Acupuncture for neck disorders.

Neck pain is one of the three most frequently reported complaints of the musculoskeletal system. Treatments for neck pain are varied, as are perceptions of benefit. Acupuncture has been used as an alternative to more conventional treatment for musculoskeletal pain. This review summarises the most current scientific evidence on the effectiveness of acupuncture for acute, subacute and chronic neck pain. This update replaces our 2006 Cochrane review update on this topic. To determine the effects of acupuncture for adults with neck pain, with focus on pain relief, disability or functional measures, patient satisfaction and global perceived effect. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Manual, Alternative and Natural Therapy Index System (MANTIS), the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) and the Index to Chiropractic Literature (ICL) from their beginning to August 2015. We searched reference lists, two trial registers and the acupuncture database Traditional Chinese Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System (TCMLARS) in China to 2005. We included published trials that used random assignment to intervention groups, in full text or abstract form. We excluded quasi-randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Two review authors made independent decisions for each step of the review: article inclusion, data abstraction and assessment of quality of trial methods. We assessed study quality by using the Cochrane Back Review Group 'Risk of bias' tool. We used consensus to resolve disagreements, and when clinical heterogeneity was absent, we combined studies by using random-effects meta-analysis models. Of the 27 included studies, three represented individuals with whiplash-associated disorders (WADs) ranging from acute to chronic (205 participants), five explored chronic myofascial neck pain (186 participants), five chronic pain due to arthritic changes (542 participants), six chronic non-specific neck pain (4011 participants), two neck pain with radicular signs (43 participants) and six subacute or chronic mechanical neck pain (5111 participants).For mechanical neck pain, we found that acupuncture is beneficial at immediate-term follow-up compared with sham acupuncture for pain intensity; at short-term follow-up compared with sham or inactive treatment for pain intensity; at short-term follow-up compared with sham treatment for disability; and at short-term follow-up compared with wait-list control for pain intensity and neck disability improvement.Statistical pooling was appropriate for acupuncture compared with sham for short-term outcomes due to statistical homogeneity (P value = 0.83; I2 = 20%).Results of the meta-analysis favoured acupuncture (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.23, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.20 to -0.07; P value = 0.0006). This effect does not seem sustainable over the long term.Whether subsequent repeated sessions would be successfulwas not examined by investigators in our primary studies.Acupuncture appears to be a safe treatment modality, as adverse effects are minor. Reported adverse effects include increased pain, bruising, fainting, worsening of symptoms, local swelling and dizziness. These studies reported no life-threatening adverse effects and found that acupuncture treatments were cost-effective.Since the time of our previous review, the quality of RCTs has improved, and we have assessed many of them as having low risk of bias. However, few large trials have provided high-quality evidence. Moderate-quality evidence suggests that acupuncture relieves pain better than sham acupuncture, as measured at completion of treatment and at short-term follow-up, and that those who received acupuncture report less pain and disability at short-term follow-up than those on a wait-list. Moderate-quality evidence also indicates that acupuncture is more effective than inactive treatment for relieving pain at short-term follow-up.

Acupuncture for neck disorders

Background: According to Picavet and Schouten (2003) the incidence of neck pain is increasing at a greater rate than other spine problems (Hoving et al. 2004). Furthermore, chronic neck pain is a substantial burden to society with chronic neck pain being the fourth leading cause of disability worldwide (Hoy et al. 2014). Chronic mechanical neck pain (CMNP) has been defined as localised, asymmetrical neck pain with restricted range of motion and dysfunctional musculature (Grieve, 1988). Treatments for those suffering with chronic pain, which are non-surgical, appear to be the most beneficial for patients according to Haldeman et al. (2008). Giles and Müller (1999) have stated that spinal manipulation is the most effective method of treating spinal pain on its own. However, the literature suggests that there is benefit in combining manipulation with an “anti-inflammatory type” drug (Crawford 1988; Oberbaum 1998; Serrentino 2003). Many studies have been successfully conducted on Homoeopathic complexes to treat neck pain (Fisher 1986; Bohmer and Ambrus 1992; Hepburn 2000; Soeken 2004) however no study has yet to been carried out on the combination of Homoeopathic Simillimum (single remedy) and spinal manipulation for CMNP. Objective: The aim of this study was to determine if spinal manipulation and Homoeopathic Simillimum in combination are more relatively effective than spinal manipulation alone in the treatment of chronic mechanical neck pain. Methodology: This study was a randomised, blinded placebo controlled quantitative trial with a comparative clinical trial design. Thirty consenting participants with CMNP who met the inclusion criteria were randomly distributed between two treatment groups. Group A received spinal manipulation as well as Homoeopathic Simillimum and group B received spinal manipulation with placebo medication. Each participant received three treatments over a period of a week; with subjective and objective readings taken at every consultation. The subjective tools included the Numerical Pain Rating Scale and Canadian Memorial College of Chiropractic Neck Disability Index. Objective tools included the Algometer and CROM-II Goniometer. All data captured was analysed using SPSS version 24.0. Inferential and non-parametric analysis of the data were also be performed. Results: The results showed that no statistically significant differences were observed between the two groups in terms of subjective and objective measurements. However, there were statistically significant improvements seen in both groups equally in terms of ANOVA subjective and objective measurements i.e. both groups showed improvement. Conclusion: The results of this study concluded that no statistical or clinically significant changes were noticed between the groups and therefore the Homoeopathic Simillimum added no statistical significant improvements in those who received it over those participants who received placebo in the treatment of chronic mechanical neck pain.

