scholarly journals Effect of Two Contrasting Interventions on Upper Limb Chronic Pain and Disability: A Randomized Controlled Trial

2014 ◽  
Vol 2;17 (2;3) ◽  
pp. 145-154 ◽  
Author(s):  
Emil Sundstrup

Background: Chronic pain and disability of the arm, shoulder, and hand severely affect labor market participation. Ergonomic training and education is the default strategy to reduce physical exposure and thereby prevent aggravation of pain. An alternative strategy could be to increase physical capacity of the worker by physical conditioning. Objectives: To investigate the effect of 2 contrasting interventions, conventional ergonomic training (usual care) versus resistance training, on pain and disability in individuals with upper limb chronic pain exposed to highly repetitive and forceful manual work. Study Design: Examiner-blinded, parallel-group randomized controlled trial with allocation concealment. Setting: Slaughterhouses located in Denmark, Europe. Methods: Sixty-six adults with chronic pain in the shoulder, elbow/forearm, or hand/wrist and work disability were randomly allocated to 10 weeks of specific resistance training for the shoulder, arm, and hand muscles for 3 x 10 minutes per week, or ergonomic training and education (usual care control group). Pain intensity (average of shoulder, arm, and hand, scale 0 – 10) was the primary outcome, and disability (Work module of DASH questionnaire) as well as isometric shoulder and wrist muscle strength were secondary outcomes. Results: Pain intensity, disability, and muscle strength improved more following resistance training than usual care (P < 0.001, P = 0.05, P < 0.0001, respectively). Pain intensity decreased by 1.5 points (95% confidence interval -2.0 to -0.9) following resistance training compared with usual care, corresponding to an effect size of 0.91 (Cohen’s d). Limitations: Blinding of participants is not possible in behavioral interventions. However, at baseline outcome expectations of the 2 interventions were similar. Conclusion: Resistance training at the workplace results in clinical relevant improvements in pain, disability, and muscle strength in adults with upper limb chronic pain exposed to highly repetitive and forceful manual work. Trial registration: NCT01671267. Key words: Musculoskeletal pain, workability, shoulder pain, elbow pain, tennis elbow, wrist pain

2019 ◽  
Vol 33 (12) ◽  
pp. 1908-1918 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lucia Domingues ◽  
Fernando Manuel Pimentel-Santos ◽  
Eduardo Brazete Cruz ◽  
Ana Cristina Sousa ◽  
Ana Santos ◽  
...  

Objective: The aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness of a combined intervention of manual therapy and exercise (MET) versus usual care (UC), on disability, pain intensity and global perceived recovery, in patients with non-specific chronic neck pain (CNP). Design: Randomized controlled trial. Setting: Outpatient care units. Subjects: Sixty-four non-specific CNP patients were randomly allocated to MET ( n = 32) or UC ( n = 32) groups. Interventions: Participants in the MET group received 12 sessions of mobilization and exercise, whereas the UC group received 15 sessions of usual care in physiotherapy. Main measures: The primary outcome was disability (Neck Disability Index). The secondary outcomes were pain intensity (Numeric Pain Rating Scale) and global perceived recovery (Patient Global Impression Change). Patients were assessed at baseline, three weeks, six weeks (end of treatment) and at a three-month follow-up. Results: Fifty-eight participants completed the study. No significant between-group difference was observed on disability and pain intensity at baseline. A significant between-group difference was observed on disability at three-week, six-week and three-month follow-up (median (P25–P75): 6 (3.25–9.81) vs. 15.5 (11.28–20.75); P < 0.001), favouring the MET group. Regarding pain intensity, a significant between-group difference was observed at six-week and three-month follow-up (median (P25–P75): 2 (1–2.51) vs. 5 (3.33–6); P < 0.001), with superiority of effect in MET group. Concerning the global perceived recovery, a significant between-group difference was observed only at the three-month follow-up ( P = 0.001), favouring the MET group. Conclusion: This study’s findings suggest that a combination of manual therapy and exercise is more effective than usual care on disability, pain intensity and global perceived recovery.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document