Effectiveness of neural mobilisation for the treatment of nerve-related cervicobrachial pain: a systematic review with subgroup meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT: Neural mobilisations (NM) have been advocated for the treatment of nerve-related cervicobrachial pain; however, it is unclear what types of patients with nerve-related cervicobrachial pain (if any) may benefit. Medline, Web of Science, Scopus, PeDro, Cinahl, and Cochrane databases were searched from inception until December 2022. Randomised controlled trials were included if they assessed the effectiveness of NM in nerve-related cervicobrachial pain, and outcome measures were pain intensity and/or disability. Studies were classified according to their inclusion/exclusion criteria as radiculopathy , Wainner cluster , Hall , and Elvey cluster or other . Meta-analyses with subgroup analyses were performed. Risk of bias was assessed using Cochrane Rob2 tool. Twenty-seven studies were included. For pain and disability reduction, NM was found to be more effective than no treatment (pooled pain mean difference [MD] = -2.81, 95% confidence interval [CI] = -3.81 to -1.81; pooled disability standardized mean difference = -1.55, 95% CI = -2.72 to -0.37), increased the effectiveness of standard physiotherapy as an adjuvant when compared with standard physiotherapy alone (pooled pain MD = -1.44, 95% CI = -1.98 to -0.89; pooled disability MD = -11.07, 95% CI = -16.38 to -5.75) but was no more effective than cervical traction (pooled pain MD = -0.33, 95% CI = -1.35 to 0.68; pooled disability MD = -10.09, 95% CI = -21.89 to 1.81). For disability reduction, NM was found to be more effective than exercise (pooled MD = -18.27, 95% CI = -20.29 to -17.44). In most comparisons, there were significant differences in the effectiveness of NM between the subgroups. Neural mobilisations was consistently more effective than all alternative interventions (no treatment, traction, exercise, and standard physiotherapy alone) in 13 studies classified as Wainner cluster . PROSPERO registration: CRD42022376087.

Immediate effects of cervical mobilisations on neck muscle activity during active neck movements in patients with non-specific neck pain. A double blind placebo controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Cervical mobilisations are used to treat people with neck pain but their mechanisms of action are unclear. One theorised reason for induced analgesia is effect on neck muscle activity. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of cervical mobilisations on muscle activity during active neck movements and whether changes in muscle activity are associated with changes in symptoms. DESIGN: Double-blind randomised placebo controlled trial. SETTING: Primary care. PARTICIPANTS: 40 patients (aged 19 to 80 years, 24 female) with non-specific neck pain. INTERVENTIONS: One session of cervical mobilisations or motionless manual contact (placebo). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: sternocleidomastoid (SCM), scalene (SCA), upper trapezius (UT) and erector spinae (ES) surface electromyography (SEMG) during active neck flexion, extension, side flexion and rotation was measured immediately before and after the intervention. Patients were classified as responders according to change in symptoms assessed using the Global Rating of Change Scale (GROC). RESULTS: Compared with placebo, patients receiving mobilisation showed an increase in contralateral UT and ES SEMG during rotation and contralateral and ipsilateral SCM, SCA and UT during side flexion (P<0.05), however changes were mostly associated with an increase in range and speed of movement. The only association with GROC was increased (5%) SEMG in the contralateral SCM during side flexion in the mobilisation group (P=0.013). CONCLUSION: Cervical mobilisations caused increased neck SEMG, mostly due to increased movement range and speed. Change in muscle activity is unlikely to be a major mechanism of action of cervical mobilisations in symptomatic improvement with physiological neck movements. (ClinicalTrials.gov record number: 2016/066). CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRY: ClinicalTrials.gov record number: 2016/066.

Association between sympathoexcitatory changes and symptomatic improvement following cervical mobilisations in participants with neck pain. A double blind placebo controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: sympathoexcitation observed with passive cervical mobilisations may imply activation of an endogenous pain inhibition system resulting in hypoalgesia. However, research is mostly in asymptomatic participants and there is very limited evidence of a relationship between sympathoexcitation and symptomatic improvement in people with clinical pain. OBJECTIVE: to investigate the effects of cervical mobilisations on the sympathetic nervous system in participants with neck pain, and to explore the relationship between symptomatic improvement and sympathoexcitation. DESIGN: double-blind randomised controlled trial. METHOD: 40 participants with neck pain (aged 20-69 years, 25 female) were randomly allocated to either cervical mobilisations or motionless placebo. Skin conductance was measured before, during, and after intervention. After interventions were completed, their credibility was assessed. Participants were classified as responders or non-responders according to global symptom change. RESULTS: participants receiving mobilisations were more likely to be classified as responders (odds ratio: 4.33, p = 0.03) and demonstrated greater change in most outcome measures of sympathoexcitation from baseline to during the intervention but not from during to after the intervention. There was no association between sympathoexcitation and symptomatic improvement. Mobilisations and placebo were equally credible. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest sympathoexcitatory changes may be caused by an orienting response unrelated to the activation of an endogenous pain inhibition system Alternatively, the observed lack of an association may be explained by the existence of various mechanisms for pain relief. This study used single outcome measures of sympathoexcitation and symptomatic improvement and other measures may reveal different things. CLINICALTRIALS. GOV NUMBER: M10/2016/095.

Immediate effects of cervical mobilisations on global perceived effect, movement associated pain and neck kinematics in patients with non-specific neck pain. A double blind placebo randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Neck pain is prevalent, costly and disabling. Cervical mobilisations are frequently used to treat it but their effectiveness has been questioned by several systematic reviews. Evidence suggests that better outcomes are achieved with mobilisations when they are applied to specific patient subgroups. A criteria for patients suitable for neck mobilisations has been proposed, but the effectiveness on this patient subgroup has not been tested. OBJECTIVE: To assess the effectiveness of cervical mobilisations applied to a subgroup of patients with neck pain who fulfil specific criteria. DESIGN: Randomised controlled trial. METHOD: 40 patients with neck pain attending a Physiotherapy clinic were recruited and randomised to a single session of either cervical mobilisations or motionless manual contact placebo. The immediate effects on global perceived effect, range of movement (ROM), movement velocity and movement associated pain were assessed. RESULTS: mobilisation participants reported significantly better global perceived effect (p˂0.001) and improvements in movement associated pain (p = 0.041). Mobilisations produced a significant increase in ROM in side flexion (p = 0.006) and rotation (p = 0.044) when compared with placebo, but only in patients with pre-intervention ROM restriction. 29-47% of all movement associated pains were resolved following mobilisations and 11-27% following placebo. Patients in both groups showed a significant (p < 0.05) increase in movement velocity, but only in those who had a velocity restriction pre-intervention. CONCLUSIONS: Cervical mobilisations are effective in improving movement-associated pain, increasing ROM and velocity, and patient perceived improvement when applied to patients with neck pain that fulfil a criteria. Their use should be advocated.