Routine Physical Therapy with and without Neural Mobilization in Chronic Musculoskeletal Neck Disorders with Nerve-Related Symptoms: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
by
, , , , and
María José López-Pardo
, 
Andrés Calvache-Mateo
,
Javier Martín-Núñez
,
Alejandro Heredia-Ciuró
,
Laura López-López
*
,
Marie Carmen Valenza
and
Irene Cabrera-Martos
Department of Physiotherapy, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Granada, 60 Av. De la Ilustración, 18016 Granada, Spain
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Healthcare 2024, 12(12), 1225; https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare12121225
Submission received: 10 May 2024
/
Revised: 18 June 2024
/
Accepted: 18 June 2024
/
Published: 19 June 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue New Challenges in Health Care Services Among Patients with Musculoskeletal Pain)
Abstract
:No previous study has evaluated the effectiveness of routine physical therapy with and without neural mobilization for patients with chronic musculoskeletal neck disorders and cervical radiculopathy. The objective is to evaluate the effectiveness of routine physical therapy with and without neural mobilization on pain and mobility in patients with chronic musculoskeletal neck disorders and cervical radiculopathy. A systematic review with meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials involving the use of neural mobilization techniques for the treatment of chronic musculoskeletal neck disorders and cervical radiculopathy was conducted. Methodological quality was assessed by the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool and PEDro scale. Data were pooled and a meta-analysis was performed using a random effects model with Review Manager 5 software. Seven articles were included in our review. Significant differences were found in mobility but not in pain in favor of using routine physical therapy with neural mobilization for the treatment of chronic musculoskeletal neck disorders and cervical radiculopathy. Our results show that routine physical therapy accompanied by neural mobilization is superior for improving mobility in comparison with routine physical therapy alone in patients with musculoskeletal neck disorders and cervical radiculopathy.
1. Introduction
Neck pain is one of the most common and disabling musculoskeletal disorders, causing remarkable economic and social burden. This pain is expected to be present in up to 71% of people during their lifetime [1]. In addition, the proportion of people at risk of neck pain is expected to increase in the next decade [2].
Cervical radiculopathy is frequently associated with neck pain and includes tingling, numbness, or discomfort in the arm, upper back, and upper chest with or without an associated headache [3]. These symptoms can be extended to the neck muscles, zygapophyseal joints, intervertebral discs, nerve roots, or trunk. Daffner et al. [4] reported that neck pain spreading down the arm is more frequent than neck pain alone. In addition, higher levels of self-reported disability are reported among patients with neck pain and cervical radiculopathy [4].
Despite the severity of this condition, the choice of treatment remains controversial. Pharmacological treatment seems to be the go-to treatment [5], but conservative management is also widely used among patients with neck pain and cervical radiculopathy. Routine physical therapy is highly recommended, including electrotherapeutic modalities, neck strengthening exercises, traction, and methods for handling soft tissue [6]. However, a recent review reported that further research to facilitate practice guidelines is needed [6].
A previous review that looked at the effectiveness of neural mobilization for neuromusculoskeletal conditions of the upper and lower limbs concluded that this approach is effective in the management of nerve-related neck and arm pain, with a 1a level of evidence [7]. However, this review does not focus solely on cervical radiculopathy and calls for the need to assess function in future studies.
This technique uses the gliding of the nervous system through its anatomical pathway with postural changes, manual therapy, or exercises that involve joint movement. Different studies show that neural mobilization reduces intraneural edema and improves intraneural fluid dispersion following a nerve injury [8,9]. The goal of this technique is to restore the dynamic balance between the neural tissue and its surroundings, promoting optimal function and reducing pressure over the neural structures [9]. However, Coppieters et al. affirmed that neural mobilization not only loads the nervous system but also challenges non-neural structures [10,11,12], which has ignited an ongoing debate in the literature about the involvement of non-neural structures in the neural mobilization techniques and the implication of these structures in the treatment outcomes and testing [13,14].
In this way, neurodynamic testing and neural mobilization techniques have been widely used in multidimensional treatments for improving neural and non-neural tissue function [8,9]. A previous review showed the effectiveness of this type of technique in low back pain [13]. Likewise, the review by Su et al. [14] showed how neural tissue treatment generates significant improvements in pain and function; however, techniques other than neurodynamics were included.
The systematic review by Varangot-Reille et al. (2022) [15] observed significant improvements following neurodynamic treatment in patients with cervical pain and related nerve symptoms; however, they included patients at different stages of clinical progression. Thus, our objective is not only to evaluate the effectiveness of neurodynamics in these patients but also to compare whether adding neurodynamics to a physiotherapy treatment is more effective than physiotherapy treatment alone. No previous study has evaluated the effectiveness of routine physical therapy with and without neural mobilization for patients with chronic musculoskeletal neck disorders and cervical radiculopathy. Therefore, the objective of this systematic review with meta-analysis was to evaluate the effectiveness of routine physical therapy with and without neural mobilization on pain and mobility in this population.
