Comparison of Magnetic Resonance Imaging with Electrodiagnosis in the Evaluation of Clinical Suspicion of Lumbosacral Radiculopathy.

(1) Background: The diagnosis of lumbosacral radiculopathy involves anamnesis, an assessment of sensitivity and strength, diagnostic imaging-usually magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-and electrodiagnostic testing (EDX), typically electromyography (EMG), and electroneurography (ENG). MRI evaluates the structures supporting the spinal cord, while EDX evaluates root functionality. The present study aimed to analyze the concordance of MRI and EDX findings in patients with clinically suspected radiculopathy. Additionally, we investigated the comparison between these two reference tests and various clinical variables and questionnaires. (2) Methods: We designed a prospective epidemiological study of consecutive cases with an observational, descriptive, cross-sectional, and double-blind nature following the STROBE guidelines, encompassing 142 patients with clinical suspicion of lumbosacral radiculopathy. (3) Results: Of the sample, 58.5% tested positive for radiculopathy using EDX as the reference test, while 45.8% tested positive using MRI. The comparison between MRI and EDX in the diagnosis of radiculopathy in patients with clinical suspicion was not significant; the overall agreement was 40.8%. Only the years with symptoms were comparatively significant between the positive and negative radiculopathy groups as determined by EDX. (4) Conclusion: The comparison between lumbar radiculopathy diagnoses in patients with clinically suspected pathology using MRI and EDX as diagnostic modalities did not yield statistically significant findings. MRI and EDX are complementary tests assessing different aspects in patients with suspected radiculopathy; degeneration of the structures supporting the spinal cord does not necessarily imply root dysfunction.

Cervical manipulation versus thoracic or cervicothoracic manipulations for the management of neck pain. A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Cervical and thoracic thrust or non-thrust manipulations have shown to be effective in patients with neck pain, but there is a lack of studies comparing both interventions in patients with neck pain. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effects of cervical thrust or non-thrust manipulations compared to thoracic or cervicothoracic manipulations for improving pain, disability, and range of motion in patients with neck pain. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. METHOD: Searches were performed in PubMed, PEDro, Cochrane Library, CINHAL, and Web of Science databases from inception to May 22, 2023. Randomized clinical trials comparing cervical thrust or non-thrust manipulations to thoracic or cervicothoracic manipulations were included. Methodological quality was assessed with PEDro scale, and the certainty of evidence was evaluated using GRADE guidelines. RESULTS: Six studies were included. Meta-analyses revealed no differences between cervical thrust or non-thrust manipulations and thoracic or cervicothoracic manipulations in pain intensity, disability, or cervical range of motion in any plane. The certainty of evidence was downgraded to very low for pain intensity, to moderate or very low for disability and to low or very low for cervical range of motion. CONCLUSION: There is moderate to very low certainty evidence that there is no difference in effectiveness between cervical thrust or non-thrust manipulations and thoracic or cervicothoracic manipulations for improving pain, disability, and range of motion in patients with neck pain. PROSPERO REGISTRATION: CRD42023429933.

In Vivo Effects of Joint Movement on Nerve Mechanical Properties Assessed with Shear-Wave Elastography: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Peripheral nerves are subjected to mechanical tension during limb movements and body postures. Nerve response to tensile stress can be assessed in vivo with shear-wave elastography (SWE). Greater tensile loads can lead to greater stiffness, which can be quantified using SWE. Therefore, this study aimed to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to perform an overview of the effect of joint movements on nerve mechanical properties in healthy nerves. The initial search (July 2023) yielded 501 records from six databases (PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane, and Science Direct). A total of 16 studies were included and assessed with a modified version of the Downs and Black checklist. Our results suggest an overall tendency for stiffness increase according to a pattern of neural tensioning. The main findings from the meta-analysis showed a significant increase in nerve stiffness for the median nerve with wrist extension (SMD [95%CI]: 3.16 [1.20, 5.12]), the ulnar nerve with elbow flexion (SMD [95%CI]: 2.91 [1.88, 3.95]), the sciatic nerve with ankle dorsiflexion (SMD [95%CI]: 1.13 [0.79, 1.47]), and the tibial nerve with both hip flexion (SMD [95%CI]: 2.14 [1.76, 2.51]) and ankle dorsiflexion (SMD [95%CI]: 1.52 [1.02, 2.02]). The effect of joint movement on nerve stiffness also depends on the nerve segment, the amount of movement of the joint mobilized, and the position of other joints comprised in the entirety of the nerve length. However, due to the limited number of studies, many aspects of nerve behavior together with the effect of using different ultrasound equipment or transducers for nerve stiffness evaluation still need to be fully investigated.

