Elsevier

Manual Therapy

Volume 10, Issue 2, May 2005, Pages 127-135
Manual Therapy

Original article
Immediate effects of thoracic manipulation in patients with neck pain: a randomized clinical trial

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.math.2004.08.005Get rights and content

Abstract

Mechanical neck pain is a common occurrence in the general population resulting in a considerable economic burden. Often physical therapists will incorporate manual therapies directed at the cervical spine including joint mobilization and manipulation into the management of patients with cervical pain. Although the effectiveness of mobilization and manipulation of the cervical spine has been well documented, the small inherent risks associated with these techniques has led clinicians to frequently utilize manipulation directed at the thoracic spine in this patient population. It is hypothesized that thoracic spine manipulation may elicit similar therapeutic benefits as cervical spine manipulation while minimizing the magnitude of risk associated with the cervical technique. The purpose of this randomized clinical trial was to investigate the immediate effects of thoracic spine manipulation on perceived pain levels in patients presenting with neck pain. The results suggest that thoracic spine manipulation results in immediate analgesic effects in patients with mechanical neck pain. Further studies are needed to determine the effects of thoracic spine manipulation in patients with neck pain on long-term outcomes including function and disability.

Introduction

Approximately 54% of individuals have experienced neck pain within the last six months (Cote et al., 1998, Cote et al., 2000), and the incidence appears to be rising (Nygren et al., 1995). The economic burden due to neck disorders is high, second only to low back pain in annual workers’ compensation costs in the United States (Wright et al., 1999). Patients with neck pain are frequently encountered in outpatient physical therapy practice, consisting of approximately 25% of all patients (Jette et al., 1994). Manual therapy interventions are one treatment strategy appropriate for patients with neck pain (American Physical Therapy Association, 2001). The Guide to Physical Therapist Practice (American Physical Therapy Association, 2001) uses the term “mobilization/manipulation” to refer to a “manual therapy technique comprising a continuum of skilled passive movements to the joints and/or related soft tissues that are applied at varying speeds and amplitudes, including a small-amplitude/high-velocity therapeutic movement.” To be more specific, the term “manipulation” in this paper refers specifically to techniques involving a high-velocity low-amplitude thrust, whereas mobilization refers to techniques performed as lower velocity, passive movements of a joint. Approximately 37% of therapists who routinely perform manual therapy interventions for patients with spinal disorders in their clinical practice perform manipulation and/or mobilization to the cervical spine in patients with neck pain (Hurley et al., 2002). The effectiveness of these interventions in patients with neck pain and cervicogenic headaches has been recently supported by an increasing number of high quality randomized clinical trials (RCT) (Bronfort et al., 2001b; Evans et al., 2002; Hoving et al., 2002; Jull et al., 2002), and systematic reviews (Bronfort et al., 2001a; Gross et al., 2002) suggesting both forms of manual therapy are effective.

The benefits of manual therapy interventions directed to the cervical spine must be considered in the context of the potential risks. The risk of serious complications such as vertebrobaslilar insufficiency (VBI) has been estimated to be extremely low (approximately six in 10 million; 0.00006%) (Hurwitz et al., 1996). However, studies to date have largely failed to substantiate the ability of currently available screening procedures to identify at-risk patients prior to treatment (DiFabio, 1999). Therefore, it has been suggested that cervical manipulation interventions be abandoned altogether (Bolton et al., 1989; Cote et al., 1996; DiFabio, 1999; Haldeman et al., 1999, Haldeman et al., 2002a, Haldeman et al., 2002b). In one survey of physical therapists in Canada, 88% of respondents strongly agreed that all available screening tests should be performed prior to cervical manipulation (Hurley et al., 2002), suggesting that therapists are indeed concerned about the risks. Therefore, some therapists may conclude the benefits achieved from manual therapy interventions directed to the cervical spine are not worth even the small risks associated with these interventions.

Clinical experts have suggested that a thorough examination of the thoracic spine be included in the evaluation of patients with primary complaints of neck pain (Porterfield and DeRosa, 1995; Greenman, 1996). Due to the biomechanical relationship between the cervical and thoracic spine, perhaps disturbances in joint mobility in the thoracic spine serve as an underlying contributor to the development of neck disorders. It has also been demonstrated that mobilization/manipulation of joints remote to the patient's pain results in an immediate hypoalgesic effect (Vicenzino et al., 1996, Vicenzino et al., 1998, Vicenzino et al., 2001; Paungmali et al., 2003). This is speculated to occur through the stimulation of descending inhibitory mechanisms (Vicenzino et al., 1998; Skyba et al., 2003). For these reasons it has been suggested that perhaps the incorporation of thoracic spine manipulation interventions in lieu of manipulation or mobilization interventions directed to the cervical spine may avoid even the small inherent risks associated with manual therapy interventions directed to the cervical spine, while achieving similar therapeutic benefits (Erhard and Piva, 2000).

Only scant evidence exists regarding the use of thoracic spine manipulation in patients with neck pain. Flynn and colleagues have reported preliminary data suggesting that thoracic spine manipulation results in an immediate reduction in pain and increases in cervical range of motion in individuals presenting with primary neck dysfunction (Flynn et al., 2004). However, the lack of a comparison group in this study precludes establishing that a cause-and-effect relationship exists. In addition, Parkin-Smith (Parkin-Smith and Penter, 1998) and colleagues demonstrated that thoracic manipulation in addition to cervical manipulation in patients with neck pain was no more advantageous than cervical manipulation alone. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to further investigate the immediate effects of thoracic manipulation on neck pain in a randomized clinical trial.