2. Methods
2.1. Study Selection and Split
This review was written according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) Statement [16]. We registered the review at the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) with registration number CRD42022380071.
An electronic search was conducted using four electronic databases: PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar. The keywords used to develop the search are shown in Table 1.
The terms used can be seen in Appendix A—Search strategy. Randomized control trial (RCT) publications were included from inception until June 2024.
To define the research question, the PICOS (participants, interventions, comparisons, outcome, and study design) model was applied. We included (1) participants with chronic musculoskeletal neck disorders with cervical radiculopathy (>3 months) [17] (2) who had received routine physical therapy with neural mobilization. (3) This intervention had to be compared to a routine physical therapy intervention alone. (4) The main outcome measures were pain and mobility. (5) Only randomized clinical trials were included.
We excluded articles that deal with subjects unrelated to this topic, articles that included patients with acute or subacute condition, those that were not available in full text, reviews, meta-analyses, observational studies, books, notes, conference proceedings, theses or dissertations, letters, and abstracts. Additionally, we screened the reference lists of relevant reviews related to the term and considered non-English-language studies for inclusion if the translation was possible. When the full text of the studies was not available either in the databases or in the repository of our university, the authors were contacted.
2.2. Data Extraction
After obtaining records from all the databases, duplicates were removed using Mendeley. Two reviewers (MJLP and ACM) independently assessed the titles and abstracts of all the RCTs and examined the studies to confirm their eligibility. Any conflicts were resolved by a third reviewer (JMN). Following this, each of the chosen articles was thoroughly analyzed in full text, and any disagreements were once more resolved by the third reviewer.
Data extraction was conducted following the data extraction checklist outlined in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews [18]. The extracted data encompassed authors, year of publication, study design, number of patients, sex distribution, mean age, intervention description, study frequency and duration, and reported outcomes.
2.3. Quality Assessment
Data from the selected articles were extracted and the risk of bias of these was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool for Randomized Controlled Trials 2.0 [19]. This tool includes five domains, which are (1) bias arising from the randomization process; (2) bias due to deviations from the intended interventions; (3) bias due to missing outcome data; (4) bias in the measurement of the outcome; and (5) bias in the selection of the reported result. According to the recommendations, we considered a study as having a low risk of bias when judged to be at low risk of bias for all domains, and as having a high risk of bias when a trial was considered to be at risk of bias in one domain or have “some concerns” in multiple domains (three or more). If a study was judged to raise some concerns in at least one domain, but not to be at high risk of bias for any one domain, we considered it as having some concerns. In the same way as for the study selection, a risk of bias assessment was carried out independently by two reviewers and any disagreement was resolved with a third reviewer.
In addition, methodological quality was assessed using the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) scale [20]. It consists of 11 items that assess external validity (item 1), internal validity (items 2–9), and applicability or generalizability (items 10–11). Each criterion that is clearly met receives one point, with a maximum possible score of 11 points, indicating the highest methodological quality for a randomized controlled trial.
2.4. Data Synthesis and Analysis
Review Manager 5 software (5 (Rev-Man version 5.1, updated March 2011) was used to perform a meta-analysis in all RCTs that included pain and mobility. The sample size, means, standard mean differences, and standard deviations (SDs) to the post-intervention for each variable were introduced in the software program. When means and standard deviations for the results were not provided, the authors were contacted. Ultimately, variables expressed in non-comparable units were excluded from the meta-analysis.
Where standard deviations were missing, but p-values or 95% confidence intervals were given, these were calculated via the embedded Review Manager calculator. If studies used different measuring tools, the chosen measure of effect size was the standard mean difference (SMD).
The overall mean effect sizes were estimated using random effect models according to statistical heterogeneity I2 tests and expressed effects as mean differences (MDs) and standard mean differences (SMDs) with accompanying confidence intervals. Visual inspection of the forest plots for outlier studies was also undertaken. I2 describes the percentage of total variation across studies that is due to heterogeneity rather than chance [21].
3. Results
A total of 45,838 studies was identified. After removed the duplicates, a total of 33,370 articles was identified. Additionally, articles were excluded based on their titles and abstracts (n = 32,698), as well as those not meeting the inclusion and exclusion criteria (n = 674). As a result, a total of seven studies [22,23,24,25,26,27,28] were included in this systematic review, of which four were included in the meta-analysis. The search results and final included studies are shown in Figure 1.
The characteristics of the distribution, demographics, and profile of the participants and the methodological quality of the studies are shown in Table 2.
A total of 285 patients with chronic neck pain and cervical radiculopathy were recruited. The age of the patients ranged from 29 to 50. Regarding the presence of nerve-related symptoms, the seven studies included in this review considered the pain provocation test as a criterion for inclusion.
Descriptions of the interventions, variables, and results obtained can be found in Table 3.
