Outcomes Following the Addition of Thoracic Thrust Manipulation to a Multimodal Approach for a Patient with Chronic Mechanical Neck Pain:

A Case Study

A case report submitted for the degree of

Doctor of Physical Therapy

at

Carroll University Waukesha, WI

Charise Kelm, SPT

Spring 2009

Outcomes Following the Addition of Thoracic Thrust Manipulation to a Multimodal

Approach for a Patient with Chronic Mechanical Neck Pain: A Case Study

Charise Kelm, SPT, Mark Erickson, PT, MA, OCS, Elizabeth Muellenbach, MPT

INTRODUCTION

Neck pain is a common disorder encountered in the physical therapy setting that

affects approximately 54.2% of adults.1 Chronic neck pain typically results in functional

limitations and disability that not only impact a patient’s quality of life but also generate

considerable economic burden. 2,3,4 While physical therapy management has been

supported as a cost effective means for managing patients with chronic cervical pain, the

changing nature of health care reimbursement challenges researchers to investigate the

most efficiently effective means of patient management.5,6 A comprehensive literature

search revealed a broad scope of research on physical therapy management for

mechanical neck pain with recent evidence supporting the use of thoracic thrust

manipulation for patients with acute neck pain (≤ 30 days).7,8 Little evidence is available

on thoracic manipulation for patients with chronic cervical symptoms. The American

Physical Therapy Association (APTA) has published updated clinical practice guidelines

for the management of patients with neck pain, which support a variety of interventions

including thoracic thrust manipulation. Much of the available research evaluates

effectiveness of single interventions or paired intervention combinations. Few studies

assess larger intervention combinations, which more closely match clinical practice, and

no studies assess intervention combinations based on the newly revised clinical practice

guidelines for patients with neck pain.9,10 The purpose of this case study was to assess

outcomes following the addition of thoracic thrust manipulation to multimodal physical

therapy management for a patient with chronic mechanical neck pain.

PATIENT HISTORY / REVIEW OF SYSTEMS

The patient was a 58 year old male referred to physical therapy in January 2009

with medical diagnoses of “muscular low back pain (LBP)”, “muscular cervical neck

pain”, and “left upper quadrant muscular abdominal wall strain”. He led a sedentary

lifestyle and was employed as a print machine operator in which he was required to stand

and sit throughout the day. His medical history (Table 1) included type II diabetes and

thoracic spondylosis. The patient reported progressive loss of neck motion over the past

six and a half months and an increase in mid back and neck pain. He also stated

increasing difficulty with looking side to side and upward, sleeping, transferring from sit

to stand, rolling, sitting or standing for prolonged periods, and bending. At initial

examination, the patient’s mid back pain was his worst symptom followed by neck pain.

The mid-back pain resolved with conservative physical therapy, and at visit three the

patient’s primary complaint became neck pain. The patient reported chronic LBP and

bilateral chest pain as additional concerns which were not the primary focus of this

course of therapy. All general medical systems screening questions (Table 2) were

negative with the exception of chest pain. The patient reported that his chest pain began

after he fell out of bed and hit his back on a nightstand. The patient had been taking an

anti-inflammatory medication for his mid back pain that was prescribed by his primary

care physician. No previous therapeutic interventions had been provided for the patient’s

neck and mid back pain and no concurrent therapies were being implemented.

Clinical Impression: The patient appeared to be an appropriate candidate for both

physical therapy intervention and involvement in this case study because his medical

history and subjective report indicated a musculoskeletal source of symptoms and he was

receptive to the use of spinal manipulation, performed by a student physical therapist, as

an element of his care. Additional assessment was needed to further confirm a

musculoskeletal source of symptoms and to identify relevant impairments and

contributing factors to determine the patient’s appropriateness for a multimodal course of

physical therapy including thoracic thrust manipulation.

EXAMINATION

Observation / Palpation

The patient required the use of both arms to transfer from sit to stand. He also

required minimal assist to roll and transfer from supine to sit due to his mid back and

chest pain. He ambulated without an assistive device, but reported limited standing and

walking tolerance of 15-20 minutes. Observation revealed pronounced left thoracic

paraspinal musculature from T6-T12 that was tender to gentle palpation. Pain was

reproduced and numerous trigger points were identified with palpation of the

suboccipital, upper trapezius, cervical paraspinal, and scalene musculature bilaterally.

The patient presented with guarded cervical spine movement in all directions,

compensating with excessive visual tracking.

Pain Intensity / Level

Prior to the examination, the patient completed a body diagram for pain. (Figure

1). A 0-10 numeric pain intensity scale was used to quantify the patient’s best (1-2/10),

current (5/10), worst (10/10), and average (4.5-5/10) pain levels. The left side of the scale

(0) was defined as “no pain” while the right side (10) was defined as “worst possible

pain.” This instrument was chosen because it has been found to have high reliability

(0.95) and validity for assessment of pain in older adults .11 Pain level was assessed at

each session (Table 3).

ROM

Thoracic and lumbar active range of motion (AROM) (Table 4) approximations were

made based on the therapist’s visual assessment at visits one and ten. AROM of the

thoracic and lumbar spine were not quantified with standardized procedures because they

were not a primary focus area for our interventions. Cervical AROM (Table 5) was

measured using the CROM instrument* (Figure 2). This device was chosen because it is

supported as a reliable (0.88 -0.96) and valid means of assessing cervical range of motion

(ROM) in patients with neck pain, with minimal detectable change ranging from 5.4 –

10°.12, 13, 14, 15 CROM was measured at visits three and ten.

