A Comparative Study of Mulligan Mobilization Versus Conventional Neurodynamic Mobilization on Pain Disability & Cervical ROM in Treatment of Cervical Radiculopathy
Trial Snapshot
- Phase
- Not Applicable
- Status
- Completed
- Sponsor
- Amita Aggarwal
- Enrollment
- 42
- Locations
- 1
- Primary Endpoint
- Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NPRS)
Study Overview
Brief Summary
Title-A Comparative Study of Mulligan Neurodynamic Mobilization Versus Conventional Neurodynamic Mobilization on Pain, Disability & Cervical ROM in Treatment of Cervical Radiculopathy
Need of the study- There is paucity of research evidence that includes mulligan technique along with neurodynamics as well as there is paucity of studies that compare Mulligan neurodynamic mobilization with conventional neurodynamics to see which approach was more effective than the other.
Objective of study- 1) To assess the effectiveness of Mulligan neurodynamic mobilization on pain, cervical ROM & disability in cervical radiculopathy patients.
2) To assess the effectiveness of conventional neurodynamic mobilization on pain, cervical ROM & disability in cervical radiculopathy patients.
3) To find out which of the two techniques was more effective in reducing pain,cervical ROM and disability in cervical radiculopathy patients.
Methodology- Based on inclusion and exclusion criteria subjects will be divided into two groups.
Group A will be given Mulligan mobilization using SNAGs and Spinal mobilization with arm movements
Group B will be given neurodynamic mobilization
Treatment will be given for total of 5 sessions.Patients will be evaluated for pain,disability and Cervical Range of motion using NPRS(Numerical pain rating scale),Patient specific functional scale and universal goniometer.
RESULTS: Thetest reveals similar improvements in pain and disability in both groups(p>0.05), however the Mulligan Neurodynamic Mobilization Group showed betterresults in terms of cervical ranges (p<0.05).
CONCLUSION: MulliganNeurodynamic Mobilization techniques were found to be superior in terms ofimproving cervical ranges especially cervical extension, rotation and lateralflexion in patients with cervical radiculopathy. With respect to pain anddisability either technique had similar effect in reducing pain and disability.
Study Design
- Study Type
- Interventional
- Allocation
- Coin toss, Lottery, toss of dice, shuffling cards etc
- Masking
- Not Applicable
Eligibility Criteria
- Ages
- 30.00 Year(s) to 55.00 Year(s) (—)
- Sex
- All
Inclusion Criteria
- •1 Unilateral radiating pain from neck to upper limb with atleast one ULTT positive 2 Dermatomal involvement of the affected nerve root.
- •3 Clinically diagnosed & referred by an orthopaedic surgeon.
Exclusion Criteria
- •1 Recent history of trauma, fall or injury to cervical region 2 Bilateral upper extremity radicular symptoms 3 UMN signs like gait changes, fine motor changes & hyperreflexia 4 Myelopathies 5 Severe Osteoporosis 6 Active infection 7 Hypermobile joints 8 Vertigo 9 Dizziness 10 Vertebral Basilar artery Insufficiency.
Outcomes
Primary Outcomes
Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NPRS)
Time Frame: On first day and fifth day
Patient Specific Functional Scale(PSFS)
Time Frame: On first day and fifth day
Cervical ROM
Time Frame: On first day and fifth day
Secondary Outcomes
No secondary outcomes reported