Faculty of Allied Health Sciences, Department of Physical Therapy, Chulalongkorn University, 154 Rama 1 Road, Soi Chula 12, Bangkok, 10330 Thailand.
Disabil Rehabil. 2010;32(8):622-8. doi: 10.3109/09638280903204716.
To determine the immediate effects of the central posteroanterior (PA) mobilization technique on both pain and active cervical range of motion in patients with mechanical neck pain presenting with central or bilateral symptoms.
A randomized controlled trial was conducted in 60 patients who were randomly allocated into either 'central PA' or 'random' mobilization group. Two physical therapists and one assessor participated. Outcome measures included neck pain at rest, pain on the most painful movement, and active cervical range of motion taken before and immediately 5 min after the mobilization treatment.
Significant reductions in pain at rest and on the most painful movement were noted within-group comparisons (p < 0.001). However, the 'central PA' mobilization group obtained a significantly greater reduction in pain on the most painful movement than the 'random' mobilization group (p < 0.05). Both mobilization techniques had no effects on the active cervical range of motion. However, the differences in the means of pain reduction between both mobilization techniques were modest (<10 mm).
The clinical recommendation regarding the selection of the central PA mobilization technique for treating patients with central or bilateral mechanical neck pain is therefore arguably.
确定中央后前（PA）松动技术对出现中央或双侧症状的机械性颈痛患者疼痛和主动颈椎活动度的即刻影响。
在 60 名患者中进行了一项随机对照试验，这些患者被随机分配到“中央 PA”或“随机”松动组。两名物理治疗师和一名评估员参与了研究。结果测量包括治疗前和治疗后 5 分钟时的静息时颈部疼痛、最痛运动时的疼痛以及主动颈椎活动度。
组内比较显示静息时和最痛运动时的疼痛均显著降低（p < 0.001）。然而，“中央 PA”松动组在最痛运动时的疼痛减轻程度明显大于“随机”松动组（p < 0.05）。两种松动技术对主动颈椎活动度均无影响。然而，两种松动技术之间疼痛减轻程度的差异较小（<10 毫米）。
因此，对于治疗出现中央或双侧机械性颈痛的患者，选择中央 PA 松动技术的临床推荐值得商榷。
