STUDY DESIGN: A randomized, parallel-group, single-blinded clinical trial was performed. After a 1-week baseline period, patients were randomized to 11 weeks of therapy, with posttreatment follow-up assessment 3, 6, and 12 months later.
OBJECTIVES: To compare the relative efficacy of rehabilitative neck exercise and spinal manipulation for the management of patients with chronic neck pain.
SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Mechanical neck pain is a common condition associated with substantial morbidity and cost. Relatively little is known about the efficacy of spinal manipulation and exercise for chronic neck pain. Also, the combination of both therapies has yet to be explored.
METHODS: Altogether, 191 patients with chronic mechanical neck pain were randomized to receive 20 sessions of spinal manipulation combined with rehabilitative neck exercise (spinal manipulation with exercise), MedX rehabilitative neck exercise, or spinal manipulation alone. The main outcome measures were patient-rated neck pain, neck disability, functional health status (as measured by Short Form-36 [SF-36]), global improvement, satisfaction with care, and medication use. Range of motion, muscle strength, and muscle endurance were assessed by examiners blinded to patients' treatment assignment.
RESULTS: Clinical and demographic characteristics were similar among groups at baseline. A total of 93% of the patients completed the intervention phase. The response rate for the 12-month follow-up period was 84%. Except for patient satisfaction, where spinal manipulative therapy and exercise were superior to spinal manipulation with (P = 0.03), the group differences in patient-rated outcomes after 11 weeks of treatment were not statistically significant (P = 0.13). However, the spinal manipulative therapy and exercise group showed greater gains in all measures of strength, endurance, and range of motion than the spinal manipulation group (P < 0.05). The spinal manipulation with exercise group also demonstrated more improvement in flexion endurance and in flexion and rotation strength than the MedX group (P < 0.03). The MedX exercise group had larger gains in extension strength and flexion-extension range of motion than the spinal manipulation group (P < 0.05). During the follow-up year, a greater improvement in patient-rated outcomes were observed for spinal manipulation with exercise and for MedX exercise than for spinal manipulation alone (P = 0.01). Both exercise groups showed very similar levels of improvement in patient-rated outcomes, although the spinal manipulation and exercise group reported greater satisfaction with care (P < 0.01).
CONCLUSIONS: For chronic neck pain, the use of strengthening exercise, whether in combination with spinal manipulation or in the form of a high-technology MedX program, appears to be more beneficial to patients with chronic neck pain than the use of spinal manipulation alone. The effect of low-technology exercise or spinal manipulative therapy alone, as compared with no treatment or placebo, and the optimal dose and relative cost effectiveness of these therapies, need to be evaluated in future studies.
STUDY DESIGN: A randomized comparative study with single-blind outcome assessments. OBJECTIVES: To compare the efficacy of a multimodal treatment emphasizing proprioceptive training (ACTIVE) with activated home exercises (HOME) and recommendation of exercise (CONTROL) in patients with nonspecific chronic neck pain. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The efficacy of active exercises and passive physiotherapy for neck trouble has been somewhat disappointing in the previous few studies. METHODS: Seventy-six patients (22 men, 54 women) with chronic, nonspecific neck pain participated. Sixty-two participated the 1-year follow-up. Subjective pain and disability, cervical ranges of motion, and pressure pain threshold in the shoulder region were measured at baseline, at 3 months, and at 12 months. The ACTIVE treatment consisted of 24 sessions of proprioceptive exercises, relaxation, and behavioral support. The HOME regimen included a neck lecture and two sessions of practical training for home exercises and instructions for maintaining a diary of progress. The CONTROL treatment included a lecture regarding care of the neck with a recommendation to exercise. RESULTS: The average self-experienced total benefit was highest in the ACTIVE group, and the HOME group rated over the CONTROL group (P < 0.001). Differences between the groups in favor of the ACTIVE treatment were recorded in reduction of neck symptoms and improvements in general health and self-experienced working ability (P < 0.01-0.03). Changes in measures of mobility and pressure pain threshold were minor. CONCLUSIONS: Regarding self-experienced benefit, the multimodal treatment was more efficacious than activated home exercises that were clearly more efficacious than just advising. No major differences were noted in objective measurements of cervical function between the groups, but the content validity of these assessments in chronic neck trouble can be questioned.
STUDY DESIGN: A prospective randomized trial in 97 patients with a whiplash injury caused by a motor vehicle collision.
