ArticlePDF Available

Effects of spinal manipulation in patients with mechanical neck pain

Authors:

Abstract and Figures

Objective: To analyse changes in the range of motion (ROM) and pain after spinal manipulation of the cervical spine and thoracic spine in subjects with mechanical neck pain. Methods : Spinal manipulations were performed in the cervical and thoracic spine with the Gonstead and Diversified DTV techniques. To assess cervical ROM an inclinometer was used. Cervical pain was assessed by Visual Analogue Scale (VAS). The participation of 73 patients was obtained. Ages ranged from 18 to 63 years, with an average of 42.27 years. The subjects of this study were characterized by having mechanical neck pain and restricted cervical ROM. Results: We observed a reduction in the intensity of pain perceived by patients and increased cervical ROM. There were significant differences between pre-treatment values (first visit) and the fifth and tenth visits (p<0.01), and between the fifth and tenth visits (p<0.01) in all parameters except in the cervical extension of 70º. Conclusions: The results of this study suggest that spinal manipulation of the cervical and thoracic regions with the Gonstead and Diversified DTV techniques could subjectively reduce pain and produce considerable increase in cervical ROM in adults with mechanical neck pain.
Content may be subject to copyright.
269
1. Universidad de Granada, Granada, España.
Study conducted at Universidad de Granada, Granada, Spain.
Correspondence: Calle Mainake, 7. 29670. San Pedro de Alcántara, Málaga, Spain. digregoletto@gmail.com
EFFECTS OF SPINAL MANIPULATION IN PATIENTS WITH
MECHANICAL NECK PAIN
EFEITO DA MANIPULAÇÃO VERTEBRAL EM PACIENTES COM CERVICALGIA MECÂNICA
EFECTOS DE LA MANIPULACIÓN VERTEBRAL EN PACIENTES CON CERVICALGIA MECÁNICA
Original article/artigO Original/artículO Original
ABSTRACT
Objective: To analyse changes in the range of motion (ROM) and pain after spinal manipulation of the cervical spine and thoracic spine in
subjects with mechanical neck pain. Methods: Spinal manipulations were performed in the cervical and thoracic spine with the Gonstead
and Diversified DTV techniques. To assess cervical ROM an inclinometer was used. Cervical pain was assessed by Visual Analogue
Scale (VAS). The participation of 73 patients was obtained. Ages ranged from 18 to 63 years, with an average of 42.27 years. The sub
-
jects of this study were characterized by having mechanical neck pain and restricted cervical ROM. Results: We observed a reduction
in the intensity of pain perceived by patients and increased cervical ROM. There were significant differences between pre-treatment
values (first visit) and the fifth and tenth visits (p<0.01), and between the fifth and tenth visits (p<0.01) in all parameters except in the
cervical extension of 70º. Conclusions: The results of this study suggest that spinal manipulation of the cervical and thoracic regions
with the Gonstead and Diversified DTV techniques could subjectively reduce pain and produce considerable increase in cervical ROM
in adults with mechanical neck pain.
Keywords: Neck pain; Range of motion; Chiropractic; Spinal manipulation; Cervical vertebrae.
RESUMO
Objetivo: Analisar as alterações da amplitude de movimento (ADM) e da dor após manipulação da coluna cervical e dorsal, em indivíduos
com cervicalgia mecânica. Métodos: Foram realizadas manipulações na coluna cervical e dorsal com as técnicas Gonstead e Diversificada
DTV. Para avaliar a ADM cervical, utilizou-se o instrumento inclinômetro. A dor na coluna cervical foi avaliada por meio da Escala Visual Ana
-
lógica (EVA). Obteve-se a participação de 73 pacientes. As idades oscilaram entre 18 e 63 anos, com média de 42,27 anos. Os indivíduos
do estudo foram caracterizados por apresentar cervicalgia mecânica e restrição da ADM cervical. Resultados: Constatou-se redução da
intensidade da dor percebida pelos pacientes e aumento da ADM cervical. Houve diferenças significativas entre os valores pré-tratamento
(primeira consulta) e na quinta e décima consultas (p<0,01) e entre a quinta e décima consultas (p<0,01) em todos os parâmetros, exceto
na extensão cervical de 70º. Conclusão: Os resultados deste estudo sugerem que a manipulação vertebral da coluna cervical e dorsal com
as técnicas Gonstead e Diversificada DTV poderiam ocasionar redução subjetiva da dor e produzir aumento considerável na ADM cervical
em adultos com cervicalgia mecânica.
Descritores: Cervicalgia; Amplitude de movimento articular; Quiroprática; Manipulação da coluna; Vértebras cervicais.
RESUMEN
Objetivos: Analizar las alteraciones en la amplitud de movimiento (ADM) y algias tras la manipulación vertebral en la columna cervical
y dorsal, en sujetos con cervicalgia mecánica. Métodos: Fueron realizadas manipulaciones en la columna cervical y dorsal con las
técnicas Gonstead y Diversificada DTV. Para evaluar la ADM cervical se utilizó un inclinómetro. El dolor en la columna cervical, fue
evaluado mediante la Escala Visual Analógica (EVA). Se obtuvo la participación de 73 pacientes. Las edades oscilaron entre los 18 y
los 63 años, con una edad promedio de 42,27 años. Los sujetos de esta investigación se caracterizaron por presentar cervicalgia me
-
cánica y restricción en la ADM cervical. Resultados: Se observó una reducción en la intensidad del dolor percibida por los pacientes y
un aumento en la ADM cervical, obteniéndose diferencias significativas entre los valores pretratamiento (primera cita) y las citas quinta
y décima (p<0,01), y entre las citas quinta y décima (p<0,01) en todos los parámetros excepto en extensión cervical 70º. Conclusión:
Los resultados de este estudio sugieren que la manipulación vertebral, con las técnicas Gonstead y Diversificada DTV, en la columna
cervical y dorsal, podría provocar una reducción subjetiva del dolor y producir un aumento considerable en la ADM cervical en adultos
con cervicalgia mecánica.
