Jaime Salom-Moreno1, Ricardo Ortega-Santiago1, Joshua Aland Cleland2, Maria Palacios-Ceña3, Sebastian Truyols-Domínguez4, César Fernández-de-las-Peñas5. 1. Professor, Department of Physical Therapy, Occupational Therapy, Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Universidad Rey Juan Carlos, Alcorcón, Spain. 2. Professor, Department of Physical Therapy, Rehabilitation Services, Concord Hospital, Concord, NH. 3. Clinical Researcher, Department of Physical Therapy, Occupational Therapy, Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Universidad Rey Juan Carlos, Alcorcón, Spain. 4. Professor, Department of Physical Therapy, Universidad Camilo José Cela, Madrid, Spain. 5. Professor, Department of Physical Therapy, Occupational Therapy, Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Universidad Rey Juan Carlos, Alcorcón, Spain. Electronic address: cesar.fernandez@urjc.es.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare the effects of thoracic thrust manipulation vs thoracic non-thrust mobilization in patients with bilateral chronic mechanical neck pain on pressure pain sensitivity and neck pain intensity. METHODS:Fifty-two patients (58% were female) were randomly assigned to a thoracic spine thrust manipulation group or of thoracic non-thrust mobilization group. Pressure pain thresholds (PPTs) over C5-C6 zygapophyseal joint, second metacarpal, and tibialis anterior muscle and neck pain intensity (11-point Numerical Pain Rate Scale) were collected at baseline and 10 minutes after the intervention by an assessor blinded to group allocation. Mixed-model analyses of variance (ANOVAs) were used to examine the effects of the treatment on each outcome. The primary analysis was the group * time interaction. RESULTS: No significant interactions were found with the mixed-model ANOVAs for any PPT (C5-C6: P>.252; second metacarpal: P>.452; tibialis anterior: P>.273): both groups exhibited similar increases in PPT (all, P<.01), but within-group and between-group effect sizes were small (standardized mean score difference [SMD]<0.22). The ANOVA found that patients receiving thoracic spine thrust manipulation experienced a greater decrease in neck pain (between-group mean difference: 1.4; 95% confidence interval, 0.8-2.1) than did those receiving thoracic spine non-thrust mobilization (P<.001). Within-group effect sizes were large for both groups (SMD>2.1), and between-group effect size was also large (SMD = 1.3) in favor of the manipulative group. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this randomized clinical trial suggest that thoracic thrust manipulation and non-thrust mobilization induce similar changes in widespread PPT in individuals with mechanical neck pain; however, the changes were clinically small. We also found that thoracic thrust manipulation was more effective than thoracic non-thrust mobilization for decreasing intensity of neck pain for patients with bilateral chronic mechanical neck pain.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare the effects of thoracic thrust manipulation vs thoracic non-thrust mobilization in patients with bilateral chronic mechanical neck pain on pressure pain sensitivity and neck pain intensity. METHODS: Fifty-two patients (58% were female) were randomly assigned to a thoracic spine thrust manipulation group or of thoracic non-thrust mobilization group. Pressure pain thresholds (PPTs) over C5-C6 zygapophyseal joint, second metacarpal, and tibialis anterior muscle and neck pain intensity (11-point Numerical Pain Rate Scale) were collected at baseline and 10 minutes after the intervention by an assessor blinded to group allocation. Mixed-model analyses of variance (ANOVAs) were used to examine the effects of the treatment on each outcome. The primary analysis was the group * time interaction. RESULTS: No significant interactions were found with the mixed-model ANOVAs for any PPT (C5-C6: P>.252; second metacarpal: P>.452; tibialis anterior: P>.273): both groups exhibited similar increases in PPT (all, P<.01), but within-group and between-group effect sizes were small (standardized mean score difference [SMD]<0.22). The ANOVA found that patients receiving thoracic spine thrust manipulation experienced a greater decrease in neck pain (between-group mean difference: 1.4; 95% confidence interval, 0.8-2.1) than did those receiving thoracic spine non-thrust mobilization (P<.001). Within-group effect sizes were large for both groups (SMD>2.1), and between-group effect size was also large (SMD = 1.3) in favor of the manipulative group. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this randomized clinical trial suggest that thoracic thrust manipulation and non-thrust mobilization induce similar changes in widespread PPT in individuals with mechanical neck pain; however, the changes were clinically small. We also found that thoracic thrust manipulation was more effective than thoracic non-thrust mobilization for decreasing intensity of neck pain for patients with bilateral chronic mechanical neck pain.
Authors: Dan-Mikael Ellingsen; Vitaly Napadow; Ekaterina Protsenko; Ishtiaq Mawla; Matthew H Kowalski; David Swensen; Deanna O'Dwyer-Swensen; Robert R Edwards; Norman Kettner; Marco L Loggia Journal: J Pain Date: 2018-07-03 Impact factor: 5.820
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: James Dunning; Firas Mourad; Andrea Zingoni; Raffaele Iorio; Thomas Perreault; Noah Zacharko; César Fernández de Las Peñas; Raymond Butts; Joshua A Cleland Journal: Int J Sports Phys Ther Date: 2017-08
Authors: Charles W Gay; Michael E Robinson; Steven Z George; William M Perlstein; Mark D Bishop Journal: J Manipulative Physiol Ther Date: 2014-10-03 Impact factor: 1.437
Authors: Francisco X Araujo; Mauricio Scholl Schell; Giovanni E Ferreira; Mariana D V Pessoa; Alexandre S Pinho; Rodrigo D M Plentz; Marcelo F Silva Journal: J Chiropr Med Date: 2019-05-07