Comparison of Maitland Thoracic Spine Manipulation Versus Maitland Cervical Spine Mobilization in Chronic Unilateral C6 â€“ C7 Cervical Radiculopathy
Keywords:Maitland Cervical Spine Mobilization, Maitland Thoracic Spine Manipulation, Unilateral Cervical Radiculopathy, Mechanical Cervical Traction and Strengthening Exercises
Background:Â Â Radicular pains are very common in cervical region due to C6 â€“ C7 nerve root involvement which results discomfort and restriction of mobility of upper and lower segments of cervical and thoracic spine. A lot of evidences about non-operative treatments have been derived for managing cervical radiculopathies with a little documentation of manual the
rapy. So, in this study, Maitland concept of manipulation and mobilization at two different regions of spine (thoracic and cervical) respectively, was used to see the change in pain reduction and restoration of normal functional abilities.
Methodology:Â Â A study design of Comparative single blinded, randomized control clinical trials was used. 100 patients having chronic unilateral C6 â€“ C7 cervical radiculopathyâ€™s symptoms due to disc prolapsed, divided into two groups with simple random sampling as guided per-consolidated standards of reporting trials (CONSORT) guidelines were used. First group was managed with Maitland thoracic spine manipulation (MTSM), mechanical intermittent cervical traction (MICT) for 10 minutes and regime of strengthening exercises (SE) and second group was managed with Maitland cervical spine mobilization (MCSM), MICT and SE. The duration of treatment was four weeks at the rate of three times in one week. Two outcome measures numeric pain rating scale (NPRS) and Neck disability index (NDI) questionnaire were used for evaluation and investigation. Data was collected at start, after two and after four Weeksâ€™s treatment. Independent T test with extension of Leveneâ€™s test was used with 0.05% level of confidence.
Results:Â Â The calculated p value for NPRS and NDI for group A (MTSM) was P = 0.000which was less than 0.05 having validation of significant changes. So, we reject our Null hypothesis that MTSM is more effective than MCSM.
Conclusion:Â Â The result shows that MTSM and MC-SM were effective techniques for pain reduction and functional abilities restoration. However, the subjects of first group with MTSM, MICT and SE presented better progress in reduction of neck ache and refining functional status during comparison.
How to Cite
This is an open-access journal and all the published articles / items are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. For comments email@example.com