The immediate effect of manipulation versus mobilization on pain and range of motion in the cervical spine: a randomized controlled trial
- PMID: 1469341
The immediate effect of manipulation versus mobilization on pain and range of motion in the cervical spine: a randomized controlled trial
Abstract
Objective: The main objective of this study is to compare the immediate results of manipulation to mobilization in neck pain patients.
Design: The patients were compared in a randomized controlled trial without long-term follow-up.
Setting: The study was conducted at an outpatient teaching clinic on primary and referred patients.
Patients: One hundred consecutive outpatients suffering from unilateral neck pain with referral into the trapezius muscle were studied. Fifty-two subjects were manipulated and 48 subjects were mobilized. The mean (SD) age was 34.5 (13.0) yr for the manipulated group and 37.7 (12.5) yr for the mobilized group. Sixteen subjects had neck pain for less than 1 wk, 34 subjects had pain for between 1 wk and 6 mo and 50 subjects had pain for more than 6 mo. Seventy-eight subjects had a past history of neck pain. Thirty-one subjects had been involved in an injurious motor vehicle accident and 28 subjects had other types of minor trauma to the neck. There were no significant differences between the two treatment groups with respect to history of neck pain or level of disability as measured by the Pain Disability Index.
Intervention: The patients received either a single rotational manipulation (high-velocity, low-amplitude thrust) or mobilization in the form of muscle energy technique.
Main outcome measures: Prior to and immediately after the treatments, cervical spine range of motion was recorded in three planes, and pain intensity was rated on the 101-point numerical rating scale (NRS-101). Both pre- and post-test measurements were conducted in a blinded fashion.
Results: The results show that both treatments increase range of motion, but manipulation has a significantly greater effect on pain intensity. Eighty-five percent of the manipulated patients and 69% of the mobilized patients reported pain improvement immediately after treatment. However, the decrease in pain intensity was more than 1.5 times greater in the manipulated group (p = .05).
Conclusion: This study demonstrates that a single manipulation is more effective than mobilization in decreasing pain in patients with mechanical neck pain. Both treatments increase range of motion in the neck to a similar degree. Further studies are required to determine any long-term benefits of manipulation for mechanical neck pain.
Comment in
-
The immediate effect of manipulation vs. mobilization on pain and range of motion in the cervical spine: a randomized controlled trial.J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 1993 May;16(4):279-80. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 1993. PMID: 8240497 Clinical Trial. No abstract available.
Similar articles
-
The effect of manipulation on pain and range of motion in the cervical spine: a pilot study.J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 1992 Oct;15(8):495-500. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 1992. PMID: 1402409
-
Immediate effects on neck pain and active range of motion after a single cervical high-velocity low-amplitude manipulation in subjects presenting with mechanical neck pain: a randomized controlled trial.J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2006 Sep;29(7):511-7. doi: 10.1016/j.jmpt.2006.06.022. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2006. PMID: 16949939 Clinical Trial.
-
Short-term effects of thrust versus nonthrust mobilization/manipulation directed at the thoracic spine in patients with neck pain: a randomized clinical trial.Phys Ther. 2007 Apr;87(4):431-40. doi: 10.2522/ptj.20060217. Epub 2007 Mar 6. Phys Ther. 2007. PMID: 17341509 Clinical Trial.
-
Thoracic spine thrust manipulation improves pain, range of motion, and self-reported function in patients with mechanical neck pain: a systematic review.J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2011 Sep;41(9):633-42. doi: 10.2519/jospt.2011.3670. Epub 2011 Aug 31. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2011. PMID: 21885904 Review.
-
Manipulation and mobilization of the cervical spine. A systematic review of the literature.Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1996 Aug 1;21(15):1746-59; discussion 1759-60. doi: 10.1097/00007632-199608010-00007. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1996. PMID: 8855459 Review.
Cited by
-
Chiropractic care for patients with acute neck pain: results of a pragmatic practice-based feasibility study.J Chiropr Med. 2009 Dec;8(4):143-55. doi: 10.1016/j.jcm.2009.08.003. J Chiropr Med. 2009. PMID: 19948305 Free PMC article.
-
The efficacy of muscle energy techniques in symptomatic and asymptomatic subjects: a systematic review.Chiropr Man Therap. 2019 Aug 27;27:35. doi: 10.1186/s12998-019-0258-7. eCollection 2019. Chiropr Man Therap. 2019. PMID: 31462989 Free PMC article.
-
Effect of muscle energy technique and static stretching on pain and functional disability in patients with mechanical neck pain: A randomized controlled trial.Hong Kong Physiother J. 2016 Apr 14;35:5-11. doi: 10.1016/j.hkpj.2015.12.002. eCollection 2016 Dec. Hong Kong Physiother J. 2016. PMID: 30931028 Free PMC article.
-
Bilateral tarsal coalition in a National Collegiate Athletic Association Division I basketball player: a case report.J Athl Train. 2012 Nov-Dec;47(6):724-9. doi: 10.4085/1062-6050-47.6.06. J Athl Train. 2012. PMID: 23182021 Free PMC article.
-
Cost-effectiveness of conservative treatments for neck pain: a systematic review on economic evaluations.Eur Spine J. 2012 Aug;21(8):1441-50. doi: 10.1007/s00586-012-2272-5. Epub 2012 Mar 25. Eur Spine J. 2012. PMID: 22447407 Free PMC article. Review.
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Medical
Miscellaneous