RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Nonspecific chronic neck pain is a fairly common disorder that causes a great impact, and it is greatly influenced by psychosocial factors. Among a number of treatment modalities described for its management, the most common approach is based on manual therapy and specific therapeutic exercise, which have shown a moderate effect on subjects with chronic non-specific neck pain. However, the effect times of these treatments have not been accurately detailed. Our study aims to break down and compare the effects of two experimental treatments based on manual therapy and therapeutic exercise. METHODS: The short-term and mid-term changes produced by different therapies on subjects with non-specific chronic neck pain were studied. The sample was randomized divided into three groups: manual therapy, therapeutic exercise, and placebo. As dependent variables of our research, we studied (a) pain, based on the visual analog scale and the pressure pain threshold, and (b) cervical disability, through the Neck Disability Index (NDI). Outcomes were registered on week 1, week 4, and week 12. The findings were analyzed statistically considering a 5% significance level (P ≤ 0.05). RESULTS: No statistically significant differences (P 0.05) were obtained between the experimental groups, if they exist against the control group. Nonetheless, we found that manual therapy improved perceived pain before than therapeutic exercise, while therapeutic exercise reduced cervical disability before than manual therapy. Effect size (R2) shows medium and large effects for both experimental treatments. CONCLUSION: There are no differences between groups in short and medium terms. Manual therapy achieves a faster reduction in pain perception than therapeutic exercise. Therapeutic exercise reduces disability faster than manual therapy. Clinical improvement could potentially be influenced by central processes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Brazilian Clinical Trial Registry, RBR-2vj7sw. Registered on 28 November 2018.

Assuntos

RESUMO

Introduction. Dysfunction of the autonomic nervous system is an important factor in the development of chronic pain. Fourth ventricle compression (CV-4) has been shown to influence autonomic activity. Nevertheless, the physiological mechanisms behind these effects remain unclear. Objectives. This study is aimed at evaluating the effects of fourth ventricle compression on the autonomic nervous system. Methods. Forty healthy adults were randomly assigned to an intervention group, on whom CV-4 was performed, or to a control group, who received a placebo intervention (nontherapeutic touch on the occipital bone). In both groups, plasmatic catecholamine levels, blood pressure, and heart rate were measured before and immediately after the intervention. Results. No effects related to the intervention were found. Although a reduction of norepinephrine, systolic blood pressure, and heart rate was found after the intervention, it was not exclusive to the intervention group. In fact, only the control group showed an increment of dopamine levels after intervention. Conclusion. Fourth ventricle compression seems not to have any effect in plasmatic catecholamine levels, blood pressure, or heart rate. Further studies are needed to clarify the CV-4 physiologic mechanisms and clinical efficacy in autonomic regulation and pain treatment.

RESUMO

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the short-term effect on spinal mobility, pain perception, neural mechanosensitivity, and full height recovery after high-velocity, low-amplitude (HVLA) spinal manipulation (SM) in the lumbosacral joint (L5-S1). DESIGN: Randomized, double-blind, controlled clinical trial with evaluations at baseline and after intervention. SETTING: University-based physical therapy research clinic. PARTICIPANTS: Men (N=40; mean age ± SD, 38 ± 9.14 y) with diagnosed degenerative lumbar disease at L5-S1 were randomly divided into 2 groups: a treatment group (TG) (n=20; mean age ± SD, 39 ± 9.12 y) and a control group (CG) (n=20; mean age ± SD, 37 ± 9.31 y). All participants completed the intervention and follow-up evaluations. INTERVENTIONS: A single L5-S1 SM technique (pull-move) was performed in the TG, whereas the CG received a single placebo intervention. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Measures included assessing the subject's height using a stadiometer. The secondary outcome measures included perceived low back pain, evaluated using a visual analog scale; neural mechanosensitivity, as assessed using the passive straight-leg raise (SLR) test; and amount of spinal mobility in flexion, as measured using the finger-to-floor distance (FFD) test. RESULTS: The intragroup comparison indicated a significant improvement in all variables in the TG (P<.001). There were no changes in the CG, except for the FFD test (P=.008). In the between-group comparison of the mean differences from pre- to postintervention, there was statistical significance for all cases (P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: An HVLA SM in the lumbosacral joint performed on men with degenerative disk disease immediately improves self-perceived pain, spinal mobility in flexion, hip flexion during the passive SLR test, and subjects' full height. Future studies should include women and should evaluate the long-term results.

Assuntos