Descriptores: Dolor de cuello; Rango del movimiento articular; Quiropráctica; Manipulación espinal; Vértebras cervicales.
Diana gregOlettO
1
, cruz Miguel cenDán Martínez
1
Received on 02/21/2014, accepted on 09/05/2014.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S1808-18512014130400415
Coluna/Columna. 2014;13(4):269-74
INTRODUCTION
Mechanical neck pain, i.e. the presence of acute or chronic
pain in the cervical region, is located in the posterior and postero
-
lateral parts of the neck, and is sometimes accompanied by remote
referred pain to the upper limb or head, or symptoms of vertigo.
1
It is believed to be caused by a mechanical dysfunction involving
various anatomical structures of the cervical spine, essentially of
musculoskeletal origin, causing restricted movement and pain. The
majority of cases of neck pain originate in mechanical factors: repeti
-
tive movements, lack of work breaks, static jobs, and holding the
head and/or arms in the same position for long periods of time.
2-4
The precise nature of the cause of mechanical neck pain is not
270
clear; however, it has been attributed to stimulation of the afferent
nociceptive fibers present in the cervical interapophyseal joints,
intervertebral discs, paravertebral muscles, and other soft tissues.
5
Recent studies have suggested that the cervical interapophyseal
joints may be the main cause of neck pain.
6
According to the World Health Organization
7
50% of adults
experience neck pain during their lifetime. The frequent presence
of neck pain in the general population is estimated at between
10% and 15%, with women being more commonly affected than
men. More than a third of patients who visit the doctor with neck
pain present symptoms lasting more than six months, or recur
-
ring symptoms.
8,9
Reduction in range of movement (ROM) of the neck is a fre-
quent finding in individuals with mechanical neck pain.
10-15
Recent studies have suggested that manipulative techniques
focused on the thoracic region may be effective in the treatment
of neck pain.
16,17
However, we have not found any scientific evi-
dence in studies evaluating the effect of vertebral manipulation in
adults with mechanical neck pain using the Gonstead technique
in the cervical spine, and the Diversified Double Transverse (DTV)
technique in the thoracic spine.
The aim of this study was to evaluate changes in range of
movement and pain in the cervical spine following vertebral ma-
nipulation in the cervical and thoracic spine.
METHODS
The subjects were characterized as presenting mechanical neck
pain, defined as specific pain located centrally or bilaterally on the
back of the neck, mainly in the area between the upper nuchal line
and the tip of the first thoracic spinous process. The participation of
73 patients was obtained: 37 women and 36 men. Ages ranged from
18 to 63 years, with an average age of 42.27 years. The study was
approved by the Institutional Review Board. All the subjects signed
the Informed Consent Form. The exclusion criteria were: failure to
attend all the trial visits, having suffered some trauma during the
study period, individuals diagnosed with fracture, dislocation, joint
hypermobility, rupture of the soft tissues, cancer and surgical history
involving the joints studied, as well as those who began during chi
-
ropractic treatment, use of analgesics, anti-inflammatories, or other
therapeutic treatment for the complaint in question.
The procedures used in the first visit were: anamnesis, physi
-
cal examination with orthopedic tests on the cervical spine, tendon
reflexes, sensory and motor evaluation of the upper extremities,
vascular tests, vital signs, assessment of ROM/neck pain and evalu
-
ation of imaging exams of the cervical spine,
18,19
always performed
by the same person.
20
For the evaluation of cervical ROM, a manual inclinometer
(TECSYMP) was used, with a measuring range of 0° to 180°. During
the cervical ROM test, the subjects sat in a chair with a backrest, in
a relaxed position, facing forwards (neutral position 0°). The range of
movement between the neutral position and the maximum angular
displacement of the head was recorded. The subjects were asked
to move their heads in maximum flexion, extension, right and left
lateral flexion, and right and left rotation. Three consecutive move
-
ments performed in each direction, taking the mean value as the
final measurement. The procedure was repeated on the first, fifth
and tenth visits.
The evaluation of pain was carried out using a visual analogue
scale (VAS) of pain, and was performed on the 1
st
, 5
th
and 10
th
visits.
The treatment was based on correcting the segments that presented
highest fixation or limitation of movement in the cervical and thoracic
spines, detected by static and dynamic palpation.
Gonstead Technique
The Gonstead technique (Figure 1) chosen for correction of the
segments with higher fixation or limitation of motion of the cervical
spine was the Cervical Chair (CC) technique. The technique was
performed with the patient sitting in a chair with a backrest, in a
relaxed position, with arms and legs extended and facing forwards.
The chiropractor was positioned behind the patient, favoring
the side of the rotation of the spinous process (right or left) of the
vertebra to be manipulated, with the right leg (in rotations of the spi
-
nous process to the right) or left (in rotations to the left) backwards.
The contact hand was on the spinous process to the left (rota
-
tions to the left) or right. The focal point was the right or left edge of
the second finger of the right or left hand. The exact point was the
left (or right) inferior posterior view of the spinous process posterior
inferior view. The third finger of the opposite hand (right or left)
stabilized the opposite transverse apophysis of the segment below
the one being manipulated. A gentle inclination to the left (or right)
was performed until slight tension was achieved, and an impulse
was applied, without rotation of the cervical spine, with a movement
from posterior to anterior, inferior to superior, right to the left (in the
case of rotation of the spinous apophysis to the right) and inwards.
The impulse was high velocity and low amplitude.
