Dataset Information

A randomized clinical trial to compare the immediate effects of seated thoracic manipulation and targeted supine thoracic manipulation on cervical spine flexion range of motion and pain.

ABSTRACT: Randomized clinical trial.To determine the effectiveness of seated thoracic manipulation versus targeted supine thoracic manipulation on cervical spine pain and flexion range of motion (ROM). There is evidence that thoracic spine manipulation is an effective treatment for patients with cervical spine pain. This evidence includes a variety of techniques to manipulate the thoracic spine. Although each of them is effective, no research has compared techniques to determine which produces the best outcomes.A total of 39 patients with cervical spine pain were randomly assigned to either a seated thoracic manipulation or targeted supine thoracic manipulation group. Pain and flexion ROM measures were taken before and after the intervention.Pain reduction (post-treatment-pre-treatment) was significantly greater in those patients receiving the targeted supine thoracic manipulation compared to the seated thoracic manipulation (P<0.05). Although not significant, we did observe greater improvement in flexion ROM in the targeted supine thoracic manipulation group. The results of this study indicate that a targeted supine thoracic manipulation may be more effective in reducing cervical spine pain and improving cervical flexion ROM than a seated thoracic manipulation. Future studies should include a variety of patients and physical therapists (PTs) to validate our findings.

SUBMITTER: Karas S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4017802 | biostudies-literature | 2014 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A randomized clinical trial to compare the immediate effects of seated thoracic manipulation and targeted supine thoracic manipulation on cervical spine flexion range of motion and pain.

Karas Steve S Olson Hunt Megan J MJ

The Journal of manual & manipulative therapy 20140501 2

<h4>Design</h4>Randomized clinical trial.<h4>Objectives</h4>To determine the effectiveness of seated thoracic manipulation versus targeted supine thoracic manipulation on cervical spine pain and flexion range of motion (ROM). There is evidence that thoracic spine manipulation is an effective treatment for patients with cervical spine pain. This evidence includes a variety of techniques to manipulate the thoracic spine. Although each of them is effective, no research has compared techniques to de ...[more]

PMID: 24976754

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundMeasurement of lumbar spine range of motion (ROM) is often considered to be an essential component of lumbar spine physiotherapy and orthopedic assessment. The measurement can be carried out through various instruments such as inclinometers, goniometers, and etc. Recent smartphones have been equipped with accelerometers and magnetometers, which, through specific software applications (apps) can be used for inclinometric functions.PurposeThe main purpose was to investigate the reliability and validity of an iPhone(®) app (TiltMeter(©) -advanced level and inclinometer) for measuring standing lumbar spine flexion-extension ROM in asymptomatic subjects.DesignA cross-sectional study was carried out.SettingThis study was conducted in a physiotherapy clinic located at School of Rehabilitation Sciences, Iran University of Medical Science and Health Services, Tehran, Iran.SubjectsA convenience sample of 30 asymptomatic adults (15 males; 15 females; age range = 18-55 years) was recruited between August 2015 and December 2015.MethodsFollowing a 2-minute warm-up, the subjects were asked to stand in a relaxed position and their skin was marked at the T12-L1 and S1-S2 spinal levels. From this position, they were asked to perform maximum lumbar flexion followed by maximum lumbar extension with their knees straight. Two blinded raters each used an inclinometer and the iPhone (®) app to measure lumbar spine flexion-extension ROM. A third rater read the measured angles. To calculate total lumbar spine flexion-extension ROM, the measurement from S1-S2 was subtracted from T12-L1. The second (2 hours later) and third (48 hours later) sessions were carried out in the same manner as the first session. All of the measurements were conducted 3 times and the mean value of 3 repetitions for each measurement was used for analysis. Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) models (3, k) and (2, k) were used to determine the intra-rater and inter-rater reliability, respectively. The Pearson correlation coefficients were used to establish concurrent validity of the iPhone(®) app. Furthermore, minimum detectable change at the 95% confidence level (MDC95) was computed as 1.96 × standard error of measurement × [Formula: see text].ResultsGood to excellent intra-rater and inter-rater reliability were demonstrated for both the gravity-based inclinometer with ICC values of ≥0.84 and ≥0.77 and the iPhone(®) app with ICC values of ≥0.85 and ≥0.85, respectively. The MDC95 ranged from 5.82°to 8.18°for the intra-rater analysis and from 7.38°to 8.66° for the inter-rater analysis. The concurrent validity for flexion and extension between the 2 instruments was 0.85 and 0.91, respectively.ConclusionsThe iPhone(®)app possesses good to excellent intra-rater and inter-rater reliability and concurrent validity. It seems that the iPhone(®) app can be used for the measurement of lumbar spine flexion-extension ROM.Level of evidenceIIb.