Posture

Posture was assessed with the CROM device, according to the manufacturer’s

procedures for quantification of forward head position and scapular protraction. (Table

6). All measures were performed with the patient sitting in a straight back chair with

sacrum against the back of the chair, thoracic spine away from the chair, feet flat on the

floor, and arms resting at his sides. Scapular protraction was measured from the spinous

process at the intersection of a line connecting the inferior angles of both scapulae to the

postero-lateral border of each acromion. The CROM device was chosen because it has

been found to have high intertester reliability (ICC = 0.93) for the assessment of forward

head posture in patients with neck pain.16 Postural assessment measures were taken at

visits 3 and 10.

* Performance Attainment Associates 3600 Labore Road, Suite 6 St. Paul, MN 55110-4144.

Strength / Endurance

Isometric cervical strength was assessed with a hand held dynamometer,† using

the 1.5” molded plastic stirrup. Flexion, extension, side-bending, and rotation isometric

strength measures were taken with the patient in the same position utilized for cervical

ROM assessments. Dynamometer placement is described in (Table 7). The patient was

instructed to push as hard as he could against the stationary plastic stirrup in each tested

direction using only his neck musculature. While this method of assessing cervical

strength has not been validated, it is similar to the methods used by Vernon et al.17 and

Cagnie et al.18 in their assessments of isometric cervical muscle strength with a modified

sphygmomanometer and Biodex isokinetic dynamometers respectively which have been

shown to have good reliability (r = 0.79-0.97) and validity for the assessment of cervical

strength in patients with neck pain.17, 18 Isometric cervical strength was assessed at visits

3, 7, and 10. (Table 8).

Deep cervical flexor isometric endurance was assessed using the craniocervical

flexion test 19 with a pressure biofeedback stabilizer‡ (Figure 3). Chiu, Law, and Chiu

assessed this device on patients with and without chronic neck pain and reported good

reliability (r = 0.72.) and validity for the assessment of deep cervical flexor control.20

Deep cervical flexor isometric endurance was assessed at sessions 3,6,8,9, and 10. (Table

9)

Joint Mobility

Posterior to anterior (PA) joint play assessments were performed on the thoracic

and lumbar spine per the APTA’s updated neck pain clinical practice recommendations.8

† Lafayette Instrument Co. Europe 4 Park Road Sileby, Loughborough, Leics., LE12 7TJ. UK ‡ Chattanooga Group 4717 Adams Road Hixson, TN 37343.

Hypomobility was noted at levels T3-L2 and regional pain was reported with PA joint

glides at T1-T6, L4, and L5. Cervical joint mobility was not assessed at the initial visit

secondary to the patient’s cervical spine hypersensitivity to touch.

Neurological Screen

Cervical spine myotome, dermatome, and deep tendon reflex testing were all

negative for central nervous system pathology.

Flexibility

Lower extremity hamstring flexibility was assessed using the supine 90-90

straight leg raising test which was positive bilaterally for hamstring shortness.21 Scalene

and upper trapezius flexibility were assessed with passive ROM into a maximally

lengthened position. Both muscle groups were short bilaterally.

Upper Limb Tension Testing

Adverse mechanical neural tension (AMNT) testing was performed as described

by Butler and Magee and was positive for radial and median nerves bilaterally with

greater patient reported symptoms on the right compared to the left.8, 21, 22 No AMNT was

identified in the ulnar nerves for either upper extremity.

Other

Transverse ligament integrity was assessed with the Sharp Pursor test and was

negative, indicating an intact transverse ligament.21 The patient was screened for

vertebrobasilar insufficiency with the vertebral artery test (VAT) which was negative

suggesting uncompromised vertebral artery structure.21 The validity (sensitivity 0%,

specificity 67-90% , positive predictive value 0%, negative predictive value 63%-97%) of

the VAT is not been well supported so it was difficult to rule out the possibility of

vertebrobasilar insufficiency.23, 24

EVALUATION / DIAGNOSIS / PROGNOSIS / PLAN OF CARE

Evaluation

The patient presented with signs and symptoms consistent with mechanical back

and neck pain including the impairments listed in table 10. The patient’s impairments

limited his ability to sleep through the night, transfer from sit to stand and sit to supine,

bend, kneel, squat, lift, roll, walk for longer than 15-20 minutes, and sit or stand for

longer than 30 minutes.

Diagnosis: Following the Guide to Physical Therapist Practice25 the patient’s Preferred

Physical Therapist Practice Patterns were 4B: “Impaired Posture” and 4C: “Impaired

Muscle Performance”.

Prognosis

A six week course of therapy at a frequency of two visits per week was

determined appropriate for this patient based on the Guide to Physical Therapist

Practice’s 25 recommendations for patients in practice patterns 4B and 4C. Six weeks of

intervention were projected rather than four weeks secondary to the patient’s

comorbidities of diabetes which could slow healing time and low back and chest pain

which could contribute to higher levels of overall pain and functional limitation. The

patient had good potential to attain his goals of decreasing mid back and neck pain,

increasing back and neck ROM, decreasing AMNT, and increasing standing and sitting

tolerance for improved ability to complete ADLs and IADLs and return to his premorbid

activity level at work, home, and within the community. The patient’s rehabilitation

potential was good to attain the goals as a result of his intact cognitive status, stated

willingness to participate in self management, and no history of neck and mid-back pain.