The most frequently used variables were the NPRS and VAS for assessing pain, and cervical range of motion (ROM) for mobility.
The number of routine physical therapy sessions ranged between 6 and 24, being applied over a period of 3 to 9 weeks. However, the intervention in the Marks et al. (2011) [27] study consisted of a single session of neurodynamics for the experimental group and accessory and passive cervical and rib mobilization for the control group.
In relation to the control group intervention, all received routine physical therapy with a duration, frequency, and number of sessions identical to the experimental group. The most commonly used technique in this standard physical therapy intervention was cervical traction [22,23,24,26], used in four of the seven included studies; other techniques used were home exercise, relaxation and self-help strategies [25,28], manual therapy such as accessory and passive cervical and rib mobilization [27], and electrotherapy [23,24].
None of the included studies conducted patient follow-up. The majority of the results were evaluated immediately after the intervention, only two studies carried out a one-week follow-up [27] and 52-week follow up [25], finding the same results as after the intervention in both cases.
The results of the meta-analysis for the pain are included in Figure 2. Routine physical therapy with neural mobilization shows no significant improvements compared to routine physical therapy without neural mobilization (SMD) = −0.46; 95% CI = −1.13; 0.22; p = 0.19.
The forest plot including mobility is shown in Figure 3. The results showed significant improvements with the use of routine physical therapy with neural mobilization compared to routine physical therapy without neural mobilization (SMD = −1.24; 95% CI = −2.23; −0.25; p = 0.01).
Figure 4 shows the RoB 2 summary; 57,14% of the studies had at least three domains with “low risk”, while 71.42% had two or more domains with “high risk”.
4. Discussion
This review aimed to evaluate the efficacy of routine physical therapy with and without neural mobilization on pain and mobility in patients with chronic musculoskeletal neck disorders with cervical radiculopathy. The results show that routine physical therapy with neural mobilization is superior for improving mobility but not pain in this population.
Previous studies have explored the effects of neural mobilization in patients with pain. A systematic review carried out in 2017 by Basson et al. [7] revealed that there were benefits from the use of neural mobilization for neck and back pain but did not find clear answers for their effects on other musculoskeletal conditions. Another systematic review conducted by Tiago et al. reported benefits from the use of neural mobilization, either combined with other treatments (e.g., exercise) or used in isolation, being superior to control interventions for the treatment of low back pain [13]. These results were in line with the ones described by Ellis and Hing et al. [9] in a different systematic review that examined the therapeutic efficacy of neural mobilization. In this review, eight out of the eleven studies included showed neural mobilization had positive effects on pain and disability [9]. Su et al. synthesized the evidence for neural tissue management effectiveness in participants with nerve-related chronic musculoskeletal pain. The results from this review suggested that neural mobilization was superior to minimal intervention for the reduction of pain and disability in individuals with nerve-related chronic musculoskeletal pain [14]. In our systematic review, the meta-analysis results were in favor of routine physical therapy with neural mobilization compared to routine physical therapy without neural mobilization.
Some of the benefits of neural mobilization techniques include an improvement in tissue mobility, circulation to the nerves, and axonal transport, key for the structure and function of nerves [29]. Sharaf et al. [30] also found that routine physical therapy was superior to routine physical therapy without neural mobilization pain, functional disability, and H-reflex in patients who underwent decompressive laminectomy. The explanations reported included the repercussions of neural mobilization on the dissipation of the edema, alleviation of the hypoxia, a reduction in symptoms related to the compression of the nerves, and an improvement in nerve conduction [31]. In this line, the randomized controlled trial conducted by Kayiran and Turhan [32] in patients with cervical disc herniation also showed that routine physical therapy with neural mobilization allows for better results in cervical posture, pain, and active range of motion.
Our results support the use of routine physical therapy with neural mobilization as a therapeutic intervention for the treatment of chronic neck pain and cervical radiculopathy. Nonetheless, our systematic analysis of the literature must be interpreted with caution due to the difference in dosages, timings, and different techniques of interventions found among the studies. We must also take into account the risk of bias when interpreting the results, attributing this risk of bias mainly to the inadequate blinding of the participants to their intervention group.
Study Limitations
Despite the review of multiple electronic databases, it could be possible to have missed some trials. In addition, the heterogeneity of neural mobilization interventions used in the different randomized controlled trials makes the treatments too heterogeneous to make firm conclusions. The majority of studies had low numbers of participants and the age ranged from 29 to 50 years; therefore, the results are not necessarily transferable to all the population and the severity of the symptoms was not taken into consideration in any of the included articles. Only three articles specified the chronicity of the symptoms.
Future studies should be more precise with the interventions both in terms of homogeneity and in providing details on the progression of these interventions. It would also be interesting to analyze other variables such as strength or range of motion, as they are potential for improvement. Finally, the absence of medium- or long-term follow-up precludes understanding the effectiveness of these treatments over time. Future studies should include patient follow-up to determine the duration of the observed improvements.
