Short-term effects of the suboccipital muscle inhibition technique and cranio-cervical flexion exercise on hamstring flexibility, cranio-vertebral angle, and range of motion of the cervical spine in subjects with neck pain: A randomized controlled trial

This study aimed to investigate the effects of suboccipital muscle inhibition technique (SMIT) on active range of motion (AROM) of the ankle joint, lunge angle (LA), and balance in healthy adults, according to the duration of its application. A total of 80 participants were randomly allocated to the 4-min suboccipital muscle inhibition (SMI) group (SMI_4M, n = 20), 8-min SMI group (n = 20), 4-min sham-SMI (SSMI) group (n = 20), and 8-min SSMI group (n = 20). Accordingly, the SMIT and sham SMIT were applied for 4 min or 8 min in the respective groups. AROM of dorsiflexion and LA were assessed, and a single leg balance test (SLBT) was performed before and after the intervention. AROM (4 min, p < 0.001; 8 min, p < 0.001), LA (4 min, p < 0.001; 8 min, p < 0.001), and SLBT (4 min, p < 0.001; 8 min, p < 0.001) significantly improved after SMI application. Compared with the SSMI group, the SMI group showed a significant increase in AROM (p < 0.001), LA (p < 0.001), and SLBT (p < 0.001). Except for SLBT (p = 0.016), there were no significant interactions between intervention and application duration. The results suggest that the SMIT, at durations of both 4 and 8 min, could be effective tools for improving AROM, LA, and balance.

Download Full-text

Effectiveness of a specific manual approach to the suboccipital region in patients with chronic mechanical neck pain and rotation deficit in the upper cervical spine: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders ◽

10.1186/s12891-017-1744-5 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 18 (1) ◽

Cited By ~ 4

Author(s):

Vanessa González Rueda ◽

Carlos López de Celis ◽

Martín Eusebio Barra López ◽

Andoni Carrasco Uribarren ◽

Sara Castillo Tomás ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Randomized Controlled Trial ◽

Cervical Spine ◽

Neck Pain ◽

Study Protocol ◽

Controlled Trial ◽

Upper Cervical Spine ◽

Randomized Controlled ◽

Upper Cervical

Download Full-text

Short-Term Effects of PENS versus Dry Needling in Subjects with Unilateral Mechanical Neck Pain and Active Myofascial Trigger Points in Levator Scapulae Muscle: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Journal of Clinical Medicine ◽

10.3390/jcm9061665 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 9 (6) ◽

pp. 1665 ◽

Cited By ~ 2

Author(s):

Santiago Garcia-de-Miguel ◽

Daniel Pecos-Martin ◽

Tamara Larroca-Sanz ◽

Beatriz Sanz-de-Vicente ◽

Laura Garcia-Montes ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Randomized Controlled Trial ◽

Neck Pain ◽

Pain Intensity ◽

Controlled Trial ◽

Trigger Points ◽

Mean Difference ◽

Dry Needling ◽

Short Term ◽

Myofascial Trigger Points ◽

Randomized Controlled

Procedures such as dry needling (DN) or percutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (PENS) are commonly proposed for the treatment of myofascial trigger points (MTrP). The aim of the present study is to investigate if PENS is more effective than DN in the short term in subjects with mechanical neck pain. This was an evaluator-blinded randomized controlled trial. Subjects were recruited through announcements and randomly allocated into DN or PENS groups. Pain intensity, disability, pressure pain threshold (PPT), range of motion (ROM), and side-bending strength were measured. The analyses included mixed-model analyses of variance and pairwise comparisons with Bonferroni correction. The final sample was composed of 44 subjects (22 per group). Both groups showed improvements in pain intensity (ηp2 = 0.62; p < 0.01), disability (ηp2 = 0.74; p < 0.01), PPT (ηp2 = 0.79; p < 0.01), and strength (ηp2 = 0.37; p < 0.01). The PENS group showed greater improvements in disability (mean difference, 3.27; 95% CI, 0.27–6.27) and PPT (mean difference, 0.88–1.35; p < 0.01). Mixed results were obtained for ROM. PENS seems to produce greater improvements in PPT and disability in the short term.

Download Full-text

Approaches to cervical spine mobilization for neck pain: a pilot randomized controlled trial

Chiropractic & Manual Therapies ◽

10.1186/s12998-020-00348-z ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 28 (1) ◽

Author(s):

Claire Lagoutaris ◽

Justin Sullivan ◽

Michelle Hancock ◽

Andrew M. Leaver

Keyword(s):

Clinical Trial ◽

Randomized Controlled Trial ◽

Cervical Spine ◽

Neck Pain ◽

Controlled Trial ◽

Trial Registration ◽

Single Treatment ◽

Randomized Controlled ◽

Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial

Abstract Study design Pilot randomized controlled trial. Background Better understanding of the relative effectiveness of different approaches to cervical spine mobilization has been identified as a research priority in manual therapy practice. Two distinct approaches to the practice of mobilization have emerged in recent years, based on different reasoning models for selection of mobilization techniques. The objective of this pilot study was to assess feasibility aspects for a future randomized clinical trial by exploring short-term pain and disability outcomes after a single treatment with pragmatic versus prescriptive approaches to cervical mobilization for people with recent-onset neck pain at 48-h follow-up after randomization. Methods Twenty adults with a new episode of mechanical neck pain were randomly allocated to either pragmatic or prescriptive mobilization intervention groups. The pragmatic group received a single treatment of cervical mobilization with the technique, target segment, and grade selected by their treating therapist. The prescriptive group received a single treatment of standardized mobilization with techniques similar to a previous mobilization clinical trial. Feasibility outcomes were recruitment rates, randomization audit and completion of treatment and follow-up per protocol. The primary clinical outcome of interest was disability level measured at 48-h follow-up after randomization. Results Recruitment rates were approximately 2.5 participants per week and 100% of eligible participants were deemed suitable for treatment with cervical mobilization. There was sufficient variety in the range of pragmatic treatments selected and the data collection process imposed minimal burden on participants. Conclusions Our results provide supporting evidence for the feasibility of a future larger scale randomized clinical trial. Trial registration Trial registration: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12616000446460). Registered 6th April 2016. https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=370448&isReview=true

Download Full-text