Project description:BackgroundThe etiology of adjacent-segment disease following cervical spine arthrodesis remains controversial. The objective of the current study was to evaluate cervical intervertebral range of motion during dynamic flexion-extension in patients who had undergone a single-level arthrodesis and in asymptomatic control subjects.MethodsTen patients who had undergone a single-level (C5/C6) anterior arthrodesis and twenty asymptomatic control subjects performed continuous full range-of-motion flexion-extension while biplane radiographs were collected at thirty images per second. A previously validated tracking process determined three-dimensional vertebral position on each pair of radiographs with submillimeter accuracy. Six-degrees-of-freedom kinematics between adjacent vertebrae were calculated throughout the entire flexion-extension movement cycle over multiple trials for each participant. Cervical kinematics were also calculated from images collected during static full flexion and static full extension.ResultsThe C4/C5 motion segment moved through a larger extension range of motion and a smaller flexion range of motion in the subjects with the arthrodesis than in the controls. The extension difference between the arthrodesis and control groups was 3.8° (95% CI [confidence interval], 0.9° to 6.6°; p = 0.011) and the flexion difference was -2.9° (95% CI, -5.3° to -0.5°; p = 0.019). Adjacent-segment posterior translation was greater in the arthrodesis group than in the controls, with a C4/C5 difference of 0.8 mm (95% CI, 0.0 to 1.6 mm) and a C6/C7 difference of 0.4 mm (95% CI, 0.0 to 0.8 mm; p = 0.016). Translation range of motion and rotation range of motion were consistently larger when measured on images collected during dynamic functional movement as opposed to images collected at static full flexion or full extension. The upper 95% CI limit for anterior-posterior translation range of motion was 3.45 mm at C3/C4 and C4/C5, but only 2.3 mm at C6/C7.ConclusionsC5/C6 arthrodesis does not affect the total range of motion in adjacent vertebral segments, but it does alter the distribution of adjacent-segment motion toward more extension and less flexion superior to the arthrodesis and more posterior translation superior and inferior to the arthrodesis during in vivo functional loading. Range of motion measured from static full-flexion and full-extension images underestimates dynamic range of motion. Clinical evaluation of excessive anterior-posterior translation should take into account the cervical vertebral level.

Project description:A longitudinal study using biplane radiography to measure in vivo intervertebral range of motion (ROM) during dynamic flexion/extension, and rotation.To longitudinally compare intervertebral maximal ROM and midrange motion in asymptomatic control subjects and single-level arthrodesis patients.In vitro studies consistently report that adjacent segment maximal ROM increases superior and inferior to cervical arthrodesis. Previous in vivo results have been conflicting, indicating that maximal ROM may or may not increase superior and/or inferior to the arthrodesis. There are no previous reports of midrange motion in arthrodesis patients and similar-aged controls.Eight single-level (C5/C6) anterior arthrodesis patients (tested 7?±?1 months and 28?±?6 months postsurgery) and six asymptomatic control subjects (tested twice, 58?±?6 months apart) performed dynamic full ROM flexion/extension and axial rotation whereas biplane radiographs were collected at 30?images per second. A previously validated tracking process determined three-dimensional vertebral position from each pair of radiographs with submillimeter accuracy. The intervertebral maximal ROM and midrange motion in flexion/extension, rotation, lateral bending, and anterior-posterior translation were compared between test dates and between groups.Adjacent segment maximal ROM did not increase over time during flexion/extension, or rotation movements. Adjacent segment maximal rotational ROM was not significantly greater in arthrodesis patients than in corresponding motion segments of similar-aged controls. C4/C5 adjacent segment rotation during the midrange of head motion and maximal anterior-posterior translation were significantly greater in arthrodesis patients than in the corresponding motion segment in controls on the second test date.C5/C6 arthrodesis appears to significantly affect midrange, but not end-range, adjacent segment motions. The effects of arthrodesis on adjacent segment motion may be best evaluated by longitudinal studies that compare maximal and midrange adjacent segment motion to corresponding motion segments of similar-aged controls to determine if the adjacent segment motion is truly excessive.3.