20-22
DTV Diversified technique
The Diversified technique (Figure 2) chosen for correction of
the segments with higher fixation or limitation of movement in the
thoracic spine was the Double Transverse technique (DTV). The
technique was performed with the patient in the prone position,
with chiropractor next to the rotation of the vertebral body of the
segment to be manipulated. The pisiform of the chiropractor’s lower
hand was in contact with the transverse apophysis of the side of the
rotation of the vertebral body, and the upper hand was in contact
with the spinous apophysis on the opposite side, i.e. on the side
of the rotation of the spinous apophysis. The upper hand stabilized
the segment to be set, and the lower hand corrected it through an
impulse. The direction of the impulse was posterior to anterior, and
inferior to superior.
The impulse was set and held for two to three seconds, and was
performed with high speed and low amplitude.
20,22
Data recompilation plan
Data were collected in a private chiropractic center. Chiropractic
adjustments were performed by the investigator of this study, which
has a degree in chiropractic medicine. The chiropractic intervention
was therefore standardized for all the patients.
Figure 1. Gonstead CC Technique.
Coluna/Columna. 2014;13(4):269-74
271
Statistical analysis
The values and points/bars represented in the graphs show the
mean ± SEM (standard error of the mean) of the scores obtained
in each of the parameters evaluated on the different visits. Statistical
comparisons were performed using one-way ANOVA for repeated
measurements, followed by the Bonferroni test using the statistical
program Prism 5.0. Data with alpha error below 5% were considered
significant (p < 0.05) and those with an alpha error of less than 1%
(p < 0.01 ) were considered very significant.
RESULTS
Regarding the effects of cervical ROM in flexion, the aver-
ages for the pre-and post-intervention groups were 50.07 and
59.38 degrees, respectively (Figure 3). A significant improvement
(p < 0.01) was obtained, which was dependent on the number of
sessions (Figure 3). Figure 4 shows that the averages for the pre-
and post-intervention groups, in the cervical extension, were 64.59
and 69.86 degrees, while on the 5
th
visit, maximum improvement
was almost achieved (p < 0.01).
Regarding cervical ROM in right and left later flexion (Figure 5)
and right and left rotation (Figure 6), clear statistical significance
(p < 0.01) was observed in both cases, between the initial values
and the intermediate and final values, with ROM increasing to normal
values (Figures 5 and 6).
Spinal manipulation produced a significant reduction in scores
on the first visit and subsequent visits (Figure 7). Thus, the mean pre
-
-treatment average for the neck pain was 6.33, with a reduction of al-
most half after five adjustments in the cervical spine, which was further
reduced after ten visits (1.55) (Figure 7). It should be emphasized that
there were significant differences not only between 1
st
and subsequent
visits (p < 0.01), but differences were also obtained in the scores on
the 5
th
and 10
th
visits (p < 0.01), indicating that the higher the number
of manipulations, the greater the decrease in pain (Figure 7).
DISCUSSION
The results of the study showed an increase in cervical mobility,
and a subjective reduction in pain after spinal manipulation through
the Gonstead and Diversified DTV techniques in the cervical and
thoracic spine, in adult patients with mechanical neck pain.
Figure 2. DTV Diversified Technique.
Figure 4. Range of movement of cervical extension. Statistically significant
differences between the 1st visit and the remaining visits (p <0.01).
Range of movement
10
th
visit5
th
visit
1
st
visit
69,86
68,36
64,59
70
69
68
67
66
65
64
63
62
61
60
Figure 3. Range of movement of cervical flexion. Statistically significant
differences between the 1st visit and the remaining visits; and between the
5
th
and 10
th
visits (p <0.01).
Range of movement
10
th
visit5
th
visit
1
st
visit
59,38
56,71
50,07
60
58
56
54
52
50
48
46
44
42
40
EFFECTS OF SPINAL MANIPULATION IN PATIENTS WITH MECHANICAL NECK PAIN
Coluna/Columna. 2014;13(4):269-74
272
Numerous studies have shown that patients with mechanical
neck pain have reduced ROM.
10-12,14,15,23
The scores considered
ideal, through the test performed with the inclinometer, for each
movement of the cervical spine in healthy adults, are 60 in cervical
flexion, 70 in extension, 45 in lateral flexion, and 80 in rotation.
19,24
The test to assess cervical ROM may be a useful tool for describing
the disability of patients with dysfunction in joints of the cervical
spine, and serves as a basis for evaluating the effectiveness of a
therapeutic program.
10,23,25
The results of this study demonstrated
that the vertebral manipulations in the cervical and thoracic spine
caused a return to cervical ROM at values very close to those con
-
sidered normal.
The cervical spine is a region where stability is sacrificed in favor
of mobility, so this segment, in particular, is more susceptible to
lesions.
26
The mechanical stability of the cervical spine comes from
the osteoligamentous and muscular system. Thus, 20% of the stabi
-
lization is provided by the osteoligamentous system, acting near the
end of range of movement, while the remaining 80% comes from the
deep muscles of the cervical spine, acting between the beginning
and middle of the range of movement, which is commonly adopted
during the tasks of daily living
.
27
Giles and Muller,
28
in a randomized clinical trial, compared the
effectiveness of spinal manipulation, medications and acupuncture
in patients with cervical and lumbar pain. They concluded that if
there are no contraindications, the manipulation generates a greater
reduction in pain and a greater increase in joint mobility.
Cassidy et al.,
29
compared spinal manipulation and mobilization.
Figure 7. Intensity of cervical pain in the 1
st
, 5
th
and 10
th
visits recorded
through a VAS. Significant differences between the 1st visit and the remaining
visits; and between the 5
th
and 10
th
visits (p <0.01).
