Dataset Information

Cervical collar or physiotherapy versus wait and see policy for recent onset cervical radiculopathy: randomised trial.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To evaluate the effectiveness of treatment with collar or physiotherapy compared with a wait and see policy in recent onset cervical radiculopathy.

Design

Randomised controlled trial.

Setting

Neurology outpatient clinics in three Dutch hospitals.

Participants

205 patients with symptoms and signs of cervical radiculopathy of less than one month's duration

Interventions

Treatment with a semi-hard collar and taking rest for three to six weeks; 12 twice weekly sessions of physiotherapy and home exercises for six weeks; or continuation of daily activities as much as possible without specific treatment (control group).

Main outcome measures

Time course of changes in pain scores for arm and neck pain on a 100 mm visual analogue scale and in the neck disability index during the first six weeks.

Results

In the wait and see group, arm pain diminished by 3 mm/week on the visual analogue scale (beta=-3.1 mm, 95% confidence interval -4.0 to -2.2 mm) and by 19 mm in total over six weeks. Patients who were treated with cervical collar or physiotherapy achieved additional pain reduction (collar: beta=-1.9 mm, -3.3 to -0.5 mm; physiotherapy: beta=-1.9, -3.3 to -0.8), resulting in an extra pain reduction compared with the control group of 12 mm after six weeks. In the wait and see group, neck pain did not decrease significantly in the first six weeks (beta=-0.9 mm, -2.0 to 0.3). Treatment with the collar resulted in a weekly reduction on the visual analogue scale of 2.8 mm (-4.2 to -1.3), amounting to 17 mm in six weeks, whereas physiotherapy gave a weekly reduction of 2.4 mm (-3.9 to -0.8) resulting in a decrease of 14 mm after six weeks. Compared with a wait and see policy, the neck disability index showed a significant change with the use of the collar and rest (beta=-0.9 mm, -1.6 to -0.1) and a non-significant effect with physiotherapy and home exercises.

Conclusion

A semi-hard cervical collar and rest for three to six weeks or physiotherapy accompanied by home exercises for six weeks reduced neck and arm pain substantially compared with a wait and see policy in the early phase of cervical radiculopathy. Trial registration Clinical trials NCT00129714.

SUBMITTER: Kuijper B

PROVIDER: S-EPMC2758937 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:A research gap exists for optimal management of cervical radiculopathy in the first 12?weeks and short term natural history of the condition is somewhat unclear, although thought to be favourable. The primary aim of this assessor blinded, superiority, 2 parallel group randomised controlled trial is to investigate the effects of a 4?week physiotherapy programme (6-8 sessions) of manual therapy, exercise and upper limb neural unloading tape, compared to a control of weekly phone advice; on disability, pain and selected biopsychosocial measures, in acute and sub-acute cervical radiculopathy patients. A secondary aim is to identify whether any baseline variables, symptom duration or group allocation can predict outcome. METHODS:Participants are recruited from GP referrals in an urban setting, from a neurosurgery non-urgent waiting list and from self-referral through Facebook advertising. Eligible participants (n =?64) are diagnosed with radiculopathy based on a clinical prediction rule and must have symptoms of unilateral, single level, radiculopathy for between 2 and 12?weeks, without having yet received physiotherapy. Random 1:1 group allocation (using variable block sizes), allocation concealment, blinded assessment and intention to treat analysis are being employed. Treatment is provided by clinical specialist physiotherapists in primary and secondary care settings. Outcomes are measured at baseline, 4 (primary endpoint) and 12?weeks. Participants' report of pain, disability and their rating of recovery is also recorded by telephone interview at 6?months. Statistical analysis of between group differences will be performed with ANOVAs and MANOVAs, and multivariable regression analysis will be undertaken to explore predictor variables. Ethical approval for this study has been received from the Beaumont Hospital and Irish College of General Practitioners Research Ethics Committees. The trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02449200). DISCUSSION:An internal pilot study to test retention and recruitment strategies led to trial expansion and this is now a multi centre trial involving 5 clinical sites. TRIAL REGISTRATION:NCT02449200 . Registered 20/05/15.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Mid-portion Achilles tendinopathy (AT) is prevalent amongst athletic and non-athletic populations with pain, stiffness and impaired function typically reported. While different management options exist, loading protocols remain the best available intervention and have been shown to be effective in the management of AT. Trials investigating loading in AT have used a variety of different protocols, and recent narrative reviews suggest that no protocol is superior to another when comparing outcomes in pain and function. However, there has been no systematic review or meta-analysis completed to determine this. Furthermore, the narrative review did not consider wait-and-see or sham interventions, thus a systematic review and met-analysis which includes wait-and-see or sham interventions is warranted. METHODS:A systematic review and meta-analyses will be conducted as per the PRISMA guidelines. The databases PUBMED, CINAHL (Ovid) and CINAHL (EBSCO) will be searched for articles published from inception to 31 December 2017. Our search focuses on studies examining the improvement of pain and function when completing a loading program for mid-portion AT. Only randomised/ quasi-randomised trials will be included while case reports and case series will be excluded. The primary outcome assessing pain and function will be the Victorian Institute Sports Assessment - Achilles (VISA-A). Two reviewers will screen articles, extract data and assess the risk of bias independently with a third reviewer resolving any disagreements between the two reviewers. A meta-analysis will then be performed on the data (if appropriate) to determine if the traditional heavy load calf training protocol described by Alfredson is superior to wait-and-see, sham intervention, traditional physiotherapy, and other forms of exercise rehabilitation. DISCUSSION:This systematic review and meta-analysis will allow us to investigate if there are difference in pain and function when comparing wait-and-see, sham interventions, traditional physiotherapy and different exercise interventions to the traditional heavy eccentric calf training protocol for mid-portion Achilles tendon pain. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION:PROSPERO registration number CRD42018084493 .