A clinical trial investigating the possible effect of the supine cervical rotatory manipulation and the supine lateral break manipulation in the treatment of mechanical neck pain: a pilot study. A pilot randomized clinical trial on the relative effect of instrumental (MFMA) versus manual (HVLA) manipulation in the treatment of cervical spine dysfunction. Maternal cardiovascular consequences of positioning after spinal anaesthesia for Caesarean section: left 15 degree table tilt vs. left lateral. Comparison of the effectiveness of three manual physical therapy techniques in a subgroup of patients with low back pain who satisfy a clinical prediction rule: a randomized clinical trial. Effects of keyboard tray geometry on upper body posture and comfort. Effect of lateral versus supine wedged position on development of spinal blockade and hypotension. Advantages of left over right lateral tilt for caesarean section. Exercise to improve spinal flexibility and function for people with Parkinson's disease: a randomized, controlled trial.
To evaluate the possible effect of the supine cervical rotary manipulation and the supine lateral break manipulation in the treatment of mechanical neck pain, according to subjective and objective clinical findings.
                Delivering a supine lateral break manipulation to the ipsilateral side of an inflamed facet joint(s) that exhibits a lateral flexion fixation may result in pain and/or discomfort to the patient. Thus the proposed alternative is a supine cervical rotary manipulation delivered on the ipsilateral side or a supine lateral break manipulation delivered on the contralateral side of the relevant joint(s).
                Randomized, comparative clinical trial.
                Two groups of 15 subjects diagnosed with mechanical neck pain.
                The diagnosis of mechanical neck pain and the identification of lateral flexion fixations in the cervical spine were made with conventional clinical evaluation, including motion palpation. Group A received a cervical rotary manipulation(s) on the ipsilateral side of the lateral flexion fixation(s), while group B received a supine lateral break manipulation(s) on the contralateral side of the lateral flexion fixation(s). Subjects received a maximum of 10 treatments over a 4-week treatment period. Outcome Measures: Both treatment groups were assessed with subjective (Numerical Pain Rating Scale 101, McGill Short-Form Pain Questionnaire and the Canadian Memorial Chiropractic College Neck Disability Index) and objective (cervical range of motion goniometer and algometer) measurement parameters at the initial consultation (before any treatment), the final consultation, and at a 1-month follow-up consultation. Statistical analysis was conducted at a 95% confidence level (alpha =.05) with the non-parametric 2-tailed Wilcoxon signed ranks test, the Mann-Whitney U test, and descriptive statistics. Two-tailed power analysis was conducted after the fact, where a confidence level of 80% (beta =.20) was considered satisfactory.
                Intragroup analysis indicated a significant difference between the initial consultation data and the final consultation data for the subjective data, indicating an effect. Analysis of the objective data did not reveal any significant difference. Intergroup analysis did not reveal any significant difference between the 2 groups when comparing the data of the initial consultation and the final consultation, indicating that both treatments had a similar or equal effect. Power analysis was not satisfactory for most data, indicating the possibility of many Type II errors.
                Statistically, the results suggested that both treatments had an effect but that neither group showed a benefit over the other. However, because of the unsatisfactory power of the study, conclusions are to be drawn with caution. Clinical significance supported the statistical outcomes where it was suggested that both treatments had an effect and that neither treatment had a greater effect. A larger sample size and the inclusion of a placebo group is recommended to reveal true treatment outcomes and trends. To determine the relative effect of instrument-delivered thrust cervical manipulations in comparison with traditional manual-delivered thrust cervical manipulations in the treatment of cervical spine dysfunction.
                Prospective, randomized, comparative clinical trial.
                Outpatient chiropractic clinic, Technikon Natal, South Africa.
                Thirty patients diagnosed with neck pain and restricted cervical spine range of motion without complicating pathosis for at least 1 month were included in the study.
