A pproximately 54% of individuals have experienced neck pain within the last 6 months, 24 and the incidence of neck pain may be increasing. 76 The economic burden associated with the management of patients with neck pain is high, second only to low back pain in annual workers' compensation costs in the United States. 98Two recent clinical prediction rules 17,21,22,81 have been developed in an attempt to guide treatment selection for patients with neck pain. However, one has yet to be validated and only identifies those patients with neck pain likely to benefit from cervical traction, 81 and the other, which attempted to identify those patients with neck pain likely to benefit from thoracic manipulation and a general cervical range-of-motion (ROM) exer- T T METHODS:Patients completed the Neck Disability Index, the numeric pain rating scale, the flexion-rotation test for measurement of C1-2 passive rotation range of motion, and the craniocervical flexion test for measurement of deep cervical flexor motor performance. Following the baseline evaluation, patients were randomized to receive either HVLA thrust manipulation or nonthrust mobilization to the upper cervical (C1-2) and upper thoracic (T1-2) spines. Patients were reexamined 48-hours after the initial examination and again completed the outcome measures. The effects of treatment on disability, pain, C1-2 passive rotation range of motion, and motor performance of the deep cervical flexors were examined with a 2-by-2 mixed-model analysis of variance (ANOVA). T T RESULTS:One hundred seven patients satisfied the eligibility criteria, agreed to participate, and were randomized into the HVLA thrust manipulation (n = 56) and nonthrust mobilization (n = 51) groups. The 2-by-2 ANOVA demonstrated that patients with mechanical neck pain who received the combination of upper cervical and upper thoracic HVLA thrust manipulation experienced significantly (P<.001) greater reductions in disability (50.5%) and pain (58.5%) than those of the nonthrust mobilization group (12.8% and 12.6%, respectively) following treatment. In addition, the HVLA thrust manipulation group had significantly (P<.001) greater improvement in both passive C1-2 rotation range of motion and motor performance of the deep cervical flexor muscles as compared to the group that received nonthrust mobilization. The number needed to treat to avoid an unsuccessful outcome was 1.8 and 2.3 at 48-hour follow-up, using the global rating of change and Neck Disability Index cut scores, respectively. T T CONCLUSION:The combination of upper cervical and upper thoracic HVLA thrust manipulation is appreciably more effective in the short term than nonthrust mobilization in patients with mechanical neck pain. T T LEVEL OF EVIDENCE:Therapy, level 1b.

Study Design: Case series. Objectives: To describe an established method of diagnosing cervical radiculopathy (CR) using a clinical prediction rule (CPR), and to describe the management of 6 patients using intermittent cervical traction (ICT), thoracic thrust joint manipulation (TJM), and exercise. Background: Many patients present with unilateral arm pain without having undergone magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the cervical spine. Using a CPR has demonstrated high levels of specificity to rule in cervical radiculopathy. ICT and manual therapy (including thoracic TJM) are widely used in clinical settings to treat cervical radiculopathy. Case description: Six patients (3 men, 3 women) were diagnosed with cervical radiculopathy using the CPR. All patients were treated with ICT, thoracic TJM, and exercise. The Northwick Park Neck Questionnaire served as the outcome measure. Outcomes: The CPR accurately identified CR (secondary to a disc herniation) in 4 out of 4 patients when compared to the results of a reference standard (MRI). Six patients were seen from 5 to 18 sessions over a 19-to 56-day period. Reduction in Northwick Park Neck Questionnaire scores ranged from 13% to 88%. One patient did not improve significantly and underwent neck surgery. Discussion: Using the CPR may be beneficial in diagnosing CR, so the clinician can devise a plan of care and assess treatment outcomes in a relatively homogenous group of patients. It is possible that a treatment regimen of ICT, thoracic TJM, and exercise will aid in centralizing radicular symptoms and improving functional outcomes in patients with CR. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2006;36:152-159.

No abstract

No abstract