OBJECTIVES: The study evaluates early active mobilization versus a standard treatment protocol and the importance of early versus delayed onset of treatment.
SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: There is no compelling evidence to date on the management of acute whiplash-associated disorders. The few studies describing treatment, however, provide evidence to support the recommendation that an active treatment in the acute stage is preferable to rest and a soft collar in most patients.
METHODS: Patients were randomized to four groups. Active versus standard treatment and early (within 96 hours) versus delayed (after 2 weeks) treatment. Measures of range of motion and pain were registered initially and at 6 months.
RESULTS: Eighty-eight patients (91%) could be followed up at 6 months. Active treatment reduced pain more than standard treatment (P < 0.001). When type and onset of treatment were analyzed, a combined effect was seen. When active treatment was provided, it was better when administered early, and if standard treatment was provided, it was better when administered late for reduction of pain (P = 0.04) and increasing cervical flexion (P = 0.01).
CONCLUSIONS: In patients with whiplash-associated disorders caused by a motor vehicle collision treatment with frequently repeated active submaximal movements combined with mechanical diagnosis and therapy is more effective in reducing pain than a standard program of initial rest, recommended use of a soft collar, and gradual self-mobilization. This therapy could be performed as home exercises initiated and supported by a physiotherapist.
OBJECTIVE: To compare two different home exercise programmes for patients with acute whiplash-associated disorders (WAD). A further aim was to describe the initial prognostic variables related to self-reported pain at six months follow-up.
DESIGN: A randomized treatment study with a follow-up period of six months.
SETTINGS: The study was undertaken in an orthopaedic clinic at a university hospital.
SUBJECTS: A total of 59 symptomatic (neck pain, stiffness, etc.) patients with acute whiplash injury.
INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomized to a regular treatment group (RT group) and an additional-exercise treatment group (AT group).
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Pain Disability Index (PDI), Self-Efficacy Scale (SES), Coping Strategies Questionnaire (CSQ), neck range of motion (ROM), head posture, kinaesthetic sensibility, visual analogue scale (VAS).
RESULTS: Patients given an additional exercise did not improve more than patients with regular treatment. Only one CSQ item, 'Ability to decrease pain', showed a significant difference between the groups in its pattern of change over time: the AT group had a significant increase between three and six months whilst values in the RT group decreased. Nonsymptomatic patients at six months follow-up were characterized by initially better self-efficacy, lower disability and significantly different patterns in the use of 'behavioural coping strategies' when compared with symptomatic patients. The nonsymptomatic patients also reported more frequent training than symptomatic patients, i.e. they complied better with the treatment regime.
CONCLUSION: This home exercise programme, including training of neck and shoulder ROM, relaxation and general advice seems to be sufficient treatment for acute WAD patients when used on a daily basis. Additionally, patients reporting low self-efficacy and high disability levels may profit from more attention initially, as these psychological factors are significant predictors of pain at long-term follow-up.
The effect of exercise on neck-shoulder pain was studied in 103 women with work-related trapezius myalgia randomized into three exercise groups and a control group. One group trained strength, the second muscular endurance and the third co-ordination. The exercise groups met three times weekly for 10 weeks. Pain assessment was made on three visual analogue scales, indicating pain at present, pain in general and pain at worst. Pain thresholds were measured in the trapezius muscle with a pressure algometer. A pain drawing was completed. The rated pain decreased significantly (P<0.05) on the VAS describing pain at worst in the strength and endurance groups. Pressure sensitivity decreased significantly (P<0.05) in four triggerpoints in the exercise groups. No changes were seen in the extent of painful body area in any group. Comparison of exercisers (n=82) and controls (n=21) showed significantly larger pain reductions on VAS pain at present and VAS pain at worst among exercisers. All three exercise programs showed similar decreases of pain which indicates that the type of exercise is of less importance to achieve pain reduction.
STUDY DESIGN: A randomized, prospective clinical study was conducted that included 119 patients with chronic neck pain of greater than 3 months' duration.
OBJECTIVES: To compare the relative effectiveness of intensive training of the cervical musculature, a physiotherapy treatment regimen, and chiropractic treatment on this patient group.
SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: There are only a few studies involving chronic neck pain patients representative of those seeking care in primary health care centers. Mobilization techniques and intensive training have been shown to be useful, but cervical manipulation has not been assessed. Clinical results involving these commonly used therapies have not been compared.