5. Conclusions
The use of routine physical therapy accompanied by neural mobilization is more effective than routine physical therapy without neural mobilization to improve mobility but not pain in patients with chronic neck pain and cervical radiculopathy. Our results show that neural mobilization can be considered a useful tool in pain management and functionality improvement in this group of patients. The findings of this review make a significant contribution to clinical practice regarding the management of neck pain with nerve-related symptoms.
Author Contributions
M.J.L.-P.: Conceptualization; Data curation; Formal analysis; Investigation; Methodology; Project administration; Roles/Writing—original draft; Writing—review and editing. A.C.-M.: Data curation; Formal analysis; Investigation; Methodology. J.M.-N.: Data curation; Formal analysis; Investigation; Methodology. A.H.-C.: Methodology; Roles/Writing—review and editing. M.C.V. and I.C.-M.: Conceptualization; Data curation; Formal analysis; Investigation; Methodology; Project administration; Supervision; Roles/Writing—original draft; Writing—review and editing. L.L.-L.: Conceptualization; Formal analysis; Investigation; Methodology; Project administration; Supervision; Writing—review and editing. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding
The author ACM, AHC and JMN have a FPU (“Formación del Profesorado Universitario”) grant to the Spanish Ministry of Education (FPU:19/02609, FPU:20/01670, and FPU:21/00451, respectively).
Institutional Review Board Statement
This review was registered at the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) with registration number CRD42022380071.
Informed Consent Statement
Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement
Data are contained within the article.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest.
Appendix A. Search Strategy
SCOPUS: ((“Nerve tissue/therapy” OR “Nerve treatment” OR “Neural treatment” OR neurodynamic* OR “Nerve stretch*” OR “Nerve tension” OR “Neural tension” OR “Nerve Slide” OR “Nerve mobili*” OR “Neural mobili*” OR “Nerve glid*” OR “Neural glid*” OR “Conservative intervention” OR “Conservative approach” OR “Conservative management” OR “Conservative therap*” OR “Physical approach” OR “Physical intervention” OR “Physical management” OR “Physical therapy” OR physiotherapy OR “Manual therapy”) AND (“Neck Pain”[Mesh] OR “neck pain*” OR “cervical pain*” OR “cervical spine pain” OR “cervicalgia*” OR “cervicodynia*” OR radiculopathy OR “Musculoskeletal pain” OR “Referred pain” OR “Nerve tissue/injuries” OR “Radicular pain” OR “Nerve pain” OR neuropathy OR “compressive neuropathy” OR “nerve entrapment” OR “entrapment neuropathies” OR “nerve compression” OR “neural compression”) AND (“Randomized controlled trial” OR “Clinical trial” OR “Randomised control*” OR “Randomized control*” OR “Randomised control trial” OR “Randomized control trial” OR “Controlled clinical trial” OR “Randomi*” OR rct OR trial OR placebo OR group*)) AND (LIMIT-TO ( DOCTYPE, “ar”)) AND (LIMIT-TO (EXACTKEYWORD, “Human”) OR LIMIT-TO (EXACTKEYWORD, “Humans”) OR LIMIT-TO (EXACTKEYWORD, “Adult” )).
WEB OF SCIENCE: TS = ((“Nerve tissue/therapy” OR “Nerve treatment” OR “Neural treatment” OR Neurodynamic* OR “Nerve stretch*” OR “Nerve tension” OR “Neural tension” OR “Nerve Slide” OR “Nerve mobili*” OR “Neural mobili*” OR “Nerve glid*” OR “Neural glid*” OR “Conservative intervention” OR “Conservative approach” OR “Conservative management” OR “Conservative therap*” OR “Physical approach” OR “Physical intervention” OR “Physical management” OR “Physical therapy” OR Physiotherapy OR “Manual therapy”) AND (“Neck Pain”[Mesh] OR “neck pain*” OR “cervical pain*” OR “cervical spine pain” OR “cervicalgia*” OR “cervicodynia*” OR Radiculopathy OR “Musculoskeletal pain” OR “Referred pain” OR “Nerve tissue/injuries” OR “Radicular pain” OR “Nerve pain” OR Neuropathy OR “compressive neuropathy” OR “nerve entrapment” OR “entrapment neuropathies” OR “nerve compression” OR “neural compression”) AND (“Randomized controlled trial” OR “Clinical trial” OR “Randomised control*” OR “Randomized control*” OR “Randomised control trial” OR “Randomized control trial” OR “Controlled clinical trial” OR “Randomi*” OR RCT OR Trial OR Placebo OR Group*)).