Plan of Care

The intervention program was scheduled two times each week for the first four

weeks and was decreased to once a week for the last two weeks. Interventions consisted

of thoracic thrust mobilization and manipulation, therapeutic exercise, posture education,

strength training, soft tissue mobilization (STM), neural mobilization, stretching, manual

traction, and patient education.

Clinical Impression

The examination findings support the patient’s appropriateness for physical

therapy intervention and as a subject for this case study in the following ways: His pain

was reproducible, he presented with signs and symptoms consistent with mechanical neck

pain of musculoskeletal origin, and he had limited thoracic spine mobility which

suggested that thoracic thrust manipulation may be an important contributing factor to his

cervical pain. We hypothesize that the following outcomes will be observed: decreased

cervical pain, increased cervical and thoracic spine mobility, decreased upper limb neural

tension, normalized muscle tone and length, and improved posture.

INTERVENTION

Following examination, treatment interventions were prescribed and implemented

for ten, 45 minute sessions over six weeks. Visit frequency was decreased from twice to

once a week for the last two weeks secondary to the patient’s improvement and to

accommodate his schedule. Interventions included mobilization, manipulation, stretching,

strengthening; STM, ultrasound, trigger point sustained pressure, neural mobilization,

breathing exercises, posture education, and a progressive home exercise program (HEP).

(Table 11)

Interventions were selected based on the APTA’s updated neck pain clinical practice

guidelines26, equipment availability, patient tolerance to interventions based on pain level

and positional tolerance, and potential of the interventions to address the relevant

impairments and functional limitations. Implementation of several interventions deviated

from the APTA’s clinical practice guidelines to best meet the patient’s needs and in

response to his clinical presentation. Mechanical cervical traction was not utilized

because of the patient’s heightened suboccipital muscle sensitivity and poor tolerance for

cervical traction device placement. Manual traction was utilized in place of mechanical

cervical traction. Cervical manipulation was not performed for several reasons. First,

cervical manipulation is not an entry level physical therapy skill and could not be legally

or ethically performed by the student physical therapist was providing 90% of all

interventions. Second, the subject did not meet the prediction criteria for one who would

benefit from cervical manipulation.8 Ultrasound was not included in the APTA’s practice

recommendations, but was utilized as an adjunctive intervention prior to soft tissue

mobilization to increase tissue temperature and pliability. Our hypothesis was that this

combination of interventions would improve strength and mobility and decrease pain for

improved function. All interventions, except for those provided on visit five, were

performed by a student physical therapist under the supervision of a licensed practicing

physical therapist. Interventions performed at visit five were provided by the licensed

supervising therapist.

Interventions provided at each session are presented in Table 12. Sessions one

and two were targeted at addressing the patient’s mid-back pain as this was his primary

concern at the time. Session three was the beginning of the patient’s enrollment into the

formal case study as his primary complaint changed to cervical pain. All therapy sessions

during the patient’s enrollment in the case study included either thoracic spine

mobilization or manipulation.

Thoracic spine mobilization was utilized in the beginning of the study due to the

patient’s intolerance to manipulation at that point in time. Mobilization grades were

progressed throughout the course of treatment until the patient was able to tolerate thrust

manipulation. All mobilizations and manipulations were performed with the patient in

prone. Mobilizations of grades I-IV were performed with a PA force applied to the

spinous process of each targeted segment with two oscillations/second for 30 seconds at

each segment. Grade V mobilizations, or thrust manipulations, were performed with a

single posterior to anterior force applied to the transverse processes of each targeted

segment with fast velocity and small amplitude.

Ultrasound was applied at a continuous setting, at1MHz for upper trapezius and

thoracic paraspinals and 3 MHz for cervical paraspinals, at a 1.0-1.6 W/cm2 intensity,

and for a treatment time of approximately 8-10 minutes. Ultrasound parameters were set

to attain a three degree tissue temperature increase to maximize pliability for subsequent

STM based on Draper, Castel, and Castel’s study on rate of temperature increase with

1MHz and 3 MHz continuous ultrasound.27

Supine to sit transfer training was performed to educate the patient on back

protection techniques. The patient was educated on the importance of good posture and

general physical activity to improve cervical spine alignment and general health

respectively. The patient completed daily 20 minute walks during his enrollment in the

case study which were performed as an adjunct to his physical therapy home exercise

program. Soft tissue mobilization was a combination of efflurage and pettrisage based on

the patient’s pain level and STM tolerance. Cervical isometrics were performed with the

patient in sitting with resistance generated for ten, five second hold repetitions. Stretching

was performed in two sets of 30 second increments for each targeted muscle group. Deep

cervical endurance training was performed with a pressure biofeedback cuff at the

maximal amount of pressure that the patient could attain with the least accessory muscle

use. The patient was instructed to hold ten repetitions for ten seconds each. Nerve

mobilization was performed utilizing a flossing technique.

