Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics
Volume 29, Issue 7 , Pages 511-517, September 2006

Immediate Effects on Neck Pain and Active Range of Motion After a Single Cervical High-Velocity Low-Amplitude Manipulation in Subjects Presenting with Mechanical Neck Pain: A Randomized Controlled Trial

  • Raquel Martínez-Segura, PT, DO

      Affiliations

    • Escuela de Osteopatía de Madrid, Madrid, Spain
  • ,
  • César Fernández-de-las-Peñas, PT

      Affiliations

    • Escuela de Osteopatía de Madrid, Madrid, Spain
    • Corresponding Author InformationSubmit requests for reprints to: César Fernández de las Peñas, Facultad de Ciencias de la Salud, Universidad Rey Juan Carlos, Avenida de Atenas s/n, 28922 Alcorcón, Madrid, Spain
  • ,
  • Mariana Ruiz-Sáez, PT, CO

      Affiliations

    • Escula de Osteopatía de Madrid, Madrid, Spain; and Escula de Osteopatía de Madrid, Madrid, Spain
  • ,
  • Cristina López-Jiménez, PT, DO

      Affiliations

    • Escula de Osteopatía de Madrid, Madrid, Spain
  • ,
  • Cleofás Rodríguez-Blanco, PT, DO

      Affiliations

    • Department of Physical Therapy, Universidad de Sevilla, Sevilla, Spain

Received 1 December 2005; received in revised form 5 January 2006; accepted 20 April 2006.

Abstract 

Purpose

The objective of this study is to analyze the immediate effects on neck pain and active cervical range of motion after a single cervical high-velocity low-amplitude (HVLA) manipulation or a control mobilization procedure in mechanical neck pain subjects. In addition, we assessed the possible correlation between neck pain and neck mobility.

Methods

Seventy patients with mechanical neck pain (25 males and 45 females, aged 20-55 years) participated in this study. The lateral gliding test was used to establish the presence of an intervertebral joint dysfunction at the C3 through C4 or C4 through C5 levels. Subjects were divided randomly into either an experimental group, which received an HVLA thrust, or a control group, which received a manual mobilization procedure. The outcome measures were active cervical range of motion and neck pain at rest assessed pretreatment and 5 minutes posttreatment by an assessor blinded to the treatment allocation of the patient. Intragroup and intergroup comparisons were made with parametric tests. Within-group effect sizes were calculated using Cohen's d coefficient.

Results

Within-group changes showed a significant improvement in neck pain at rest and mobility after application of the manipulation (P < .001). The control group also showed a significant improvement in neck pain at rest (P < .01), flexion (P < .01), extension (P < .05), and both lateral flexions (P < .01), but not in rotation. Pre-post effect sizes were large for all the outcomes in the experimental group (d > 1), but were small to medium in the control mobilization group (0.2 < d < 0.6). The intergroup comparison showed that the experimental group obtained a greater improvement than the control group in all the outcome measures (P < .001). Decreased neck pain and increased range of motion were negatively associated for all cervical motions: the greater the increase in neck mobility, the less the pain at rest.

Conclusions

Our results suggest that a single cervical HVLA manipulation was more effective in reducing neck pain at rest and in increasing active cervical range of motion than a control mobilization procedure in subjects suffering from mechanical neck pain.

To access this article, please choose from the options below

Login to an existing account or Register a new account.

  • Purchase this article for 15.00 USD (You must login/register to purchase this article)

    Online access for 24 hours. The PDF version can be downloaded as your permanent record.

  • Subscribe to this title

    Get unlimited online access to this article and all other articles in this title 24/7 for one year.

  • Claim access now

    For current subscribers with Society Membership or Account Number.

  • Visit SciVerse ScienceDirect to see if you have access via your institution.
 

PII: S0161-4754(06)00175-8

doi:10.1016/j.jmpt.2006.06.022

Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics
Volume 29, Issue 7 , Pages 511-517, September 2006