González-Iglesias Javier, Fernández-de-las-Peñas Cesar, Cleland Joshua A, Gutiérrez-Vega Maria del Rosario
Centro de Fisioterapia Integral, Candas, Asturias, Spain.
J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2009 Jan;39(1):20-7. doi: 10.2519/jospt.2009.2914.
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.
随机临床试验。
探讨与未接受推力手法治疗的组相比,接受胸椎推力手法治疗的机械性颈部疼痛患者是否会有更好的治疗效果。
已有证据开始支持将胸椎推力手法作为机械性颈部疼痛治疗的一种干预措施。然而,要对一种临床技术给出强有力的推荐,需要有多篇研究结果一致的研究。
45名患者(21名女性)被随机分为两组中的一组:对照组接受5次疗程的电热疗法,实验组除了每周接受一次胸椎推力手法治疗,连续3周外,还接受相同的电热疗法方案。采用混合模型方差分析(ANOVA)来检验治疗对疼痛(100毫米视觉模拟量表)、功能障碍(100分功能障碍量表)和颈椎活动范围的影响,将组作为组间变量,时间作为组内变量。主要分析是疼痛的组×时间交互作用。
方差分析模型的组×时间交互作用对疼痛、活动度和功能障碍具有统计学意义(P<0.05),表明手法治疗组在所有结局指标上有更大改善。接受胸椎手法治疗的患者在第5次(最后一次)治疗时以及在2周和4周随访期疼痛有更大改善(P<0.001),手法治疗组在2周和4周随访期的疼痛改善得分分别比对照组高16.8毫米和26.6毫米。实验组在功能障碍方面也有显著更大改善,在第5次就诊时组间差异为8.8分(95%置信区间[CI]:7.5,10.1;P<0.001),在2周随访时为8.0分(95%CI:5.8,10.2;P<0.001)。
我们的研究结果表明,胸椎推力手法治疗能带来更好的临床益处,对于急性颈部疼痛患者,这种益处可持续到1个月的随访期之后。未来的研究应继续探讨与其他物理治疗干预措施相比,胸椎推力手法治疗对机械性颈部疼痛人群的影响。