A retrospective comparative cohort study of the effects of neural mobilization (NM) alone and NM combined with transcranial direct current stimulation in patients with cervical radiculopathy.

BACKGROUND: Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) and neural mobilization (NM) are widely used in clinical practice as two effective treatment. However, there have existed few studies of the combination of these two treatments, particularly in cervical radiculopathy (CR). To explore the value of combined tDCS and NM for the management of pain, disability, and quality of life (QoL) in patients with CR, authors designed this study. METHODS: According to certain inclusion criteria, 36 subjects were selected from 224 patients with CR enrolled in Zhejiang Provincial People's Hospital between June 2021 and December 2021. Subjects were divided into two groups based on the treatment they had already received at the hospital. Patients in the combined tDCS group received tDCS and NM therapy, while patients in the NM group received NM therapy alone. Visual analog scale (VAS), Neck Disability Index (NDI), and EuroQuol-5 dimensions (EQ-5D) scores were assessed at baseline, immediately after treatment, and at the 4-week follow-up to evaluate pain, neck disability, and the QoL of patients. SPSS 22.0 software (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA) is used as main tool for data analysis. RESULTS: A total of 36 patients were enrolled (19 in the combined tDCS group and 17 in the NM group). The baseline VAS, NDI, and EQ-5D scores in the combined tDCS group were 54.3±16.4 mm, 35.1±14.7, and 0.62±0.15, respectively, while the baseline VAS, NDI, and EQ-5D scores in the NM group were 54.0±16.5 mm, 31.8±12.8, and 0.64±0.15, respectively. There was no significant difference in baseline data between the two groups. At the 4-week post-treatment follow-up, the VAS score was significantly lower in the combined tDCS group than in the NM group (24.5±16.1 and 40.7±17.3 mm, respectively, P=0.008), and the NDI was also significantly lower in the combined tDCS group than in the NM group (16.1±11.5 vs. 26.6±17.7, P=0.045). There was no significant difference between the combined tDCS and NM groups in EQ-5D (0.75±0.15 vs. 0.69±0.09, P=0.192). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with NM therapy alone, combined tDCS and NM therapy may play a role in pain relief and neck disability improvement in CR patients.