Sensitization in office workers with chronic neck pain in different pain conditions and intensities.

AB1172-HPR The Relationship between Psychological Conditions and Neck Pain Paremeters on Patients with Mechanical Chronic Neck Pain

Exploration of Somatosensory Impairments in Subjects With Mechanical Idiopathic Neck Pain: A Preliminary Study

Background: Mobilization and manipulation therapies are widely used by patients with chronic nonspecific neck pain; however, questions remain around efficacy, dosing, and safety, as well as how these approaches compare to other therapies. Objectives: Based on published trials, to determine the efficacy, effectiveness, and safety of various mobilization and manipulation therapies for treatment of chronic nonspecific neck pain. Study Design: A systematic literature review and meta-analysis. Methods: We identified studies published between January 2000 and September 2017, by searching multiple electronic databases, examining reference lists, and communicating with experts. We selected randomized controlled trials comparing manipulation and/or mobilization therapies to sham, no treatment, each other, and other active therapies, or when combined as multimodal therapeutic approaches. We assessed risk of bias by using the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network criteria. When possible, we pooled data using random-effects meta-analysis. Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation was applied to determine the confidence in effect estimates. This project was funded by the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health under award number U19AT007912 and ultimately used to inform an appropriateness panel. Results: A total of 47 randomized trials (47 unique trials in 53 publications) were included in the systematic review. These studies were rated as having low risk of bias and included a total of 4,460 patients with nonspecific chronic neck pain who were being treated by a practitioner using various types of manipulation and/or mobilization interventions. A total of 37 trials were categorized as unimodal approaches and involved thrust or nonthrust compared with sham, no treatment, or other active comparators. Of these, only 6 trials with similar intervention styles, comparators, and outcome measures/timepoints were pooled for meta-analysis at 1, 3, and 6 months, showing a small effect in favor of thrust plus exercise compared to an exercise regimen alone for a reduction in pain and disability. Multimodal approaches appeared to be effective at reducing pain and improving function from the 10 studies evaluated. Health-related quality of life was seldom reported. Some 22/47 studies did not report or mention adverse events. Of the 25 that did, either no or minor events occurred. Limitations: The current evidence is heterogeneous, and sample sizes are generally small. Conclusions: Studies published since January 2000 provide low-moderate quality evidence that various types of manipulation and/or mobilization will reduce pain and improve function for chronic nonspecific neck pain compared to other interventions. It appears that multimodal approaches, in which multiple treatment approaches are integrated, might have the greatest potential impact. The studies comparing to no treatment or sham were mostly testing the effect of a single dose, which may or may not be helpful to inform practice. According to the published trials reviewed, manipulation and mobilization appear safe. However, given the low rate of serious adverse events, other types of studies with much larger sample sizes would be required to fully describe the safety of manipulation and/or mobilization for nonspecific chronic neck pain. Key words: Chronic neck pain, nonspecific, chiropractic, manipulation, mobilization, systematic review, meta-analysis, appropriateness

Morphologic Changes of Cervical Musculature in Relation to Chronic Nonspecific Neck Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background: Chronic neck pain is common in the adult general population. Although the etiology of chronic neck pain is under debate, it is clear that chronic neck pain is multifactorial, with both physical and psychosocial contributors. Objective: To determine whether adding pain neuroscience education (PNE) to therapeutic exercises improved their pain–disability index, pain catastrophizing, fear–avoidance beliefs, and pain self-efficacy in subjects with chronic nonspecific neck pain. Methods: This study was a three-arm randomized control trial. Seventy-two patients with chronic nonspecific neck pain were allocated to three groups: therapeutic exercises alone (n = 24), combined (therapeutic exercises + PNE; (n = 24), and a control group (n = 24). Each program took place three times a week, lasting for six weeks. The disability index, pain catastrophizing, fear–avoidance beliefs, and pain self-efficacy measured by the Neck Pain and Disability Scale (NPAD), Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS), Fear–Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire (FABQ), and Pain Self-Efficacy Questionnaire (PSEQ), respectively. Participants were assessed before and after the six-week intervention, and there was no further follow-up. Results: For the outcomes NPAD, PSC, and FABQ, combined intervention demonstrated more significant improvements than therapeutic exercises alone (p ≤ 0.05), whereas no differences were observed between the two intervention groups for PSEQ (p = 0.99). In addition, significant differences were favoring experimental groups versus control for all outcomes (p ≤ 0.001). Conclusion: Therapeutic exercises combined with pain neuroscience education reduced the pain–disability index, pain catastrophizing, and fear–avoidance beliefs more than therapeutic exercises alone in patients with chronic neck pain. For pain self-efficacy, there was no statistically significant difference between the two intervention groups; however, the combined group had a more significant effect than therapeutic exercises alone. Further studies with longer periods and follow-up are required.

