Cleland Joshua A, Glynn Paul, Whitman Julie M, Eberhart Sarah L, MacDonald Cameron, Childs John D
Department of Physical Therapy, Franklin Pierce College, 5 Chenell Dr, Concord, NH 03301, USA.
Phys Ther. 2007 Apr;87(4):431-40. doi: 10.2522/ptj.20060217. Epub 2007 Mar 6.
Evidence supports the use of manual physical therapy interventions directed at the thoracic spine in patients with neck pain. The purpose of this study was to compare the effectiveness of thoracic spine thrust mobilization/manipulation with that of nonthrust mobilization/manipulation in patients with a primary complaint of mechanical neck pain. The authors also sought to compare the frequencies, durations, and types of side effects between the groups.
The subjects in this study were 60 patients who were 18 to 60 years of age and had a primary complaint of neck pain.
For all subjects, a standardized history and a physical examination were obtained. Self-report outcome measures included the Neck Disability Index (NDI), a pain diagram, the Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NPRS), and the Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire. After the baseline evaluation, the subjects were randomly assigned to receive either thoracic spine thrust or nonthrust mobilization/manipulation. The subjects were reexamined 2 to 4 days after the initial examination, and they again completed the NDI and the NPRS, as well as the Global Rating of Change (GROC) Scale. The primary aim was examined with a 2-way repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA), with intervention group (thrust versus nonthrust mobilization/manipulation) as the between-subjects variable and time (baseline and 48 hours) as the within-subject variable. Separate ANOVAs were performed for each dependent variable: disability (NDI) and pain (NPRS). For each ANOVA, the hypothesis of interest was the 2-way group x time interaction.
Sixty patients with a mean age of 43.3 years (SD=12.7) (55% female) satisfied the eligibility criteria and agreed to participate in the study. Subjects who received thrust mobilization/manipulation experienced greater reductions in disability, with a between-group difference of 10% (95% confidence interval [CI]=5.3-14.7), and in pain, with a between-group difference of 2.0 (95% CI=1.4-2.7). Subjects in the thrust mobilization/manipulation group exhibited significantly higher scores on the GROC Scale at the time of follow-up. No differences in the frequencies, durations, and types of side effects existed between the groups.
The results suggest that thoracic spine thrust mobilization/manipulation results in significantly greater short-term reductions in pain and disability than does thoracic nonthrust mobilization/manipulation in people with neck pain.
有证据支持对颈部疼痛患者采用针对胸椎的手法物理治疗干预措施。本研究的目的是比较胸椎推按整复/手法治疗与非推按整复/手法治疗对以机械性颈部疼痛为主诉的患者的疗效。作者还试图比较两组之间副作用的发生频率、持续时间和类型。
本研究的受试者为60名年龄在18至60岁之间、以颈部疼痛为主诉的患者。
对所有受试者进行了标准化病史采集和体格检查。自我报告结局指标包括颈部功能障碍指数(NDI)、疼痛示意图、数字疼痛评分量表(NPRS)和恐惧-回避信念问卷。在基线评估后,受试者被随机分配接受胸椎推按整复或非推按整复/手法治疗。在初次检查后2至4天对受试者进行复查,他们再次完成NDI、NPRS以及总体变化评定(GROC)量表。主要目的通过双向重复测量方差分析(ANOVA)进行检验,将干预组(推按整复/手法治疗与非推按整复/手法治疗)作为组间变量,时间(基线和48小时)作为组内变量。对每个因变量:功能障碍(NDI)和疼痛(NPRS)分别进行方差分析。对于每个方差分析,感兴趣的假设是双向组×时间交互作用。
60名平均年龄为43.3岁(标准差=12.7)(55%为女性)的患者符合纳入标准并同意参与研究。接受推按整复/手法治疗的受试者在功能障碍方面的改善更大,组间差异为10%(95%置信区间[CI]=5.3-14.7),在疼痛方面组间差异为2.0(95%CI=1.4-2.7)。推按整复/手法治疗组的受试者在随访时GROC量表得分显著更高。两组之间副作用的发生频率、持续时间和类型没有差异。
结果表明,对于颈部疼痛患者,胸椎推按整复/手法治疗在短期内导致的疼痛和功能障碍减轻程度明显大于胸椎非推按整复/手法治疗。