BACKGROUND: Chronic neck pain is one of the main reasons for visiting a healthcare professional. In recent years, it has been shown that upper cervical restriction may be a factor involved in neck pain. OBJECTIVE: To compare the immediate effects of a real cervical mobilization technique versus a sham cervical mobilization technique in patients with chronic neck pain and upper cervical restriction. METHODS: This was a randomised, controlled, double-blind clinical trial. Twenty-eight patients with chronic neck pain were recruited and divided into two groups (14 = real cervical mobilization; 14 = sham mobilization). Both groups received a single 5-minute treatment session. Upper cervical range motion, flexion-rotation test, deep cervical activation and pressure pain threshold were measured. RESULTS: In the between-groups comparison, statistically significant differences were found in favour of the real cervical mobilization group in upper cervical extension (p= 0.003), more restricted side of flexion-rotation test (p< 0.001) and less restricted side of flexion-rotation test (p= 0.007) and in the pressure pain threshold of the right trapezius (p= 0.040) and right splenius (p= 0.049). No differences in deep muscle activation were obtained. CONCLUSION: The real cervical mobilization group generates improvements in upper cervical spine movement and pressure pain threshold of right trapezius and right splenius compared to the sham group in patients with chronic neck pain and upper cervical restriction.

中文翻译：

---

慢性颈痛和上颈椎受限患者在功能和压痛阈值方面的真正 C0-C1 松动和假技术之间是否存在差异？随机对照临床试验

背景：慢性颈部疼痛是就医的主要原因之一。近年来研究表明，上颈椎受限可能是导致颈痛的一个因素。目的：比较真实颈椎动员技术与假颈椎动员技术对慢性颈痛和上颈椎受限患者的即时效果。方法：这是一项随机、对照、双盲临床试验。招募了 28 名慢性颈部疼痛患者并分为两组（14 = 真正的颈椎松动；14 = 假松动）。两组都接受了一次 5 分钟的治疗。测量上颈椎活动度、屈曲-旋转试验、颈椎深部激活和压痛阈值。结果：在组间比较中，在上颈椎伸展 (p= 0.003)、屈曲-旋转测试受限较多的一侧 (p< 0.001) 和屈曲-旋转测试受限较少的一侧 (p= 0.007) 方面，发现有统计学意义的差异有利于真正的颈椎动员组以及右侧斜方肌 (p= 0.040) 和右侧脾脏 (p= 0.049) 的压力痛阈值。深层肌肉激活没有差异。结论：对于慢性颈痛和上颈椎受限患者，与假手术组相比，真正的颈椎动员组在上颈椎运动和右侧斜方肌和右侧夹肌的压痛阈值方面产生了改善。001) 和屈曲旋转试验受限较少的一侧 (p= 0.007) 以及右侧斜方肌 (p= 0.040) 和右侧脾肌 (p= 0.049) 的压力痛阈值。深层肌肉激活没有差异。结论：对于慢性颈痛和上颈椎受限患者，与假手术组相比，真正的颈椎动员组在上颈椎运动和右侧斜方肌和右侧夹肌的压痛阈值方面产生了改善。001) 和屈曲旋转试验受限较少的一侧 (p= 0.007) 以及右侧斜方肌 (p= 0.040) 和右侧脾肌 (p= 0.049) 的压力痛阈值。深层肌肉激活没有差异。结论：对于慢性颈痛和上颈椎受限患者，与假手术组相比，真正的颈椎动员组在上颈椎运动和右侧斜方肌和右侧夹肌的压痛阈值方面产生了改善。