The patient’s HEP included the exercises and stretches noted in table 12. He was

instructed to complete his entire HEP twice each day which he reported completing every

day for the six weeks treatment duration. The HEP supplemented therapy by improving

muscle strength, endurance, and length; neural mobility; and habitual posture to address

the underlying causes of certain impairments between each clinic session. HEP technique

was evaluated and corrected at each session.

OUTCOMES

Prior to the examination, the patient completed the Modified Oswestry Low Back

Pain Questionnaire (OSW) (Table 13). Prior to visit number three, he completed the Neck

Disability Index (NDI) (Table 14), the Northwick Park Neck Pain Questionnaire

(NPNPQ) (Table 15), and the Patient Specific Functional Scale (PSFS) in reference to his

neck pain (Table 16). All outcome measures were repeated at the final treatment session

and the PSFS was repeated at a seven and a half week follow up.

The OSW is a ten item scaled assessment tool that assesses the impact of LBP on

activities of daily living and disability. Fritz and Irrgang reported good reliability (0.90)

and validity of the OSW to assess disability resulting from acute work related LBP.28

They also reported a minimum clinically important change (MCIC) of 6 points (sensitivity

= 91%, specificity = 83%). The NDI is a 10 item modified version of the OSW designed to

assess self rated disability in patients with neck pain. Vernon reported strong reliability (r

= 0.89) and validity of the NDI for the assessment of disability related to neck pain.29 He

also reported a MCIC of 3-5 points. The PSFS is a ten point scale designed to assess

patient reported disability in subjects with neck pain. Westaway, Stratford, and Binkley

reported good reliability (0.92), validity (r = 0.73-0.83), and sensitivity to change (r =

0.79 – 0.83) for disability determination related to subjective functional task

performance.30

Patient reported percentage of normal function was collected as an additional

subjective assessment of functional ability with consideration of all ADLs and IADLs.

The patient was asked to report his current percentage of normal/full function with 100%

defined as full ability to complete ADLs and IADLs at pre-injury level. Percentage of

normal function was assessed at visits 1, 8, 10, and at the 7.5 week follow-up. (Table 17).

Patient reported pain level, cervical AROM, deep cervical flexor endurance, and cervical

strength were additional outcomes compared at baseline. Patient reported pain level was

also assessed at the seven and a half week follow-up.

Comparisons between pre and post test outcome measures revealed the following:

a 12 point decrease on the OSW from 16/50 to 5/50 with a percent decrease from 32% to

10% with a disability level decrease from moderate to minimal; a 12 point decrease on

the NDI from 17/50 to 5/50 with a percent disability decrease from 34% to 10%; a 7/36

point decrease on the NPNPQ from 14/36 to 7/36 with a percent disability decrease from

38.8% to 19.4%; increases in patient specific functional scale scores from 2/10 to 10/10

for all three functional activities (Table 16); an increase in reported percentage of normal

function from 5% to 95-97%; a decrease in back pain from 5/10 to 0/10; a decrease in

neck pain from 5/10 to 1-2/10; increases in cervical AROM as follows: flexion 9 degrees,

extension 7 degrees, left and right rotation 11 degrees each, left lateral flexion 10

degrees, and right lateral flexion 13 degrees; an increase in cervical muscle strength as

follows: flexion increased by 2.8# (50% increase), extension increased by 4.5# ( 48%

increase), right lateral flexion increased by 2.9# ( 37% increase), left lateral flexion

increased by 2.7# (40% increase), right rotation increased by 1.7# (19% increase), and

left rotation increased by 0.3# (4% increase); and improvements in deep cervical flexor

endurance measures from 2, 2 second holds on visit three to 10, 10 second holds on visit

10.

DISCUSSION

Literature supports thoracic spine hypomobility as a probable underlying cause

and potential contributing factor to mechanical neck pain.31 A recently published

randomized controlled trial reported that the use of thoracic thrust manipulation in

combination with electrothermal therapy resulted in reduced pain, improved mobility,

and decreased disability for forty-five patients with acute mechanical neck pain. While

these results support the use of thoracic thrust manipulation for patients with acute

cervical pain, they cannot be generalized for patients with chronic mechanical neck pain.

Based on anatomical relationships, it is reasonable to consider the impact of thoracic

spine hypomobility on cervical spine mechanics and pain may be similar for patients with

both acute and chronic mechanical neck pain. Few studies assess outcomes of

intervention combinations of greater than two or three, and no studies assess

combinations of interventions based on the newly revised neck pain clinical practice

guidelines.9,10 Assessment of larger intervention combinations is important for

generalizability to traditional clinical practice as physical therapy clinicians rarely utilize

only two or three interventions throughout the course of a patient’s care. This case report

attempted to expand investigation of thoracic thrust manipulation for patients with

cervical pain by examining outcomes following the use of thoracic thrust manipulation

and a multimodal group of interventions based on the APTA’s clinical practice

guidelines. Additionally, the authors sought to examine results following the

implementation of this multimodal approach for a patient with chronic cervical pain as

there is little evidence on the use of thoracic thrust manipulation for patients with

symptoms past thirty days.

