Maitland手法与非手法治疗机械性颈痛疗效比较研究

Divya Chunduri, Srinivasulu M
{"title":"Maitland手法与非手法治疗机械性颈痛疗效比较研究","authors":"Divya Chunduri, Srinivasulu M","doi":"10.26463/rjpt.2_2_3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background and objectives Thrust manipulation Manipulation and non-thrust manipulation Mobilization have already made a mark in improving pain disability and range of motion in patients with mechanical neck pain. The objective of the present study was to compare the effectiveness of thrust manipulation versus nonthrust manipulation in mechanical neck pain.Methods Thirty patients with mechanical neck pain were randomly assigned into two groups ndash subjects in Group A n15 were treated with Transverse thrust manipulation at C6 level while subjects in Group B n15 were treated with Postero-anterior mobilization at C6 level. Treatment dosage for both groups was two sessions or one week duration. Pain intensity Range of Motion ROM Neck disability were evaluated pre and post each session. Numerical Pain Rating Scale NPRS Goniometer and Neck Disability Index NDI were used as outcome measures.Results Repeated measures of ANOVA showed an increase in flexion and extension in both the groups. Decrease in NDI was also noted with F value of 132.888 for duration p0.000 but between the groups NDI did not show significant difference with F value of 0.011NS p0.918NS. The Chi square value was 55.491 p-value0.001 indicating that duration has an important role in decreasing pain. To compare the effectiveness of techniques in both the groups Mann Whitney U test was used and the U value of 40.5 p0.002 obtained indicate a significant reduction in pain in the manipulation group.Conclusion In both the groups considerable improvements in the outcome measures from baseline to post treatment were observed but the results were not statistically significant in case of ROM and NDI. In terms of pain manipulation group showed significant reduction in pain compared to mobilization group.To conclude Maitland thrust manipulation is more effective than non-thrust manipulation in subjects with mechanical neck pain.nbsp","PeriodicalId":213234,"journal":{"name":"RGUHS Journal of Physiotherapy","volume":"36 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Study to Compare the Effectiveness of Maitland’s Thrust Manipulation Vs Non-Thrust Manipulation in Mechanical Neck Pain\",\"authors\":\"Divya Chunduri, Srinivasulu M\",\"doi\":\"10.26463/rjpt.2_2_3\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background and objectives Thrust manipulation Manipulation and non-thrust manipulation Mobilization have already made a mark in improving pain disability and range of motion in patients with mechanical neck pain. The objective of the present study was to compare the effectiveness of thrust manipulation versus nonthrust manipulation in mechanical neck pain.Methods Thirty patients with mechanical neck pain were randomly assigned into two groups ndash subjects in Group A n15 were treated with Transverse thrust manipulation at C6 level while subjects in Group B n15 were treated with Postero-anterior mobilization at C6 level. Treatment dosage for both groups was two sessions or one week duration. Pain intensity Range of Motion ROM Neck disability were evaluated pre and post each session. Numerical Pain Rating Scale NPRS Goniometer and Neck Disability Index NDI were used as outcome measures.Results Repeated measures of ANOVA showed an increase in flexion and extension in both the groups. Decrease in NDI was also noted with F value of 132.888 for duration p0.000 but between the groups NDI did not show significant difference with F value of 0.011NS p0.918NS. The Chi square value was 55.491 p-value0.001 indicating that duration has an important role in decreasing pain. To compare the effectiveness of techniques in both the groups Mann Whitney U test was used and the U value of 40.5 p0.002 obtained indicate a significant reduction in pain in the manipulation group.Conclusion In both the groups considerable improvements in the outcome measures from baseline to post treatment were observed but the results were not statistically significant in case of ROM and NDI. In terms of pain manipulation group showed significant reduction in pain compared to mobilization group.To conclude Maitland thrust manipulation is more effective than non-thrust manipulation in subjects with mechanical neck pain.nbsp\",\"PeriodicalId\":213234,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"RGUHS Journal of Physiotherapy\",\"volume\":\"36 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1900-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"RGUHS Journal of Physiotherapy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.26463/rjpt.2_2_3\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"RGUHS Journal of Physiotherapy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.26463/rjpt.2_2_3","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景和目的推拿和非推拿在改善机械性颈痛患者的疼痛残疾和活动范围方面已经取得了显著的进展。本研究的目的是比较针刺手法与非针刺手法治疗机械性颈痛的有效性。方法将30例机械颈痛患者随机分为两组,A组n15采用C6横突手法治疗,B组n15采用C6后前位活动治疗。两组治疗剂量均为2次疗程或1周疗程。每个疗程前后分别评估疼痛强度、活动范围和颈部残疾。采用数值疼痛评定量表(NPRS)和颈残指数(NDI)作为结局指标。结果方差分析显示,两组患者的屈伸均有所增加。NDI也有下降,F值为132.888,持续时间p0.000,但组间NDI无显著差异,F值为0.011NS p0.918NS。卡方值为55.491,p值为0.001,表明持续时间对减轻疼痛有重要作用。为了比较两组技术的有效性,采用Mann Whitney U检验,得到的U值为40.5 p0.002,表明手法组疼痛明显减轻。结论两组从基线到治疗后的预后指标均有显著改善,但ROM和NDI的结果无统计学意义。在疼痛操作方面,与活动组相比,疼痛操作组明显减轻。结论:对于机械性颈痛患者,Maitland手法比非手法更有效
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A Study to Compare the Effectiveness of Maitland’s Thrust Manipulation Vs Non-Thrust Manipulation in Mechanical Neck Pain
Background and objectives Thrust manipulation Manipulation and non-thrust manipulation Mobilization have already made a mark in improving pain disability and range of motion in patients with mechanical neck pain. The objective of the present study was to compare the effectiveness of thrust manipulation versus nonthrust manipulation in mechanical neck pain.Methods Thirty patients with mechanical neck pain were randomly assigned into two groups ndash subjects in Group A n15 were treated with Transverse thrust manipulation at C6 level while subjects in Group B n15 were treated with Postero-anterior mobilization at C6 level. Treatment dosage for both groups was two sessions or one week duration. Pain intensity Range of Motion ROM Neck disability were evaluated pre and post each session. Numerical Pain Rating Scale NPRS Goniometer and Neck Disability Index NDI were used as outcome measures.Results Repeated measures of ANOVA showed an increase in flexion and extension in both the groups. Decrease in NDI was also noted with F value of 132.888 for duration p0.000 but between the groups NDI did not show significant difference with F value of 0.011NS p0.918NS. The Chi square value was 55.491 p-value0.001 indicating that duration has an important role in decreasing pain. To compare the effectiveness of techniques in both the groups Mann Whitney U test was used and the U value of 40.5 p0.002 obtained indicate a significant reduction in pain in the manipulation group.Conclusion In both the groups considerable improvements in the outcome measures from baseline to post treatment were observed but the results were not statistically significant in case of ROM and NDI. In terms of pain manipulation group showed significant reduction in pain compared to mobilization group.To conclude Maitland thrust manipulation is more effective than non-thrust manipulation in subjects with mechanical neck pain.nbsp
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信