Effectiveness of Maitland And Mulligan Mobilization In Cervical Radiculopathy Patients: Maitland and Mulligan Mobilization

Mehwish  Niaz; Amirah  Zafar; Umar  Sadiq; Hassan Bin  Adil; Saad Kamal  Akhtar

doi:10.54393/pbmj.v5i2.262

Authors

Mehwish Niaz CMH Medical College, Lahore
Amirah Zafar CMH Medical College, Lahore
Umar Sadiq CMH Medical College, Lahore
Hassan Bin Adil CMH Medical College, Lahore
Saad Kamal Akhtar MIHS Multan.

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.54393/pbmj.v5i2.262

Keywords:

Neck pain, cervical radiculopathy, pain, range of motion, physiotherapy, manual therapy.

Abstract

The objective of the study is to differentiate the effectiveness of Mulligan and Maitland mobilization in cervical radiculopathy. Methods: 200 patients were selected and divided by lottery method into two groups. In one group i.e., Group A Maitland mobilization and in group B Mulligan mobilization was given. Patients were followed till 2 weeks. Results: There were 124(62%) male and 76(38%) female cases in study. The average age in group-A and group-B was 38.90 ± 6.97 years and 42.07±7.03 years, p-value 0.085. Before treatment the mean of pain in both group were calculated. So, in group-A was 7.40±1.45 and in group-B was 7.63±1.27 respectively, with insignificant difference. After treatment the mean pain in group-A was 3.40±1.73 and group-B was 2.53±1.57 respectively, P-value< 0.05 with significantly much less pain in group-B. The difference of pain represents in group-A and group-B was 3.77±2.18 and 4.90±1.83 while group A shows better results with, p-value < 0.05. Before treatment range of motion was restricted in all patients, while after treatment 80% of cases achieved normal range of movement in group-A while in group-B 92% cases achieved normal movement range. The improvement in both study groups was significantly higher at 2^nd week of treatment, but in group B the improvement was higher when compared to group-A, p-value. Conclusion: The study concluded “Mulligan technique is much more effective than Maitland technique in terms of less pain and normal range of motion for cervical radiculopathy patients”.

References

Githens PB WS. Study of acute prolapsed cervical intervertebral disc. . J Bone Joint Surg 1987;66:103-14.

Kelsey JL. Prolapsed cervical intervertebral disc. Pain 2009; 66: 320-34.

Schoenfeld AJ, George AA, Bader JO, Caram Jr PM. Incidence and epidemiology of cervical radiculopathy in the United States military: 2000 to 2009. Clinical Spine Surgery 2012;25(1):17-22. https://doi.org/10.1097/BSD.0b013e31820d77ea

Kobayashi N, Asamoto S, Doi H, Ikeda Y, Matusmoto K. Spontaneous regression of herniated cervical disc. The Spine Journal 2003;3(2):171-3.

https://doi.org/10.1016/S1529-9430(02)00556-9

Reddy P, Sathyanarayana S, Nanda A. MRI-documented spontaneous regression of cervical disc herniation: a case report and review of the literature. The Journal of the Louisiana State Medical Society: official organ of the Louisiana State Medical Society 2003;155(2):97.

Bush K, Hillier S. Outcome of cervical radiculopathy treated with periradicular/epidural corticosteroid injections: a prospective study with independent clinical review. European Spine Journal 1996;5(5):319-25. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00304347

Saal JS, Saal JA, Yurth EF. Nonoperative management of herniated cervical intervertebral disc with radiculopathy. Spine 1996;21(16):1877-83.

https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-199608150-00008

Solomon J, Simotas A, Moley P, Lutz C. Aggressive nonoperative treatment for cervical radiculopathy due to HNP utilizing transforminal cervical epidural injections: a prospective outcome study. Abstract

L E. Peripheral mobilizations with movement. . Man Ther 1996;1:118-26. https://doi.org/10.1054/math.1996.0259

Mulligan BR. Manual Therapy "Nags", "Snags", "Mwm", etc, 4th ed. Wellington, NZ: Plane View Series Ltd; 1999. .

Foster NE, Thompson KA, Baxter GD, Allen JM. Management of nonspecific low back pain by physiotherapists in Britain and Ireland: a descriptive questionnaire of current clinical practice. Spine 1999;24(13):1332. https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-199907010-00011

Young IA, Michener LA, Cleland JA, Aguilera AJ, Snyder AR. Manual therapy, exercise, and traction for patients with cervical radiculopathy: a randomized clinical trial. Physical Therapy 2009;89(7):632-42. https://doi.org/10.2522/ptj.20080283

Foster NE, Thompson KA, Baxter GD, Allen JM. Management of nonspecific low back pain by physiotherapists in Britain and Ireland: a descriptive questionnaire of current clinical practice. Spine 1999;24(13):1332. https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-199907010-00011

Fukui S, Ohseto K, Shiotani M, Ohno K, Karasawa H, Naganuma Y, et al. Referred pain distribution of the cervical zygapophyseal joints and cervical dorsal rami. Pain 1996;68(1):79-83. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-3959(96)03173-9

Nakano KK: Neck pain. In Kelley WN, Harris ED Jr, Ruddy S, Sledge CB (eds): Textbook of Rheumatology, 5th ed. Philadelphia, WB Saunders, 1997, p 394.

Cassidy J, Hiltner A, Baer E. Hierarchical structure of the intervertebral disc. Connective tissue research 1989;23(1):75-88.

https://doi.org/10.3109/03008208909103905

Nakano KK: Neck pain. In Ruddy S, Harris ED Jr, Sledge CB (eds): Kelley's Textbook of Rheumatology, 6th ed. Philadelphia, WB Saunders, 2001, p 458 [Figs. 34-1A, 34-1B].

Douglass AB, Bope ET. Evaluation and treatment of posterior neck pain in family practice. J o Am Board Fam P 2004;17(suppl 1):S13-S22.

https://doi.org/10.3122/jabfm.17.suppl_1.S13

Jette AM, Delitto A. Physical therapy treatment choices for musculoskeletal impairments. Physical therapy 1997;77(2):145-54.

https://doi.org/10.1093/ptj/77.2.145

Douglass AB, Bope ET. Evaluation and treatment of posterior neck pain in family practice. J Am Board Fam P 2004;17(suppl 1):S13-S22.

https://doi.org/10.3122/jabfm.17.suppl_1.S13

Radhakrishnan K, Litchy WJ, O'Fallon WM, Kurland LT. Epidemiology of cervical radiculopathy. Brain 1994;117(2):325-35.

https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/117.2.325