Change in cervical AROM measures from initial to final treatments were similar

to those reported by Gonzalez-Iglesias et al, who assessed thoracic thrust manipulation

for patients with acute neck pain, which suggests that this intervention may be

appropriate for patients with chronic cervical pain. Rotation and side bending AROM

changes all surpassed the minimal detectable change 5.4-10º which suggests that the

improvements were true changes. Flexion and extension AROM changes fell within the

range which could be representative of true change, but introduces the possibility that the

changes were due to measurement error. Long term follow up studies would be beneficial

to determine if patients maintain cervical AROM improvements. Changes in disability

level measured by the Northwick Park Neck Pain Questionnaire were also similar to

Gonzalez-Iglesias’ study further supporting the efficacy of thoracic thrust manipulation

for patients with mechanical neck pain. Comparison of OSW and NDI scores from pre

and post intervention revealed 11 and 12 point increases respectively which were nearly

two and four times the minimum clinically important change respectively. These results

support that the patient presented with clinically and functionally significant decreases in

disability resulting from neck and back pain.

Patient reported percentage of normal function for walking improved by 70%

from visits three to ten and an additional 10% from visit ten to the seven and a half week

follow up. This 80% improvement represented the patient’s return to full, normal

function. Patient reported percentage of normal function for sit to stand transfers and

prolonged sitting improved by 80% from visits three to ten which also represented a

return to full normal function. This 80% improvement was maintained at the seven and a

half week follow up. The current study reports the longest follow up period to this point

for functional activity level improvements which suggests that functional improvements

obtained from the use of thoracic thrust manipulation combined with a multimodal

intervention approach may continue beyond a one month and a half month follow up

period. Future studies should investigate if the identified functional improvements persist

at and beyond a 12 month follow up period.

The reported outcomes appear to be both clinically and functionally significant

and should be considered in the management of patient’s with chronic cervical pain.

Based on case study design, the author is unable to determine cause and effect

relationships therefore further research on the application of this combination of

interventions on a larger patient population is warranted. The researchers propose that the

multimodal combination of interventions applied may have been the most likely source of

the patient’s functional improvements as the chronicity of his symptoms, with little

change over the six and a half months prior to physical therapy, diminishes the possibility

that his improvements were due to time and the natural course of healing alone.

There were several weaknesses of this study including the following: a small

sample size which reduced the researcher’s abilities to make cause and effect

correlations, lack of researcher blinding which may have introduced testing bias,

inclusion of an intervention (ultrasound) not spoken of in the APTA’s clinical practice

guidelines, and use of a strength assessment tool (hand held dynamometry) that has not

yet been validated in patient’s with neck pain.

The outcomes following the use of thoracic thrust manipulation in combination

with interventions from the APTA’s clinical practice guidelines for the management of a

patient with cervical pain support the hypothesis that this combination of interventions

may be an effective approach for the management patients with chronic mechanical neck

pain. Studies have shown that despite evidence supporting the benefits of thoracic thrust

manipulations, many practicing therapists avoid or underutilize this intervention.31 The

positive outcomes following the implementation of thoracic thrust manipulation

interventions provided by a student physical therapist who had received no more than

five total hours of classroom instruction in the technique suggest that it is an intervention

that could be safely utilized by all practicing therapists. A recent study reported no

specific level of manipulation training for the therapists conducting thrust manipulation

with a more complicated technique than was employed in this study.7 Therefore, the

authors propose that the use of posterior to anterior thoracic thrust manipulation is a safe

and appropriate intervention tool for the management of patients with chronic cervical

pain and should be utilized by all practicing physical therapists as appropriate for optimal

patient care.

CONCLUSION

Based on outcomes observed in this case report, the authors recommend the use of

thoracic thrust manipulation in combination with interventions supported as best practice

by the APTA’s updated clinical practice guidelines for patients with neck pain. We

suggest that thoracic thrust manipulation is a safe and appropriate intervention that should

be considered by any practicing clinician for the management of patients with chronic

mechanical neck pain.

TABLES

Table 1: Demographics & Medical History Age 58 Gender Male Hand Dominance Right Ethnicity Caucasian Occupation Printer Medical Diagnoses Muscular low back pain

Muscular cervical neck pain LUQ muscular abdominal wall strain

Chief Complaints (in order of severity)

mid back pain neck pain chest pain low back pain

Past Medical history Restless leg syndrome Spondylosis of the thoracic spine

Imaging / Special Tests Nuclear Treadmill Stress Test (-) Medications Amlodipine (Norvasc) Escitalopram (Lexapro)

Fexofenadine (Allegra) Flucticasone Nasal (Flonase) Lisinopril Pioglitazone (Acos) Ropinirole (Requip) Aspirin Rosuvastatin Calcium (Crestor) Multivitamin

Allergies Sudafed Smoker No Self Management None Previous PT None Family History Heart Disease Inclusion Criteria Neck pain of insidious onset Exclusion Criteria Spinal Instabilities, Smoking Table 2: General Systems Screen Questions Question ResponseHave you experienced any recent changes in bowel or bladder function? No Have you experienced any recent episodes of dizziness or syncope? No Have you experienced any nausea or vomiting? No Have you experienced any recent chest pains? Yes Have you experienced any numbness or tingling? No Have you experienced any shortness of breath? No Have you experienced any malaise / general feeling of being unwell? No Table 3: Patient Reported Pre & Post Intervention Pain Level Treatment Back Pain Neck Pain

