Author:
Aroob Aqsa,Ahmed Zahoor Idrees,Ghaffar Momna,Ghaffar Noman,Ali Rana Arif,Shabbir Sidrah
Abstract
Cervical radiculopathy (CR) is a most reported pathological problem mainly due to herniated disc material causing nerve compression or the formation of osteophytes. This impingement specifically causes cervical pain radiating to arm, numbness, and sensory deficit. It also affects the motor function of the neck and upper extremities. Objectives: To evaluate the comparative effectiveness of Maitland manipulation of thoracic spine versus grade I and II Maitland mobilization of cervical spine on Pain, intensity, and functional status in patients of cervical radiculopathy. Methods: Total 32 patients suffering from cervical radiculopathy were randomly assigned to receive Maitland manipulation on thoracic spine along with Conventional Physiotherapy (intermittent cervical traction, strengthening exercises) in Group A(n=16) and Maitland mobilization on cervical spines along with Conventional Physiotherapy in Group B (n=16). Total treatment sessions given to each group was 9 (3 sessions per week). To measure outcome numeric pain rating scale (NPRS) and neck disability index (NDI) questionnaire was used. Data collection was done at the beginning and post-treatment. Results: The study revealed that the mean age of patients was 47.59 with a range minimum of 27 years to a maximum of 59 years. Comparison of post-treatment of both groups showed mean NPRS score in group A (Maitland thoracic spine manipulation) was 4.56± 1.031 and group B (Maitland cervical spine mobilization) was 6.12± 0.50, while post-treatment NDI score group A was 22.44± 10.09 and group B was 36.88± 8.437 with p=0.000 that was p<0.05. Conclusion: The study concluded that both Maitland thoracic spine manipulation and Maitland cervical spine mobilization techniques have similar effects in reducing cervical radiculopathy and increasing active range of motion. However, Maitland thoracic spine manipulation showed better results in neck pain reduction and improved functional status on the comparison.
Publisher
CrossLinks International Publishers
Reference23 articles.
1. Auerbach JD, Weidner ZD, Milby AH, Diab M, Lonner BS. Musculoskeletal disorders among spine surgeons: results of a survey of the Scoliosis Research Society membership. Spine. 2011 Dec; 36(26):E1715-21. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e31821cd140.
2. 2. Waqas S, Ahmad A, Ahmad S, Shafi T, Shahid HA. Comparison of Maitland Thoracic Spine Manipulation Versus Maitland Cervical Spine Mobilization in Chronic Unilateral C6 â€"C7 Cervical Radiculopathy. Annals of King Edward Medical University. 2016 May; 22(2). doi.org/10.21649/akemu.v22i2.1285
3. 3. Radhakrishnan K, Litchy WJ, O'Fallon WM, Kurland LT. Epidemiology of cervical radiculopathy. A population-based study from Rochester, Minnesota, 1976 through 1990. Brain. 1994 Apr; 117 ( Pt 2):325-35. doi: 10.1093/brain/117.2.325.
4. 4. Rajan Balakrishnan EY, Mahat MFB. Effectiveness of the core stabilisation exercise on floor and Swiss ball on individual with non-Specific low back pain. International Journal of Physical Education Sports and Health. 2016; 3(1):347-56.
5. 5. Rao RD, Currier BL, Albert TJ, Bono CM, Marawar SV, Poelstra KA, et al. Degenerative cervical spondylosis: clinical syndromes, pathogenesis, and management. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. 2007 Jun; 89(6):1360-78. doi: 10.2106/00004623-200706000-00026.
Cited by
1 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献