6,33
3,59
1,55
10
th
visit
Intensity of Pain (0 to 10)
5
th
visit1
st
visit
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Figure 5. Range of movement of cervical bilateral lateral flexion. Statistically
significant differences between the 1st visit and the remaining visits; and
between the 5
th
and 10
th
visits (p <0.01).
Range of movement
40,68
34,18
43,42
10
th
visit
5
th
visit1
st
visit
41,58
36,03
43,08
Left
Right
44
42
40
38
36
34
32
30
Figure 6. Range of movement of bilateral cervical rotation. Statistically sig-
nificant differences between the 1st visit and the remaining visits; and the
5th and 10th visits (p <0.01).
10
th
visit
5
th
visit1
st
visit
73,36
69,04
62,12
71,51
74,38
65,34
Left
Right
Range of movement
74
72
70
68
66
64
62
60
Coluna/Columna. 2014;13(4):269-74
273
They showed that spinal manipulation was more effective than mobili-
zation in reducing pain in patients with mechanical neck pain, but that
both treatments increased the range of cervical movement in similar
form. However, Martínez et al.,
30
in their research, reported that spinal
manipulation led to an increase in ROM and a greater reduction in
pain, compared with cervical mobilization. Therefore, they concluded
that spinal manipulation was more effective than mobilization.
On the other hand, Hurwitz et al.
31
suggest that the mobility of
the cervical spine is as effective as manipulation in reducing cervical
pain. Hoving
32
noted that in patients with subacute and chronic neck
pain, a better result was obtained, in terms of recovery, in the manual
therapy group (manipulation and/or mobilization) than for physical
therapy or general practitioner (analgesics, education and advice)
at seven weeks of treatment, but not at the end of one year. Hoving
et al.
32
suggest that after treatment with manual therapy, there was
an acceleration in recovery in the short term. General medical treat
-
ment and physical therapy achieved better long-term outcomes;
however, the differences between the three treatment groups at
12 months of follow-up were small, and not statistically signifi
-
cant. In addition, Pikula
33
found a greater reduction in pain and
increased cervical ROM with cervical manipulation, compared with
a placebo group.
Vernon et al.,
34
also conducted a study comparing spinal manipu-
lation and the placebo effect. Patients with chronic mechanical neck
pain were evaluated for pain threshold to pressure on sensitive points
in the paravertebral zone surrounding a manipulable spinal cord
injury. In the group that received spinal manipulation, there was a sig
-
nificant change in pain thresholds to pressure. In the placebo group,
no change was found in any of the pain thresholds to pressure.
This study confirms that manipulation can increase local paraspinal
levels of pain threshold. Using a pressure pain threshold gauge, it
was possible to determine this beneficial effect on the deep tissues.
Moodley and
Brantingham
35
found greater pain reduction and
increased cervical ROM in patients with mechanical neck pain after
vertebral manipulation, in a comparison of ultrasounds. The results
indicated that spinal adjustments were more effective
.
On the clinical efficacy of chiropractic treatment, the most recent
report, conducted jointly by Mercer Health and Benefits (the world’s
biggest health economy consultant) and Harvard University was
published in 2009, reviewing studies from both the EU and the USA.
Almost half of Americans with spinal pain visit a chiropractor, and
the costs of this disability are as high as $85,000 million. Countless
studies and reviews throughout the world demonstrate that this is
the main cause of absenteeism and the most costly in economic
terms.
36,37
The Mercer report concludes that chiropractic medicine
is more effective than other treatments for back pain, and the most
effective treatment for neck pain, showing a high cost-effectiveness
benefits in the treatment of both disorders.
The results published to date in relation to cervical spinal dis
-
orders cervical
38
recommend chiropractic treatment for neck pain,
headache of cervical origin, and whiplash syndrome. Despite clinical
evidence of the benefits and apparent widespread use of spinal
manipulation, the neurophysiological mechanisms underlying its
effects are not entirely clear, but this does not negate the clinical
effects of spinal manipulation.
According to Ortega Santiago et al.,
39
neck pain is associated
with mechanical instability, and can be caused by an increase in
nociceptive discharge of the afferent fibers in the vertebral zyg-
apophyseal joints, intervertebral discs, paraspinal muscles, and
soft tissues.
Fernández de Las Peñas et al.,
40
explain that spinal
manipulation can affect the mobility of a hypomobile segment, and
produces increased range of movement. Haavik and Murphy
41
add
that the effectiveness of spinal manipulation is due to the fact that
manipulation can increase the range of movement of the joints,
increasing the activity of the proprioceptive fibers and thereby reduc
-
ing the transmission of pain stimuli, also relieving chronic tension
and spinal nerve irritation caused by joint dysfunction; it relaxes the
muscles due to stretching of the joint capsules, which stimulates
mechanoreceptors, decreasing muscle soreness. In addition, joint
adhesions can be reduced in chronic cases, increasing the pain
threshold in the skin and the pain threshold to pressure in the para
-
spinal muscles.
Leach
42
and Gatterman
43
believe the biomechanical changes
caused by spinal manipulation have physiological consequences,
through their effects on the influence of sensory information to the
central nervous system. The afferences to the muscle spindles, and
the afferences to the Golgi tendon organs are stimulated by spinal
manipulation. Sensory nerve fibers of smaller diameter are likely to
become active, although this has not been directly demonstrated.
Pickar
44
hypothesized that the reasons underlying the biomechanical
changes in the spine affect the afferent neurons, with a subsequent
change in central processing, and affecting the somatomotor effe
-
rences and the somatovisceral reflexes.
Spinal manipulation triggers changes in the musculoskeletal
system. Experimental tests indicate that the charge of the impulse of
a spinal manipulation influences the proprioceptive primary afferent
neurons in the paraspinal tissues.
