Physiotherapeutic Interventions for Upper Cross Syndrome: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Abstract

Upper cross syndrome is a postural dysfunction that can cause a variety of upper-body musculoskeletal problems. Early detection and physiotherapy can help to prevent further complications. However, no systematic review has evaluated the effect of various physiotherapy intervention strategies to treat this syndrome. Therefore, this study aims to conduct a detailed methodological literature search of the most effective treatment strategies available for the correction of upper cross syndrome. Prospective human subject studies published in the English language that report the assessment and rehabilitation of upper cross syndrome were included. Clinical trials (randomized and non-randomized) were included when compared to a comparator, control group, and no treatment. The search was limited to human subjects and English-language articles. Outcome measures included craniovertebral angle, kyphotic angle, rounded shoulder, neck or shoulder pain, neck range of motion, electromyographic activity of neck or scapular muscles, and functional limitations. To evaluate the methodological quality of randomized controlled trials, the Cochrane collaboration tool was employed. For non-randomized studies, the Risk of Bias in Non-randomized Studies of Intervention was used. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation system was used to rate the effectiveness of the evidence. A random-effect meta-analysis was performed for quantitative analysis to report significant differences based on calculated mean differences, with matching 95% confidence intervals (CIs) whenever possible. Out of the 34 potentially relevant articles, 18 were included. The postural variables including craniovertebral angle, kyphotic angle, and rounded shoulder showed a significant improvement with the physiotherapy group compared to the no-treatment group (standardized mean difference = -1.78; 95% CI = -2.68 to -0.87; p = 0.0001). Secondary outcomes such as pain and functional limitation showed a significant difference when advanced manual therapy techniques were used compared to conventional therapy (standardized mean difference = -0.71; 95% CI = -1.04 to -0.39; p< 0.0001; and standardized mean difference = -0.57; 95% CI = -1.00 to -0.14; p = 0.009, respectively). Exercise therapy was found to be beneficial in correcting postural alignment and movement patterns, while manual therapy was found to be similarly effective in pain reduction and functional improvement.