Is device guided training targeted to the craniocervical flexor and extensor muscles efficacious? A preliminary randomized controlled trial in a cervicogenic headache population.

BACKGROUND: Specific neck exercise is effective in the management of cervicogenic headache (CH). The Spinertial device was designed to facilitate craniocervical flexion and extension training, but its efficacy, judged on change in headache impact, has not been tested. OBJECTIVE: To compare guided and progressive resisted specific neck exercise targeted to the craniocervical flexors and extensors (SNE-fe) performed with Spinertial device to progressive SNE-fe without the device in a cohort with CH. DESIGN: Randomised controlled trial. METHODS: Twenty-eight participants with CH were randomly allocated to the Spinertial group (SG) or SNE-fe exercise group without the device (EG). Both groups performed 12 sessions of SNE-fe over six-weeks. The primary outcome was headache impact (HIT-6). Secondary outcomes were the craniocervical flexion test (CCFT), upper cervical (UCS) and lower cervical range of movement, flexion rotation test (FRT) analysed as more or less restricted side (MRS, LRS), the self-reported global rating of change (GROC-scale) and satisfaction with the exercise program (PACES). Outcomes were measured at baseline, post-intervention (T1) and after 1-month (T2). RESULTS: Significant between-groups differences were found favouring the SG for HIT-6 (T1 p = 0.010, d = 0.5; T2 p < 0.004, d = 0.4), CCFT, UCS ROM, FRT MRS, FRT LRS, PACES and GROC-scale (T1: all p < 0.01; T2: all p < 0.01). Effects sizes were large (>0.8) at T1 and T2. No between-groups differences were found for lower cervical ROM. CONCLUSION: Training with the Spinertial was more effective than SNE without the device for improving the impact of headache, the endurance of deep neck flexors and UCS ROM in participants with CH.

The effectiveness of Schroth method in Cobb angle, quality of life and trunk rotation angle in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: The Schroth method is one of the most common physiotherapeutic scoliosis-specific exercises intervention applied in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS). This method consists of three-dimensional correction of the specific curve pattern of the patient using a combination of sensorimotor, postural, and corrective breathing exercises. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to analyse the effects of the Schroth method in isolation on Cobb angle, quality of life, and trunk rotation angle compared to no intervention or other conservative treatments in patients with AIS. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: PubMed, Physiotherapy Evidence Database, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases were searched. Studies were included if they were randomized controlled trials that compared the effects of the Schroth method in isolation to conservative interventions or no intervention. The quality of the studies was assessed with the PEDro Scale, and the risk of bias with the Cochrane Collaboration tool. Two independent assessors extracted data through a standardized form. Meta-analyses were conducted using fixed or random effects models according to the heterogeneity assessed with I2 coefficient. Data on outcomes of interest were extracted by a researcher using RevMan 5.4 software. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: A total of 317 studies were screened. Six were included in the meta-analysis involving 144 patients with AIS. The methodological quality of the included studies ranged from high to low. Schroth method in isolation showed significant improvements in Cobb angle (mean difference [MD] =-3.18º; 95% CI: -4.30, -2.07; I2: 0%), quality of life (MD=0.28; 95% CI: 0.18, 0.38; I2: 0%) and trunk rotation angle (MD=-2.12º; 95% CI: -3.44, -0.80; I2: 71%) in the short-term. CONCLUSIONS: The Schroth method in isolation is effective for reducing the Cobb angle and the trunk rotation angle and for improving the QoL in the short-term compared to no intervention or other conservative therapies in AIS, but the improvement in Cobb angle did not exceed the minimum clinically important difference.

Clinical and Psychological Variables in Female Patients with Cervical Syndromes: A Cross-Sectional and Correlational Study.