Session (1-10/10) (1-10/10) Pre Treatment Post Treatment Pre

Treatment Post

Treatment 1 5 3-4 5 5 2 4.5-5 4 following STM

7 following supine to sit transfer

4.5 4

3 3.5-4 2-3 6 4-5 4 4.5-5 3/10 5-6 3/10 5 1 0 3 Not

assessed 6 2 at rest

7-8 when moving or laughing 0 3 2.5-3

7 4.5 0 2 1 8 0 0 2 1-1.5 9 1 1 1 1

10 0 0 1-2 1

Table 4: Thoracic and Lumbar Active Range of Motion Visit 1

(% of full ROM) Visit 10

(% of full ROM) Flexion 100% 100% Extension 75% * 100% Left Rotation 100% 100% Right Rotation 100% ** 100% Left Side bending 20%*** 80% Right Side bending 20% ** 80% * Minor mid back pain ** Moderate mid back pain *** Moderate mid back pain, left worse than R Table 5: Cervical Active Range of Motion Visit 3 Visit 7 Visit 10 Flexion 33° * 42° 42° Extension 35° * 46° 42° Left Rotation 47° 52° 58° Right Rotation 49° 50° ** 60° Left Lateral Flexion 24° 24°** 34° Right Lateral Flexion 25° 26° 38° *Movement increases headache intensity ** Movement increases neck pain to 2/10

Table 6: Thoracic and Cervical Spine Posture. Visit 3 Visit 10 Left Rounded Shoulder 35.7 cm 35.0 cm Right Rounded Shoulder 36.2 cm 36.2 cm Forward Head Position 24.5 cm 20.0 cm Table 7: Hand Held Dynamometer Placement during Strength Testing Cervical Motion Hand Held Dynamometer Stirrup Placement Flexion Center of forehead Extension 2 cm above the occipital protuberance Lateral Flexion 2 cm centered above the earlobe Rotation Temporal line, 9 cm lateral to bride of nose, 3 cm

superior to edge of eye Table 8: Cervical Muscle Strength Visit #3 Visit # 7 Visit # 10 Flexion 2.8# 2.3# 5.6# Extension 4.8 # 4.6# 9.3# Right Lateral Flexion 4.8# 5.7#

with 2/10 left neck pain 7.7#

Left Lateral Flexion 4.6# 5.4# 7.3# Right Rotation 7.1# 4.1#

With 1.5-2/10 left neck pain 8.8#

Left Rotation 7.7# 4.6# 8.0# Table 9: Deep Cervical Flexor Endurance Visit Hold time x Repetitions

(seconds) Pressure (mm Hg)

Visit #3 2 seconds x 2* 22 Visit # 6 10 seconds x 4

9 seconds x 1* 22

Visit # 8 10 seconds x 10 22 Visit # 9 10 seconds x 10 24 Visit # 10 10 seconds x 10 22 * further testing limited by neck pain and an increase in HA intensity. Table 10: Impairments identified at initial examination Impairment Description Pain Left thoracic spine

Bilateral cervical spine Bilateral low back

Bilateral chest Decreased Active ROM Lumbar, thoracic, and cervical spine Decreased Joint Mobility Lumbar and thoracic spine AMNT Bilateral median and radial nerves Decreased muscle length / flexibility Bilateral hamstrings, scalenes, and upper

trapezius Trigger points Bilateral scalenes, upper trapezius, and

suboccipitals Impaired Posture Forward head

Bilaterally protracted shoulder girdles Weakness All cervical muscles Poor Endurance Deep cervical flexors. Table 11: Interventions Intervention Location / Description Mobilization Thoracic spine Manipulation Thoracic spine Isometric Strength Training Cervical Stretching Scalenes, upper trapezius, pectoralis major

& minor, and hamstrings Endurance Training Deep cervical flexor muscles Soft Tissue Mobilization Bilateral upper and middle trapezius,

scalenes, suboccipitals, and cervical and thoracic paraspinals

Ultrasound Prior to soft tissue mobilization Trigger point release Bilateral upper trapezius, scalene, and

subocciptials Nerve Mobilization Radial & median Breathing exercises Lower respiratory breathing Posture education Verbal, tactile, written, demonstrative

methods Progressive Home Exercise program ----- Table 12: Weekly Interventions Week Visit Intervention 1 1 Initial Evaluation

Ultrasound to L thoracic PS STM to L thoracic PS Sit ↔ supine transfer training

2 Ultrasound to L thoracic PS STM to L thoracic PS Cervical retraction / Posture re-education*

Chin tucks* 2 3 Additional therapeutic testing

- Neck Disability Index - Northwick Park Neck Pain Questionnaire - Patient Specific Functional Scale - Spurling’s Compression Test - Cervical AROM - Thoracic and cervical spine posture assessment - Cervical strength assessment - Deep cervical endurance assessment

Ultrasound to L thoracic PS STM: bilateral thoracic and cervical PS, suboccipitals and scalenes Pectoralis stretch* Trigger point release: bilateral suboccipitals and scalenes Grade I & II thoracic and cervical spine mobilizations

4 Deep cervical endurance training Chin tucks / Posture Re-education Upper trapezius stretches* Cervical isometrics.* STM to bilateral thoracic & cervical PS, UT, scalenes, & suboccipitals Trigger point release to bilateral UT and suboccipitals Grade II P.A. joint mobilization to thoracic spine

