Is Myofascial Release Therapy Cost-Effective When Compared With Manual Therapy to Treat Workers' Mechanical Neck Pains?

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to do a cost-benefit analysis of myofascial release therapy (MRT) compared to manual therapy (MT) for treating occupational mechanical neck pain. METHODS: Variables regarding the outcomes of the intervention were intensity of neck pain, cervical disability, quality of life, craniovertebral angle, and ranges of cervical motion. Costs were assessed based on a social perspective using diary costs. Between-groups differences in average cost, cost-effectiveness, and cost-utility ratios were assessed using bootstrap parametric techniques. The economic cost-benefit evaluation was with regard to an experimental parallel group study design. There were 59 participants. RESULTS: Myofascial released therapy showed significant improvement over MT for cervical mobility (side bending, rotation, and craniovertebral angle). The total cost of MRT was approximately 20% less (-$519.81; 95% confidence interval, -$1193.67 to $100.31) than that of MT, although this was not statistically significant. Cost-effectiveness and cost-utility ratios showed that MRT could be associated with lower economic costs. CONCLUSION: With probabilities of 93.9% and 95.8%, MRT seems to be cost-effective for treating mechanical neck pain without the need to add any additional cost to obtain a better clinical benefit. Consequently, we believe it could be included in the clinical practice guidelines of different Spanish health care institutions.

Myofascial Release Therapy in the Treatment of Occupational Mechanical Neck Pain: A Randomized Parallel Group Study.

OBJECTIVE: As myofascial release therapy is currently under development, the objective of this study was to compare the effectiveness of myofascial release therapy with manual therapy for treating occupational mechanical neck pain. DESIGN: A randomized, single-blind parallel group study was developed. The sample (n = 59) was divided into GI, treated with manual therapy, and GII, treated with myofascial release therapy. Variables studied were intensity of neck pain, cervical disability, quality of life, craniovertebral angle, and ranges of cervical motion. RESULTS: At five sessions, clinical significance was observed in both groups for all the variables studied, except for flexion in GI. At this time point, an intergroup statistical difference was observed, which showed that GII had better craniovertebral angle (P = 0.014), flexion (P = 0.021), extension (P = 0.003), right side bending (P = 0.001), and right rotation (P = 0.031). A comparative analysis between therapies after intervention showed statistical differences indicating that GII had better craniovertebral angle (P = 0.000), right (P = 0.000) and left (P = 0.009) side bending, right (P = 0.024) and left (P = 0.046) rotations, and quality of life. CONCLUSIONS: The treatment of occupational mechanical neck pain by myofascial release therapy seems to be more effective than manual therapy for correcting the advanced position of the head, recovering range of motion in side bending and rotation, and improving quality of life.