Hao Jie, Yao Yao, Remis Andréas, Zhu Dongqi, Sun Yuxiao, Wu Siyao
Department of Physical Therapy and Rehabilitation, Southeast Colorado Hospital, 81073, Springfield, CO, USA.
Department of Health & Rehabilitation Sciences, College of Allied Health Professions, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, NE, USA.
Neurol Sci. 2024 Oct;45(10):4711-4720. doi: 10.1007/s10072-024-07603-8. Epub 2024 May 23.
This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to identify, critically appraise, and synthesize current evidence regarding the effects of spinal mobilization on physical function in patients with stroke. Three databases, PubMed, Embase, and Scopus, were searched from inception to March 15, 2024. Randomized controlled trials comparing the effects of spinal mobilization to conventional therapy were eligible for inclusion. Methodological quality was assessed using the Physiotherapy Evidence Database scale. Meta-analyses were performed to determine the effects of spinal mobilization. Nine randomized controlled trials were included, with a total of 294 patients with stroke. All included studies were evaluated as good or above for quality assessment. No adverse events related to spinal mobilization were reported. Compared to conventional therapy, spinal mobilization demonstrated significantly improved forward head posture (SMD: 1.00, 95% CI: 0.53 to 1.46, p < 0.001); there were no between-group differences on forced vital capacity (SMD: 0.44, 95% CI: -0.01 to 0.88, p = 0.06), forced expiratory volume (SMD: 0.33, 95% CI: -0.12 to 0.77, p = 0.15), balance (SMD: 0.36, 95% CI: -0.04 to 0.77, p = 0.08), gait speed (SMD: 0.48, 95% CI: -0.44 to 1.40, p = 0.31), and trunk function (SMD: 0.79, 95% CI: -0.17 to 1.75, p = 0.11). Cervical mobilization significantly improved forward head posture; however, no significant differences were found in other outcomes. Clinicians may consider spinal mobilization as an adjunctive intervention in stroke rehabilitation to address posture-related impairments to expand treatment strategy and optimize quality of care.
本系统评价和荟萃分析旨在识别、严格评估并综合当前关于脊柱松动术对中风患者身体功能影响的证据。检索了三个数据库,即从建库至2024年3月15日的PubMed、Embase和Scopus。比较脊柱松动术与传统疗法效果的随机对照试验符合纳入标准。使用物理治疗证据数据库量表评估方法学质量。进行荟萃分析以确定脊柱松动术的效果。纳入了9项随机对照试验,共294例中风患者。所有纳入研究在质量评估中均被评为良好或以上。未报告与脊柱松动术相关的不良事件。与传统疗法相比,脊柱松动术显著改善了头部前伸姿势(标准化均数差:1.00,95%置信区间:0.53至1.46,p < 0.001);在用力肺活量(标准化均数差:0.44,95%置信区间:-0.01至0.88,p = 0.06)、用力呼气量(标准化均数差:0.33,95%置信区间:-0.12至0.77,p = 0.15)、平衡(标准化均数差:0.36,95%置信区间:-0.04至0.77,p = 0.08)、步速(标准化均数差:0.48,95%置信区间:-0.44至1.40,p = 0.31)和躯干功能(标准化均数差:0.79,95%置信区间:-0.17至1.75,p = 0.11)方面,两组之间没有差异。颈椎松动术显著改善了头部前伸姿势;然而,在其他结局方面未发现显著差异。临床医生可考虑将脊柱松动术作为中风康复中的辅助干预措施,以解决与姿势相关的损伤,从而扩展治疗策略并优化护理质量。