Cargando…

Comparative Effects of Mulligan’s Mobilization, Spinal Manipulation, and Conventional Massage Therapy in Cervicogenic Headache—A Prospective, Randomized, Controlled Trial

Background: There is ample evidence supporting the use of manual therapy techniques for the treatment of cervicogenic headache (CGH). Objective: The objective of this study was to find and compare the effects of different manual therapy approaches to cervicogenic headache. Methods: A randomized, con...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Nambi, Gopal, Alghadier, Mshari, Ebrahim, Elturabi Elsayed, Vellaiyan, Arul, Tedla, Jaya Shanker, Reddy, Ravi Shankar, Kakaraparthi, Venkata Nagaraj, Aldhafian, Osama R., Alshahrani, Naif N., Saleh, Ayman K.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9819355/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36611567
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/healthcare11010107
_version_ 1784865207346003968
author Nambi, Gopal
Alghadier, Mshari
Ebrahim, Elturabi Elsayed
Vellaiyan, Arul
Tedla, Jaya Shanker
Reddy, Ravi Shankar
Kakaraparthi, Venkata Nagaraj
Aldhafian, Osama R.
Alshahrani, Naif N.
Saleh, Ayman K.
author_facet Nambi, Gopal
Alghadier, Mshari
Ebrahim, Elturabi Elsayed
Vellaiyan, Arul
Tedla, Jaya Shanker
Reddy, Ravi Shankar
Kakaraparthi, Venkata Nagaraj
Aldhafian, Osama R.
Alshahrani, Naif N.
Saleh, Ayman K.
author_sort Nambi, Gopal
collection PubMed
description Background: There is ample evidence supporting the use of manual therapy techniques for the treatment of cervicogenic headache (CGH). Objective: The objective of this study was to find and compare the effects of different manual therapy approaches to cervicogenic headache. Methods: A randomized, controlled study was conducted on 84 CGH participants at the university hospital. The participants were divided into a Mulligan mobilization therapy group (MMT; n = 28), a spinal manipulation therapy group (SMT; n = 28), and a control group (Control; n = 28); they received the respective treatments for four weeks. The primary outcome (CGH frequency) and secondary outcomes (CGH pain intensity, CGH disability, neck pain frequency, pain intensity, pain threshold, flexion rotation (right and left), neck disability index, and quality of life scores) were measured at baseline, after 4 weeks, after 8 weeks, and at a 6-month follow-up. The one-way ANOVA test and repeated measures analysis of variance (rANOVA) test were performed to find the difference between the inter- and intra-treatment group effects. Results: Four weeks following training, the MMT group showed a statistically significant difference in the primary (CGH frequency) and secondary (CGH pain intensity, CGH disability, neck pain frequency, neck pain intensity, flexion rotation test, neck disability index, and quality of life) scores than those of the SMT and control groups (p < 0.001). The same difference was seen in the above variables at 8 weeks and at the 6-month follow-up. At the same time, the neck pain threshold level did not show any difference at the 4-week and the 8-week follow-up (p ≥ 0.05) but showed statistical difference at the 6-month follow-up. Conclusion: The study concluded that Mulligan’s mobilization therapy provided better outcomes in cervicogenic headache than those of spinal manipulation therapy and conventional massage therapy.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9819355
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-98193552023-01-07 Comparative Effects of Mulligan’s Mobilization, Spinal Manipulation, and Conventional Massage Therapy in Cervicogenic Headache—A Prospective, Randomized, Controlled Trial Nambi, Gopal Alghadier, Mshari Ebrahim, Elturabi Elsayed Vellaiyan, Arul Tedla, Jaya Shanker Reddy, Ravi Shankar Kakaraparthi, Venkata Nagaraj Aldhafian, Osama R. Alshahrani, Naif N. Saleh, Ayman K. Healthcare (Basel) Article Background: There is ample evidence supporting the use of manual therapy techniques for the treatment of cervicogenic headache (CGH). Objective: The objective of this study was to find and compare the effects of different manual therapy approaches to cervicogenic headache. Methods: A randomized, controlled study was conducted on 84 CGH participants at the university hospital. The participants were divided into a Mulligan mobilization therapy group (MMT; n = 28), a spinal manipulation therapy group (SMT; n = 28), and a control group (Control; n = 28); they received the respective treatments for four weeks. The primary outcome (CGH frequency) and secondary outcomes (CGH pain intensity, CGH disability, neck pain frequency, pain intensity, pain threshold, flexion rotation (right and left), neck disability index, and quality of life scores) were measured at baseline, after 4 weeks, after 8 weeks, and at a 6-month follow-up. The