Section snippets

Methods

Potential participants were patients between 18 and 60 years of age with a primary complaint of mechanical neck pain referred by their primary care physician to an outpatient orthopaedic physical therapy clinic. Mechanical neck pain was defined as nonspecific pain in the area of the cervicothoracic junction that is exacerbated by neck movements (Bogduk, 1984; Childs et al., 2003). The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board at Franklin Pierce College (Rindge, NH) before recruitment

Results

Sixty-eight patients were screened for eligibility during a six-month period from January 2003 to June 2003. Sixteen patients (24%) did not satisfy the inclusion and exclusion criteria for the study. Sixteen eligible patients (31%) elected not to participate because of preferring not to receive manipulation interventions (n=11) or specifically requesting manipulation (n=5). The remaining 36 patients, mean age equal to 36 (SD=9.8) (27 female), were randomized to receive thoracic spine

Discussion

The results of this study suggest that thoracic spine manipulation in patients with a primary complaint of neck pain results in immediate improvements in their neck pain. Patients receiving thoracic spine manipulation demonstrated a mean change of 15.5 mm (95% CI: 11.8–19.2) on the VAS, compared to only a 4.2 mm (95% CI: 1.9–6.6) change among patients in the placebo group. Even if one presumes the lower bound of the 95% CI of 11.8 to be the point estimate for patients receiving thoracic spine

Conclusion

Thoracic spine manipulation results in immediate improvements in perceived levels of cervical pain in patients with mechanical neck pain. Given the concern regarding the risks of cervical spine manipulation, perhaps thoracic spine manipulation is a reasonable alternative, or supplement to, cervical manipulation and mobilization to maximize the patient's outcome at a reasonably low level of risk. This study was limited to an immediate follow-up and the patient's perceived levels of pain, thus

Disclaimer

The opinions or assertions contained herein are the private views of the authors and are not to be construed as official or as reflecting the views of the U.S. Air Force or Department of Defense.

References (57)

  • D.A. Skyba et al.

    Joint manipulation reduces hyperalgesia by activation of monoamine receptors but not opiod or GABA receptors in the spinal cord

    Pain

    (2003)
  • B.P. Symons et al.

    Internal forces sustained by the vertebral artery during spinal manipulative therapy

    Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics

    (2002)
  • B. Vicenzino et al.

    The initial effects of a cervical spine manipulative physiotherapy treatment on the pain and dysfunction of lateral epicondylalagia

    Pain

    (1996)
  • B. Vicenzino et al.

    Specific manipulative therapy treatment for chronic lateral epicondylalgia produces uniquely characteristic hypoalgesia

    Manual Therapy

    (2001)
  • G. Adams et al.

    A survey of UK manual therapists’ practice of and attitudes towards manipulation and its complications

    Physiotherapy Research International

    (1998)
  • American Physical Therapy Association (APTA). Guide to physical therapist practice, 2nd ed. Alexandria, VA: APTA;...
  • P.E. Bijur et al.

    Reliability of the visual analog scale for measurement of acute pain

    Academic Emergency Medicine

    (2001)
  • N. Bogduk

    Neck pain

    Australian Family Physician

    (1984)
  • P.S. Bolton et al.

    Failure of clinical tests to predict cerebral ischemia before neck manipulation

    Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics

    (1989)
  • M.R. Bookhout

    Evaluation of the Thoracic Spine and Rib Cage

  • G. Bronfort et al.

    A randomized clinical trail of exercise and spinal manipulation for patients with chronic neck pain

    Spine

    (2001)
  • J.D. Cassidy et al.

    The immediate effect of manipulation versus mobilization on pain and range of motion in the cervical spinea randomized controlled trial

    Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics

    (1992)
  • J.D. Childs et al.

    Physical therapy of the cervical spine and temporomandibular joint

    (2003)
  • M.W. Coppieters et al.

    The immediate effects of a cervical lateral glide treatment technique in patients with neurogenic cervicobrachial pain

    Journal of Orthopaedic and Sports Physical Therapy

    (2003)
  • P. Cote et al.

    The validity of the extension-rotation test as a clinical screening procedure before neck manipulationa secondary analysis

    Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics

    (1996)
  • P. Cote et al.

    The Saskatchewan Health and Back Pain Surveythe prevalence of neck pain and related disability in Saskatchewan

    Spine

    (1998)
  • P. Cote et al.

    The factors associated with neck pain and its related disability in the Saskatchewan population

    Spine

    (2000)
  • R.P. DiFabio

    Manipulation of the cervical spinerisks and benefits

    Physical Therapy

    (1999)
  • Cited by (226)

    • Effectiveness of osteopathic interventions in patients with non-specific neck pain: A systematic review and meta-analysis

      2022, Complementary Therapies in Clinical Practice
      Citation Excerpt :

      Actually, there is evidence that treatments of different body regions other than the neck (which is a typical osteopathic approach) can lead to useful results. For example, dorsal manipulation, an anatomical area functionally related to the cervical region, can improve cervical disability and neck pain [36]. This same aspect was also retrieved and highlighted in previous studies on osteopathy and chronic non-specific low back pain [37,38].

    View all citing articles on Scopus

    Work should be attributed to the Physical Therapy Program, Franklin Pierce College, Concord, NH.

    View full text