The Effectiveness of Isometric Strengthening with Static Stretching vs. Static Stretching in Nonspecific Chronic Neck Pain

Nazar Deen, Saeed Akhter, Sanjeela Abbas
{"title":"The Effectiveness of Isometric Strengthening with Static Stretching vs. Static Stretching in Nonspecific Chronic Neck Pain","authors":"Nazar Deen, Saeed Akhter, Sanjeela Abbas","doi":"10.35248/2329-9096.20.08.555","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: The objective was to compare the effectiveness of Isometric neck strengthening exercises with static stretching vs. static stretching alone in the management of nonspecific chronic neck pain. Materials and methods: This study was a randomized controlled trial. 52 patients with non-specific chronic neck pain were randomly assigned through simple random sampling technique, into experimental (group 1) received Isometric training with static stretching and control group (group 2) received Static stretching alone. While aerobic training was initiated by both groups prior their main interventions. Therapeutic session was 3 days per week for 1 month. Neck pain and Disability was assessed by using outcome measures, numeric pain rating scale (NPRS) and neck disability index (NDI). Treadmill machine, Stationary Cycle and Stop watch were used during treatment session. Results: Both groups showed improvements; the baseline mean NDI score was 34.46 ± 11.80 and the final session score was 23.26 ± 17.46 which was significantly (p<0.001) whilst the baseline mean NPRS score was 5.38 ± 1.60 and the final session mean score was 2.65 ± 1.59 which was significantly (p<0.001) in experimental group (Group 1). In control group (Group 2), the baseline mean NDI score was 30.88 ± 10.75 and the final session mean score was 28.44 ± 10.43 which was significantly (p=0.002) whilst the baseline mean NPRS score was 5.00 ± 1.64 and the final session mean score was 3.80 ± 1.87 which was significantly (p=0.001). Conclusion: Both treatment regimens are effective in the management of chronic nonspecific neck pain; however Isometric strengthening exercises training with static stretching appears more valuable as compared with Static stretching training alone.","PeriodicalId":14201,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation","volume":"13 1","pages":"1-4"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.35248/2329-9096.20.08.555","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The objective was to compare the effectiveness of Isometric neck strengthening exercises with static stretching vs. static stretching alone in the management of nonspecific chronic neck pain. Materials and methods: This study was a randomized controlled trial. 52 patients with non-specific chronic neck pain were randomly assigned through simple random sampling technique, into experimental (group 1) received Isometric training with static stretching and control group (group 2) received Static stretching alone. While aerobic training was initiated by both groups prior their main interventions. Therapeutic session was 3 days per week for 1 month. Neck pain and Disability was assessed by using outcome measures, numeric pain rating scale (NPRS) and neck disability index (NDI). Treadmill machine, Stationary Cycle and Stop watch were used during treatment session. Results: Both groups showed improvements; the baseline mean NDI score was 34.46 ± 11.80 and the final session score was 23.26 ± 17.46 which was significantly (p<0.001) whilst the baseline mean NPRS score was 5.38 ± 1.60 and the final session mean score was 2.65 ± 1.59 which was significantly (p<0.001) in experimental group (Group 1). In control group (Group 2), the baseline mean NDI score was 30.88 ± 10.75 and the final session mean score was 28.44 ± 10.43 which was significantly (p=0.002) whilst the baseline mean NPRS score was 5.00 ± 1.64 and the final session mean score was 3.80 ± 1.87 which was significantly (p=0.001). Conclusion: Both treatment regimens are effective in the management of chronic nonspecific neck pain; however Isometric strengthening exercises training with static stretching appears more valuable as compared with Static stretching training alone.
静态拉伸与静态拉伸在非特异性慢性颈部疼痛中的效果比较
背景:目的是比较静态拉伸和静态拉伸在治疗非特异性慢性颈部疼痛中的效果。材料与方法:本研究为随机对照试验。采用简单随机抽样的方法,将52例非特异性慢性颈部疼痛患者随机分为实验组(1组)进行静态拉伸等长训练,对照组(2组)单独进行静态拉伸。而有氧训练是两组在主要干预措施之前开始的。疗程为每周3天,持续1个月。采用结局指标、数字疼痛评定量表(NPRS)和颈部残疾指数(NDI)对颈部疼痛和残疾进行评估。治疗期间使用跑步机、固定脚踏车和秒表。结果:两组均有改善;实验组(1组)NDI评分基线平均为34.46±11.80分,末期评分23.26±17.46分,差异有统计学意义(p<0.001);实验组(1组)NPRS评分基线平均为5.38±1.60分,末期评分2.65±1.59分,差异有统计学意义(p<0.001)。NDI基线平均评分为30.88±10.75分,末期平均评分为28.44±10.43分,差异有统计学意义(p=0.002); NPRS基线平均评分为5.00±1.64分,末期平均评分为3.80±1.87分,差异有统计学意义(p=0.001)。结论:两种治疗方案均能有效治疗慢性非特异性颈部疼痛;然而,与单纯的静态拉伸训练相比,静力拉伸训练更有价值。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信