Paolo Pillastrini1, Fernanda de Lima E Sá Resende2, Federico Banchelli3, Anna Burioli4, Emanuele Di Ciaccio5, Andrew A Guccione6, Jorge Hugo Villafañe7, Carla Vanti8. 1. P. Pillastrini, PT, MSc, Occupational Medicine Unit, Department of Biomedical and Neurological Sciences, University of Bologna, via P. Palagi 9-40138 Bologna, Italy. paolo.pillastrini@unibo.it. 2. F. de Lima e Sá Resende, PT, PhD, Occupational Medicine Unit, Department of Biomedical and Neurological Sciences, University of Bologna. 3. F. Banchelli, PhD, Department of Statistical Sciences Paolo Fortunati, University of Bologna. 4. A. Burioli, PT, Occupational Medicine Unit, Department of Biomedical and Neurological Sciences, University of Bologna. 5. E. Di Ciaccio, PT, Occupational Medicine Unit, Department of Biomedical and Neurological Sciences, University of Bologna. 6. A.A. Guccione, PT, DPT, PhD, FAPTA, Department of Rehabilitation Science, College of Health and Human Services, George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia. 7. J.H. Villafañe, PT, PhD, IRCCS Don Gnocchi Foundation, Milan, Italy. 8. C. Vanti, PT, MSc, Occupational Medicine Unit, Department of Biomedical and Neurological Sciences, University of Bologna.
Abstract
BACKGROUND:Global postural re-education (GPR) has shown positive results for patients with musculoskeletal disorders, but no previous randomized controlled trial (RCT) has investigated its effectiveness as the sole procedure for adult patients with chronic nonspecific neck pain (NP). OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of applying GPR compared with a manual therapy (MT) intervention to patients with chronic nonspecific NP. DESIGN: An RCT was conducted. PATIENTS: Ninety-four patients with chronic nonspecific NP (72 women and 22 men; average age=47.5 years, SD=11.3) were randomly assigned to receive either a GPR intervention or an MT intervention. OUTCOME MEASURES: Pain intensity (visual analog scale), disability (Neck Disability Index), cervical range of motion, and kinesiophobia (Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia) were assessed. METHODS: The experimental group received GPR, and the reference group received MT. Both groups received nine 60-minute-long sessions with one-to-one supervision from physical therapists as the care providers. All participants were asked to follow ergonomic advice and to perform home exercises. Measures were assessed before treatment, following treatment, and at a 6-month follow-up. RESULTS: No important baseline differences were found between groups. The experimental group exhibited a statistically significant reduction in pain following treatment and in disability 6 months after the intervention compared with the reference group. LIMITATIONS: Randomization did not lead to completely homogeneous groups. It also was noted that the time spent integrating the movements practiced during the session into daily routines at the end of each session was requested only of participants in the GPR group and may have had an impact on patient adherence that contributed to a better outcome. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that GPR was more effective than MT for reducing pain after treatment and for reducing disability at 6-month follow-up in patients with chronic nonspecific NP.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Global postural re-education (GPR) has shown positive results for patients with musculoskeletal disorders, but no previous randomized controlled trial (RCT) has investigated its effectiveness as the sole procedure for adult patients with chronic nonspecific neck pain (NP). OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of applying GPR compared with a manual therapy (MT) intervention to patients with chronic nonspecific NP. DESIGN: An RCT was conducted. PATIENTS: Ninety-four patients with chronic nonspecific NP (72 women and 22 men; average age=47.5 years, SD=11.3) were randomly assigned to receive either a GPR intervention or an MT intervention. OUTCOME MEASURES: Pain intensity (visual analog scale), disability (Neck Disability Index), cervical range of motion, and kinesiophobia (Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia) were assessed. METHODS: The experimental group received GPR, and the reference group received MT. Both groups received nine 60-minute-long sessions with one-to-one supervision from physical therapists as the care providers. All participants were asked to follow ergonomic advice and to perform home exercises. Measures were assessed before treatment, following treatment, and at a 6-month follow-up. RESULTS: No important baseline differences were found between groups. The experimental group exhibited a statistically significant reduction in pain following treatment and in disability 6 months after the intervention compared with the reference group. LIMITATIONS: Randomization did not lead to completely homogeneous groups. It also was noted that the time spent integrating the movements practiced during the session into daily routines at the end of each session was requested only of participants in the GPR group and may have had an impact on patient adherence that contributed to a better outcome. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that GPR was more effective than MT for reducing pain after treatment and for reducing disability at 6-month follow-up in patients with chronic nonspecific NP.
Authors: James N Winters; Nicole Z Sommer; Michael R Romanelli; Chad Marschik; Leah Hulcher; Brigitte J Cutler Journal: Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open Date: 2020-05-13
Authors: Ángel Oliva-Pascual-Vaca; Carlos González-González; Jesús Oliva-Pascual-Vaca; Fernando Piña-Pozo; Alejandro Ferragut-Garcías; Juan Carlos Fernández-Domínguez; Alberto Marcos Heredia-Rizo Journal: Diagnostics (Basel) Date: 2019-11-12
Authors: Paolo Pillastrini; Federico Banchelli; Andrew Guccione; Emanuele Di Ciaccio; Francesco Saverio Violante; Monia Brugnettini; Carla Vanti Journal: Med Lav Date: 2018-02-01 Impact factor: 1.275