one-way ANOVA test and repeated measures analysis of variance (rANOVA) test were performed to find the difference between the inter- and intra-treatment group effects. Results: Four weeks following training, the MMT group showed a statistically significant difference in the primary (CGH frequency) and secondary (CGH pain intensity, CGH disability, neck pain frequency, neck pain intensity, flexion rotation test, neck disability index, and quality of life) scores than those of the SMT and control groups (p < 0.001). The same difference was seen in the above variables at 8 weeks and at the 6-month follow-up. At the same time, the neck pain threshold level did not show any difference at the 4-week and the 8-week follow-up (p ≥ 0.05) but showed statistical difference at the 6-month follow-up. Conclusion: The study concluded that Mulligan’s mobilization therapy provided better outcomes in cervicogenic headache than those of spinal manipulation therapy and conventional massage therapy. MDPI 2022-12-29 /pmc/articles/PMC9819355/ /pubmed/36611567 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/healthcare11010107 Text en © 2022 by the authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
Nambi, Gopal
Alghadier, Mshari
Ebrahim, Elturabi Elsayed
Vellaiyan, Arul
Tedla, Jaya Shanker
Reddy, Ravi Shankar
Kakaraparthi, Venkata Nagaraj
Aldhafian, Osama R.
Alshahrani, Naif N.
Saleh, Ayman K.
Comparative Effects of Mulligan’s Mobilization, Spinal Manipulation, and Conventional Massage Therapy in Cervicogenic Headache—A Prospective, Randomized, Controlled Trial
title Comparative Effects of Mulligan’s Mobilization, Spinal Manipulation, and Conventional Massage Therapy in Cervicogenic Headache—A Prospective, Randomized, Controlled Trial
title_full Comparative Effects of Mulligan’s Mobilization, Spinal Manipulation, and Conventional Massage Therapy in Cervicogenic Headache—A Prospective, Randomized, Controlled Trial
title_fullStr Comparative Effects of Mulligan’s Mobilization, Spinal Manipulation, and Conventional Massage Therapy in Cervicogenic Headache—A Prospective, Randomized, Controlled Trial
title_full_unstemmed Comparative Effects of Mulligan’s Mobilization, Spinal Manipulation, and Conventional Massage Therapy in Cervicogenic Headache—A Prospective, Randomized, Controlled Trial
title_short Comparative Effects of Mulligan’s Mobilization, Spinal Manipulation, and Conventional Massage Therapy in Cervicogenic Headache—A Prospective, Randomized, Controlled Trial
title_sort comparative effects of mulligan’s mobilization, spinal manipulation, and conventional massage therapy in cervicogenic headache—a prospective, randomized, controlled trial
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9819355/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36611567
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/healthcare11010107
work_keys_str_mv AT nambigopal comparativeeffectsofmulligansmobilizationspinalmanipulationandconventionalmassagetherapyincervicogenicheadacheaprospectiverandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT alghadiermshari comparativeeffectsofmulligansmobilizationspinalmanipulationandconventionalmassagetherapyincervicogenicheadacheaprospectiverandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT ebrahimelturabielsayed comparativeeffectsofmulligansmobilizationspinalmanipulationandconventionalmassagetherapyincervicogenicheadacheaprospectiverandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT vellaiyanarul comparativeeffectsofmulligansmobilizationspinalmanipulationandconventionalmassagetherapyincervicogenicheadacheaprospectiverandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT tedlajayashanker comparativeeffectsofmulligansmobilizationspinalmanipulationandconventionalmassagetherapyincervicogenicheadacheaprospectiverandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT reddyravishankar comparativeeffectsofmulligansmobilizationspinalmanipulationandconventionalmassagetherapyincervicogenicheadacheaprospectiverandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT kakaraparthivenkatanagaraj comparativeeffectsofmulligansmobilizationspinalmanipulationandconventionalmassagetherapyincervicogenicheadacheaprospectiverandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT aldhafianosamar comparativeeffectsofmulligansmobilizationspinalmanipulationandconventionalmassagetherapyincervicogenicheadacheaprospectiverandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT alshahraninaifn comparativeeffectsofmulligansmobilizationspinalmanipulationandconventionalmassagetherapyincervicogenicheadacheaprospectiverandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT salehaymank comparativeeffectsofmulligansmobilizationspinalmanipulationandconventionalmassagetherapyincervicogenicheadacheaprospectiverandomizedcontrolledtrial