Total amount: € 0,00
Official Journal of the , , , ,
In association with
Indexed/Abstracted in: CINAHL, Current Contents/Clinical Medicine, EMBASE, PubMed/MEDLINE, Science Citation Index Expanded (SciSearch), Scopus
Impact Factor 2,063
Online ISSN 1973-9095
Gemma V. ESPÍ-LÓPEZ 1, Rosario ZURRIAGA‐LLORENS 2, Lucas MONZANI 3, Deborah FALLA 4, 5
1 Department of Physiotherapy, University of Valencia, Valencia, Spain; 2 University Research Institute of Human Resources Psychology, Organizational Development and Quality of Work Life (IDOCAL), University of Valencia, Valencia, Spain; 3 Ivey Business School at Western University, Ontario, Canada; 4 Pain Clinic, Center for Anesthesiology, Emergency and Intensive Care Medicine, University Hospital Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany; 5 Institute of Neurorehabilitation Systems, Bernstein Center for Computational Neuroscience, University Medical Center Göttingen, Georg-August University, Göttingen, Germany
BACKGROUND: Manipulative techniques have shown promising results for relief of tension-type headache (TTH), however prior studies either lacked a control group, or suffered from poor methodological quality.
AIM: To compare the effect of spinal manipulation combined with massage versus massage alone on range of motion of the cervical spine, headache frequency, intensity and disability in patients with TTH.
DESIGN: Randomized, single-blinded, controlled clinical trial.
SETTING: University clinic.
POPULATION: 105 subjects with TTH.
METHODS: Participants were divided into two groups: 1) manipulation and massage 2) massage only (control). Four treatment sessions were applied over four weeks. The Headache Disability Inventory (HDI) and range of upper cervical and cervical motion were evaluated at baseline, immediately after the intervention and at a follow up, 8 weeks after completing the intervention.
RESULTS: Both groups demonstrated a large (ƒ=1.22) improvement on their HDI scores. Those that received manipulation reported a medium-sized reduction (ƒ=.33) in headache frequency across all data points (p<.05) compared to the control group. Both groups showed a large within-subject effect for upper cervical extension (ƒ=.62), a medium-sized effect for cervical extension (ƒ=.39), and large effects for upper cervical (ƒ=1.00) and cervical (ƒ=.27) flexion. The addition of manipulation resulted in larger gains of upper cervical flexion range of motion, and this difference remained stable at the follow-up.
CONCLUSIONS: These findings support the benefit of treating TTH with either massage or massage combined with a manipulative technique. However, the addition of manipulative technique was more effective for increasing range of motion of the upper cervical spine and for reducing the impact of headache.
CLINICAL REHABILITATION IMPACT: Although massage provided relief of headache in TTH sufferers, when combined with cervical manipulation, there was a stronger effect on range of upper cervical spine motion.