Immediate effects of thoracic manipulation in patients with neck pain: a randomized clinical trial. Thoracic spine manipulation for the management of patients with neck pain: a randomized clinical trial. The immediate effect of manipulation versus mobilization on pain and range of motion in the cervical spine: a randomized controlled trial. The immediate effects of upper thoracic translatoric spinal manipulation on cervical pain and range of motion: a randomized clinical trial. Manipulation of the cervical spine--a pilot study. A randomized trial of chiropractic manipulation and mobilization for patients with neck pain: clinical outcomes from the UCLA neck-pain study. A pilot randomized clinical trial on the relative effect of instrumental (MFMA) versus manual (HVLA) manipulation in the treatment of cervical spine dysfunction. The immediate effects of mobilization technique on pain and range of motion in patients presenting with unilateral neck pain: a randomized controlled trial. Immediate effects on neck pain and active range of motion after a single cervical high-velocity low-amplitude manipulation in subjects presenting with mechanical neck pain: a randomized controlled trial.
Mechanical neck pain is a common occurrence in the general population resulting in a considerable economic burden. Often physical therapists will incorporate manual therapies directed at the cervical spine including joint mobilization and manipulation into the management of patients with cervical pain. Although the effectiveness of mobilization and manipulation of the cervical spine has been well documented, the small inherent risks associated with these techniques has led clinicians to frequently utilize manipulation directed at the thoracic spine in this patient population. It is hypothesized that thoracic spine manipulation may elicit similar therapeutic benefits as cervical spine manipulation while minimizing the magnitude of risk associated with the cervical technique. The purpose of this randomized clinical trial was to investigate the immediate effects of thoracic spine manipulation on perceived pain levels in patients presenting with neck pain. The results suggest that thoracic spine manipulation results in immediate analgesic effects in patients with mechanical neck pain. Further studies are needed to determine the effects of thoracic spine manipulation in patients with neck pain on long-term outcomes including function and disability. Randomized clinical trial.
                To investigate if patients with mechanical neck pain receiving thoracic spine thrust manipulation would experience superior outcomes compared to a group not receiving thrust manipulation.
                Evidence has begun to emerge in support of thoracic thrust manipulation as an intervention n the management of mechanical neck pain. However, to make a strong recommendation for a clinical technique it is necessary to have multiple studies with convergent findings.
                Forty-five patients (21 females) were randomly assigned to 1 of 2 groups: a control group, which received electro-thermal therapy for 5 treatment sessions, and the experimental group, which received the same electro/thermal therapy program in addition to a thoracic spine thrust manipulation once a week for 3 consecutive weeks. Mixed-model analyses of variance (ANOVAs) were used to examine the effects of treatment on pain (100-mm visual analogue scale), disability (100-point disability scale), and cervical range of motion, with group as the between-subjects variable and time as the within-subjects variable. The primary analysis was the group-by-time interaction for pain.
                The group-by-time interaction effects for the ANOVA models were statistically significant for pain, mobility, and disability (P< .05), indicating greater improvements in the manipulation group for all the outcome measures. Patients receiving thoracic manipulation experienced greater improvements in pain at the fifth (final) treatment session and at the 2-week and 4-week follow-up periods (P< .001), with pain improvement scores in the manipulation group of 16.8 mm and 26.6 mm greater than those in the comparison group at the 2- and 4-week follow-up periods, respectively. The experimental group also experienced significantly greater improvements in disability with a between-group difference of 8.8 points (95% confidence interval [CI]: 7.5, 10.1; P< .001) at the fifth visit and 8.0 points (95% CI: 5.8, 10.2; P< .001) at the 2-week follow-up.
                The results of our study suggest that thoracic spine thrust manipulation results in superior clinical benefits that persist beyond the 1-mont follow-up period for patients with acute neck pain. Future studies should continue to investigate the effects of thoracic spine thrust manipulation, as compared to other physical therapy interventions, in a population with mechanical neck pain. The main objective of this study is to compare the immediate results of manipulation to mobilization in neck pain patients.
                The patients were compared in a randomized controlled trial without long-term follow-up.
                The study was conducted at an outpatient teaching clinic on primary and referred patients.
                One hundred consecutive outpatients suffering from unilateral neck pain with referral into the trapezius muscle were studied. Fifty-two subjects were manipulated and 48 subjects were mobilized. The mean (SD) age was 34.5 (13.0) yr for the manipulated group and 37.7 (12.5) yr for the mobilized group. Sixteen subjects had neck pain for less than 1 wk, 34 subjects had pain for between 1 wk and 6 mo and 50 subjects had pain for more than 6 mo. Seventy-eight subjects had a past history of neck pain. Thirty-one subjects had been involved in an injurious motor vehicle accident and 28 subjects had other types of minor trauma to the neck. There were no significant differences between the two treatment groups with respect to history of neck pain or level of disability as measured by the Pain Disability Index.