44
addition, the manipulation can
affect the processing of pain, possibly by altering the central facili
-
tated state of the spinal cord, and can affect motor control system.
41
It is likely that more than one mechanism explains the neurophysi-
ological mechanisms of vertebral manipulation.
44
CONCLUSIONS
The subjects of this study had mechanical neck pain and
limited cervical ROM in at least one cervical movement. The re
-
sults of this study suggest that vertebral manipulation, using the
Gonstead and Diversified DTV techniques, in the cervical and
thoracic spine, could cause a subjective reduction in pain and
produce a considerable increase in cervical ROM in adults with
mechanical neck pain.
Despite the promising results, the limitations of this study
should be emphasized. The population included, has been re
-
cruited in a single chiropractic center, which could limit the ex-
trapolation of the results, as the subjects may have specific clinical
and demographic characteristics. Other studies with compari
-
son groups and wider samples, outlining specific methodologies
through the elimination of variables, are necessary to corroborate
the results of this study, before any relationship of cause and ef
-
fect can be determined.
All authors declare no potential conflict of interest concerning
this article.
EFFECTS OF SPINAL MANIPULATION IN PATIENTS WITH MECHANICAL NECK PAIN
Coluna/Columna. 2014;13(4):269-74
REFERENCES
1. Paz JBM. Monografías médico-quirúrgicas del aparato locomotor. Cervicobraquialgia.
Barcelona: Masson; 2000.
2. Buckle PW, Devereux JJ. The nature of work-related neck and upper limb musculoskeletal
disorders. Appl Ergon. 2002;33(3):207-17.
3. Franco ML. Bloqueos diagnóstico-terapéuticos de carillas articulares cervicales. Rev Soc
Esp Dolor. 2009;16(2):116-21.
4. Strimpakos N. The assessment of the cervical spine. Part 1: Range of motion and proprio
-
ception. J Bodyw Mov Ther. 2011;15(1):114-24.
5. Lu Y, Chen C, Kallakuri S, Patwardhan A, Cavanaugh JM. Neurophysiological and bio
-
mechanical characterization of goat cervical facet joint capsules. J Orthop Res.
2005;23(4):779-87.
6. Falco FJ, Erhart S, Wargo BW, Bryce DA, Atluri S, Datta S, et al. Systematic review of
diagnostic utility and therapeutic effectiveness of cervical facet joint interventions. Pain
Physician. 2009;12(2):323-44.
7. Organización Mundial de la Salud (OMS). “Directrices Sobre Formación Básica e Inocui
-
dad en Quiropráctica”. Ginebra: OMS; 2006.
8. Côté P, Cassidy JD, Carroll L. The Saskatchewan Health and Back Pain Survey. The pre
-
valence of neck pain and related disability in Saskatchewan adults. Spine (Phila Pa 1976).
1998;23(15):1689-98.
9. Guez M, Hildingsson C, Nilsson M, Toolanen G. The prevalence of neck pain: a population
-
-based study from northern Sweden. Acta Orthop Scand. 2002;73(4):455-9.
10. Hagen KB, Harms-Ringdahl K, Enger NO, Hedenstad R, Morten H. Relationship between
274
Coluna/Columna. 2014;13(4):269-74
subjective neck disorders and cervical spine mobility and motion-related pain in male
machine operators. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1997;22(13):1501-7.
11. Triano JJ. Biomechanics of spinal manipulative therapy. Spine J. 2001;1(2):121-30.
12. Lee H, Nicholson LL, Adams RD. Neck muscle endurance, self-report, and range of mo
-
tion data from subjects with treated and untreated neck pain. J Manipulative Physiol Ther.
2005;28(1):25-32.
13. McNair PJ, Portero P, Chiquet C, Mawston G, Lavaste F. Acute neck pain: cervical spi
-
ne range of motion and position sense prior to and after joint mobilization. Man Ther.
2007;12(4):390-4.
14. Woodhouse A, Vasseljen O. Altered motor control patterns in whiplash and chronic neck
pain. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2008;9:90.
15. De Loose V, Van den Oord M, Burnotte F, Van Tiggelen D, Stevens V, Cagnie B, et al. Dan
-
neels L, Witvrouw E. Functional assessment of the cervical spine in F-16 pilots with and
without neck pain. Aviat Space Environ Med. 2009;80(5):477-81.
16. González-Iglesias J, Fernández-de-las-Peñas C, Cleland JA, Gutiérrez-Vega Mdel R. Tho
-
racic spine manipulation for the management of patients with neck pain: a randomized
clinical trial. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2009;39(1):20-7.
1 7. Lau HM, Wing Chiu TT, Lam TH. The effectiveness of thoracic manipulation on pa
-
tients with chronic mechanical neck pain - a randomized controlled trial. Man Ther.
2011;16(2):141-7.
18. Dvir Z, Werner V, Peretz C. The effect of measurement protocol on active cervical motion
in healthy subjects. Physiother Res Int. 2002;7(3):136-45..
19. Hoppenfeld S. Propedêutica ortopédica: coluna e extremidades. São Paulo: Atheneu; 2004.
20. Saraiva CM. Manual de técnicas quiroprácticas. Novo Hamburgo, RS: Ed. Feevale; 2004.
21. Cooperstein R. Gonstead Chiropractic Technique (GCT). J Chiropr Med. 2003;2(1):16-24.
22. Cantera CL. Palpaçao: técnicas e procedimentos quiroprácticos. Novo Hamburgo, RS:
Ed. Feevale; 2006.
23. Cagnie B, Cools A, De Loose V, Cambier D, Danneels L. Reliability and normative database
of the Zebris cervical range-of-motion system in healthy controls with preliminary validation
in a group of patients with neck pain. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2007;30(6):450-5.
