The value of intermittent cervical traction in recent cervical radiculopathy

Jellad A et al. Ann Phys Rehab Med. Nov;52(9) 2009

The objective of this study was to assess the effect of intermittent cervical traction (both manual and mechanical) on pain, disability and use of analgesics. There were (3) test groups consisting of (A) conventional rehab with manual traction; (B) conventional rehab with mechanical traction and (C) rehab alone. At the end of the test phase both groups (A) & (B) were significantly better vs. group (C). However analgesic use was comparable in all three groups. Disability and improved cervical & radicular pain were still significant at (6) months in both groups getting traction along with rehab. This “long-term” follow-up finding is echoed in the Fritz et al 2014 study on traction treatment for CR.

Conclusion: Manual or mechanical cervical traction appears to be a major contributor in the rehab of CR especially when added to a multi-modal approach.

Comment: We have discussed many CPR and CR studies showing similar conclusions. It’s important to note mechanical ‘traction’ is chosen due to its relative reproducibility, clinical ease-of-application and patient flow perspectives. Though insurance code 97140 (manual traction) pays appreciably more than 97012 (mechanical) it’s more difficult to create an up-sell based on “technology” and to delegate treatment to improve patient volume & flow without a mechanical device.