                The patients received either a single rotational manipulation (high-velocity, low-amplitude thrust) or mobilization in the form of muscle energy technique.
                Prior to and immediately after the treatments, cervical spine range of motion was recorded in three planes, and pain intensity was rated on the 101-point numerical rating scale (NRS-101). Both pre- and post-test measurements were conducted in a blinded fashion.
                The results show that both treatments increase range of motion, but manipulation has a significantly greater effect on pain intensity. Eighty-five percent of the manipulated patients and 69% of the mobilized patients reported pain improvement immediately after treatment. However, the decrease in pain intensity was more than 1.5 times greater in the manipulated group (p = .05).
                This study demonstrates that a single manipulation is more effective than mobilization in decreasing pain in patients with mechanical neck pain. Both treatments increase range of motion in the neck to a similar degree. Further studies are required to determine any long-term benefits of manipulation for mechanical neck pain. This study examined the effect of translatoric spinal manipulation (TSM) on cervical pain and cervical active motion restriction when applied to upper thoracic (T1-T4) segments. Active cervical rotation range of motion was measured re- and post-intervention with a cervical inclinometer (CROM), and cervical pain status was monitored before and after manipulation with a Faces Pain Scale. Study participants included a sample of convenience that included 32 patients referred to physical therapy with complaints of pain in the mid-cervical region and restricted active cervical rotation. Twenty-two patients were randomly assigned to the experimental group and ten were assigned to the control group. Pre- and post-intervention cervical range of motion and pain scale measurements were taken by a physical therapist assistant who was blinded to group assignment. The experimental group received TSM to hypomobile upper thoracic segments. The control group received no intervention. Paired t-tests were used to analyze within-group changes in cervical rotation and pain, and a 2-way repeated-measure ANOVA was used to analyze between-group differences in cervical rotation and pain. Significance was accepted at p = 0.05. Significant changes that exceeded the MDC(95) were detected for cervical rotation both within group and between groups with the TSM group demonstrating increased mean (SD) in right rotation of 8.23 degrees (7.41 degrees ) and left rotation of 7.09 degrees (5.83 degrees ). Pain levels perceived during post-intervention cervical rotation showed significant improvement during right rotation for patients experiencing pain during bilateral rotation only (p=.05). This study supports the hypothesis that spinal manipulation applied to the upper thoracic spine (T1-T4 motion segments) significantly increases cervical rotation ROM and may reduce cervical pain at end range rotation for patients experiencing pain during bilateral cervical rotation. A randomized controlled trial of manipulation of the cervial spine was carried out on 52 patients in general practice, and the results were assessed symptomatically and goniometrically for three weeks. Manipulation produced a significant immediate improvement in symptoms in those with pain or stiffness in the neck, and pain/paraesthesia in the shoulder, and a nearly significant improvement in those with pain/paraesthesia in the arm/hand. Manipulation also produced a significant increase in measured rotation that was maintained for three weeks and an immediate improvement in lateral flexion that was not maintained.This is to our knowledge the first published formal trial of such manipulation and should increase interest in this form of treatment by the medical profession. This study compared the relative effectiveness of cervical spine manipulation and mobilization for neck pain.
                Neck-pain patients were randomized to the following conditions: manipulation with or without heat, manipulation with or without electrical muscle stimulation, mobilization with or without heat, and mobilization with or without electrical muscle stimulation.
                Of 960 eligible patients, 336 enrolled in the study. Mean reductions in pain and disability were similar in the manipulation and mobilization groups through 6 months.
                Cervical spine manipulation and mobilization yield comparable clinical outcomes. To determine the relative effect of instrument-delivered thrust cervical manipulations in comparison with traditional manual-delivered thrust cervical manipulations in the treatment of cervical spine dysfunction.
                Prospective, randomized, comparative clinical trial.
                Outpatient chiropractic clinic, Technikon Natal, South Africa.
                Thirty patients diagnosed with neck pain and restricted cervical spine range of motion without complicating pathosis for at least 1 month were included in the study.
