Comparative Effect of Scapular Stabilization Versus Thoracic Extension Exercises on Pain, Disability, Range of Motion, and Craniovertebral Angle in Young Adults With Text Neck Syndrome.
试验速览
- 阶段
- 不适用
- 状态
- 招募中
- 入组人数
- 36
- 试验地点
- 2
- 主要终点
- Neck disability index (NDI)
研究概览
简要总结
The aim of the study is to compare the effect of scapular stabilization versus thoracic extension exercises on pain, disability, range of motion, and cranio-vertebral angle in young adults with Text Neck Syndrome.
详细描述
Text neck has emerged as a widespread modern epidemic that affects people of all ages, particularly younger populations, as they are exposed to handheld mobile device use for several hours a day beginning at a very early age. The relation between the posture due to handheld mobile device use and neck pain is still debatable. To manage the maladaptive posture of the cervical spine, indirect treatment instead of direct treatment of the neck can be used, which is the basis for the concept of regional interdependence, i.e., the cause of pain becomes the cause of damage to other body parts. Therefore, not treating the damaged part, but indirectly treating the area of cause can alleviate the symptoms. A bio-dynamic relationship between the cervical and thoracic spine is associated with exercise, an important factor causing neck pain. Therefore, many clinicians pay attention to the thoracic spine of patients with neck pain and recommend thoracic extension exercises. On the other hand, many researchers recommended scapular stabilization exercise as a recovery treatment for imbalanced scapular muscles caused by forward head posture.
This study investigates how exercise programs not directly applied to the cervical spine affect people with text neck syndrome. The significance of the current study is to evaluate the comparison between concentric and eccentric exercise which is previously rarely investigated.
研究设计
- 研究类型
- Interventional
- 分配方式
- Randomized
- 干预模型
- Parallel
- 主要目的
- Treatment
- 盲法
- Double (Participant, Outcomes Assessor)
入排标准
- 年龄范围
- 19 Years 至 30 Years（Adult）
- 性别
- All
- 接受健康志愿者
- 否
入选标准
- •Both male and female participants with forward head posture or text neck syndrome
- •Participants with neck pain from the past three months
- •Smart-phones must be used for at least ≥3 hours each day
- •Participants with craniovertebral angle <53° will be included in this study
排除标准
- •History of cervical and thoracic spine surgery within the past three months
- •Serious pathological conditions within the past three months
- •Congenital spinal anomalies, or rheumatoid arthritis
- •Neurological signs and severe psychological disorders
结局指标
主要结局
Neck disability index (NDI)
时间窗: 6 weeks
Changes from baseline. NDI is a valid and reliable tool having values ranging from 0.50 to 0.98. The NDI assessment involves a 10-item, 50-point index questionnaire that assesses the effects of neck pain and symptoms during a range of functional activities.
Photogrammetry for craniovertebral angle (image j software)
时间窗: 6 weeks
Changes from baseline. 'Image J', is an analysis software with high reliability and validity. This study will assess the craniovertebral angle using a digital camera. The camera will be placed 1.5 m from the participant's right side to take a lateral photographic view of the participant's head and neck in a seated position. The craniovertebral angle is the angle between the horizontal line passing the 7th Cervical vertebra (C7) and the line extending from C7 to the tragus of the ear. The resulting maladaptive posture of the neck will be determined using Image J software.
Visual analogue scale (VAS)
时间窗: 6 weeks
Changes from baseline. The visual analogue scale (VAS) is a simple and frequently used method for the assessment of variations in intensity of pain. The reliability of the VAS for disability is moderate to good i.e. 0.98. However, its validity is questionable.
Goniometer for cervical range of motion
时间窗: 6 weeks
Changes from baseline. Goniometer has fair inter-tester reliability ranging from 0.79-0.92. Validity of this tool is good i.e. 0.97-0.98 This tool is most commonly used in the clinical settings for evaluating joint range of motion.
次要结局
未报告次要终点