24. Norkin CC, White J. Medida do movimento articular. 2a. ed. Porto Alegre: Artes Mé
-
dicas; 1997.
25. Cipriano JJ. Photographic manual of regional orthopedic and neurologic tests. 5th ed.
Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2010.
26. Magee DJ. Avaliação musculoesquelética. 4a. ed. Barueri, SP: Manole; 2005.
27. Panjabi MM, Cholewicki J, Nibu K, Grauer J, Babat LB, Dvorak J. Critical load of the
human cervical spine: an in vitro experimental study. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon).
1998;13(1):11-17.
28. Giles LG, Muller R. Chronic spinal pain: a randomized clinical trial comparing medication,
acupuncture, and spinal manipulation. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2003;28(14):1490-502.
29. Cassidy JD, Lopes AA, Yong-Hing K. The immediate effect of manipulation versus mobi
-
lization on pain and range of motion in the cervical spine: a randomized controlled trial. J
Manipulative Physiol Ther. 1992;15(9):570-5.
30. Martínez-Segura R, Fernández-de-las-Peñas C, Ruiz-Sáez M, López-Jiménez C, Rodríguez
-
-Blanco C. 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. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2006;29(7):511-7.
31. Hurwitz EL, Morgenstern H, Harber P, Kominski GF, Yu F, Adams AH. A randomized trial of
chiropractic manipulation and mobilization for patients with neck pain: clinical outcomes
from the UCLA neck-pain study. Am J Public Health. 2002;92(10):1634-41.
32. Hoving JL, Koes BW, de Vet HC, van der Windt DA, Assendelft WJ, van Mameren H, et al.
Manual therapy, physical therapy, or continued care by a general practitioner for patients
with neck pain. A randomized, controlled trial. Ann Intern Med. 2002;136(10):713-22.
33. Pikula JR. The effect of spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) on pain reduction and range
of motion in patients with acute unilateral neck pain: a pilot study. J Can Chiropr Assoc.
1999;43:111–9.
34. Vernon HT, Aker P, Burns S, Viljakaanen S, Short L. Pressure pain threshold evaluation of
the effect of spinal manipulation in the treatment of chronic neck pain: a pilot study. J
Manipulative Physiol Ther. 1990;13(1):13-6.
35. Moodley M, Brantingham JW. The relative effectiveness of spinal manipulation and ultra
-
sound in mechanical pain: Pilot study. J Chiropr Med. 2002;1(4):184-8.
36. Coudhry, N, Milstein, A. “Do Chiropractic Physician Services for Treatment of Low-Back
and Neck Pain Improve the Value of Health Benefit Plans? An Evidence-Based Assess
-
ment of Incremental Impact on Population Health and Total Health Care Spending”. Har-
vard Medical School, Boston, Mercer Health and Benefits, San Francisco; 2009.
37. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Prevalence and most common cau
-
ses of disability among adults--United States, 2005. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep.
2009;58(16):421-6.
38. Haldeman S, Carroll L, Cassidy JD, Schubert J, Nygren A; Bone and Joint Decade 2000-
2010 Task Force on Neck Pain and Its Associated Disorders. The Bone and Joint Decade
2000-2010 Task Force on Neck Pain and Its Associated Disorders: executive summary.
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2008;33(Suppl 4):S5-7.
39. Ortega-Santiago R, Martínez-Segura R, Llave-Rincón, AI, Pérez-Bruzón JD, Fernández
-
-de-Las-Peñas C. Efectos hipoalgésicos y de movilidad cervical tras la manipulación ver-
tebral dorsal en pacientes con cervicalgia mecánica subaguda: estudio piloto. Fisioter.
2012;34(2):51-8.
40. Fernández de las Peñas C, Downey C, Miangolarra Page J. Immediate changes in radio
-
graphically determined lateral flexion range of motion following a single cervical HVLA
manipulation in patients presenting with mechanical neck pain: a case series. Int J Oste
-
opath Med. 2005;8:139-45.
41. Haavik H, Murphy B. The role of spinal manipulation in addressing disordered sensori
-
motor integration and altered motor control. J Electromyogr Kinesiol. 2012;22(5):768-76.
42. Leach RA. The chiropractic theories. 3rd ed. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins; 1994.
43. Gatterman MI. Foundations of chiropractic. St. Louis: Mosby; 1995.
44. Pickar JG, Bolton PS. Spinal manipulative therapy and somatosensory activation. J Elec
-
tromyogr Kinesiol. 2012;22(5):785-94.
... Mechanical neck pain is caused by an agitated nociceptive discharge of the afferent fibers in the vertebral facet joints, intervertebral discs, and paraspinal muscles. 18 It is possible that high velocity, low amplitude spinal adjustment of the upper thoracic segment, performed in the current case, unloaded some structures and relieved the associated soft tissues and neural compromise, allowing the compressed joints and affected muscles to restore their function. 19 Pain relief following chiropractic manipulation improved proprioception of cervical paraspinal muscles. ...
... 19 Pain relief following chiropractic manipulation improved proprioception of cervical paraspinal muscles. 18 Subsequent neck exercises improved muscle endurance and strength to keep the head upright. In cases of INEM secondary to biomechanical factors, manipulative therapies may be an alternative therapy before considering surgery. ...
Article
Full-text available
Dropped head syndrome (DHS) is manifested as the inability to maintain the head in an upright posture. It has been associated with a wide spectrum of myopathies and neurological conditions. Isolated neck extensor myopathy (INEM) is one of many potential causes of DHS. This is a case report of a 72-year-old man who presented with degenerative cervical spondylosis and DHS for 2 years. He had previously failed to achieve a positive outcome to medication, cervical collar and exercise rehabilitation. However, he was able to regain his voluntary head control after a 4-month chiropractic program. It is believed that INEM is caused by isolated myopathic changes from chronic injury and overloading of the cervical muscles. Cervical spondylosis has been attributed as the cause of DHS secondary to denervation of the cervical extensors. While INEM associated with degenerative spondylosis is not medically treatable, manipulative therapies may be adopted before considering surgical intervention.