                The patients were randomized into 2 groups. Those in one group received mechanical force, manually assisted (MFMA) manipulation to the cervical spine, delivered by means of a hand-held instrument (Activator II Adjusting Instrument). Those in the other group received specific contact high-velocity, low-amplitude (HVLA) manipulation consisting of standard Diversified rotary/lateral break techniques to the cervical spine. Each group received only the specific therapeutic intervention, no other treatment modalities or interventions (including medication) being used, until asymptomatic status was achieved or a maximum of 8 treatments had been received. Main Outcome Measures: Both treatment groups were assessed through use of subjective (Numerical Pain Rating Scale 101, McGill Short-Form Pain Questionnaire, and Neck Disability Index) and objective (goniometer cervical range of motion) measurement parameters at specific intervals during the treatment period and at 1-month follow-up. The data were assessed through use of 2-tailed nonparametric paired and unpaired analysis, descriptive statistics, and power analysis of the data.
                The results indicate that both treatment methods had a positive effect on the subjective and objective clinical outcome measures, no significant difference being observed between the 2 groups (P < .025). The subjective data from all 3 questionnaires showed statistically significant changes from initial to final consultations as well as from initial consultation to 1-month follow-up (P < .025). The objective range of motion measures showed statistically significant changes in the MFMA group for left and right rotation and left and right lateral flexion from initial consultation to final consultations and for right rotation and right lateral flexion from initial consultation to 1-month follow-up. The HVLA group showed only the change in left rotation from initial to final consultations and from initial consultation to 1-month follow-up to be statistically significant.
                The results of this clinical trial indicate that both instrumental (MFMA) manipulation and manual (HVLA) manipulation have beneficial effects associated with reducing pain and disability and improving cervical range of motion in this patient population. A randomized, controlled clinical trial in a similar patient base with a larger sample size is necessary to verify the clinical relevance of these findings. To determine the immediate effects on both pain and active range of motion (ROM) of the unilateral posteroanterior (PA) mobilization technique on the painful side in mechanical neck pain patients presenting with unilateral symptoms.
                Triple-blind, randomized controlled trial.
                Outpatient physical therapy, institutional clinic.
                Patients (N=60), 2 physical therapists, and 1 assessor involved in this study.
                The patients were randomly allocated into either preferred or random mobilization group by using an opaque concealed envelope. The first therapist performed the screening, assessing, prescribing the spinal level(s), and the grade of mobilization. The second therapist performed the mobilization treatment according to their allocated group stated in an envelope. The assessor who was blind to the group allocation conducted the measurements of pain and active cervical ROM.
                Pain intensity, active cervical ROM, and global perceived effect were measured at baseline and 5 minutes posttreatment.
                After mobilization, there were no apparent differences in pain and active cervical ROM between groups. However, within-group changes showed significant decreases in neck pain at rest and pain on most painful movement (P<0.001) with a significant increase in active cervical ROM after mobilization on most painful movement (P=0.002).
                The results of this study did not provide support for the preference of the unilateral PA mobilization on the painful side to the random mobilization. The objective of this study is to analyze the immediate effects on neck pain and active cervical range of motion after a single cervical high-velocity low-amplitude (HVLA) manipulation or a control mobilization procedure in mechanical neck pain subjects. In addition, we assessed the possible correlation between neck pain and neck mobility.
                Seventy patients with mechanical neck pain (25 males and 45 females, aged 20-55 years) participated in this study. The lateral gliding test was used to establish the presence of an intervertebral joint dysfunction at the C3 through C4 or C4 through C5 levels. Subjects were divided randomly into either an experimental group, which received an HVLA thrust, or a control group, which received a manual mobilization procedure. The outcome measures were active cervical range of motion and neck pain at rest assessed pretreatment and 5 minutes posttreatment by an assessor blinded to the treatment allocation of the patient. Intragroup and intergroup comparisons were made with parametric tests. Within-group effect sizes were calculated using Cohen's d coefficient.
                Within-group changes showed a significant improvement in neck pain at rest and mobility after application of the manipulation (P < .001). The control group also showed a significant improvement in neck pain at rest (P < .01), flexion (P < .01), extension (P < .05), and both lateral flexions (P < .01), but not in rotation. Pre-post effect sizes were large for all the outcomes in the experimental group (d > 1), but were small to medium in the control mobilization group (0.2 < d < 0.6). The intergroup comparison showed that the experimental group obtained a greater improvement than the control group in all the outcome measures (P < .001). Decreased neck pain and increased range of motion were negatively associated for all cervical motions: the greater the increase in neck mobility, the less the pain at rest.
                Our results suggest that a single cervical HVLA manipulation was more effective in reducing neck pain at rest and in increasing active cervical range of motion than a control mobilization procedure in subjects suffering from mechanical neck pain.
Cervical manipulation and mobilisation produced similar changes. Either may provide immediate- or short-term change; no long-term data are available. Thoracic manipulation may improve pain and function. Optimal techniques and dose are unresolved. Further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate.