Is pharmacologic treatment better than neural mobilization for cervicobrachial pain? A randomized clinical trial.

Purpose: This study aim was to compare the effectiveness of the median nerve neural mobilization (MNNM) and cervical lateral glide (CLG) intervention versus oral ibuprofen (OI) in subjects who suffer cervicobrachial pain (CP). Methods: This investigation was a, multicenter, blinded, randomized controlled clinical trial (NCT02595294; NCT02593721). A number of 105 individuals diagnosed with CP were enrolled in the study and treated in 2 different medical facilities from July to November 2015. Participants were recruited and randomly assigned into 3 groups of 35 subjects. Intervention groups received MNNM or CLG neurodynamic treatments, and the (active treatment) control group received an OI treatment for 6 weeks. Primary outcome was pain intensity reported through the Numeric Rating Scale for Pain (NRSP). Secondary outcomes were physical function involving the affected upper limb using the Quick DASH scale, and ipsilateral cervical rotation (ICR) using a cervical range of motion (CROM) device. Assessments were performed before and 1 hour after treatment for NRSP (baseline, 3 and 6 weeks) and CROM (baseline and 6 weeks), as well as only 1 assessment for Quick DASH (baseline and 6 weeks). Results: Repeated-measures ANOVA intergroup statistically significant differences were shown for CP intensity (F(2,72) = 22.343; P < .001; Eta2 = 0.383) and Quick DASH (F(2,72) = 15.338; P < .001; Eta2 = 0.299), although not for CROM (F(2,72) = 1.434; P = .245; Eta2 = 0.038). Indeed, Bonferroni´s correction showed statistically significant differences for CP intensity (P < .01; 95% CI = 0.22 - 3.26) and Quick DASH reduction (P < .01; 95% CI = 8.48 - 24.67) in favor of the OI treatment at all measurement moments after baseline. Conclusions: OI pharmacologic treatment may reduce pain intensity and disability with respect to neural mobilization (MNNM and CLG) in patients with CP during six weeks. Nevertheless, the non-existence of between-groups ROM differences and possible OI adverse effects should be considered.

Effects of Median Nerve Neural Mobilization in Treating Cervicobrachial Pain: A Randomized Waiting List-Controlled Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: There is a current lack of sufficiently high-quality randomized controlled clinical trials that measure the effectiveness of neural tissue mobilization techniques such as median nerve neural mobilization (MNNM) and their specific effects on cervicobrachial pain (CP). The aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness of MNNM in subjects with CP vs. a waiting list control group (WLCG). METHODS: A single-blinded, parallel, randomized controlled clinical trial was performed (NCT02596815). Subjects were recruited with a medical diagnosis of CP corroborated by magnetic resonance imaging. In total, 156 individuals were screened, 60 subjects were recruited, and 51 completed the trial. Pain intensity reported using the Numeric Rating Scale for Pain (NRSP; primary outcome), cervical range of motion (CROM), and functionality using the Quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (QuickDASH) scale were the outcome measurements. Assessments were conducted at baseline and 1 hour after treatment (intervention days 1, 15, and 30). Therefore, MNNM was implemented with 30 days of follow-up. RESULTS: The NRSP values of the MNNM group were significantly (P < 0.0001; 95% confidence interval [CI]) superior to those obtained in the WLCG. Subjects treated with MNNM reported an NRSP decrease of 3.08 points at discharge. CROM and QuickDASH outcome values were significantly (P ˂ 0.0001; 95% CI) improved only in the MNNM group. Hedges' g showed a very large effect of the MNNM intervention. CONCLUSION: MNNM may be superior to no treatment in reducing pain and increasing function in the affected upper limbs of subjects with CP.

Cervical Lateral Glide Neural Mobilization Is Effective in Treating Cervicobrachial Pain: A Randomized Waiting List Controlled Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: Cervicobrachial pain (CP) is a high-incidence and prevalent condition. Cervical lateral glide (CLG) is a firstline treatment of CP. There is a current lack of enough high-quality randomized controlled double-blind clinical trials that measure the effectiveness of neural tissue mobilization techniques such as the CLG and its specific effect over CP. OBJECTIVES: The aim of the present study was to assess the effect of CLG neural mobilization in treating subjects who suffer from CP, compared with the complete absence of treatment. STUDY DESIGN: This investigation was a single-center, blinded, parallel randomized controlled clinical trial (RCT). SETTING: One hundred forty-seven individuals were screened in a medical center from July to November 2015. Fifty-eight participants were diagnosed with CP. METHODS: Participants were recruited and randomly assigned into two groups of 29 subjects. The intervention group received CLG treatment, and the control group (CG) was assigned to a six-week waiting list to receive treatment. Randomization was carried out by concealed computer software randomized printed cards. The primary outcome was pain intensity, reported through the Numeric Rating Scale for Pain (NRSP). Secondary outcomes were physical function involving the affected upper limb using the Quick DASH scale and ipsilateral cervical rotation (ICR) using a CROM device. Assessments were made at baseline and one hour after treatment. RESULTS: The CLG group NRSP mean value was significantly (P < 0.0001) superior to those obtained by the CG. Subjects treated with CLG reported an average NRSP decrease of 2.16 points (35%). CROM device and Quick DASH outcome values also reported significant (P < 0.0001) improvements only in the CLG group. Cohen's d showed a very large effect of the CLG intervention at subject discharge. LIMITATIONS: Due to the lack of dipper subgroup analysis and additional reproductions of the applied protocol, the authors considered the generalization of the study results to be impossible. CONCLUSIONS: CLG is superior to the absence of treatment in reducing pain and increasing the affected upper limb function of subjects who suffer from CP. CLG may be considered an effective treatment in specific cases of CP.