A controlled trial of continuous lumbar traction in the treatment of back pain and sciatica. Cervical spine disorders. A comparison of three types of traction. The efficacy of traction for lumbar back pain: design of a randomized clinical trial. Repetitive magnetic stimulation: a novel therapeutic approach for myofascial pain syndrome. Design and assessment of an adaptive intermittent cervical traction modality with EMG biofeedback. The efficacy of lumbar traction in the management of patients with low back pain. Randomised clinical trial of manipulative therapy and physiotherapy for persistent back and neck complaints: results of one year follow up. Active treatment of chronic neck pain: a prospective randomized intervention. Effects of cervical traction and exercise therapy in cervical spondylosis.
A controlled trial of continuous lumbar traction in the treatment of back pain and sciatica showed similar improvements in both the treated group (weighted traction) and the control group (simulated traction). The findings of this study question the justification of admitting patients with back pain into hospitals for purposes of traction alone. A randomized clinical trial was conducted to evaluate the efficacy of three commonly employed forms of traction in the treatment of cervical spine disorders. One hundred consenting men and women with disorders of the cervical spine were randomly assigned to one of four treatment groups, static traction, intermittent traction, manual traction, or no traction. All patients, regardless of group assignment, were seen twice weekly. The four groups were shown to be similar with regard to age, sex, diagnosis, chronicity, and prescores on the seven outcome measures. Although the entire cohort of neck patients, regardless of group assignment, improved significantly on all the outcome variables over the 6-week period, patients receiving intermittent traction performed significantly better than those assigned to the no traction group in terms of pain (P = 0.03), forward flexion (P = 0.01), right rotation (P = 0.004) and left rotation (P = 0.05). To present the design of a trial on the efficacy of lumbar traction.
                Randomized clinical trial.
                Patients with a minimum of 6 wk, nonspecific low back pain.
                High-dose, motorized, continuous traction with a force between 35% and 50% of the total body weight was compared with sham or low-dose traction with a force between 0 and 20% of body weight. The sham traction was given with a specially developed brace that becomes tighter in the back during traction. This is experienced by patients as if traction were exerted.
                Primary measures were the patient's global impression of the effect and the severity of three main complaints. Secondary effect measures were functional status, pain, range of motion, work absence and recurrences. The effect measures were rated before randomization and 4 wk, 12 wk and 6 months later.
                There have been a number of earlier trials on the efficacy of lumbar traction; they suffer, however, from severe methodological flaws. This trial aimed to avoid these shortcomings. The aim of this study was to evaluate the short, medium and long-term effects of peripheral repetitive magnetic stimulation (rMS) on myofascial pain compared with transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS).Fifty-three subjects with myofascial trigger points (TPs) at the level of the superior trapezius muscle were allocated randomly to three groups. The first group (n=17) was treated with rMS, the second (n=18) with TENS and the third (n=18) received a placebo treatment. Each treatment consisted of ten daily 20-minute sessions. Patients were evaluated before and immediately following treatment, and at one and three months after the end of treatment. Outcome measures were: the "neck pain and disability visual analogue scale" (NPDVAS), an algometric evaluation of pain, an evaluation of the TP characteristics, and the range of cervical bending and rotation contralateral to the affected trapezius muscle. At the end of treatment, the rMS group showed a significant improvement in the NPDVAS, algometry, TP characteristics, and cervical contralateral rotation. This improvement also persisted at one and three months post-therapy. After treatment, the TENS group showed significant improvement in the same outcome measures except for algometry. At the one month follow-up visit, this improvement had returned to non significant levels in all outcome measures with the exception of NPDVAS. No significant effect of TENS was seen at the three-month follow-up visit. The placebo group showed no significant improvement in any measure. Our results strongly suggest that at medium and longer term intervals peripheral rMS may be more effective than TENS for the treatment of myofascial pain. An intermittent cervical traction modality with closed-loop traction force control based on EMG biofeedback was developed and used for clinical study. This system consists of a EMG scanner, on-line self-adjusted traction force controller, audio/video alarm system, real time therapeutic status display, computer interface hardware, and control software. Twenty-four subjects with diagnosed cervical radiculopathy and muscle spasm symptom who were randomly divided into two groups served as subjects in this study. The control and experimental groups were treated with conventional open loop and new EMG biofeedback closed loop traction control protocols respectively. The results of this study indicate that the average reductions in paraspinal EMG signal during traction after 7 weeks treatment for experimental and control groups were 71 and 50 percent, respectively (p < 0.001). These results not only support the clinical use of intermittent, sitting traction to produce cervical paraspinal muscle relaxation, but also revealed that the average myoelectric activity of cervical paraspinal muscle during traction was reduced as traction force increased over the 7-week duration of traction treatment. Through EMG biofeedback traction force control, muscle injury, neck soreness, or pain after traction