Beneciuk Jason M, Bishop Mark D, George Steven Z
Department of Physical Therapy, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32610-0154, USA.
J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2009 Jun;39(6):428-38. doi: 10.2519/jospt.2009.2954.
A single-blinded, quasi-experimental, within- and between-sessions assessment.
To investigate potential mechanisms of neural mobilization (NM), using tensioning techniques in comparison to sham NM on a group of asymptomatic volunteers between the ages of 18 and 50.
NM utilizing tensioning techniques is used by physical therapists in the treatment of patients with cervical and/or upper extremity symptoms. The underlying mechanisms of potential benefits associated with NM tensioning techniques are unknown.
Participants (n = 62) received either a NM or sham NM intervention 2 to 3 times a week for a total of 9 sessions, followed by a 1-week period of no intervention to assess carryover effects. A-delta (first pain response) and C-fiber (temporal summation) mediated pain perceptions were tested via thermal quantitative sensory testing procedures. Elbow extension range of motion (ROM) and sensory descriptor ratings were obtained during a neurodynamic test for the median nerve. Data were analyzed with repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA).
No group differences were seen for A-delta mediated pain perception at either immediate or carryover times. Group differences were identified for immediate C-fiber mediated pain perception (P = .032), in which hypoalgesia occurred for the NM group but not the sham NM group. This hypoalgesic effect was not maintained at carryover (P = .104). Group differences were also identified for the 3-week and carryover periods for elbow extension ROM (P = .004), and for the participant sensory descriptor ratings (P = .018), in which increased ROM and decreased sensory descriptor ratings were identified in participants in the NM group but not the sham NM group.
This study provides preliminary evidence that mechanistic effects of tensioning NM differ from sham NM for asymptomatic participants. Specifically, NM resulted in immediate, but not sustained, C-fiber mediated hypoalgesia. Also, NM was associated with increased elbow ROM and a reduction in sensory descriptor ratings at 3-week and carryover assessment times. These differences provide potentially important information on the mechanistic effects of NM, as well as the description of a sham NM for use in future clinical trials.
单盲、准实验性、组内和组间评估。
在一组年龄在18至50岁之间的无症状志愿者中,通过与假神经松动术对比的紧张技术,研究神经松动术(NM)的潜在机制。
物理治疗师在治疗有颈部和/或上肢症状的患者时会使用采用紧张技术的神经松动术。与神经松动术紧张技术相关的潜在益处的潜在机制尚不清楚。
参与者(n = 62)每周接受2至3次神经松动术或假神经松动术干预,共9次,随后有1周不进行干预以评估遗留效应。通过热定量感觉测试程序测试Aδ(首次疼痛反应)和C纤维(时间总和)介导的疼痛感知。在正中神经的神经动力测试期间获得肘部伸展活动范围(ROM)和感觉描述符评分。数据采用重复测量方差分析(ANOVA)进行分析。
在即时或遗留时间,Aδ介导的疼痛感知在两组之间均未观察到差异。在即时C纤维介导的疼痛感知方面发现了组间差异(P = 0.032),其中神经松动术组出现了痛觉减退,而假神经松动术组未出现。这种痛觉减退效应在遗留时未持续存在(P = 0.104)。在肘部伸展ROM的3周和遗留期(P = 0.004)以及参与者感觉描述符评分(P = 0.018)方面也发现了组间差异,其中神经松动术组参与者的ROM增加且感觉描述符评分降低,而假神经松动术组未出现这种情况。
本研究提供了初步证据,表明对于无症状参与者,紧张性神经松动术的机制效应与假神经松动术不同。具体而言,神经松动术导致即时但非持续性的C纤维介导的痛觉减退。此外,在3周和遗留评估时,神经松动术与肘部ROM增加以及感觉描述符评分降低相关。这些差异为神经松动术的机制效应以及用于未来临床试验的假神经松动术的描述提供了潜在的重要信息。