Karagiannis, Christos

BackgroundThe effectiveness of both neural mobilization and intermittent cervical traction (ICT) has been previously explored in some studies of generally low methodological quality. However, the effect of simultaneous application of these techniques in people with cervical radiculopathy (CR) has not been previously investigated. AimTo investigate the effect of neural mobilization with simultaneously applied ICT on pain, disability, function, grip strength and cervical range of motion in patients with CR. DesignRandomized, controlled, assessor-blinded, clinical trial. MethodsParticipants (n = 42) diagnosed with unilateral CR were randomly allocated to intervention (neural mobilization combined with ICT, n = 21) or control (n = 21) groups. Participants in the intervention group were asked to attend for 12 treatment sessions to receive 6 sets of 60s grade II–IV ICT with simultaneously applied ‘slider’ neural mobilizations with median nerve bias. Participants randomized to the control group did not receive any type of treatment and were asked to avoid prescription or over-the-counter analgesia or anti-inflammatory medication. The Neck Disability Index (NDI), the Patient-Specific Functional Scale (PSFS), the Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NPRS), and measures of grip strength (GS) and cervical spine active range of motion (CSAROM) were administered at baseline and at 4-weeks. ResultsThe intervention group demonstrated significant improvements in NDI scores (mean difference = −16.95; 95% CI = −22.47 to −11.43, ES = 0.42), PSFS scores (mean difference = 2.88; 95% CI = 2.33 to 3.43, ES = 0.66), NPRS scores (mean difference = −3.74; 95% CI = −4.92 to −2.96, ES = 0.37), GS (mean difference = 1.87 kg; 95% CI = 0.51 to 3.23; ES = 0.07), and CSAROM (except for lateral flexion), compared to the control group where significant changes were not detected. ConclusionNeural mobilization with simultaneous ICT can improve, pain, function, disability, grip strength and cervical range of motion in people with CR. Further clinical trials comparing neural mobilization with cervical traction to other standard interventions are justified.

BackgroundEccentric (ECC) exercise is an “economical” type of exercise with low energy requirements and does not cause early fatigue. Therefore, it is used for cardiac patients, who have low physical activity and exercise intolerance, as an easier kind of training. ObjectiveThis systematic review aimed to investigate the efficacy of ECC exercise for functional capacity (FC) in patients with ischemic heart disease. DesignSystematic review. MethodsMEDLINE via PubMed and EBSCO databases were searched for articles of randomized controlled trials of adults with ischemic heart disease who underwent ECC training as compared with other forms of exercise (concentric exercise) or no exercise and assessed FC. The methodologic quality of studies was assessed by the PEDro scale. A meta-analysis was performed with sufficient homogeneity between at least 2 studies in the pre-defined comparisons. ResultsFour studies, investigating a total of 99 subjects, met the inclusion criteria. The results of the studies did not clearly indicate whether ECC exercise could improve FC better than traditional forms of exercise. However, the small number of studies and their methodologic weaknesses do not allow for drawing firm conclusions. ConclusionsWe found contradictory results about the effectiveness of ECC as compared with concentric exercise in terms of FC in ischemic cardiac patients. Further investigation with well-designed randomized trials is needed to determine the effectiveness of this kind of exercise for FC in such patients.