Chronic neck pain is a common problem with a poorly understood pathophysiology. Often no underlying structural pathology can be found and radiological imaging findings are more related to age than to a patient's symptoms. Besides its common occurrence, chronic idiopathic neck pain is also very disabling with almost 50% of all neck pain patients showing moderate disability at long-term follow-up. Central sensitization (CS) is defined as "an amplification of neural signaling within the central nervous system that elicits pain hypersensitivity," "increased responsiveness of nociceptive neurons in the central nervous system to their normal or subthreshold afferent input," or "an augmentation of responsiveness of central neurons to input from unimodal and polymodal receptors." There is increasing evidence for involvement of CS in many chronic pain conditions. Within the area of chronic idiopathic neck pain, there is consistent evidence for the presence and clinical importance of CS in patients with traumatic neck pain, or whiplash-associated disorders. However, the majority of chronic idiopathic neck pain patients are unrelated to a traumatic injury, and hence are termed chronic idiopathic non-traumatic neck pain. When comparing whiplash with idiopathic non-traumatic neck pain, indications for different underlying mechanisms are found. The goal of this article was to review the existing scientific literature on the role of CS in patients with chronic idiopathic non-traumatic neck pain. Systematic review. All selected studies were case control studies. A systematic search of existing, relevant literature was performed via the electronic databases Medline, Embase, Web of Science, Cinahl, PubMed, and Google Scholar. All titles and abstracts were checked to identify relevant articles. An article was considered eligible if it met following inclusion criteria: (1) participants had to be human adults (> 18 years) diagnosed with idiopathic non-traumatic chronic (present for at least 3 months) neck pain; (2) papers had to report outcomes related to CS; and (3) articles had to be full-text reports or original research (no abstracts, case-reports, reviews, meta-analysis, letters, or editorials). Six articles were found eligible after screening the title, abstract and - when necessary - the full text for in- and exclusion criteria. All selected studies were case-control studies. Overall, results regarding the presence of CS were divergent. While the majority of patients with chronic traumatic neck pain (i.e. whiplash) are characterized by CS, this is not the case for patients with chronic idiopathic neck pain. The available evidence suggests that CS is not a major feature of chronic idiopathic neck pain. Individual cases might have CS pain, but further work should reveal how they can be characterized. Very few studies available. Literature about CS in patients with chronic idiopathic non-traumatic neck pain is rare and results from the available studies provide an inconclusive message. CS is not a characteristic feature of chronic idiopathic and non-traumatic neck pain, but can be present in some individuals of the population. In the future a subgroup with CS might be defined, but based on current knowledge it is not possible to characterize this subgroup. Such information is important in order to provide targeted treatment.

Background: Non-specific neck pain (NNP) affects 30–50% of the general population, and it often leads to severe disability. Several manual therapy techniques are available to reduce pain and disability and to improve cervical range of motion and functional activities. Muscle Energy Technique (MET) showed more evidence for treating such a disorder. The aim of this current scientific literature analysis was to compare the clinical effects of MET with the other manual or rehabilitative treatments for non-specific acute and chronic neck pain. Methods: The literature search was conducted using the following databases: PubMed, Medline, PEDro, Cochrane Database, and Google Scholar from 2010 to January 2020. Clinical trials about MET were included. The quality of the trials was assessed according to the PEDro scale. Results: Twenty-one papers according to inclusion and exclusion criteria were selected: 15 studies about non-specific acute neck pain and 6 studies about non-specific chronic neck pain. Conclusions: This analysis suggests that the MET approach has a good clinical effect on reducing neck pain in patients with acute neck pain and improves cervical range of motion in patients with chronic neck pain, and is better if combined with a traditional rehabilitative approach. This review’s findings should be considered with caution for physiotherapy practice because of the studies’ methodologic limitations. On the basis of the current available and limited evidence, clinicians could combine MET with traditional physiotherapy and other manual techniques when treating people with non-specific neck pain.