PUBMED: (“Nerve tissue/therapy” OR “Nerve treatment” OR “Neural treatment” OR Neurodynamic* OR “Nerve stretch*” OR “Nerve tension” OR “Neural tension” OR “Nerve Slide” OR “Nerve mobili*” OR “Neural mobili*” OR “Nerve glid*” OR “Neural glid*” OR “Conservative intervention” OR “Conservative approach” OR “Conservative management” OR “Conservative therap*” OR “Physical approach” OR “Physical intervention” OR “Physical management” OR “Physical therapy” OR Physiotherapy OR “Manual therapy”) AND (“Neck Pain”[Mesh] OR “neck pain*” OR “cervical pain*” OR “cervical spine pain” OR “cervicalgia*” OR “cervicodynia*” OR Radiculopathy OR “Musculoskeletal pain” OR “Referred pain” OR “Nerve tissue/injuries” OR “Radicular pain” OR “Nerve pain” OR Neuropathy OR “compressive neuropathy” OR “nerve entrapment” OR “entrapment neuropathies” OR “nerve compression” OR “neural compression”)
GOOGLE SCHOLAR: (“Nerve tissue/therapy” OR “Nerve treatment” OR “Neural treatment” OR Neurodynamic* OR “Nerve stretch*” OR “Nerve tension” OR “Neural tension” OR “Nerve Slide” OR “Nerve mobili*” OR “Neural mobili*” OR “Nerve glid*” OR “Neural glid*” OR “Conservative intervention” OR “Conservative approach” OR “Conservative management” OR “Conservative therap*” OR “Physical approach” OR “Physical intervention” OR “Physical management” OR “Physical therapy” OR Physiotherapy OR “Manual therapy”) AND (“Neck Pain”[Mesh] OR “neck pain*” OR “cervical pain*” OR “cervical spine pain” OR “cervicalgia*” OR “cervicodynia*” OR Radiculopathy OR “Musculoskeletal pain” OR “Referred pain” OR “Nerve tissue/injuries” OR “Radicular pain” OR “Nerve pain” OR Neuropathy OR “compressive neuropathy” OR “nerve entrapment” OR “entrapment neuropathies” OR “nerve compression” OR “neural compression”).
References
- Fejer, R.; Kyvik, K.O.; Hartvigsen, J. The prevalence of neck pain in the world population: A systematic critical review of the literature. Eur. Spine J. 2006, 15, 834–848. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- James, S.L.; Abate, D.; Abate, K.H.; Abay, S.M.; Abbafati, C.; Abbasi, N.; Abbastabar, H.; Abd-Allah, F.; Abdela, J.; Abdelalim, A.; et al. Global, regional, and national incidence, prevalence, and years lived with disability for 354 Diseases and Injuries for 195 countries and territories, 1990–2017: A systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017. Lancet 2018, 392, 1789–1858. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gangavelli, R.; Nair, N.S.; Bhat, A.K.; Solomon, J.M. Cervicobrachial pain—How Often is it Neurogenic? J. Clin. Diagn. Res. 2016, 10, YC14–YC16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Daffner, S.D.; Hilibrand, A.S.; Hanscom, B.S.M.; Brislin, B.T.; Vaccaro, A.R.; Albert, T.J. Impact of neck and arm pain on overall health status. Spine 2003, 28, 2030–2035. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Sanz, D.R.; Solano, F.U.; López, D.L.; Corbalan, I.S.; Morales, C.R.; Lobo, C.C. Effectiveness of median nerve neural mobilization versus oral ibuprofen treatment in subjects who suffer from cervicobrachial pain: A randomized clinical trial. Arch. Med. Sci. 2018, 14, 871–879. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shekhar Pandey, S.; Ashish, A.; Singh, R. Physiotherapeutic intervention for cervicobrachial pain syndrome: A scoping review. J. Clin. Diagn. Res. 2021, 15, 1–6. [Google Scholar]
- Basson, A.; Olivier, B.; Ellis, R.; Coppieters, M.; Stewart, A.; Mudzi, W. The effectiveness of neural mobilization for neuromusculoskeletal conditions: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Orthop. Sports Phys. Ther. 2017, 47, 593–615. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Gilbert, K.K.; James, C.R.; Apte, G.; Brown, C.; Sizer, P.S.; Brismée, J.-M.; Smith, M.P. Effects of simulated neural mobilization on fluid movement in cadaveric peripheral nerve sections: Implications for the treatment of neuropathic pain and dysfunction. J. Man. Manip. Ther. 2015, 23, 219–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ellis, R.F.; Hing, W.A. Neural mobilization: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials with an analysis of therapeutic efficacy. J. Man. Manip. Ther. 2008, 16, 8–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Coppieters, M.W.; Kurz, K.; Mortensen, T.E.; Richards, N.L.; Skaret, I.; McLaughlin, L.M.; Hodges, P.W. The impact of neurodynamic testing on the perception of experimentally induced muscle pain. Man. Ther. 2005, 10, 52–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Neto, T.; Freitas, S.R.; Marques, M.; Gomes, L.; Andrade, R.; Oliveira, R. Effects of lower body quadrant neural mobilization in healthy and low back pain populations: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Musculoskelet. Sci. Pract. 2017, 27, 14–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Su, Y.; Lim, E.C. Does evidence support the use of neural tissue management to reduce pain and disability in nerve-related chronic musculoskeletal pain? A systematic review with meta-analysis. Clin. J. Pain 2016, 32, 991–1004. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bueno-Gracia, E.; González-Rueda, V.; Pérez-Bellmunt, A.; Estébanez-de-Miguel, E.; López-de-Celis, C.; Shacklock, M.; Cau-devilla-Polo, S. Differential movement of the median nerve and biceps brachii at the elbow in human cadavers. Clin. Biomech. 