Physiological and clinical changes after therapeutic massage of the neck and shoulders

Neuromechanics Research Laboratory, Department of Kinesiology, Auburn University, Auburn, AL 36849-5323, USA.
Manual therapy (Impact Factor: 1.76). 05/2011; 16(5):487-94. DOI: 10.1016/j.math.2011.04.002
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Little is known regarding the physiological and clinical effects of therapeutic massage (TM) even though it is often prescribed for musculoskeletal complaints such as chronic neck pain. This study investigated the influence of a standardized clinical neck/shoulder TM intervention on physiological measures assessing α-motoneurone pool excitability, muscle activity; and the clinical measure of range of motion (ROM) compared to a light touch and control intervention. Flexor carpi radialis (FCR) α-motoneurone pool excitability (Hoffmann reflex), electromyography (EMG) signal amplitude of the upper trapezius during maximal muscle activity, and cervical ROM were used to assess possible physiological changes and clinical effects of TM. Sixteen healthy adults participated in three, 20 min interventions: control (C), light touch (LT) and therapeutic massage (TM). Analysis of Covariance indicated a decrease in FCR α-motoneurone pool excitability after TM, compared to both the LT (p = 0.0003) or C (p = 0.0007) interventions. EMG signal amplitude decreased after TM by 13% (p < 0.0001), when compared to the control, and 12% (p < 0.0001) as compared to LT intervention. The TM intervention produced increases in cervical ROM in all directions assessed: flexion (p < 0.0001), lateral flexion (p < 0.0001), extension (p < 0.0001), and rotation (p < 0.0001). TM of the neck/shoulders reduced the α-motoneurone pool excitability of the flexor carpi radialis after TM, but not after the LT or C interventions. Moreover, decreases in the normalized EMG amplitude during MVIC of the upper trapezius muscle; and increases in cervical ROM in all directions assessed occurred after TM, but not after the LT or C interventions.


Available from: JoEllen M Sefton, Jun 03, 2015
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background: While massage has been removed from nursing curricula, studies have reported massage as safe and effective for stress reduction, relaxation, pain relief, fatigue, and quality of life. Objective: To compare the efficacy of two intensities of touch administered during two seated massages on the attitudes of nursing students toward touch for their self-care and patient care. Participants: Nursing students who volunteered gave institutional review board-approved written informed consent to undergo massage by a licensed massage therapist. Settings/location: A private room adjacent to the nursing lab in a school of nursing. Intervention: Brief seated massages of differing intensities. Each participant received low-intensity and high-intensity touch in a two-block, randomized order, within-subjects design. Linear mixed models nested within subject and random intercept analyses were used to test hypotheses in this two-treatment, two-sequence, two-period crossover design. Outcome Measures: Health questionnaires/visual analogue scales pertaining to physical/affective/and attitudinal status were completed before and after each massage. Results: Twenty-nine participants (93% female, 83% single) completed the study. Before massage, the optimal intensity of touch anticipated for self-comfort was 6.6 (0=no pressure;10=most intense pressure imaginable). The mean touch intensities were 6.7 for high-intensity massage and 0.5 for low-intensity (p<0.001). The overall percentage differences (feeling better or worse) following massage were as follows: low intensity, 37.5% better; high intensity, 62.7% better (p<0.001). Significantly more improvement was reported for energy, pain, stress, and feeling physically uptight after high-intensity compared with low-intensity (p<0.03). Participants were more likely to both receive touch for self-care and provide touch for patient care after experiencing high- versus low-intensity massage (p<0.01). Conclusion: High-intensity seated massage was more efficacious than low-intensity massage and positively influenced nursing student attitudes toward the inclusion of massage in self-care/patient care. The role of touch for self-care/patient care in the nursing curricula merits reconsideration.
    Journal of alternative and complementary medicine (New York, N.Y.) 08/2014; DOI:10.1089/acm.2014.0142 · 1.52 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Long's manipulation (LM) is a representative Chinese manipulation approach incorporating both spinal manipulation and traditional Chinese massage (TCM) techniques. This randomized controlled trial (RCT) aimed to compare the immediate and short-term relative effectiveness of LM to TCM on patients with chronic neck pain. Patients were randomly assigned to either LM group or TCM group. LM group was treated with Long's manipulation, while the TCM group received TCM therapy. Patients attended 8 sessions of treatment (one session every three days). Outcome measures included neck disability (Northwick Park Neck Pain Questionnaire; NPQ), pain intensity (Numeric Pain Rating Scale; NPRS), patient perceived satisfaction of care (PPS) (11-point scale), craniovertebral angle (CV angle) and cervical range of motion (ROM). A blinded assessor performed assessment at baseline, immediate after treatment and 3 months post treatment. LM group achieved significantly greater improvement than TCM group in pain intensity (p < 0.001), neck disability (p = 0.049) and satisfaction (p < 0.001) up to 3-month follow-up. There was no significant difference in improvements in CV angle and most of cervical ROM between groups (p = 0.169 ∼ 0.888) with an exception of flexion at 3-month follow-up (p = 0.005). This study shows that LM could produce better effects than TCM in relieving pain and improving disability in the management of patients with chronic mechanical neck pain.
    Manual therapy 01/2013; DOI:10.1016/j.math.2012.11.005 · 1.76 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objective. To systematically evaluate the evidence of whether massage therapy (MT) is effective for neck pain. Methods. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were identified through searches of 5 English and Chinese databases (to December 2012). The search terms included neck pain, neck disorders, cervical vertebrae, massage, manual therapy, Tuina, and random. In addition, we performed hand searches at the library of Nanjing University of Traditional Chinese Medicine. Two reviewers independently abstracted data and assessed the methodological quality of RCTs by PEDro scale. And the meta-analyses of improvements on pain and neck-related function were conducted. Results. Fifteen RCTs met inclusion criteria. The meta-analysis showed that MT experienced better immediate effects on pain relief compared with inactive therapies (n = 153; standardised mean difference (SMD), 1.30; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.09 to 2.50; P = 0.03) and traditional Chinese medicine (n = 125; SMD, 0.73; 95% CI 0.13 to 1.33; P = 0.02). There was no valid evidence of MT on improving dysfunction. With regard to follow-up effects, there was not enough evidence of MT for neck pain. Conclusions. This systematic review found moderate evidence of MT on improving pain in patients with neck pain compared with inactive therapies and limited evidence compared with traditional Chinese medicine. There were no valid lines of evidence of MT on improving dysfunction. High quality RCTs are urgently needed to confirm these results and continue to compare MT with other active therapies for neck pain.
    Evidence-based Complementary and Alternative Medicine 02/2014; 2014:204360. DOI:10.1155/2014/204360 · 2.18 Impact Factor