BackgroundSeveral potential causes can impair balance in older people. The neck torsion maneuver may be useful in demonstrating impaired balance caused by the stimulation of cervical proprioceptive input. Whereas evidence suggests impaired standing balance in older people with chronic neck pain, balance impairment during the neck torsion position and its relationship with clinical characteristics have not yet been investigated in this population. The aims of this study were to investigate whether the neck torsion position could significantly influence balance responses in older people with chronic non-specific neck pain and to determine the relationships between the balance responses and characteristics of neck pain.MethodsSixty-eight older people (34 with chronic non-specific neck pain and 34 controls) participated in the study. Balance was tested using a force plate during comfortable stance with eyes open under four conditions: neutral head on a firm surface, neutral head on a soft surface, neck torsion to left and right on a firm surface and neck torsion to left and right on a soft surface. Balance outcomes were anterior-posterior (AP) and medial-lateral (ML) displacements, sway area and velocity. Characteristics of neck pain were intensity, duration and disability.ResultsOverall, the neck pain group exhibited greater AP and ML displacements, sway area and velocity in the neck torsion position on firm and soft surfaces compared to controls (partial eta squared (η²p) = 0.06–0.15, p < 0.05). The neck pain group also had greater AP displacement, sway area and velocity in the neutral position on a soft surface compared to controls (η²p = 0.09–0.16, p < 0.05). For both groups, the neck torsion position displayed overall greater postural sway compared to the neutral position (η²p = 0.16–0.69, p < 0.05). There were no relationships between the postural sway outcomes and characteristics of neck pain (p > 0.05).ConclusionThe neck torsion maneuver, stimulating the receptors resulted in increased postural sway in older people, with a more pronounced effect in those with neck pain. The study provides evidence supporting the use of neck torsion for assessing impaired balance related to abnormal cervical input in older people with chronic non-specific neck pain.

Introduction: Chronic neck pain is a common complaint among office workers. The aim of the present study was to compare the efficacy of a high-intensity laser and physiotherapy in office workers who were diagnosed with chronic non-specific neck pain. Methods: This study was a single-blind randomized controlled trial, with parallel allocation. Sixty office workers with chronic neck pain, aged between 25 and 55 years, participated in the study. The participants were randomly divided into two groups: photobiomodulation (by a high-level laser) and physiotherapy. Visual analogue scale (VAS), Neck Disability Index (NDI), Neck Pain and Disability Scale (NPDS) and Bournemouth Questionnaire (BQN) were completed on three occasions (before, immediately and 2 weeks after the intervention) to assess and compare the efficacy of the high-intensity laser and physiotherapy in neck pain. Data were analyzed by SPSS 23 software using the chi-square test, Student's t test, multivariate tests, and Fisher's exact test. Results: The mean age of the participants was 37.53±9.52 and 41.16±7.85 years in physiotherapy and laser therapy respectively. The VAS score and NDI scores decreased after both kinds of interventions, and the effect of photobiomodulation was significantly higher than physiotherapy (P < 0.001). Both treatment modalities significantly affect different aspects of chronic neck pain assessed by NDPS and BQN questionnaires and the effect of photobiomodulation was more prominent than physiotherapy. Conclusion: The findings of this study showed that photobiomodulation and physiotherapy can reduce chronic neck pain and its different aspects and the effect of laser therapy was significantly higher than physiotherapy.

Joint Mobilization vs Massage for Chronic Mechanical Neck Pain: A Pilot Study to Assess Recruitment Strategies and Estimate Outcome Measure Variability

Utilizing shear wave elastography, we compared the stiffness of the neck extensor muscles and the stiffness in muscle-specific regions between women with chronic nonspecific neck pain and asymptomatic controls. Cross-sectional observational study. We measured the average muscle stiffness over multiple neck extensor muscles and in regions corresponding approximately to the trapezius, splenius capitis, semispinalis capitis, semispinalis cervicis, and multifidus muscles using ultrasound shear wave elastography in 20 women with chronic nonspecific neck pain and 18 asymptomatic women during multiple tasks. The measurements were automatically quality controlled and computer processed over the complete visible neck region or a large muscle-specific region. Pooled over all tasks, neck muscle stiffness was not significantly different between those with neck pain and asymptomatic controls (neck pain median, 11.6 kPa; interquartile range, 8.9 kPa and control median, 13.3 kPa; interquartile range, 8.6 kPa; P = .175). The measure of neck muscle stiffness was not correlated with the intensity of neck pain or perceived disability. Shear wave elastography revealed similar muscle stiffness in people with and without chronic neck pain, despite the sensation of increased neck stiffness in those with chronic neck pain. Therapeutic interventions aiming to reduce neck muscle tone are often based on the assumption that perceived neck stiffness corresponds to objective muscle stiffness. The current results question this assumption. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2020;50(4):179-188. Epub 6 Jan 2020. doi:10.2519/jospt.2020.8821.