may be avoided. The literature on the efficacy of traction in the treatment of low back pain (LBP) is conflicting. The aim of this study was to examine its efficacy in this disorder. Forty-two patients with at least 6 weeks of nonspecific LBP were selected. Demographic data were obtained. All patients completed the Oswestry disability index (ODI) to assess disability and the 10-cm visual analog scale (VAS) for evaluation of pain. Subjects were randomly assigned into group 1, receiving only standard physical therapy, or group 2, receiving standard physical therapy with conventional lumbar traction. Standard physical therapy consisted of local heat, ultrasound for the lumbar region, and an active exercise program, given for ten sessions in all. The subjects received instruction on correct posture and recommended therapeutic exercises. They were reevaluated at the end of treatment and at 3-month follow-up. The mean outcome measures were global improvement and satisfaction with the therapy, as well as disability by ODI and pain by VAS. There were no group differences in terms of demographic and baseline clinical characteristics. There was a significant reduction in pain intensity and disability at the end of treatment in both groups. There was complete or mild improvement in 47.6% of group 1 and 40% of group 2. The satisfaction rate with both treatments was more than 70% immediately after the therapies. During the 3-month period, the outcome measures except disability remained statistically stable, with no difference amongst groups. Disability was significantly reduced at follow-up in both groups. Of the patients, 51% continued with the recommended exercises and had significantly lower disability scores than those who did not continue with the exercises. Pain and global improvement were also better in this group, but the difference was not statistically significant. In conclusion, no specific effect of traction on standard physical therapy was observed in our study group. We suggest focusing on back education and exercise therapy in the management of patients suffering from this chronic condition. To compare the effectiveness of manipulative therapy, physiotherapy, treatment by the general practitioner, and placebo therapy in patients with persistent non-specific back and neck complaints.
                Randomised clinical trial.
                Primary health care in the Netherlands.
                256 patients with non-specific back and neck complaints of at least six weeks' duration who had not received physiotherapy or manipulative therapy in the past two years.
                At the discretion of the manipulative therapists, physiotherapists, and general practitioners. Physiotherapy consisted of exercises, massage, and physical therapy (heat, electrotherapy, ultrasound, shortwave diathermy). Manipulative therapy consisted of manipulation and mobilisation of the spine. Treatment by general practitioners consisted of drugs (for example, analgesics), advice about posture, home exercises, and (bed)rest. Placebo treatment consisted of detuned shortwave diathermy (10 minutes) and detuned ultrasound (10 minutes).
                Changes in severity of the main complaint and limitation of physical functioning measured on 10 point scales by a blinded research assistant and global perceived effect measured on a 6 point scale by the patients.
                Many patients in the general practitioner and placebo groups received other treatment during follow up. Improvement in the main complaint was larger with manipulative therapy (4.5) than with physiotherapy (3.8) after 12 months' follow up (difference 0.9; 95% confidence interval 0.1 to 1.7). Manipulative therapy also gave larger improvements in physical functioning (difference 0.6; -0.1 to 1.3). The global perceived effect after six and 12 months' follow up was similar for both treatments.
                Manipulative therapy and physiotherapy are better than general practitioner and placebo treatment. Furthermore, manipulative therapy is slightly better than physiotherapy after 12 months. A randomized comparative study with single-blind outcome assessments.
                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.
                The efficacy of active exercises and passive physiotherapy for neck trouble has been somewhat disappointing in the previous few studies.
                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.
                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.
                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. A randomised clinical trial was conducted in the Department of Physical Medicine, Chittagong Medical College Hospital from July, 2001 to June, 2002. The objectives of the study were to find out the effects of cervical traction (CT) and exercise on the patients with chronic cervical spondylosis. A total of 199 patients with cervical spondylosis were included in the clinical trial. One hundred patients were treated with cervical traction plus exercise and 99 patients were treated with non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID). Posture correction advice was given to all patients. The patients were treated for 6 weeks. There was a marked improvement in both the groups after treatment (P<0.001). But there was nearly significant difference regarding improvement in treatment with CT plus exercise than with NSAID (P = 0.06). The results indicate that the improvement of the patients with chronic cervical spondylosis was more in CT plus exercise than analgesics. So, CT & neck muscle strengthening exercise may have some more beneficial effects than NSAIDs on chronic cervical spondylosis.
The current literature does not support or refute the efficacy or effectiveness of continuous or intermittent traction for pain reduction, improved function or global perceived effect when compared to placebo traction, tablet or heat or other conservative treatments in patients with chronic neck disorders. Large, well conducted RCTs are needed to first determine the efficacy of traction, then the effectiveness, for individuals with neck disorders with radicular symptoms.