Abstract
M.Tech.
Purpose: This study aims to compare the effects of chiropractic manipulation versus mobilisation on Pressure Pain Threshold in chronic posterior mechanical cervical spine pain sufferers with regards to pain, disability and cervical spine range of motion. These effects were evaluated using a questionnaire consisting of a McGill Pain Questionnaire, and a Vernon – Mior Neck Pain and Disability Questionnaire, and by measuring cervical spine range of motion using a Goniometer as well as Algometer readings over the restricted facet joint/s in the cervical spine. The questionnaires were completed and the range of motion readings and algometer readings were taken prior to treatment on the first, fourth and seventh consultations.
Method: Thirty participants who met the inclusion criteria were divided into two groups of equal size (15 participants each). Group one received spinal manipulation to restricted cervical spine joint/s. The second group received spinal mobilisation to restricted cervical spine joint/s. Participants were treated six times out of a total of seven sessions, over a maximum three week period.
Procedure: Subjective data was collected at the beginning of the first and fourth consultations, as well as on the seventh consultation by means of a McGill Pain Questionnaire, and a Vernon – Mior Neck Pain and Disability Questionnaire in order to assess pain and disability levels. Objective data was collected at the beginning of the first and fourth session, as well as on the seventh consultation by means of a Goniometer and Algometer in order to assess cervical spine range of motion and to measure the Pressure Pain Threshold at the restricted facet joint/s in the cervical spine. Analysis of collected data was performed by a statistician.
Results: Clinically significant improvements in group 1 and group 2 were noted over the duration of the study with reference to pain, disability, and cervical spine range of motion. Statistically significant changes were noted in group 1 and group 2 with reference to pain and disability, and in group 1 and group 2 with
v
reference to certain cervical spine range of motions as well as algometer readings to measure the Pressure Pain Threshold at the restricted facet joint/s.
Conclusion: The results show that both spinal manipulation and mobilization are effective treatment protocols (as demonstrated clinically, and to a lesser extent, statistically) in decreasing pain and disability, and increasing cervical spine range of motion and most importantly Pressure Pain Threshold at the restricted facet joint/s in patients with chronic posterior mechanical cervical spine pain.
Although the study did not allow for a definite conclusion to be drawn, the results suggest that Chiropractic manipulative therapy is an effective treatment protocol to increase the Pressure Pain Threshold in chronic posterior mechanical neck pain sufferers. The advantage of this is that the treatment modality is used to its full potential, thereby providing the patient with the best results in terms of lasting benefits. It also shows that in cases where manipulation is contra-indicated mobilization will have a similar effect, but the long term benefits are questionable.