The effectiveness of cervical versus thoracic thrust manipulation for the improvement of pain, disability, and range of motion in patients with mechanical neck pain

Abstract

Background:Many patients present to physical therapy with mechanical neck pain. Cervical and thoracic manipulations are being utilized in treating this impairment, but minimal evidence as to which technique is superior exists in the literature.Objective:The purpose of this systematic review is to identify whether cervical or thoracic manipulation is more effective at improving pain, range of motion (ROM), and disability in patients with mechanical neck pain.Methods:A comprehensive search of published literature from seven search engines (PubMed, ProQuest, PEDro, CINAHL, Healthsource, Cochrane Library, SPORTDiscus) yielded 13 studies that examined the effectiveness of either cervical manipulations, thoracic manipulations, or cervical and thoracic manipulations to relieve the effects of mechanical neck pain. Eleven of the studies included were randomized controlled trials (RCTs), while two were secondary analyses of RCTs. Each study was assessed using the PEDro scale and found to be of fair to high research quality.Results:The studies included in this systematic review produced both positive clinical and statistical differences in pain, disability, and ROM following manipulations of the cervical or thoracic spine.Conclusion:There is limited high-quality research directly comparing the two interventions, so determining whether cervical or thoracic thrust manipulation is superior cannot be concluded from this systematic review alone. However, based on the results found in this review, cervical and thoracic thrust manipulations are equally valuable in relieving pain, disability, and improving ROM for a patient with mechanical neck pain in the short term.