Aim: To compare the effectiveness of cervical retraction exercises (McKenzie) with or without using pressure biofeedback in reducing pain and disability among patients with cervical spondylosis. Methods: Thirty participants of both genders and aged between 30 and 70 years who were medically diagnosed with cervical spondylosis were included and allocated by randomised sampling into two study groups. Group A were given cervical retraction exercises and Group B were given cervical retraction exercises and instructed to use a pressure biofeedback unit during these exercises. All of the participants in Group A and B were also given moist packs. The outcome measures used both pre- and post-intervention were: the Numerical Pain Rating Scale (NPRS), which was used to assess for pain, and the Northwick Park Pain Questionnaire (NPQ), which was used to assess for disability. The demographic data collected in the study were the age and symptom duration. Results: The t tests of the post-interventional NPRS scores (P=0.0001*; t=4.5683), and post-intervention NPQ scores (P=0.0001*; t=4.945) showed a statistically significant difference between Group A and Group B. Conclusion: The findings of the study indicates that there was a significant reduction in neck pain and disability in both the groups. However, cervical retraction exercises using pressure biofeedback proved to be better than cervical retraction exercises alone.

BackgroundTo study potential ischemic effects of intravitreal Bevacizumab (IVB) on unaffected retina in treatment-naive eyes with macular edema secondary to branch retinal vein occlusion (BRVO) and contralateral eyes secondary to systemic absorption.Methods and FindingsProspective, interventional series included 27 treatment-naive eyes with BRVO and macular edema. Exclusion criteria: Eyes with diabetic retinopathy, glaucoma, vasculitides, papilledema or systemic neurologic condition. Subjects underwent complete ophthalmological examination including fluoroscein angiography (FA), optical coherence tomography (OCT) and multifocal electroretinogram (mf-ERG). All subjects received single 1.25 mg/0.05ml IVB injection. Two observers measured all parameters; inter-observer agreements were expressed as kappa values. Paired t-test was used to compare values at baseline and follow-up. The statistical analysis was done using SPSS for Windows, Version 14.0. (Chicago, SPSS Inc.) Presenting mean CFT (central foveal thickness) was 499.5(+/-229.7) μm, mean BCVA (best corrected visual acuity) was 0.64(+/-0.41) logMAR. At last follow-up, mean CFT was 267.9(+/-159.3) μm (P<0.001), 95% CI [127.18, 422.32]; mean BCVA was 0.28(+/-0.24) logMAR. Respectively, mean N1 and P1 amplitudes of mfERG in 'unaffected quadrant' at presentation were -6.10(+/-4.00) nV/deg2 and 17.17(+/-11.54)nV/deg2; and -5.33(+/-1.30)nV/deg2 and 15.29(+/-4.69)nV/deg2 at final follow-up (P = 0.631 and 0.197, respectively), (95% CIs [-0.93, 1.42] and [-4.22, 1.08] respectively). In fundus quadrant of fellow eyes corresponding to unaffected quadrant in treated eyes, mean N1 and P1 amplitudes at presentation were -5.39(+/-1.56)nV/deg2 and 15.89(+/-3.89)nV/deg2; and -5.39(+/-1.90)nV/deg2 and 15.9(+/-5.52)nV/deg2 (P = 0.380 and 0.208), (95% CIs [-0.57, 1.28] and [-4.1, 1.1]) at last follow-up, respectively. Limitations: This study analysed the effects with a single injection of bevacizumab. However, whether ischemic adverse effects will emerge with repeated IVB injections as a consequence of cumulative dosing needs further investigation. The setting of our study being a tertiary care centre, the numbers of fresh BRVO cases without prior intervention were limited. Thus, the limitations of our study include a small sample size with a small follow-up period. No major ocular/systemic adverse event was observed in the study period.ConclusionNo evidence of progressive ischaemia attributable to single bevacizumab treatment was observed in this study. However, a larger prospective study involving subjects with cumulative dosing of bevacizumab and a longer follow-up could provide a better understanding of the potential ischaemic effects of bevacizumab or other anti-VEGF agents.