2022, 94, 105370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bueno-Gracia, E.; Pérez-Bellmunt, A.; Estébanez-de-Miguel, E.; López-de-Celis, C.; Caudevilla-Polo, S.; Shacklock, M.; González-Rueda, V. Effect of cervical contralateral lateral flexion on displacement and strain in the median nerve and flexor digitorum superficialis at the wrist during the ULNT1-Cadaveric study. Musculoskelet. Sci. Pract. 2020, 50, 102244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Varangot-Reille, C.; Cuenca-Martínez, F.; Arribas-Romano, A.; Bertoletti-Rodríguez, R.; Gutiérrez-Martín, Á.; Mateo-Perrino, F.; Suso-Martí, L.; Blanco-Díaz, M.; Calatayud, J.; Casaña, J. Effectiveness of Neural Mobilization Techniques in the Management of Musculoskeletal Neck Disorders with Nerve-Related Symptoms: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis with a Mapping Report. Pain Med. 2022, 23, 707–732. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Page, M.J.; McKenzie, J.E.; Bossuyt, P.M.; Boutron, I.; Hoffmann, T.C.; Mulrow, C.D.; Shamseer, L.; Tetzlaff, J.M.; Akl, E.A.; Brennan, S.E.; et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Syst. Rev. 2021, 10, 89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Merskey, H.; Bogduk, H. Classification of Chronic Pain, 2nd ed.; IASP Task Force on Taxonomy, IASP Press: Seattle, WA, USA, 1994. [Google Scholar]
- Higgins, J.; Thomas, J.; Chandler, J.; Cumpston, M.; Page, M.; Welch, V. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of In-terventions version 6.2. 2021. Available online: www.training.cochrane.org/handbook (accessed on 9 May 2024).
- Sterne, J.A.C.; Savović, J.; Page, M.J.; Elbers, R.G.; Blencowe, N.S.; Boutron, I.; Cates, C.J.; Cheng, H.Y.; Corbett, M.S.; Eldridge, S.M.; et al. RoB 2: A revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ 2019, 366, l4898. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Maher, C.G.; Sherrington, C.; Herbert, R.D.; Moseley, A.M.; Elkins, M. Reliability of the PEDro scale for rating quality of ran-domized controlled trials. Phys. Ther. 2003, 83, 713–721. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Higgins, J.P.; Thompson, S.G. Quantifying heterogeneity in a me-ta-analysis. Stat. Med. 2002, 21, 1539–1558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ibrahim, A.O.; Fayaz, N.A.; Abdelazeem, A.H.; Hassan, K.A. The effectiveness of tensioning neural mobilization of brachial plexus in patients with chronic cervical radiculopathy: A randomized clinical trial. Physiother. Quat. 2021, 29, 12–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ibrahim, A.; Fayaz, N.; Abdelazeem, A.; Hassan, K. The effectiveness of neural mobilization of brachial plexus in patients with chronic unilateral cervical radiculopathy: A single-blinded randomized clinical trial. Biosci. Res. 2019, 16, 3602–3609. [Google Scholar]
- Kim, D.G.; Chung, S.H.; Jung, H.B. The effects of neural mobilization on cervical radiculopathy patients’ pain, disability, ROM, and deep flexor endurance. J. Back Musculoskelet. Rehabil. 2017, 30, 951–959. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Salt, E.; Kelly, S.; Soundy, A. Randomised controlled trial for the efficacy of cervical lateral glide mobilisation in the man-agement of cervicobrachial pain. Open J. Ther. Rehab. 2016, 4, 132–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sambyal, S.; Kumar, S. Comparison between nerve mobilization and conventional physiotherapy in patients with cervical radiculopathy. Int. J. Innov. Res. Dev. 2013, 2, 442–445. [Google Scholar]
- Marks, M.; Schöttker-Königer, T.; Probst, A. Efficacy of cervical spine mobilization versus peripheral nerve slider techniques in cervicobrachial pain syndrome-a randomized clinical trial. J. Phys. Ther. 2011, 4, 9–17. [Google Scholar]
- Allison, G.T.; Nagy, B.M.; Hall, T. A randomized clinical trial of manual therapy for cervico-brachial pain syndrome -a pilot study. Man. Ther. 2002, 7, 95–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Oskay, D.; Meriç, A.; Kirdi, N.; Firat, T.; Ayhan, Ç.; Leblebicioğlu, G. Neurodynamic mobilization in the conservative treatment of cubital tunnel syndrome: Long-term follow-up of 7 cases. J. Manip. Physiol. Ther. 2010, 33, 156–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Sharaf, M.A.; Rezkallah, S.S.; Fouda, K.Z.; Gharib, N.M. Effects of adding neural mobilization to traditional physical therapy on pain, functional disability, and H-reflex in patients after lumbar laminectomy: A randomized controlled trial. Clin. Rehabil. 2022, 36, 51–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Boonstra, A.M.; Stewart, R.E.; Köke, A.J.A.; Oosterwijk, R.F.A.; Swaan, J.L.; Schreurs, K.M.G.; Preuper, H.R.S. Cut-Off Points for Mild, Moderate, and Severe Pain on the Numeric Rating Scale for Pain in Patients with Chronic Musculoskeletal Pain: Variability and Influence of Sex and Catastrophizing. Front. Psychol. 2016, 7, 1466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kayiran, T.; Turhan, B. Effectiveness of neural mobilization in addition to conservative physiotherapy on cervical posture, pain and functionality in patients with cervical disc herniation. Adv. Rehabil. 2021, 35, 8–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1.
PRISMA flowchart.
Table 1.
Keywords used for the search strategy.
| Population | Intervention | Control | Design |
|---|---|---|---|
| Radiculopathy Musculoskeletal pain Referred pain Nerve tissue/injuries Radicular pain Nerve pain Neuropathy Compressive neuropathy Nerve entrapment Entrapment neuropathies Nerve compression Neural compression Neck Pain Neck pain * Cervical pain * Cervical spine pain Cervicalgia * Cervicodynia | Nerve tissue/therapy Nerve treatment Neurodynamic * Nerve stretch * Neural treatment Nerve tensión Neural tensión Nerve Slide Nerve mobili * Neural mobili * Nerve glid * Neural glid * | Conservative intervention Physical approach Physical intervention Physical management Physical therapy Physiotherapy Manual therapy | Randomized controlled trial Clinical trial Randomised control * Randomized control * Randomised control trial Randomized control trial Controlled clinical trial Randomi * |
Table 2.
Study design, participant profile, and participant distribution.
| Author (Year) | Study Design | Participant Distribution | Gender (% Female) | Mean Age (SD) | Clinical’s Profile Criteria |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ibrahim (2021) [22] | RCT | EG (n = 20) CG (n = 20) | NR | NR | >3 criteria of Wainner |
| Ibrahim (2019) [23] | RCT | EG (n = 20) CG (n = 20) | EG: NR CG: NR | EG: NR CG: NR | >3 criteria of Wainner |
| Kim (2017) [24] | RCT | EG (n = 15) CG (n = 15) | EG: 60 CG: 66.6 | EG: 29.27 (3.34) CG: 29.22 (3.07) | >3 criteria of Wainner and limited range of movement of the upper limb. |
| Salt (2016) [25] | RCT | EG (n = 43) CG (n = 42) | EG: 47 CG: 53 | EG: 47 (11) CG: 47 (11) | Patients’ subjective presentation of the pain pattern. It therefore included patients with somatic referred pain and neurogenic radiating symptoms. |
| Sambyal (2013) [26] | RCT | EG: (n = 20) CG (n = 20) | EG: NR CG: NR | EG: NR CG: NR | >3 criteria of Wainner |
| Marks (2011) [27] | RCT | EG: (n = 10) CG: (n = 10) | EG: 80 CG: 80 | EG: 52.6 (12.5) CG: 53.7 (9.0) | Neck pain radiating into upper extremity with limited cervical ROM and a positive ULNT 1. |
| Allisson (2022) [28] | RCT | EG: (n = 10) CG1: (n = 10) CG2: (n = 10) | EG: 60 CG1: 80 CG2: 60 | EG: NR CG1: NR CG2: NR | Definitions of cervicobrachial pain syndrome as proposed by Elvey and Hall (1997). |
SD: standard deviation; RCT: randomized controlled trial; EG: experimental group; CG: control group; NR: not reported; ULNT: upper limb neurodynamic test.
Table 3.
Intervention’s description, main outcomes, and results obtained.
| Author (Year) | Experimental Intervention | Duration/Frequency/Number of Sessions of EG | Control Intervention | Duration/Frequency/Number of Sessions of CG | Main Outcomes | Main Results |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ibrahim (2021) [22] | NM combined with RPT | 9 weeks/3 times × week/ 12 sessions | RPT (manual traction and infrared irradiation) | 9 weeks/3 times × week/ 12 sessions | Pain: VAS Mechanosensitivity: ULTT-1 | No significant difference between groups regarding both pain and mechanosensitivity. |
| Ibrahim 2019 [23] | NM combined with RPT | 3 weeks/3 times × week/9 sessions | RPT (CT + FS + IR) | 3 weeks/3 times × week/9 sessions | Pain: VAS Grip strength: dynamometry | No significant difference between groups regarding both pain and grip strength. |
| Kim (2017) [24] | NM combined with RPT | 8 weeks/3 times × week/24 sessions | RPT (CT + TENS) | 8 weeks/3 times × week/24 sessions | Pain: NPRS Function: NDI cervical mobility: ROM deep flexor endurance: CCFT | Significant differences between groups at 8 weeks in pain, function, cervical mobility, and deep flexor endurance. |
| Salt (2016) [25] | NM + SM | 6 weeks/1 time/week/6 sessions | SM (home exercise, relaxation, and self-help strategies) | 6 weeks/1 time/week/6 sessions | Pain intensity: VAS Symptoms: GROG Function: NULI | No statistically significant between-group differences were found at the end of the intervention or at 52 week follow-up. |
| Sambyal (2013) [26] | NM + CT | 4 weeks/4 times per week/16 sessions | RPT (CT) | 4 weeks/4 times per week/16 sessions | Pain intensity: VAS | NM group improved significantly more in pain intensity (p < 0.05) than control group. |
| Marks (2011) [27] | NM | 1 session | RPT (accessory and passive cervical and rib mobilization) | 1 session | Pain intensity: VAS CROM: flexion, extension, rotation, and latero-flexion Mechanosensitivity: elbow angle | No significant differences were found between groups after the intervention or at 1 week follow-up (p > 0.05). |
| Allisson (2022) [28] | NM | 8 weeks | CG1: RPT (mobilization, stretching, and exercise) CG2: no treatment | 8 weeks | Subjective pain experience: SF-MPQ Pain intensity: VAS and NPQ | NM group and articular group had significant improvement in all variables. No differences between NM and articular groups for the subjective pain experience and neck pain; however, NM had significantly lower pain intensity than the articular group at the end of the treatment (p < 0.05). |
NM: neural mobilization; RPT: routine physical therapy treatment; VAS: visual analogue scale; ULTT-1: Upper Limb Tension Test-1; CT: cervical traction; FS: flexion stretching; IR: infrared radiation; NPRS: Numeric Pain Rating Scale; ROM: range of motion; TENS: transcutaneal electrical nerve stimulation; NDI: Neck Disability Index; CCFT: Cranio-Cervical Flexion Test; SM: self-management; GROC: Global Rating of Change; NULI: Neck and Upper Limb Index; SF-MPQ: Short-form Mcgill Pain Questionnaire; NPQ: Neck Pain Questionnaire.
Table 4.
Assessment of the studies’ methodological quality based on the PEDro scale.
| Authors | Items | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | Total | |
| Ibrahim (2021) [22] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 6 |
| Ibrahim (2019) [23] | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 6 |
| Kim (2017) [24] | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 6 |
| Salt (2016) [25] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 7 |
| Sambyal (2013) [26] | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 3 |
| Marks (2011) [27] | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 5 |
| Allisson (2022) [28] | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 6 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
MDPI and ACS Style
López-Pardo, M.J.; Calvache-Mateo, A.; Martín-Núñez, J.; Heredia-Ciuró, A.; López-López, L.; Valenza, M.C.; Cabrera-Martos, I. Routine Physical Therapy with and without Neural Mobilization in Chronic Musculoskeletal Neck Disorders with Nerve-Related Symptoms: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Healthcare 2024, 12, 1225. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare12121225
AMA Style
López-Pardo MJ, Calvache-Mateo A, Martín-Núñez J, Heredia-Ciuró A, López-López L, Valenza MC, Cabrera-Martos I. Routine Physical Therapy with and without Neural Mobilization in Chronic Musculoskeletal Neck Disorders with Nerve-Related Symptoms: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Healthcare. 2024; 12(12):1225. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare12121225
Chicago/Turabian StyleLópez-Pardo, María José, Andrés Calvache-Mateo, Javier Martín-Núñez, Alejandro Heredia-Ciuró, Laura López-López, Marie Carmen Valenza, and Irene Cabrera-Martos. 2024. "Routine Physical Therapy with and without Neural Mobilization in Chronic Musculoskeletal Neck Disorders with Nerve-Related Symptoms: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis" Healthcare 12, no. 12: 1225. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare12121225
APA StyleLópez-Pardo, M. J., Calvache-Mateo, A., Martín-Núñez, J., Heredia-Ciuró, A., López-López, L., Valenza, M. C., & Cabrera-Martos, I. (2024). Routine Physical Therapy with and without Neural Mobilization in Chronic Musculoskeletal Neck Disorders with Nerve-Related Symptoms: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Healthcare, 12(12), 1225. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare12121225
Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.
