A Comparison of Clinical Outcomes between Early Cervical Spine Stabilizer Training and Usual Care in Individuals following Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion. (24th April 2020)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: McFarland, Carol; Wang-Price, Sharon; Gordon, Charles R.; Danielson, Guy Otis; Crutchfield, J. Stuart; Medley, Ann; Roddey, Toni
• Other Names: Pinsault Nicolas Academic Editor.
• Is Part Of: Rehabilitation research and practice. Volume 2020(2020)
• Publication Date: 2020-04-24
• Subjects: Rehabilitation -- Periodicals; Physical therapy -- Periodicals; Rehabilitation; Rehabilitation, Vocational; Physical therapy; Rehabilitation; Periodicals; 617.103
• DOI: 10.1155/2020/5946152
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 2090-2867

Abstract

Abstract : Study Design . Randomized clinical trial. Objectives . Early physical therapy (PT) with specific stabilization training has been shown to benefit individuals after lumbar spinal surgery but has not been studied in patients after cervical spine surgery. The primary purpose of this study was to compare clinical outcomes between early cervical spine stabilizer (ECS) training and usual care (UC) in patients after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) surgery. The secondary purpose was to determine test-retest reliability of strength and endurance tests of cervical spinal stabilizers in this patient population. Methods . Forty participants who were scheduled for ACDF surgery were randomized into either the ECS group or the UC group. After surgery, participants received their assigned group intervention during their hospital stay and continued their assigned intervention for 12 weeks. All participants had phone follow-ups twice during the first 6 weeks to address questions or problems. Clinical outcome measures including pain level using the Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NPRS), disability level using the Neck Disability Index (NDI), Craniocervical Flexor Strength (CCF-S), and Craniocervical Flexor Endurance (CCF-E) were collected three times: before surgery and 6 and 12 weeks after surgery. Test-retest reliability was assessed in the first 10 participants. Results . There was no significant interaction between the groups over time for any of the outcome measures. However, all participants made significant improvements in all four outcome measures at 6 and 12 weeks post surgery. The results showed good-to-excellent test-retest reliability for the CCF-S and CCF-E tests. Conclusions . Both ECS training and UC resulted in the same amount of improvement at 6 and 12 weeks; therefore, both therapy approaches appear to have similar and positive effects on patients in their first 3 months of recovery after ACDF. Both the CCF-S and CCF-E tests can be used reliably to assess the strength and endurance of the cervical spinal stabilizers for patients after ACDF surgery. The study was registered with the ClinicalTrials.gov (NIH, U.S. National Library of Medicine, identifier # NCT01519115 ) Protocol Registration system.