest and on the most painful movement were noted within-group comparisons (p < 0.001). However, the 'central PA' mobilization group obtained a significantly greater reduction in pain on the most painful movement than the 'random' mobilization group (p < 0.05). Both mobilization techniques had no effects on the active cervical range of motion. However, the differences in the means of pain reduction between both mobilization techniques were modest (<10 mm). CONCLUSION: The clinical recommendation regarding the selection of the central PA mobilization technique for treating patients with central or bilateral mechanical neck pain is therefore arguably.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: To determine the immediate effects of the central posteroanterior (PA) mobilization technique on both pain and active cervical range of motion in patients with mechanical neck pain presenting with central or bilateral symptoms. METHODS: A randomized controlled trial was conducted in 60 patients who were randomly allocated into either 'central PA' or 'random' mobilization group. Two physical therapists and one assessor participated. Outcome measures included neck pain at rest, pain on the most painful movement, and active cervical range of motion taken before and immediately 5 min after the mobilization treatment. RESULTS: Significant reductions in pain at rest and on the most painful movement were noted within-group comparisons (p < 0.001). However, the 'central PA' mobilization group obtained a significantly greater reduction in pain on the most painful movement than the 'random' mobilization group (p < 0.05). Both mobilization techniques had no effects on the active cervical range of motion. However, the differences in the means of pain reduction between both mobilization techniques were modest (<10 mm). CONCLUSION: The clinical recommendation regarding the selection of the central PA mobilization technique for treating patients with central or bilateral mechanical neck pain is therefore arguably.
Authors: Ian D Coulter; Cindy Crawford; Howard Vernon; Eric L Hurwitz; Raheleh Khorsan; Marika Suttorp Booth; Patricia M Herman Journal: Pain Physician Date: 2019-03 Impact factor: 4.965
Authors: Rogelio A Coronado; Joel E Bialosky; Mark D Bishop; Joseph L Riley; Michael E Robinson; Lori A Michener; Steven Z George Journal: J Orthop Sports Phys Ther Date: 2015-03-04 Impact factor: 4.751
Authors: Benjamin Hidalgo; Toby Hall; Jean Bossert; Axel Dugeny; Barbara Cagnie; Laurent Pitance Journal: J Back Musculoskelet Rehabil Date: 2017-11-06 Impact factor: 1.398