METHODS: A total of 167 consecutive patients were screened. One hundred nineteen patients were admitted to the study and were randomized according to Taves' minimization principles. Primary outcome measures included self-reported pain, disability, medication use, patients' perceived effect, and physician's global assessment. Patients were assessed at enrollment and at completion of the study. Postal questionnaires were used to carry out 4- and 12-month follow-up assessments. Secondary outcome measures included active range of motion of the cervical spine as well as strength and endurance measurements of the cervical musculature. These measurements were carried out at enrollment and completion of the study.
RESULTS: A total of 88% of the patients completed the study. Of these, 97% completed the 4-month questionnaire and 93% the 12-month questionnaire. Patients from all three groups demonstrated significant improvements regarding self-reported pain and disability on completion of the study. Improvements were maintained throughout the follow-up period. Medication use was also significantly reduced in all groups. There was, however, no significant difference between groups at any assessment period. Physician's and patients' assessments were also positive, and again group scores were essentially equal. Patients who underwent intensive training demonstrated significantly greater endurance levels at the completion of treatment.
CONCLUSIONS: There was no clinical difference between the three treatments. All three treatment interventions demonstrated meaningful improvement in all primary effect parameters. Improvements were maintained at 4- and 12-month follow-up. However, whether this was a result of the treatments or simply a result of time is unknown. Future studies will be necessary to delineate ideal treatment strategies.
Compared the clinical effectiveness of an intensive 3-mo training programme with a less intensive programme on females (aged 18–61 yrs) suffering from chronic neck/shoulder pain. The study design was a prospective observer-blinded clinical trial including 12-mo pretreatment follow-up. Ss were randomized to either an intensive neck/shoulder training programme or a programme of lesser intensity but of similar duration. Scales measuring pain and activities of daily living (ADL) were used, and strength and endurance measurements of the cervical and shoulder muscles were carried out at baseline and completion of the study. Follow-up measurements were carried out by postal questionnaire at 6 and 12 mo after inclusion, and included pain, ADL, and treatment satisfaction measurements. 77 Ss were included in the trial, of whom 27 completed the intensive programme and 25 the lighter programme. 41 completed the follow-up questionnaires. Ss in both groups that completed the trial demonstrated statistically significant improvements in nearly all of the outcome measurements at completion. ADL scores maintained statistical significance at 12 mo in both groups, but pain scores were only significantly improved in the intensive group at 12 mo follow-up. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved)
Pain in the cervical and scapular regions is often associated with trigger points in these regions. Although there are many types of manual therapies used in the clinic to relieve trigger points, there is no documented research to validate their efficacy. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of a single session of each of two manual therapy techniques on the pressure pain thresholds of trigger points in the cervical and scapular regions. Sixty volunteers with one or more trigger points were recruited. Subjects were randomly assigned to groups receiving one treatment session of head retraction and retraction/extension exercises, occipital release, or no treatment. A pre-test and post-test of pressure pain threshold were performed on each subject using a pressure algometer. A one-way analysis of covariance, using the pre-test as the covariate, was conducted to analyse the data. The results of the analysis indicated that there were no significant differences between the groups. No changes in trigger point sensitivity, as measured by pressure pain thresholds, were found after one treatment of retraction with retraction/extension exercises and one treatment of occipital release. One treatment of either retraction with retraction/extension exercises or occipital release is not effective in changing the pressure pain thresholds of cervical and scapular trigger points. Further studies need to address the effectiveness of multiple treatment sessions for each technique.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to investigate whether the mode of teaching exercises (use of brochures versus therapist teaching) affects whether patients correctly perform the exercises and whether it affects changes in impairment. SUBJECTS: Eighty-seven patients (33 women, 54 men) with neck pain and low back pain were examined. The average age was 48 years (SD = 12.7, range = 21-67). METHODS: Two groups of patients were analyzed. The supervised (physical therapist-instructed) group (n = 47) exercised under the supervision of a physical therapist, whereas the brochure group (n = 40) received their instructions only from one of three brochures. A rating scale was used to assess the correctness of exercise performance. Muscle status was registered using a standardized procedure for determination of muscle force and length. Pain severity was determined by means of a visual analogue scale. RESULTS: On the rating scale evaluating the correctness of exercise performance at follow-up, the patients in the supervised group performed better than the patients in the brochure group. In addition, there was a strong correlation between the quality of exercise performance and decrease in pain. CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION: Exercises learned only from a brochure without being monitored by a physical therapist were done properly by only about half of the patients and appeared to result in fewer improvements in impairments.
