Search

Objective: To investigate up-to-date evidence of the effectiveness of neural mobilisation techniques compared with any type of comparator in improving pain, function, and physical performance in people with musculoskeletal pain. Data sources: The following sources were consulted: PubMed, Web of Science, CENTRAL, CINAHL, Scopus, and PEDro databases; scientific repositories; and clinical trial registers. The last search was performed on 01/06/2023. Methods: Two reviewers independently assessed the studies for inclusion. We included randomised, quasi-randomised, and crossover trials on musculoskeletal pain in which at least one group received neural mobilisation (alone or as part of multimodal interventions). Meta-analyses were performed where possible. The RoB 2 and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation tools were used to assess risk of bias and to rate the certainty of evidence, respectively. Results: Thirty-nine trials were identified. There was a significant effect favouring neural mobilisation for pain and function in people with low back pain, but not for flexibility. For neck pain, there was a significant effect favouring neural mobilisation as part of multimodal interventions for pain, but not for function and range of motion. Regarding other musculoskeletal conditions, it was not possible to conclude whether neural mobilisation is effective in improving pain and function. There was very low confidence for all effect estimates. Conclusions: Neural mobilisation as part of multimodal interventions appears to have a positive effect on pain for patients with low back pain and neck pain and on function in people with low back pain. For the other musculoskeletal conditions, results are inconclusive. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: It remains unclear whether definite neural mechanosensitivity (NM) is required for neural mobilisations to be beneficial in people with spinally referred leg pain. Objective: To determine whether the efficacy of neural mobilisations in patients with spinally referred leg pain depends on the presence and type of criteria used to define NM. Method: PubMed, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PEDro and Science Direct were searched from 1980 to March 2020. Randomised controlled trials evaluating the efficacy of neural mobilisations on pain and disability in spinally referred leg pain were included. Studies were grouped according to the certainty of NM into NMdefinite, NMunclear, NMuntested and NMabsent. Effects on pain and disability and subgroup differences were examined. Results: We identified 21 studies in 914 patients (3 NMdefinite, 16 NMunclear, 2 NMuntested, 0 NMabsent). Meta-analysis revealed medium to large effect sizes on pain for neurodynamic compared to control interventions in NMdefinite and NMunclear groups. For disability, neurodynamic interventions had medium to large effects in NMunclear but not NMdefinite groups. NMuntested studies could not be pooled. Conclusion: The nonexistence of studies in patients with negative neurodynamic tests prevents inferences whether neural mobilisations are effective in the absence of NM. The criteria used to define NM may not impact substantially on the efficacy of neural mobilisations. The mostly high risk of bias and heterogeneity prevents firm conclusions. Clinical implications: Neural mobilisations seem beneficial to reduce pain and disability in spinally referred leg pain independent of the criteria used to interpret neurodynamic tests. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives:Research has established that the amount of inherent tension a peripheral nerve tract is exposed to influences nerve excursion and joint range of movement (ROM). The effect that spinal posture has on sciatic nerve excursion during neural mobilisation exercises has yet to be determined. The purpose of this research was to examine the influence of different sitting positions (slump-sitting versus upright-sitting) on the amount of longitudinal sciatic nerve movement during different neural mobilisation exercises commonly used in clinical practice. Methods:High-resolution ultrasound imaging followed by frame-by-frame cross-correlation analysis was used to assess sciatic nerve excursion. Thirty-four healthy participants each performed three different neural mobilisation exercises in slump-sitting and upright-sitting. Means comparisons were used to examine the influence of sitting position on sciatic nerve excursion for the three mobilisation exercises. Linear regression analysis was used to determine whether any of the demographic data represented predictive variables for longitudinal sciatic nerve excursion. Results:There was no significant difference in sciatic nerve excursion (across all neural mobilisation exercises) observed between upright-sitting and slump-sitting positions (P = 0.26). Although greater body mass index, greater knee ROM and younger age were associated with higher levels of sciatic nerve excursion, this model of variables offered weak predictability (R2 = 0.22). Discussion:Following this study, there is no evidence that, in healthy people, longitudinal sciatic nerve excursion differs significantly with regards to the spinal posture (slump-sitting and upright-sitting). Furthermore, although some demographic variables are weak predictors, the high variance suggests that there are other unknown variables that may predict sciatic nerve excursion. It can be inferred from this research that clinicians can individualise the design of seated neural mobilisation exercises, using different seated positions, based upon patient comfort and minimisation of neural mechanosensitivity with the knowledge that sciatic nerve excursion will not be significantly influenced. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]