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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |