Efficacy of sustained natural apophyseal glides in neck pain: a comparative study

Navjot Kaur; Pushpdeep Singh; Shiny George Gill

doi:10.18203/2349-3933.ijam20253346

Authors

Navjot Kaur Department of Physiotherapy, Dasmesh College of Physiotherapy, Faridkot, Punjab, India
Pushpdeep Singh Department of Physiotherapy, Dasmesh College of Physiotherapy, Faridkot, Punjab, India
Shiny George Gill Department of Physiotherapy, Dasmesh College of Physiotherapy, Faridkot, Punjab, India

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18203/2349-3933.ijam20253346

Keywords:

Hot pack, Maitland technique, Neck pain, Sustained natural apophyseal glides, Ultrasound therapy

Abstract

Background: Neck pain stems from mechanical and postural factors. When an incorrect alignment or narrowing of intervertebral space occurs due to incorrect posture or collateral medical problems the individual may experience neck pain but also more dangerous symptoms, such as compression of spinal nerves, muscle weakness or functional impairment in the limbs.

Methods: Subjects were screened as per inclusion and exclusion criteria in neck pain. A written consent was assigned by the subjects and were rehabilitated for 5 days in a week for a period of 4 weeks. A total of 60 subjects of both genders aged 30-50 years were divided into three groups at random by simple random sampling method. Group A (n=20): treated with hot pack, Maitland and ultrasound. Group B (n=20) treated with hot pack, SNAGS and ultrasound therapy. Group C (n=20): treated with hot pack. Outcome analyzed by using Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) and neck disability index (NDI). Treatment provided for 5 days per week for 4 weeks. Assessment was done before the treatment and after the treatment of four weeks. Results were analyzed by using SPSS software 26.

Results: Results showed a statistically significant improvement in VAS and NDI in experimental groups. Group B statistically more improvement than Group A.

Conclusions: The study concluded that treatment protocol received by Group B, mulligan mobilization was more effective compared to Group who received Maitlands mobilization.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

References

Côté P, Cassidy JD, Carroll L. The epidemiology of neck pain: what we have learned from our population-based studies. J Canad Chiropract Assoc. 2003;47(4):284.

de las Penas CF, Cleland J, Dommerholt J, editors. Manual therapy for musculoskeletal pain syndromes: An evidence-and clinical-informed approach. Elsevier Health Sci. 2015.

Guez M, Hildingsson C, Nilsson M, Toolanen G. The prevalence of neck pain. Acta Orthopaedica Scandinavica. 2002;73(4):455-9.

Mäkela M, Heliövaara M, Sievers K, Impivaara O, Knekt P, Aromaa A. Prevalence, determinants, and consequences of chronic neck pain in Finland. American J Epidemiol. 1991;134(11):1356-67.

Fejer R, Kyvik KO. The prevalence of neck pain in the world population: a systematic critical review of the literature. Euro Spine J. 2006;15(6):834–48.

Binder A. The diagnosis and treatment of nonspecific neck pain and whiplash. Europa Medicophys. 2007;43(1):79-89.

Borghouts JA, Koes BW, Bouter LM. The clinical course and prognostic factors of non-specific neck pain: a systematic review. Pain. 1998;77(1):1-3.

Bortoluzzi A, Furini F, Scirè CA. Osteoarthritis and its management-Epidemiology, nutritional aspects and environmental factors. Autoimm Rev.2018;17(11):1097-104.

Edmonston S. Anatomical and biomechanical consideration for manual therapy. Manual Ther. 2014;2(3)123-31.

Funk D, Swank AM, Adams KJ, Treolo D. Efficacy of moist heat pack application over static stretching on hamstring flexibility. J Stren Condit Res. 2001;15(1):123-6.

Ali H, Nasir RH, Hassan D. Effectiveness of Cervical Mobilization and Cervical Traction in Management of Non Specific Neck Pain. J Riphah Coll Rehabil Sci. 2015;3(2):80-5.

Ay S, Doğan ŞK, Evcik D, Başer ÖÇ. Comparison the efficacy of phonophoresis and ultrasound therapy in myofascial pain syndrome. Rheumatol Int.2011;31(9):1203-8.

Patel KM, Balaganapathy DM, Patel HM. Effect Of maitland mobilization versus mulligan (Snags) mobilization on head repositioning accuracy (Hra), pain and functional chronic neck pain, a randomized controlled clinical trial. Int J Curr Res. 2016;8:31144-9.

Holland GJ, Tanaka K, Shigematsu R, Nakagaichi M.Flexibility and physical functions of older adults: a review. J Aging Phys Act. 2002;10(2):169-206.

Westad K, Tjoestolvsen F, Hebron C. The effectiveness of Mulligan's mobilisation with movement (MWM) on peripheral joints in musculoskeletal (MSK) conditions: a systematic review. Musculosk Sci Pract. 2019;39:157-63.

Varsha C. Effectiveness of Maitland versus Mulligan mobilization technique following post-surgical management of colle’s fracture Indian J Physioth Occupat Therapy. 2007;5:14-8.

Alarab A, Talahma I, Awwad H, Sharawi A, Amro O, Hilal R, et al. Mulligan technique versus McKenzie technique on patients with non-specific neck pain. J Palestine Ahliya Univer for Res Stud. 2022;1(2):54-66.

Andrews DP, Odland-Wolf KB, May J, Baker R,Nasypany, A, et al. Immediate and short-term effects of Mulligan concept positional sustained natural apophyseal glides on an athletic young-adult population classified with mechanical neck pain: an exploratory investigation. J Manual Manipulative Therap. 2018;26(4):203-11.

Duymaz T, Yagci N. Effectiveness of the Mulligan mobilization technique in mechanical neck pain. J Clin Analyt Med. 2018;9(4):304‐9.