                The patients were randomized into 2 groups. Those in one group received mechanical force, manually assisted (MFMA) manipulation to the cervical spine, delivered by means of a hand-held instrument (Activator II Adjusting Instrument). Those in the other group received specific contact high-velocity, low-amplitude (HVLA) manipulation consisting of standard Diversified rotary/lateral break techniques to the cervical spine. Each group received only the specific therapeutic intervention, no other treatment modalities or interventions (including medication) being used, until asymptomatic status was achieved or a maximum of 8 treatments had been received. Main Outcome Measures: Both treatment groups were assessed through use of subjective (Numerical Pain Rating Scale 101, McGill Short-Form Pain Questionnaire, and Neck Disability Index) and objective (goniometer cervical range of motion) measurement parameters at specific intervals during the treatment period and at 1-month follow-up. The data were assessed through use of 2-tailed nonparametric paired and unpaired analysis, descriptive statistics, and power analysis of the data.
                The results indicate that both treatment methods had a positive effect on the subjective and objective clinical outcome measures, no significant difference being observed between the 2 groups (P < .025). The subjective data from all 3 questionnaires showed statistically significant changes from initial to final consultations as well as from initial consultation to 1-month follow-up (P < .025). The objective range of motion measures showed statistically significant changes in the MFMA group for left and right rotation and left and right lateral flexion from initial consultation to final consultations and for right rotation and right lateral flexion from initial consultation to 1-month follow-up. The HVLA group showed only the change in left rotation from initial to final consultations and from initial consultation to 1-month follow-up to be statistically significant.
                The results of this clinical trial indicate that both instrumental (MFMA) manipulation and manual (HVLA) manipulation have beneficial effects associated with reducing pain and disability and improving cervical range of motion in this patient population. A randomized, controlled clinical trial in a similar patient base with a larger sample size is necessary to verify the clinical relevance of these findings. Sixty healthy women undergoing elective Caesarean section were randomly allocated to either a measured 15 degrees left table tilt position (n = 31) or full left lateral position (n = 29) for a 15-min period after spinal blockade. Arm and leg blood pressure, ephedrine requirements, symptoms, fetal heart rate, cord gases and Apgar scores were recorded. Mean ephedrine requirements and incidence of hypotension were similar in the two groups. Arm systolic arterial pressure over time was similar in both groups, but leg systolic arterial pressure over time was significantly lower in the tilt group (p < 0.001); the mean leg systolic arterial pressure was lower for all 15 sequential recordings in the tilt group, reaching statistical significance (p < 0.05) at 4, 5, 6 and 8 min. Differences in maternal nausea, vomiting and bradycardia and fetal outcome were not statistically significant. Following spinal anaesthesia, even a true 15 degrees left table tilt position is associated with aortic compression. Randomized clinical trial.
                The purpose of this randomized clinical trial was to examine the generalizability of 3 different manual therapy techniques in a patient population with low back pain that satisfy a clinical prediction rule (CPR).
                Recently a CPR that identifies patients with LBP who are likely to respond rapidly and dramatically to thrust manipulation has been developed and validated. The generalizability of the CPR requires further investigation.
                A total of 112 patients were enrolled in the trial and provided demographic information and completed a number of self-report questionnaires including the Oswestry Disability Questionnaire (ODQ) and the Numerical Pain Rating Scale (NPRS) at baseline, 1-week, 4-weeks, and 6-months. Patients were randomly assigned to receive 1 of the 3 manual therapy techniques for 2 consecutive treatment sessions followed by exercise regimen for an additional 3 sessions. We examined the primary aim using a linear mixed model for repeated measures, using the ODQ and NPRS as dependent variables. The hypothesis of interest was the group by time interaction, which was further explored with pair-wise comparisons of the estimated marginal means.
                There was a significant group x time interaction for the ODQ (P < 0.001) and NPRS scores (P = 0.001). Pair-wise comparisons revealed no differences between the supine thrust manipulation and side-lying thrust manipulation at any follow-up period. Significant differences in the ODQ and NPRS existed at each follow-up between the thrust manipulation and the nonthrust manipulation groups at 1-week and 4-weeks. There was also a significant difference in ODQ scores at 6-months in favor of the thrust groups.
