Spine-related extremity pain, particularly involving the cervical region, presents a complex clinical challenge due to its heterogeneous nature and overlapping symptomatology. Accurate diagnosis and targeted intervention are crucial for optimizing patient outcomes, yet the lack of consensus on diagnostic criteria has led to variability in both research and clinical practice. Various diagnostic clusters, such as those proposed by Wainner et. al, (2003), and Hall and Elvey (1999), offer differing perspectives on the identification and classification of cervicobrachial neurogenic symptoms. Understanding the distinctions and overlaps among these clusters is essential for clinicians seeking to stratify patients more effectively and tailor interventions such as neural mobilization. This article explores the clinical heterogeneity inherent in spine-related extremity pain, compares prominent diagnostic clusters, and examines their influence on patient response to neural mobilization, drawing on recent literature and a representative clinical case.
Understanding the clinical heterogeneity in spine-related extremity pain is critical for optimizing treatment outcomes. Previous reviews (Lam et al., 2021; Thoomes et al., 2012) have highlighted the inconsistent application of diagnostic clusters for cervical radiculopathy across randomized controlled trials, contributing to variability in sample selection and potentially conflicting results. Heterogeneity in study populations has been identified as a key factor influencing treatment outcomes (Lascurain-Aguirrebeña et al., 2018), and stratifying patients into more homogenous subgroups is suggested to improve the precision of targeted interventions (Schäfer et al., 2011).
While the diagnostic cluster proposed by Wainner et al. (2003) is widely utilized in clinical research (Dhuriya et al., 2021; Ibrahim et al., 2019; Ibrahim et al., 2021; Ranganath et al., 2018; Raval et al., 2014; Savva et al., 2021; Srinivasulu & Divya, 2021), it has not been adopted in the present case due to recommendations from Bogduk (2009) and the IASP (1994; Schmid, 2023), which emphasize that radiculopathy should involve demonstrable neurological deficits rather than merely pain-provocation signs. Unlike Wainner’s cluster, which relies on positive provocation tests (indicating a gain of function), Hall and Elvey (1999) proposed a different cluster based on cervical somatic dysfunction identified through palpation, without the inclusion of compression or distraction tests. These differences suggest the presence of distinct, though potentially overlapping, subgroups of patients with cervicobrachial neurogenic symptoms who may exhibit differential responses to neural mobilization (NM).
A clinical case from January 2023 exemplifies this differentiation (https://www.orthopaedicmanipulation.com/cervical-adherent-nerve-root-dysfunction-classification-and-therapy-a-case-report/).
A 22-year-old male reported a 5-month history of intermittent left cervical pain radiating to the medial arm and forearm, with symptoms exacerbated by sitting, right side-bending, and prolonged walking, and alleviated with arm support. McKenzie-based evaluation identified reduced cervical right side-bending and retraction, a slouched posture, and symptom reproduction with ULTT1, ULTT2a, and ULTT3, consistent with mechanical nerve tension. Neurological examination was normal, and no directional preference or centralization was observed, ruling out derangement.
The presentation was classified as Adherent Nerve Root (ANR), a condition reflecting mechanical tension without neurological loss, aligning with the neurodynamic findings described by Wainner et al. (2003). Management involved neural mobilization, cervical flexion and side-bending, neurodynamic exercises, and postural retraining. Provocation of distal symptoms was considered an acceptable response during remodeling. This case supports the diagnostic and therapeutic value of neurodynamic testing in patients presenting with non-radiculopathic nerve-related cervicobrachial pain, consistent with both McKenzie’s ANR framework and Wainner’s cluster criteria.
Furthermore, recent findings by Lascurain-Aguirrebeña et al. (2024) suggest that neural mobilization may be more effective than no treatment, traction, exercise, or standard physiotherapy in patients who meet Wainner et al.’s (2003) cluster criteria, although the certainty of the evidence remains low.
The clinical heterogeneity of spine-related extremity pain underscores the importance of precise diagnostic stratification for effective management. Comparative analysis of the Wainner, Hall, and Elvey diagnostic clusters reveals that each identifies distinct, though sometimes overlapping, patient subgroups with cervicobrachial neurogenic symptoms. The presented clinical case and current evidence suggest that neural mobilization may be particularly beneficial for patients meeting specific diagnostic criteria, such as those outlined by Wainner et al., (2003). However, the overall certainty of evidence remains limited. Continued refinement of diagnostic frameworks and further research are needed to clarify subgroup-specific responses and enhance individualized treatment strategies for patients with nerve-related cervicobrachial pain.
References
1. Bogduk N. On the definitions and physiology of back pain, referred pain, and radicular pain. Pain. 2009;147:17–9.
2. Dhuriya A, Katiyar N, Dhuria A, Sethi K. Effect of combined neural mobilization and intermittent traction in patients with cervical radiculopathy. J Phys Med Rehabil Stud Rep. 2021;3:1–4.
3. Hall TM, Elvey RL. Nerve trunk pain: physical diagnosis and treatment. Man Ther. 1999;4:63–73.
4. International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP). Classification of chronic pain. Washington, DC: IASP Press; 1994.
5. Ibrahim A, Abdelazeem N, Abdelazeem A, Hassan K. The effectiveness of neural mobilization of brachial plexus in patients with chronic unilateral cervical radiculopathy: a single-blinded randomized clinical trial. Biosci Res. 2019;16:3602–9.
6. Ibrahim A, Fayaz N, Abdelazeem A, Hassan K. The effectiveness of tensioning neural mobilization of brachial plexus in patients with chronic cervical radiculopathy: a randomized clinical trial. Physiother Q. 2021;29:12–6.
7. Lam KN, Rushton A, Thoomes E, Thoomes-de Graaf M, Heneghan NR, Falla D. Neck pain with radiculopathy: a systematic review of classification systems. Musculoskelet Sci Pract. 2021;54:102389.
8. Lascurain-Aguirrebeña I, Dominguez L, Villanueva-Ruiz I, Ballesteros J, Rueda-Etxeberria M, Rueda JR, Casado-Zumeta X, Araolaza-Arrieta M, Arbillaga-Etxarri A, Tampin B. Effectiveness of neural mobilisation for the treatment of nerve-related cervicobrachial pain: a systematic review with subgroup meta-analysis. Pain. 2024;165(3):537–49.
9. Lascurain-Aguirrebeña I, Newham DJ, Casado-Zumeta X, Lertxundi A, Critchley DJ. Immediate effects of cervical mobilisations on global perceived effect, movement associated pain and neck kinematics in patients with non-specific neck pain: a double blind placebo randomised controlled trial. Musculoskelet Sci Pract. 2018;38:83–90.
10. Ranganath P, Dowle P, Chandrasekhar P. Effectiveness of MWM, neurodynamics and conventional therapy versus neurodynamics and conventional therapy in unilateral cervical radiculopathy: a randomized control trial. Indian J Physiother Occup. 2018;12:101–6.
11. Raval V, Babu V, Kumar S, Ghosh A. Effect of simultaneous application of cervical traction and neural mobilization for subjects with unilateral cervical radiculopathy. Int J Physiother. 2014;1:10.
12. Savva C, Korakakis V, Efstathiou M, Karagiannis C. Cervical traction combined with neural mobilization for patients with cervical radiculopathy: a randomized controlled trial. J Bodyw Mov Ther. 2021;26:279–85.
13. Schäfer A, Hall T, Müller G, Briffa K. Outcomes differ between subgroups of patients with low back and leg pain following neural manual therapy: a prospective cohort study. Eur Spine J. 2011;20:482–90.
14. Schmid AB, Tampin B, Baron R, Finnerup NB, Hansson P, Hietaharju A, Konstantinou K, Lin CC, Markman J, Price C, Smith BH, Slater H. Recommendations for terminology and the identification of neuropathic pain in people with spine-related leg pain: outcomes from the NeuPSIG working group. Pain. 2023;164:1693–704.
15. Srinivasulu M, Divya. Comparing mulligan mobilization and neural mobilization effects in patients with cervical radiculopathy. RGUHS J Physiother. 2021;1:31–8.
16. Thoomes EJ, Scholten-Peeters GGM, de Boer AJ, Olsthoorn RA, Verkerk K, Lin C, Verhagen AP. Lack of uniform diagnostic criteria for cervical radiculopathy in conservative intervention studies: a systematic review. Eur Spine J. 2012;21:1459–70.
17. Wainner RS, Fritz JM, Irrgang JJ, Boninger ML, Delitto A, Allison S. Reliability and diagnostic accuracy of the clinical examination and patient self-report measures for cervical radiculopathy. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2003;28:52–62.
