Abstract
M.Tech. (Chiropractic)
Purpose: The purpose of this randomised comparative study was to establish the effects which these modalities had on pain perception and range of motion in patients with acute cervical facet syndrome. This was done by comparing manual cervical spine traction alone; to cervical spine adjustments alone to manual cervical spine traction applied post cervical spine adjustments.
Method: A total of 30 participants were recruited for this study by placing advertisements in and around the University of Johannesburg, Doornfontein Campus. Participants had to meet the requirements of the inclusion criteria and were excluded if they were found to be unfit for this particular study. The 30 participants were asked to draw a number out of a bag which therefor randomly divided them into three groups of 10 participants each.
Procedure: Participants in group A received manual cervical traction alone as their treatment. Participants in group B received cervical spine adjustments alone as their treatment. Finally, participants in group C were treated by performing manual cervical spine traction after the cervical spine adjustment.
Each participant was treated a total of six times over a two week period. Measurements were taken on the first, fourth and a seventh consultation.
Results: Regarding the Subjective readings, there was an improvement with regards to the Numerical Pain Rating Scale values for all three groups, but the combination group of manual cervical spine traction performed post cervical spine adjustment, showed the greatest improvement over the trial period on intra-group analysis. No statistical significant changes were found on inter group analysis.
There was an improvement in Neck Pain Disability Index values for all three groups, but the cervical spine adjustment group showed the greatest improvement over the trial period on intra-group analysis. No statistical significant changes were found on inter group analysis. Regarding the Objective readings, there was an improvement in pressure algometer readings for all three groups, but the cervical spine adjustment group showed the greatest improvement over the trial period on intra-group analysis. No statistical significant changes were found on inter group analysis.
There was an improvement in Cervical Range of Motion readings for all three groups, but the combination group of manual cervical spine traction performed post cervical spine adjustment showed the greatest improvement for flexion, extension and bilateral rotation on intra-group analysis. However, for bilateral lateral flexion, the cervical spine adjustment group showed the greatest improvement on intra group analysis. No statistical significant changes were found on inter group analysis.
Conclusion: There were clinically significant improvements within each of the three groups on intra group analysis but no clinically significant differences were found on inter group analysis. Therefore, none of the groups could be singled out as being the best treatment approach for acute cervical facet syndrome.
With regards to the Chiropractic profession the outcome of this study therefore suggests, that the chiropractic adjustment alone is sufficient in treatment of acute cervical facet syndrome as none of the groups proved to be superior.