... Diana Gregoletto [31] research had mechanical neck pain and limited cervical ROM in at least one cervical movement. The finding of this study indicate that spinal manipulation, using the Gonstead and Diversified DTV techniques, in the cervical and thoracic spine, may indicate a subjective reduction in pain and produce a significant improvement in neck ROM in individuals with mechanical neck pain. ...
Article
Full-text available
Background: Neck pain (NP) is a significant contributor to worldwide disability and poses a considerable financial burden to its stakeholders. Prognosis for chronic neck pain is generally poor, and the associated disability seems to be more persistent than low back pain. 66% of the population will suffer from neck pain at some point during their lifetime. More than one-third of people affected still have low grade symptoms or recurrences more than one year after treatment, often leading to chronic pain. More than one-third of those affected also show signs of mild pain or recurrence after 12 months of management, usually contributing to chronic pain. Different manual therapy methods and strategies exist; a common aspect is the use of hands during therapy which involves both manipulation and mobilization. Aim: To determine the recent research evidences for the efficacy of manual therapy in neck pain patients. Method: This review mainly includes randomized controlled trails (RCTs). Searching done by Google scholar, Pub med and Pedro from 2010 to 2019. We used terms like-neck pain, mobilization, manipulation, exercise and physiotherapy management. Result: Present outcomes shows that manual therapy treatment is effective technique in reducing pain and increasing Range of motion (ROM) in neck pain patients without adverse effects. The search resulted in 150 articles but only 10 articles were selected for the study based on criteria. Conclusion: Manual therapy program designed for neck pain treatment can be more effective at increasing neck ROM and reducing pain.
... reported an increase in hip extension after SMT. Costa et al., (2009) reported an increased full-swing range in golfers, Botelho and Andrade (2012) reported increased grip strength in Judokas, and Deutschmann et al,. (2015)reported increased kicking speed after SMT in soccer players.Gregoletto and Martínez (2014) study results demonstrated that, spinal manipulation of the cervical and thoracic regions with the Gonstead technique could reduce pain and produce considerable increase in cervical ROM in adults with mechanical neck pain.Giles and Muller (2003) study results demonstrated that, compared the effectiveness of spinal manipulation, medicati ...
Article
Full-text available
university 2 Professor of physical therapy for basic science , faculty of physical therapy.cairo university. 3 Lecturer of physical therapy for basic science , faculty of physical therapy.cairo university. ABSTRACT Purpose: The goal of this study was to compare three cervical angles, as well as AHT and pain pressure threshold (PPT) of the upper trapezius in physiotherapists with mechanical neck pain (MNP) versus pain-free physiotherapists. Methods: A total of 38 participants were recruited in this study, including 19 physiotherapists complaining of Neck discomfort caused by mechanical forces and 19 individuals who are not in any pain .Three cervical angles were used as outcome metrics (Oc-C 2 , C 1-C 2 and C 2-C 7) using X-ray imaging mesurements. Additionally, ,Anterior head translation (AHT) ,pain pressure threshold (PPT) and neck disability index. Results: There was a significant effect of mechanical neck pain on the dependent variables (F= 2.47, p = 0.03). The research group's PPT of the right trapezius decreased significantly compared with that of the control groups (p = 0.0001). There was a significant decrease in the PPT of left trapezius of the study group compared with that of the control groups (p = 0.0001). The NDI showed no statistically significant difference between the study and control groups (p = 0.08). The Occipt-C2 angle did not differ significantly between the study and control groups (p = 0.7).
Article
Full-text available
Background: Neck pain is a common problem, but the effectiveness of frequently applied conservative therapies has never been directly compared. Objective: To determine the effectiveness of manual therapy, physical therapy, and continued care by a general practitioner. Design: Randomized, controlled trial. Setting: Outpatient care setting in the Netherlands. Patients: 183 patients, 18 to 70 years of age, who had had nonspecific neck pain for at least 2 weeks. Intervention: 6 weeks of manual therapy (specific mobilization techniques) once per week, physical therapy (exercise therapy) twice per week, or continued care by a general practitioner (analgesics, counseling, and education). Measurements: Treatment was considered successful if the patient reported being "completely recovered" or "much improved" on an ordinal six-point scale. Physical dysfunction, pain intensity, and disability were also measured. Results: At 7 weeks, the success rates were 68.3% for manual therapy, 50.8% for physical therapy, and 35.9% for continued care. Statistically significant differences in pain intensity with manual therapy compared with continued care or physical therapy ranged from 0.9 to 1.5 on a scale of 0 to 10. Disability scores also favored manual therapy, but the differences among groups were small. Manual therapy scored consistently better than the other two interventions on most outcome measures. Physical therapy scored better than continued care on some outcome measures, but the differences were not statistically significant. Conclusion: in daily practice, manual therapy is a favorable treatment option for patients with neck pain compared with physical therapy or continued care by a general practitioner.
Article
Full-text available
We compared the effectiveness of frequently used treatments for nonspecific neck pain in general practice. We found that manual therapy was more effective than continued care, and our results consistently favored manual therapy on almost all outcome measures. Although physical therapy scored slightly better than continued care, most of the differences were not statistically significant. In addition, although manual therapy seemed to be more effective than physical therapy, differences were small for all outcome measures except perceived recovery and were not always statistically significant. The magnitude of the differences between manual therapy and physical therapy, but also between manual therapy and continued care, were most pronounced for perceived recovery. Because perceived recovery combines other outcomes, such as pain, disability, and patient satisfaction, it may be the most responsive outcome measure. For pain intensity, statistically significant differences among the treatment groups ranged from 0.9 to 1.5 on a scale of 0 to 10. Although smaller differences could have been detected with larger sample sizes, they would not have been clinically relevant.
