No abstract

Previous case reports, case series, and pilot studies have suggested that slump stretching may enhance the effects of spinal mobilization and stabilization exercises in patients with non-radicular low back pain (NRLBP). The purpose of this trial was to determine if slump stretching results in improvements in pain, disability, and fear and avoidance beliefs in patients with NRLBP with neural mechanosensitivity. Sixty patients, 18-60 years of age presenting with NRLBP with symptom duration .3 months, were randomized into one of two, 3-week physical therapy programs. Group one received lumbar spinal mobilization with stabilization exercises while group two received slump stretching in addition to lumbar spinal mobilization with exercise. Outcomes including the modified Oswestry disability index (ODI), numeric pain rating scale (NPRS), and the fear-avoidance belief questionnaire (FABQ) were collected at baseline, and at weeks 1, 2, 3, and 6. A doubly multivariate analysis of variance revealed a significant group-time interaction for ODI, NPRS, and FABQ. There were large within-group changes for all outcomes with P,0.01 and large betweengroup differences at weeks 3 and 6 for the ODI and weeks 1, 2, 3, and 6 for the NPRS and FABQ at P,0.01. A linear mixed-effect model comparing the composite slopes of the improvement lines revealed significant differences favoring the slump stretching group at P,0.01. The findings of the present study further support the use of slump stretching with spinal mobilization and stabilization exercises when treating NRLBP.

Study Design Randomized clinical trial. Background The comparative effectiveness between nonthrust manipulation (NTM) and thrust manipulation (TM) for mechanical neck pain has been investigated, with inconsistent results. Objective To compare the clinical effectiveness of concordant cervical and thoracic NTM and TM for patients with mechanical neck pain. Methods The Neck Disability Index (NDI) was the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes included the Patient-Specific Functional Scale (PSFS), numeric pain-rating scale (NPRS), deep cervical flexion endurance (DCF), global rating of change (GROC), number of visits, and duration of care. The covariate was clinical equipoise for intervention. Outcomes were collected at baseline, visit 2, and discharge. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either NTM or TM directed at the cervical and thoracic spines. Techniques and dosages were selected pragmatically and applied to the most symptomatic level. Two-way mixed-model analyses of covariance were used to assess clinical outcomes at 3 time points. Analyses of covariance were used to assess between-group differences for the GROC, number of visits, and duration of care at discharge. Results One hundred three patients were included in the analyses (NTM, n = 55 and TM, n = 48). The between-group analyses revealed no differences in outcomes on the NDI (P = .67), PSFS (P = .26), NPRS (P = .25), DCF (P = .98), GROC (P = .77), number of visits (P = .21), and duration of care (P = .61) for patients with mechanical neck pain who received either NTM or TM. Conclusion NTM and TM produce equivalent outcomes for patients with mechanical neck pain. The trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02619500). Level of Evidence Therapy, level 1b. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2018;48(3):137-145. Epub 6 Feb 2018. doi:10.2519/jospt.2018.7738.

Therapy, level 1b.

Objectives: Neck pain is routinely managed using manual therapy (MT) to the cervical and thoracic spines. While both mobilizations and manipulations to these areas have been shown to reduce neck pain, increase cervical range of motion, and reduce disability, the most effective option remains elusive. The purpose of this preliminary trial was to compare the pragmatic use of cervical and thoracic mobilizations vs. manipulation for mechanical neck pain. Methods: This trial included 20 patients with mechanical neck pain. Each patient was randomized to receive either mobilization or manipulation to both the cervical and thoracic spines during their plan of care. Within-group analyses were made with Wilcoxon signed-rank tests and between-group analyses were made with Mann-Whitney U.Results: There were no between-group differences for any of the dependent variables including cervical active range of motion (CAROM) (P50.18), deep cervical flexion (DCF) endurance (P50.06), numerical pain rating scale (NPRS) (P50.26), the neck disability index (NDI, P50.33), patient-specific functional scale (PSFS, P50.20), or the global rating of change (GROC) scale (P50.94). Within-group results were significant for all outcome variables (P,0.001) from initial evaluation to discharge for both groups. Discussion: These findings were consistent with other trials previously conducted that applied the MT techniques in a pragmatic fashion, but varied from previous trials where the treatment was standardized. A larger experimental study is necessary to further examine the differences between mobilization and manipulation for neck pain.