3 5 Deep cervical endurance training Chin tucks Upper trapezius stretches Cervical isometrics.PS paraspinals and levator scapulae. STM to bilateral UT and cervical PS Grade II P.A. joint mobilizations to thoracic spine

6 Deep cervical endurance training Seated hamstring stretches* Median nerve mobilization* Seated trunk extension posture exercises* Ultrasound to bilateral cervical PS and suboccipitals. STM to bilateral UT, supraspinatus, rhomboids, cervical and thoracic PS,

suboccipitals, & scalenes Trigger point release to bilateral UT Grade II & III P.A. joint mobilizations to thoracic spine

4 7 Ultrasound to L thoracic PS STM to L thoracic PS, bilateral UT, and bilateral scalenes. Trigger point release to bilateral UT and scalenes. Cervical retraction in sitting – posture re-education Cat/Camel thoracic / lumbar stretch* Posture re-education Provided pt with handout for sitting ergonomics during desk work. Scalene & UT stretches Median nerve mobilization Grade IV P.A. joint mobilizations to thoracic spine

8 Ultrasound to cervical PS, suboccipitals, and UT. STM to bilateral UT, thoracic & cervical PS, levator scapulae, scalenes, and

suboccipitals. Trigger point release to scalenes Deep cervical endurance training Median nerve mobilization

Grade V P.A. joint mobilizations/thrust manipulations to thoracic spine 5 9 STM to bilateral UT, thoracic & cervical PS , scalenes, rhomboids, and suboccipitals.

Median nerve mobilization Radial nerve mobilization* Pectoralis stretch in doorway Deep cervical endurance training Posture re-education Grade V P.A. joint mobilizations/thrust manipulations to thoracic spine

6 10 STM to bilateral cervical PS, scalenes, levator scapulae, and suboccipitals. Trigger point release to bilateral scalenes and subocciptials Manual cervical distraction Deep cervical endurance training Pectoralis stretch Median and radial nerve mobilization Shoulder girdle retraction / posture re-education Cervical isometrics Scalene & UT stretches Grade V P.A. joint mobilizations/thrust manipulations to thoracic spine

P.A. = posterior to anterior PS = paraspinals US = ultrasound UT = upper trapezius * = indicates exercises prescribed for the patient’s home program and the visit on which each intervention was added to the home exercise program. Table 13: Pre & Post Intervention Modified Oswestry Low Back Pain Questionnaire Results

Session 1 Session 8 Percent Disability 32% 10% Level of Disability Moderate Minimal

Table 14: Pre & Post Intervention Neck Disability Index Results

Session 3 Session 10 Total Score 17/50 5/50

Percent Disability 34% 10% Table 15: Pre & Post Intervention Northwick Park Neck Pain Questionnaire Results

Session 3 Session 10 Total Score 14/36 7/36

Percent Disability 38.8% 19.4% Table 16: Pre & Post Intervention Patient Specific Functional Scale Results

Activity Session 1

Session 3

Session 6

Session 7

Session 9

Session 10

7.5 week follow-up

Walking 2 4.5 5 6-7 7-8 9 10 Sit ↔ Stand

Transfers 2 5 7 7-8 10 10 10

Prolonged Sitting

2 4-5 5 8-9 10 10 10

Table 17: Patient reported percentage of normal functional level Visit #1 Visit #8 Visit #10 7.5 week

follow up Subjective Percentage of Normal Function 5% 65% 85-90% 95-97%

FIGURES

Figure 1: Body Diagram (Completed at Initial Examination)

Figure 2: CROM Instrument

Figure 3: Pressure Biofeedback Cuff

Figure 4: Pre & Post Intervention % Disability Outcomes

32% 34

% 38.8

0%

10%

10% 19

.40%

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Oswestry Low BackPain Questionnaire

Neck DisabilityIndex

Northwick ParkNeck Pain

Questionnaire

Test

Pe

rce

nt

Dis

ab

ility

Pre Intervention

Post Intervention

Figure 5: Patient Specific Functional Scale

0123456789

10

1 3 6 7 9 10 7.5weekfollow

up

Visit

Fu

nct

ion

(0-

10)

Walking

Sit to Stand Transfers

Prolonged Sitting

Figure 6: Patient Reported % of Normal Function

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

1 8 10

Visit

Per

cen

tag

e o

f N

orm

al F

un

ctio

n

% of Normal Function

Figure 7: Pain Ratings

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

7.5

week f

ollow

up

Visit

0-1

0 P

ain

Sc

ore

Neck Pain

Back Pain

Figure 8: Cervical Active ROM Measures

010203040506070

Flexion Extension LeftRotation

RightRotation

LeftLateralFlexion

RightLateralFlexion

Motion

Deg

rees Visit 3

Visit 7

Visit 10

Figure 9: Cervical Muscle Strength

0

2

4

6

8

10

Flexion Extension RightLateralFlexion

LeftLateralFlexion

RightRotation

LeftRotation

Motion

Fo

rce

Gen

erat

ed (

#)