OBJECTIVE: To assess whether "phasic" exercises, including rapid eye-head-neck-arm movements, can benefit patients with chronic cervical injuries.
DESIGN: A randomized, controlled, double blind study involving 30 chronic patients, who were allocated to either group 1 or group 2. The study period was for 8 wk.
SETTING: The study was conducted in a private practice.
PATIENTS: Thirty chronic motor vehicle accident patients who continued to experience increased pain/soreness/stiffness of the cervical musculature with sports/activities requiring rapid head neck movements were selected for the study.
INTERVENTION: Group 1 patients (n = 15) had standard exercises (stretching/isometric/isokinetic) and chiropractic therapy. Group 2 patients (n = 15) had "phasic" exercises and chiropractic therapy. Patients in both groups exercised for a minimum of four times weekly, for 8 wk.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Pre and Post Pain and Disability Index was administered to both groups.
RESULTS: Group 1, which had standard exercises and chiropractic therapy, improved by 7.4% (p > .05). Group 2, which had "phasic" exercises and chiropractic therapy, improved by 48.3% (p > .001). Confounders were identified, which explains the minimal improvement of group 1 and the remarkable results of group 2.
CONCLUSIONS: It would appear that any rehabilitation program for chronic neck-injured patients should involve exercises that address the following: eye-head-neck-arm coordinated movements, coordination of the entire vertebral column,/ and return the "phasic" component of the musculature to functional levels. Additional studies will address the effect of these exercises on the strength, range of motion and pain improvement of the cervical spine in normal, acute and chronic patients.
A randomized, parallel-group, single-blinded clinical trial was performed. After a 1-week baseline period, patients were randomized to 11 weeks of therapy, with posttreatment follow-up assessment 3, 6, and 12 months later.
OBJECTIVES:
To compare the relative efficacy of rehabilitative neck exercise and spinal manipulation for the management of patients with chronic neck pain.
SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA:
Mechanical neck pain is a common condition associated with substantial morbidity and cost. Relatively little is known about the efficacy of spinal manipulation and exercise for chronic neck pain. Also, the combination of both therapies has yet to be explored.
METHODS:
Altogether, 191 patients with chronic mechanical neck pain were randomized to receive 20 sessions of spinal manipulation combined with rehabilitative neck exercise (spinal manipulation with exercise), MedX rehabilitative neck exercise, or spinal manipulation alone. The main outcome measures were patient-rated neck pain, neck disability, functional health status (as measured by Short Form-36 [SF-36]), global improvement, satisfaction with care, and medication use. Range of motion, muscle strength, and muscle endurance were assessed by examiners blinded to patients' treatment assignment.
RESULTS:
Clinical and demographic characteristics were similar among groups at baseline. A total of 93% of the patients completed the intervention phase. The response rate for the 12-month follow-up period was 84%. Except for patient satisfaction, where spinal manipulative therapy and exercise were superior to spinal manipulation with (P = 0.03), the group differences in patient-rated outcomes after 11 weeks of treatment were not statistically significant (P = 0.13). However, the spinal manipulative therapy and exercise group showed greater gains in all measures of strength, endurance, and range of motion than the spinal manipulation group (P < 0.05). The spinal manipulation with exercise group also demonstrated more improvement in flexion endurance and in flexion and rotation strength than the MedX group (P < 0.03). The MedX exercise group had larger gains in extension strength and flexion-extension range of motion than the spinal manipulation group (P < 0.05). During the follow-up year, a greater improvement in patient-rated outcomes were observed for spinal manipulation with exercise and for MedX exercise than for spinal manipulation alone (P = 0.01). Both exercise groups showed very similar levels of improvement in patient-rated outcomes, although the spinal manipulation and exercise group reported greater satisfaction with care (P < 0.01).
CONCLUSIONS:
For chronic neck pain, the use of strengthening exercise, whether in combination with spinal manipulation or in the form of a high-technology MedX program, appears to be more beneficial to patients with chronic neck pain than the use of spinal manipulation alone. The effect of low-technology exercise or spinal manipulative therapy alone, as compared with no treatment or placebo, and the optimal dose and relative cost effectiveness of these therapies, need to be evaluated in future studies.