Article
PurposeTo compare the immediate effects on neck pain, active cervical range of motion and pressure pain thresholds after a single cervical or thoracic spine manipulation in patients with subacute mechanical neck pain.
Article
Background: It is generally assumed that inter-vertebral joint dysfunction results in a temporary reduction of mobility of a spinal segment and it has been purported that spinal manipulation can directly affect the biomechanical behaviour of the spine. Functional X-rays are used to assess dynamic alterations of spinal function. Objective: The aim of this case series was to describe the immediate changes of inter-vertebral motion at an identified dysfunctional cervical segment, as measured by functional X-rays in lateral flexion, following a supine cervical rotation manipulation in patients presenting with mechanical neck pain. Methods: Fifteen patients who presented with mechanical neck pain and who exhibited inter-vertebral joint dysfunction at C3-C4 or C4-C5 levels were recruited to participate in this case series. The radiological distance between the transverse process of the identified hypomobile vertebra and the transverse process of the subjacent vertebra, was measured pre- and 5 min post-manipulation during contralateral side flexion. Results: Analysis of the pre-post-intervention radiographs showed a significant increase (P = 0.01) of the distance between the transverse process on the dysfunctional side following cervical manipulation. The mean pre-manipulative inter-vertebral radiological measurement was 18.9 mm (SD 2.1), and 20.6 mm (SD 2.1) at the post-manipulative assessment. Conclusions: These preliminary results demonstrated a trend toward an increase in inter-vertebral motion at the hypomobile segment, measured by functional radiography.
Article
Cervical pain is experienced by 66% of adults during their lifetime and by 54% in the previous 6 months. Only 5% will experience intense chronic pain with functional disability. Eighty percent of cervical pain is produced by skeletal or muscular lesions as a result of disc and facet degeneration. External causative agents include trauma, overweight, occupational demands, stress, etc. Diagnosis of cervical pain is mainly based on physical examination and clinical findings. In cervical pain radiating to the neck, scapulohumeral girdle and upper right arm without a radicular pattern and positive examination of the facet joints, diagnostic-therapeutic facet joint blocks are indicated. The present article describes the anatomy of the cervical region. Knowledge of this region is essential to guarantee good results and to minimize risks. The indications and practical features of the technique are also discussed.
Article
This review provides an overview of some of the growing body of research on the effects of spinal manipulation on sensory processing, motor output, functional performance and sensorimotor integration. It describes a body of work using somatosensory evoked potentials (SEPs), transcranial magnetic nerve stimulation, and electromyographic techniques to demonstrate neurophysiological changes following spinal manipulation. This work contributes to the understanding of how an initial episode(s) of back or neck pain may lead to ongoing changes in input from the spine which over time lead to altered sensorimotor integration of input from the spine and limbs.
Article
Manually-applied movement and mobilization of body parts as a healing activity has been used for centuries. A relatively high velocity, low amplitude force applied to the vertebral column with therapeutic intent, referred to as spinal manipulative therapy (SMT), is one such activity. It is most commonly used by chiropractors, but other healthcare practitioners including osteopaths and physiotherapists also perform SMT. The mechanisms responsible for the therapeutic effects of SMT remain unclear. Early theories proposed that the nervous system mediates the effects of SMT. The goal of this article is to briefly update our knowledge regarding several physical characteristics of an applied SMT, and review what is known about the signaling characteristics of sensory neurons innervating the vertebral column in response to spinal manipulation. Based upon the experimental literature, we propose that SMT may produce a sustained change in the synaptic efficacy of central neurons by evoking a high frequency, bursting discharge from several types of dynamically-sensitive, mechanosensitive paraspinal primary afferent neurons.
Article
Neck pain and headache of cervical origin are complaints affecting an increasing number of the general population. Mechanical factors such as sustained neck postures or movements and long-term "abnormal" physiologic loads on the neck are believed to affect the cervical structures and compromise neck function. A comprehensive assessment of neck function requires evaluation of its physical parameters such as range of motion, proprioception, strength and endurance/fatigue. The complicated structure of the cervical spine however, makes it difficult for any clinician to obtain reliable and valid results. The aim of the first part of this systematic critical review is to identify the factors influencing the assessment of range of motion and proprioception of the cervical spine.
Article
The aim of our study was to assess the effectiveness of thoracic manipulation (TM) on patients with chronic neck pain. 120 patients aged between 18 and 55 were randomly allocated into two groups: an experimental group which received TM and a control group without the manipulative procedure. Both groups received infrared radiation therapy (IRR) and a standard set of educational material. TM and IRR were given twice weekly for 8 sessions. Outcome measures included craniovertebral angle (CV angle), neck pain (Numeric Pain Rating Scale; NPRS), neck disability (Northwick Park Neck Disability Questionnaire; NPQ), health-related quality of life status (SF36 Questionnaire) and neck mobility. These outcome measures were assessed immediately after 8 sessions of treatment, 3-months and at a 6-month follow-up. Patients that received TM showed significantly greater improvement in pain intensity (p = 0.043), CV angle (p = 0.049), NPQ (p = 0.018), neck flexion (p = 0.005), and the Physical Component Score (PCS) of the SF36 Questionnaire (p = 0.002) than the control group immediately post-intervention. All these improvements were maintained at the 6-month follow-ups. This study shows that TM was effective in reducing neck pain, improving dysfunction and neck posture and neck range of motion (ROM) for patients with chronic mechanical neck pain up to a half-year post-treatment.