Project description:Background The goat cervical spine represents a promising alternative for human specimen in spinal implant testing, but the range of motion (ROM) of the spine is lacking. We aimed to evaluate and compare the ROMs of fresh goat and human mid-cervical spine specimens. Methods Ten fresh adult healthy male goat cervical spine specimens (G group) and ten fresh frozen adult healthy human cervical spine specimens (average age: 49.5 ± 12.1 years; 6 males, 4 females) (H group) were included. The ROMs of each specimen were biomechanically tested at the C2–3, C3–4, C4–5 and C2–5 levels at 1.5 Nm and 2.5 Nm torque and recorded. The ROMs of different levels of goat cervical samples were compared to those of human cervical samples using an independent sample t test. Significance was defined as a P value of less than 0.05. Results At the C2–3, C3–4 and C4–5 levels, the ROMs of the goat cervical spine were significantly larger than those of the human cervical spine in all directions except extension under 1.5 Nm torque; under 2.5 Nm torque, the ROMs of the goat cervical spine at the C2–3 and C3–4 levels were significantly larger than those of humans in the pure movement of flexion, lateral bending and axial rotation, and the ROMs for axial rotation of the goat specimens and human specimens were comparable. Under both 1.5 Nm and 2.5 Nm torque, the goat cervical spine displayed a much greater ROM in all directions at the C2–5 level. Conclusions Several segmental ROMs of fresh goat and human cervical spine specimens were recorded in this investigation. We recommend using goat cervical specimens as an alternative to fresh human cervical specimens in future studies when focusing only on the ROMs of C2–3, C3–4 and C4–5 in flexion under a torque of 1.5 Nm or the ROMs of C2–3 and C3–4 in flexion and rotation under a torque of 2.5 Nm. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13018-023-03896-1.

Project description:ObjectiveTo investigate the role of thoracic spine manipulation (TSM) on pain and disability in the management of mechanical neck pain (MNP).Data sourcesElectronic databases PubMed, CINAHL, Pedro, Embase, AMED, the Cochrane Library, and clinicaltrials.gov were searched in January 2018.Study selectionEligible studies were completed RCTs, written in English, had at least 2 groups with one group receiving TSM, had at least one measure of pain or disability, and included patients with MNP of any duration. The search identified 1717 potential articles, with 14 studies meeting inclusion criteria.Study appraisal and synthesis methodsMethodological quality was evaluated independently by two authors using the guidelines published by the Cochrane Collaboration. Pooled analyses were analyzed using a random-effects model with inverse variance methods to calculate mean differences (MD) and 95% confidence intervals for pain (VAS 0-100mm, NPRS 0-10pts; 0 = no pain) and disability (NDI and NPQ 0-100%; 0 = no disability).ResultsAcross the included studies, there was increased risk of bias for inadequate provider and participant blinding. The GRADE approach demonstrated an overall level of evidence ranging from very low to moderate. Meta-analysis that compared TSM to thoracic or cervical mobilization revealed a significant effect favoring the TSM group for pain (MD -13.63; 95% CI: -21.79, -5.46) and disability (MD -9.93; 95% CI: -14.38, -5.48). Meta-analysis that compared TSM to standard care revealed a significant effect favoring the TSM group for pain (MD -13.21; 95% CI: -21.87, -4.55) and disability (MD -11.36; 95% CI: -18.93, -3.78) at short-term follow-up, and a significant effect for disability (MD -4.75; 95% CI: -6.54, -2.95) at long-term follow-up. Meta-analysis that compared TSM to cervical spine manipulation revealed a non-significant effect (MD 3.43; 95% CI: -7.26, 14.11) for pain without a distinction between immediate and short-term follow-up.LimitationsThe greatest limitation in this systematic review was the heterogeneity among the studies making it difficult to assess the true clinical benefit, as well as the overall level of quality of evidence.ConclusionsTSM has been shown to be more beneficial than thoracic mobilization, cervical mobilization, and standard care in the short-term, but no better than cervical manipulation or placebo thoracic spine manipulation to improve pain and disability.Trial registrationPROSPERO CRD42017068287.

Dataset Information

A randomized clinical trial to compare the immediate effects of seated thoracic manipulation and targeted supine thoracic manipulation on cervical spine flexion range of motion and pain.

Publications

A randomized clinical trial to compare the immediate effects of seated thoracic manipulation and targeted supine thoracic manipulation on cervical spine flexion range of motion and pain.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets