The immediate effect of osteopathic cervical spine mobilization on median nerve mechanosensitivity: A triple-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial

Abstract Background Neurodynamics is a clinical medium for testing the mechanical sensitivity of peripheral nerves which innervate the tissues of both the upper and lower limb. Currently, there is paucity in the literature of neurodynamic testing in osteopathic research, and where there is research,...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of bodywork and movement therapies 2018-04, Vol.22 (2), p.252-260
Hauptverfasser: Whelana, Gary, M.Ost, Johnston, Ross, M.Sc. B.Sc. (Hons) Ost Med, DO, Millward, Charles, ND DO, Edwards, Darren J., B.Sc. M.Sc. Ph.D
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Abstract Background Neurodynamics is a clinical medium for testing the mechanical sensitivity of peripheral nerves which innervate the tissues of both the upper and lower limb. Currently, there is paucity in the literature of neurodynamic testing in osteopathic research, and where there is research, these are often methodologically flawed, without the appropriate comparators, blinding and reliability testing. Aims This study aimed to assess the physiological effects (measured through Range of Motion; ROM), of a commonly utilized cervical mobilization treatment during a neurodynamic test, with the appropriate methodology, i.e., compared against a control and sham. Specifically, this was to test whether cervical mobilization could reduce upper limb neural mechanical sensitivity. Methodology Thirty asymptomatic participants were assessed and randomly allocated to either a control, sham or mobilization group, where they were all given a neurodynamic test and ROM was assessed. Results The results showed that the mobilization group had the greatest and most significant increase in ROM with Change-Left p < 0.05 and Change-Right p < 0.05 compared against the control group, and Change-Left p
ISSN:1360-8592
1532-9283
DOI:10.1016/j.jbmt.2017.05.009