↓ Skip to main content

Structured postoperative physiotherapy in patients with cervical radiculopathy: 6-month outcomes of a randomized clinical trial.

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine, November 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (81st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (78th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
17 X users
facebook
6 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
31 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
133 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Structured postoperative physiotherapy in patients with cervical radiculopathy: 6-month outcomes of a randomized clinical trial.
Published in
Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine, November 2017
DOI 10.3171/2017.5.spine16736
Pubmed ID
Authors

Johanna Wibault, Birgitta Öberg, Åsa Dedering, Håkan Löfgren, Peter Zsigmond, Anneli Peolsson

Abstract

OBJECTIVE Structured physiotherapy has been suggested as treatment before as well as after surgery to improve clinical outcomes in patients with cervical radiculopathy (CR), but randomized clinical trials to inform evidence-based clinical guidelines for the treatment of patients with CR after surgery are lacking. The aim of this study was to compare the results of structured postoperative physiotherapy combining neck-specific exercises with a behavioral approach to a standard postoperative approach in patients who had undergone surgery for cervical disc disease with CR at 6 months after surgery. METHODS Patients with cervical disc disease and persistent CR who were scheduled for surgery were randomized preoperatively to structured postoperative physiotherapy (n = 101) or a standard postoperative approach (n = 100). The latter included pragmatic physiotherapy in accordance with the usual Swedish postoperative care. Outcome measures included patient-reported neck disability as measured with the Neck Disability Index (NDI), intensity and frequency of neck and arm pain, global outcome of treatment, and expectation fulfillment, as well as enablement. RESULTS Patients who received structured postoperative physiotherapy reported greater expectation fulfillment (p = 0.01), and those who attended at least 50% of the treatment sessions reported less neck pain frequency (p = 0.05), greater expectation fulfillment (p = 0.001), and greater enablement (p = 0.04) compared with patients who received the standard postoperative approach. No other difference between treatment groups was found (p > 0.15). The NDI and neck and arm pain intensity were improved in both groups at 6 months after surgery (p < 0.001). Additional use of postoperative physiotherapy was reported by 61% of the patients who received the standard postoperative approach. CONCLUSIONS The results from this first randomized clinical trial of postoperative physiotherapy showed only minor additional benefit of structured postoperative physiotherapy compared with standard postoperative approach 6 months postoperatively in patients who underwent surgery for cervical disc disease with CR. Patients who received structured postoperative physiotherapy reported higher expectation fulfillment, and many patients in the standard postoperative approach group perceived a need for additional treatments after surgery, suggesting that patients with CR are in need of further postoperative support. The results confirm that neck-specific exercises are tolerated postoperatively by patients with CR, but more studies of postoperative physiotherapy are needed to inform clinical guidelines for this patient group. Clinical trial registration no.: NCT01547611 (clinicaltrials.gov).

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 17 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 133 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 133 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 20 15%
Student > Master 19 14%
Researcher 8 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 6%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 6%
Other 19 14%
Unknown 51 38%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 33 25%
Nursing and Health Professions 27 20%
Sports and Recreations 5 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 2%
Arts and Humanities 2 2%
Other 7 5%
Unknown 57 43%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 17 September 2018.
All research outputs
#3,528,159
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine
#319
of 2,036 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#63,614
of 340,691 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine
#9
of 41 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,036 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 340,691 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 41 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.