BackgroundThoracic spine manipulation has become a popular alternative to local cervical manipulative therapy for mechanical neck pain. This study investigated the acute effects of single-level and multiple-level thoracic manipulations on chronic mechanical neck pain (CMNP).MethodsForty-eight patients with CMNP were randomly allocated to single-level thoracic manipulation (STM) at T6–T7 or multiple-level thoracic manipulation (MTM), or to a control group (prone lying). Cervical range of motion (CROM), visual analog scale (VAS), and the Thai version of the Neck Disability Index (NDI-TH) scores were measured at baseline, and at 24-hour and at 1-week follow-up.ResultsAt 24-hour and 1-week follow-up, neck disability and pain levels were significantly (P<0.05) improved in the STM and MTM groups compared with the control group. CROM in flexion and left lateral flexion were increased significantly (P<0.05) in the STM group when compared with the control group at 1-week follow-up. The CROM in right rotation was increased significantly after MTM compared to the control group (P<0.05) at 24-hour follow-up. There were no statistically significant differences in neck disability, pain level at rest, and CROM between the STM and MTM groups.ConclusionThese results suggest that both single-level and multiple-level thoracic manipulation improve neck disability, pain levels, and CROM at 24-hour and 1-week follow-up in patients with CMNP.

Blood flow restriction (BFR) resistance exercise has been advocated as an alternative approach for improving muscle strength in patients undergoing musculoskeletal rehabilitation. The present study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of a 4-week supervised rehabilitation (R) with and without BFR on muscle strength, cross-sectional area (CSA), dynamic balance, and functional performance in athletes with chronic ankle instability (CAI). A total of 16 collegiate athletes with CAI participated in this study. They were randomly assigned to the BFR+R group (n=8) or the R group (n=8). Both groups underwent supervised rehabilitation 3 times weekly for 4 consecutive weeks. Additionally, the BFR+R group was applied with a cuff around the proximal thigh at 80% arterial occlusion pressure in addition to the traditional rehabilitation program, whereas the R group received the sham BFR only. Before and after 4 weeks of intervention, isokinetic muscle strength, CSA, Y-balance test, and side hop test (SHT) were measured. Following a 4-week intervention, the BFR+R group exhibited significant improvements in muscle strength of ankle plantarflexor and evertor, CSA of fibularis longus, and SHT timed performance compared with prior training and the R group (all, P<0.05). However, no significant difference was observed on dynamic balance among the groups. The present finding indicated that a 4-week supervised rehabilitation combined with BFR is more effective in improving muscle strength and size and functional performance compared with the traditional rehabilitation alone. This information could have implications for physical therapists and clinician in developing and designing a rehabilitation program for athletes with CAI.

BACKGROUND: There are currently no reports of biomechanical changes in patients with forward head posture (FHP) that result in altered muscle activation throughout various functions with muscle activation response during diverse sleep postures. OBJECTIVE: This study investigated neck and back muscle activity in individuals with and without FHP during a maintained side-sleeping position by incorporating various pillow designs. METHODS: Thirty-four participants (i.e. 17 in each group) were enrolled. The muscle activity was investigated via surface electromyography during the use of three trial pillows: orthopedic pillow, hollow pillow, and Thai neck support pillow. RESULTS: With the application of all three trial pillows the FHP group demonstrated significantly greater lower trapezius muscle activity than the normal head posture group (p< 0.05). Sternocleidomastoid and upper trapezius (UT) muscle activity were similar between the two groups (p> 0.05). Only UT muscle activity was affected by variations in pillow design. In the normal group no difference was observed in the muscle activity between all three pillows (p> 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Feasibly, the ability to appropriately modify a pillow configuration without creating undesired muscle activation was limited to those exhibiting FHP. Therefore, specially designed pillows or mattresses should be investigated in terms of their relevance to muscle fatigue and potential musculoskeletal pain in FHP patients.