Abstract
Abstract : Upper cross syndrome is a condition seen frequently due to poor ergonomics. This syndrome usually results from prolonged periods of poor posture and repetitive behaviours (such as flexion of the cervical spine whilst looking at digital screen devices, reading and long periods seated at a desk) and in the older generation due to degeneration of the joints in the neck and upper back. Muscle imbalances occur in groups of muscles that are weak (rhomboids, serratus anterior, middle and lower trapezius and deep neck flexors) and muscles that are tight (upper trapezius, pectoralis major and levator scapulae). The imbalances in the upper back and neck that develops, causes stress and strain on the neck and upper back facet joints resulting in pain. This pain can persist, becoming chronic and as a result become an impairment in daily life. The aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness of cervical and thoracic manipulations, Kinesioä abdominal core taping and the combination of the two in the management of upper cross syndrome. The benefits of this study could determine whether chiropractic manipulations of the cervical and thoracic spine, Kinesioä abdominal core taping or a combination of the two treatments is more effective in the management of upper cross syndrome. This study could provide more concise knowledge on the effectiveness of abdominal core taping for the proprioceptive activation of the core and the alteration of posture due to the biomechanical chain links. This study could provide a better treatment protocol for patients suffering from upper cross syndrome and could be expanded to treat patients with lower cross syndrome. Method: A selection of 30 participants (male or female) all presenting with upper cross syndrome between the ages of 18 and 60 years old were recruited. Participants that were willing to partake in this study and that meet the inclusion and exclusion criteria were randomly allocated into one of the three groups of ten participants each. Group one to group three were allocated to the patients by randomly drawing either a 1, 2 or 3 from a box. There were ten slips with 1, ten with 2 and ten with 3 written on. Drawing 1, 2 or 3 represented which group the participant had been allocated to. Group one received Chiropractic manipulations to the cervical and thoracic spine. Group two received Kinesioä taping of the abdominal core muscles and group three received a combined treatment of manipulations and Kinesioä abdominal core muscles taping. vi Procedure: The study consisted of six chiropractic treatment sessions with additional seventh follow-up consultation in which only data was collected. All the participants were treated twice a week for a three week trial period. Subjective and objective data was collected at the first, fourth and seventh consultations. Subjective data was collected via the pain visual analogue scale and the numerical pain rating scale and the Northwick Park Pain Questionnaire. Objective data was collected via cervical range of motion device and plumb line readings. The method of treatment was administered to each participant as allocated by his or her random group allocation. Results: This study showed that spinal manipulative therapy and the use of Kinesoä tape on the abdominal core, used individually or as a combination, had an effect on all three treatment groups. Group two showed the greatest improvement in the subjective data with a decrease in the pain visual analogue scale and the numerical pain rating scale by 35.42% and a decrease of 30% for the Northwick Park Pain Questionnaire. Group three showed the most improvement in objective data of cervical spine range of motion, however cannot be considered a clinically significant improvement. In the plumb line readings all three groups improved. However there were areas of unequal improvement between the groups. None of the three research groups showed a clear distinction of greater improvement of the plumb line readings versus another group. Conclusion: When looking at the overall improvement of the participants throughout this study there was no clear distinction in which treatment protocol was more superior to the others as the rates of statistical significance was low. From the statistical analysis it is seen that any of the three treatments protocols could be a beneficial treatment protocol in the management of upper cross syndrome as all three treatment protocols can be considered equal in this study.
M.Tech. (Chiropractic)