Effectiveness of Neural Mobilisation Techniques in the Management of Musculoskeletal Neck Disorders with Nerve-Related Symptoms: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis with a Mapping Report

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.

Effectiveness of Neural Mobilisation on Pain Intensity, Functional Status, and Physical Performance in Adults with Musculoskeletal Pain - A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVE

To investigate up-to-date evidence of the effectiveness of neural mobilisation techniques compared with any type of comparator in improving pain, function, and physical performance in people with musculoskeletal pain.

DATA SOURCES

The following sources were consulted: PubMed, Web of Science, CENTRAL, CINAHL, Scopus, and PEDro databases; scientific repositories; and clinical trial registers. The last search was performed on 01/06/2023.

METHODS

Two reviewers independently assessed the studies for inclusion. We included randomised, quasi-randomised, and crossover trials on musculoskeletal pain in which at least one group received neural mobilisation (alone or as part of multimodal interventions). Meta-analyses were performed where possible. The RoB 2 and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation tools were used to assess risk of bias and to rate the certainty of evidence, respectively.

RESULTS

Thirty-nine trials were identified. There was a significant effect favouring neural mobilisation for pain and function in people with low back pain, but not for flexibility. For neck pain, there was a significant effect favouring neural mobilisation as part of multimodal interventions for pain, but not for function and range of motion. Regarding other musculoskeletal conditions, it was not possible to conclude whether neural mobilisation is effective in improving pain and function. There was very low confidence for all effect estimates.

CONCLUSIONS

Neural mobilisation as part of multimodal interventions appears to have a positive effect on pain for patients with low back pain and neck pain and on function in people with low back pain. For the other musculoskeletal conditions, results are inconclusive.

Upper limb neurodynamic mobilization disperses intraneural fluid in cervical nerve roots: A human cadaveric investigation

BACKGROUND

Cervical radiculopathy is a common cause of neck pain with resultant intraneural edema and impaired nerve function. One strategy to treat radiculopathy is neurodynamic mobilization (NDM); however, little is known about the effect of this treatment on nerve tissue fluid dynamics.

OBJECTIVE

Investigate the impact of upper limb, median nerve-biased NDM on longitudinal intraneural fluid dispersion in the C5,C6,C7 nerve roots in un-embalmed cadavers.

DESIGN

In situ repeated measures.

METHODS

Human cadavers (n = 8) were dissected to expose and inject C5,C6,C7 cervical nerve roots with a dying agent. Initial longitudinal dye spread was recorded after dye spread stabilization. Cadavers were taken through 150 repetitions of upper limb, median nerve-biased NDM followed by dye spread re-measurement. Paired-samples t-tests with Bonferroni correction (α = 0.017) were used to compare pre-vs post-NDM dye spread measurements at C5,C6,C7 nerve roots; a one-way repeated measures ANOVA (α = 0.05) was used to examine differences between change scores for C5,C6,C7 nerve roots.

RESULTS

Median nerve-biased NDM resulted in significant intraneural longitudinal dye spread at C5 and C6 nerve roots of 0.6 ± 0.6 mm and 3.4 ± 3.9 mm, respectively (p < 0.014). Dye spread was not significant at C7 nerve root (0.4 ± 0.7 mm). There was no between root difference in change of longitudinal dye spread between C5, C6, and C7 nerve roots.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this study show median nerve-biased NDM produced internal fluid movement within C5 and C6 cervical nerve roots. Results provide insight regarding possible mechanism of action and feasibility of NDM in treatment of patients with cervical radiculopathy.

Patient-reported outcome measures in physical therapy practice for neck pain: an overview of reviews

BACKGROUND

Understanding which patient-reported outcome measures are being collected and utilized in clinical practice and research for patients with neck pain will help to inform recommendations for a core set of measures that provide value to patients and clinicians during diagnosis, clinical decision-making, goal setting and evaluation of responsiveness to treatment. Therefore, the aim of this study was to conduct a review of systematic reviews using a qualitative synthesis on the use of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) for patients presenting with neck pain to physical therapy.

METHODS

An electronic search of systematic reviews and guideline publications was performed using MEDLINE (OVID), Embase (Elsevier), CINAHL Complete (EBSCOhost), and Web of Science (Clarivate) databases to identify reviews that evaluated physical therapy interventions or interventions commonly performed by a physical therapist for individuals with neck pain and included at least one patient-reported outcome measure. The frequency and variability in which the outcome measures were reported among the studies in the review and the constructs for which they measured were evaluated. The evaluation of a core set of outcome measures was assessed. Risk of bias and quality assessment was performed using A Measurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews 2.

RESULTS

Of the initial 7,003 articles, a total of 37 studies were included in the final review. Thirty-one PROMs were represented within the 37 reviews with eleven patient-reported outcome measures in three or more reviews. The eleven PROMs assessed the constructs of disability, pain intensity, psychosocial factors and quality of life. The greatest variability was found amongst individual measures assessing psychosocial factors. Assessment of psychosocial factors was the least represented construct in the included studies. Overall, the most frequently utilized patient reported outcome measures were the Neck Disability Index, Visual Analog Scale, and Numeric Pain Rating Scale. The most frequently used measures evaluating the constructs of disability, pain intensity, quality of life and psychosocial functioning included the Neck Disability Index, Visual Analog Scale, Short-Form-36 health survey and Fear Avoidance Belief Questionnaire respectively. Overall risk of bias and quality assessment confidence levels ranged from critically low (2 studies), low (12 studies), moderate (8 studies), and high (15 studies).

CONCLUSION

This study identified a core set of patient-reported outcome measures that represented the constructs of disability, pain intensity and quality of life. This review recommends the collection and use of the Neck Disability Index and the Numeric Pain Rating Scale or Visual Analog Scale. Recommendation for a QoL measure needs to be considered in the context of available resources and administrative burden. Further research is needed to confidently recommend a QoL and psychosocial measure for patients presenting with neck pain. Other measures that were not included in this review but should be further evaluated for patients with neck pain are the Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Physical function, PROMIS Pain Interference and the Optimal Screening for Prediction of Referral and Outcome Yellow Flag (OSPRO-YF) tool.

The Effect of Neurodynamic Techniques on the Dispersion of Intraneural Edema: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

There is evidence for the positive effects of neurodynamic techniques in some peripheral entrapment neuropathies, but the rationale for these effects has not been validated. We aimed to estimate the direct effect of neurodynamic techniques on the dispersion of artificially induced intraneural edema measured by dye spread in cadavers.

METHODS

We systematically searched the MEDLINE, WOS, Scopus, and the Cochrane databases from inception to February 2020 for experimental studies addressing the efficacy of neurodynamic techniques on the dispersion of artificially induced intraneural edema. The DerSimonian and Laird method was used to compute pooled estimates of the mean differences (MDs) and its respective 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Subgroup analyses were conducted according to the type of neurodynamic technique. In addition, a 95% prediction interval was calculated to reflect the variation in true treatment effects in different settings, including the effect to be expected in future patients.

RESULTS

Pooled results showed a significant increase in fluid dispersion (MD = 2.57 mm; 95%CI: 1.13 to 4.01). Subgroup analysis showed increased dye spread in the tensioning techniques group (MD = 2.22 mm; 95%CI: 0.86 to 3.57).

CONCLUSION

Neurodynamic techniques improved the intraneural edema dispersion and should be considered for the management of peripheral compression neuropathies. Furthermore, tensioning techniques appear to be effective in helping to disperse intraneural edema.