Background: The objectives of this study were: (1) to compare the pain intensity, cervical range of motion (ROM), psychological distress and kinesiophobia in patients with cervicogenic dizziness (CGD), tension-type headache (TTH), and mechanical chronic neck pain (MCNP); and (2) to investigate the relationships between pain intensity and cervical ROM and between psychological distress and kinesiophobia. Methods: a cross-sectional and correlational study was designed. In total, 109 patients (32 patients with CGD, 33 with TTH and 44 with MCNP) were included. Pain intensity, cervical ROM, psychological distress and kinesiophobia were assessed. Results: Statistically significant differences were found between the groups in pain intensity, psychological distress and kinesiophobia. The patients with MCNP showed higher pain intensity compared to the other groups (p < 0.001). The patients with CGD showed higher depression and kinesiophobia values compared to the MCNP and TTH groups (p < 0.05). No differences were found for cervical flexion, extension, lateral flexion, or rotation ROM (p > 0.05). The CGD and MCNP groups found a moderate positive correlation between psychological distress and kinesiophobia (p < 0.05). The patients with TTH and MCNP showed a moderate positive correlation between pain intensity, psychological distress and kinesiophobia (p < 0.05). Conclusion: Pain intensity, psychological distress and kinesiophobia should be considered in the three groups. Psychological distress was correlated with kinesiophobia in the CGD and MCNP groups. The MCNP group showed a correlation between pain intensity, psychological distress and kinesiophobia.

The Addition of Diacutaneous Fibrolysis to a Pharmacological Intervention in Patients with Tension-Type Headache: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

Background: Tension-type headache (TTH) is the most common headache worldwide. Pharmacological interventions are the most investigated therapies in patients with TTH. The addition of physical therapy treatments such as diacutaneous fibrolysis (DF) may have promising results. The aim of this study was to investigate the addition of three sessions of DF to a pharmacological intervention in patients with TTH. Methods: A single-blinded randomized controlled trial was carried out. Participants were randomly assigned to the standard care group or to the DF group. Both groups received a pharmacological intervention. Three sessions of DF in the thoracic and cervicocranial region were added in the DF group. The impact caused by headache (HIT-6), headache intensity, and cervical range of motion were measured by blinded assessors at baseline, after the intervention, and at 1 month follow-up. Results: Eighty-two patients with TTH were included (41 standard care group; 41 DF group). Statistically significant differences were found between both groups in all the variables after the intervention and at 1 month follow-up (p < 0.001). No adverse effects or side-effects were reported during the study. Conclusions: The addition of three sessions of DF to a pharmacological therapy provided improvements in the impact caused by headache, headache intensity, and cervical range of motion after the intervention and at 1 month follow-up compared to a pharmacological therapy in isolation. Further research is needed to investigate long-term effects.

Combination of Two Manipulative Techniques for the Treatment of Cervicogenic Dizziness: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

Cervicogenic dizziness is clinically associated with upper cervical spine dysfunctions. It seems that manual therapy decreases the intensity of dizziness in these subjects, but what happens to pain measured by pressure pain threshold (PPT) has not been studied. Purpose: analyze the short-term effects of combination two manipulation techniques protocol in worst dizziness intensity (wVAS), dizziness and cervical disability, upper cervical spine mobility and mechanosensivity of cervical tissue. Methods: Assessor-blinded randomized controlled trial was developed. A total of 40 patients with cervicogenic dizziness were randomly divided into two groups. The experimental group received three treatments consisting of a functional massage and a manipulation technique, and compared with a control group. The wVAS, dizziness handicap inventory (DHI), neck disability index (NDI), UCS mobility, and PPTs were measured. Measurements were made at the baseline, first follow-up 48 h after intervention and second follow-up 1 month after the intervention. Results: at second follow-up wVAS (p < 0.001), NDI (p < 0.001), DHI (p < 0.001), and upper right trapezius (p < 0.022) and right suboccipital (p < 0.043) PPTs showed a difference between groups in favor of the experimental group. Conclusions: apparently, the proposed intervention protocol decreases the intensity of dizziness and the mechanosensitivity of the cervical tissue and improves the feeling of disability due to neck pain and dizziness.