                The results of the study support the generalizability of the CPR to another thrust manipulation technique, but not to the nonthrust manipulation technique that was used in this study. In general, our results also provided support that the CPR can be generalized to different settings from which it was derived and validated. However, additional research is needed to examine this issue. The effects of a downward-tilting (DT) keyboard tray on wrist posture, seated posture and self-assessed musculoskeletal discomfort were investigated in a field experiment. Thirty-eight professional office workers were studied. A pretest assessed how they typed using either a conventional keyboard on a desk or on an articulating keyboard tray, and with or without wrist rests. Workers were randomly allocated to a control (n = 15) or test group (n = 23) that used their existing keyboard in a DT system. A post-test was conducted 3 weeks later. Results showed no significant changes in wrist posture, seated posture or reports of musculoskeletal discomfort for the control group, and approximately 50% of typing wrist movements put the hand in a neutral zone. There were significant improvements in wrist posture, seated posture and upper body musculoskeletal discomfort for the test group using the DT system. Over 80% of typing wrist movements put the hand into a neutral zone with the DT arrangement. Reactions to using a conventional keyboard on a DT system were positive. Aortocaval compression may not be completely prevented by the supine wedged or tilted positions. It is commonly believed, however, that the unmodified full lateral position after induction of spinal anaesthesia might allow excessive spread of the block. We therefore compared baseline arterial pressures in the supine wedged, sitting, tilted and full lateral positions in 40 women who were about to undergo elective caesarean section. They were then given spinal anaesthesia in the left lateral position and randomised to be turned to the right lateral or the supine wedged position, after which speed of onset and spread of blockade to cold sensation were measured every 2 min for 10 min and mean arterial pressure and ephedrine requirement were recorded every minute for 20 min. Baseline mean arterial pressure was 9 mmHg (95% CI 3 to 14) lower in the left lateral (measured in the upper arm) than in the sitting position; those in the supine wedged and tilted positions were intermediate. Following spinal anaesthesia, hypotension (defined as a reading </=80% of the baseline value in the same position) lasted 2.4 min longer (CI +0.6 to +4.1) in the supine wedged group, but there was no significant difference between the groups in maximum fall or ephedrine requirement. The upper level of block rose more rapidly in the supine wedged than in the lateral group and showed less variability. There is therefore no reason to fear the unmodified lateral group position, which may offer better protection against hypotension. The relative merits of right and left lateral tilt were assessed in 75 parturients at elective caesarean section. Significant maternal hypotension (aortocaval occlusion) occurred more frequently with rightward tilt (left hip supported). The clinical and biochemical status of the fetus was generally more favourable with left lateral tilt, as were the maternal-to-fetal blood gas gradients and relationships. The routine use of left lateral tilt is advocated. The effectiveness of an exercise intervention for people in early and midstage Parkinson's disease (stages 2 and 3 of Hoehn and Yahr) in improving spinal flexibility and physical performance in a sample of community-dwelling older people is described.
                Fifty-one men and women, aged 55-84 years, identified through advertisement, local support groups, and local neurologists were enrolled into a randomized, controlled trial. Subjects were assigned randomly to an intervention or a usual care arm (i.e., no specific exercise). Of the original 51 participants, 46 completed the randomized, controlled trial. Participants in the exercise arm (n = 23) received individual instruction three times per week for 10 weeks. Participants in the usual care arm (n = 23) were "wait listed" for intervention.
                Changes over 10 weeks in spinal flexibility (i.e., functional axial rotation) and physical performance (i.e., functional reach, timed supine to stand) were the primary outcome measures.
                MANOVA conducted for the three primary outcome variables demonstrated significant differences (P < or = .05) between the two groups. Further analysis using ANOVA demonstrated significant differences between groups in functional axial rotation and functional reach for the intervention compared with the control group. There was no significant difference in supine to sit time.
                Study results demonstrate that improvements in axial mobility and physical performance can be achieved with a 10-week exercise program for people in the early and midstages of PD.
There is limited evidence to support or clearly disprove the value of the use of tilting or flexing the table, the use of wedges and cushions or the use of mechanical displacers. A left lateral tilt may be better than a right lateral tilt and manual displacers may be better than a left lateral tilt but larger studies with more robust data are needed to confirm these findings.