Visit 3

Visit 7

Visit 10

REFERENCES 1. Cote P, Cassidy JD, Carroll L. The epidemiology of neck pain: what we have learned from our population-based studies. J Can Chiropr Assoc. 2003;47(4):284-290. 2 Korthals-de Bos IB, Hoving JL, van Tulder MW, et al. Cost effectiveness of physiotherapy, manual therapy, and general practitioner care for neck pain: economic evaluation alongside a randomized controlled trial. BMJ, 2003;326:911. 3. Cassidy JD, Cote P. Is it time for a population health approach to neck pain? J Manipulative Physiol Ther 2008;31:442-446. 4. Haas M. Evaluation of physiotherapy using cost-utility analysis. Aust J Physiother, 1993 Sep;39:211-6. 5. Boyles S. $86 Billion Spent on Back, Neck Pain. WebMD. http://www.webmd.com/ back-pain/news/20080212/86-billion-spent-on-back-neck-pain. Accessed 2/28/09. 6. Skargren EI, Carlsson PG, Oberg BE. One-year follow-up comparison of the cost and effectiveness of chiropractic and physiotherapy as primary management for back pain: subgroup analysis, theecurrence, and additional health care utilization including commentary. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 1999 Jan; 29(1): 68. 7 Gonzales-Iglesias J, Fernandez-de-las-Penas C, Cleland JA, Del Rosario Gutierrex-Vega M. Thoracic spine manipulation for the management of patients with neck pain: a randomized clinical trial. . J Orthop Sports Phys Ther: Jan;39(1):20-27. 8 Childs JD, Cleland JA, Elliott JM, Teyhen DS, Wainner RS, et al. Neck Pain: clinical practice guidelines linked to the international classification of functioning, disability, and health from the orthopaedic section of the American physical therapy association. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2008;38(9):A1-A34. 9 Kroeling P, Gross A, Goldsmith CH. Electrotherapy for neck disorders. The Cochrane Collaboration. 2008;3:1-31. 10 Kay TM, Gross A, Goldsmith C, Santaguida PL, et al. Exercises for mechanical neck disorders. The Cochrane Collaboration. 2008;3:1-81. 11 Gloth FM III, et al. The functional pain scale: reliability, validity, and responsiveness in an elderly population. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2001;2:110-114. 12 Fletcher JP, Bandy WD. Intrarater reliability of CROM measurement of cervical spine active range of motion in persons with and without neck pain. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2008;38:640-645. 13 Hole DE, Cook JM, Bolton JE. Reliability and concurrent validity of two instruments for measuring cervical range of motion: effects of age and gender. Manual Ther. 1995;1:36-42. 14 Kwak S, Niederklein R, Tarcha R, Hughes C. Relationship between active cervical range of motion and perceived neck disability in community dwelling elderly individuals. J. Geriatr Phys Ther. 2005;28:54-56. 15 Tousignant M, Smeesters C, Breton AM, Breton E, Corriveau H. Criterion validity study of the cervical range of motion (CROM) device for rotational range of motion on healthy adults. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2006;35:242-248. 16 Garrett TR, Youdas JW, Madson TJ. Reliability of measuring forward head posture in a clinical setting. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 1993;17:155-160. 17 Vernon HT et al. Evaluation of neck muscle strength with a modified sphygmomanometer dynamometer: reliability and validity. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 1992;15:3430-349. 18 Cagnie B. et. al. Differentes in isometric neck muscle strength between healthy controls and women with chronic neck pain: the use of a reliable measurement. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2007;88:1441-1445. 19 Jull GA, O’Leary SP, Falla DL. Clinical assessment of the deep cervical flexor muscles: the craniocervical flexion test. J Manippulative Physiol Ther. 2008;31:525-533. 20 Chiu TTW, Law EYH, Chiu THF. Performance of the craniocervical flexion test in subjects with and without chronic neck pain. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2005;35:567-571. 21 Magee, DJ. Orthopedical Physical Assessment Enhanced Edition. 4th ed. Philadelphia, PA: Elsevier Sciences; 2006. 22 Butler D, Gifford L. The concept of adverse mechanical tension in the nervous system. Physiotherapy. 1989;75:622-636. 23 Richter RR, Reinking MF. How does evidence on the diagnostic accuracy of the vertebral artery test influence teaching of the test in a professional physical therapist education program? Phys Ther. 2005;85:589-599. 24 Cote P, Kreitz BG, Cassidy JD, Thiel H. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 1996;19:159-164.

25 Guide to Physical Therapist Practice. 2nd ed. Phys Ther. 2001;81:9-744. 26 Delitto A., et. al. Neck Pain: clinical practice guidelines linked to the international classification of functioning, disability, and health from the orthopedic section of the american physical therapy association. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2008;38:A1-A34. 27Draper DO, Castel JC, Castel D. Rate of temperature increase in human muscle during 1 MHz and 3 MHz continuous ultrasound. 28 Fritz JM, Irgang JJ. A comparison of a modified Oswestry Low Back Pain Disability questionnaire and the Quebec back pain disability scale. Phys Ther. 2001;81:776- 788. 29 Vernon H. The neck disability index. J Manip Physiol Therap 2008;31:491 – 502. 30 Westaway MD, Stratford PW, Binkley JM. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 1998;27:331-338. 31 Johansson H, Sojka P. Pathophysiological mechanisms involved in genesis and spread of muscular tension in occupational muscle pain and in chronic musculoskeletal pain syndromes: a hypothesis. Med Hypotheses. 1991;35:196-203. 32 Flynn TW, Wainner RS, Fritz JM. Spinal manipulation in physical therapist professional degree education: a model for teaching and integration into clinical practice. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2006;36: 577-87.