Muscle Energy Technique and Facet Joint Mobilization in Chronic Neck Pain.

Riphah International University

Status: Completed

Conditions: Chronic Neck Pain

Treatments: Other: Muscle energy Technique

Study type: Interventional

Funder types: Other

Identifiers

NCT05040477

REC/00868 Huma Tabassum

Details and patient eligibility

About

The purpose of the study is to compare the muscle energy technique, facet joint mobilization and conventional physical therapy in individuals with chronic neck pain on cervical lordosis, cervical range of motions, numeric pain rating scale and NDI. A randomized control trial was conducted at physiotherapy department of HIT hospital, Taxila Cantt. The sample size was 105 calculated through open-epi tool. The participants were divided into three interventional groups, experimental group (1), experimental group (2), and control group (3) each having 35 participants. The study duration was six months. Sampling technique applied was Purposive sampling for recruitment and group randomization using sealed envelope method. Only 35 to 50 years participants with 4-8 pain intensity on NPRS in cervical region were included in the study. Goniometer, Posterior tangent method on lateral radiographs for cervical curve and Self structured Questionnaire. Data was collected at baseline then 2 and 4 weeks after the application of interventions. Data analyzed through SPSS version 21.

Enrollment: 105 patients

Sex: All

Ages: 35 to 50 years old

Volunteers: No Healthy Volunteers

Inclusion criteria

• Chronic patients (more than 12 weeks)
• Male and female patients
• Patients having recurrence of neck pain at least once in the last month.
• Patients from the age group of 35-50 years.
• Patients having mechanical neck pain ranging from 4-8 on Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NPRS).
• Cervical straightening on X-rays.
• Limited &painful cervical Rang of motion (ROMs)

Exclusion criteria

• Any recent history of trauma, active inflammation, Tumor, vertebra-basilar insufficiency and cervical myelopathy & radiculopathy.
• No history of serious underlying pathology, nerve root compromise, structural changes and deformities, genetic spinal disorders or previous spinal surgery

Trial design

Primary purpose: Treatment

Allocation: Randomized

Interventional model: Parallel Assignment

Masking: Single Blind

---

105 participants in 3 patient groups

Experimental Group (1): Muscle energy techniques,Moist Hot pack and TENS.

Experimental group

Description:

Experimental group included Moist Hot pack of 14/15' over cervical region for 15 mins. Hydro collator Temperature according to standardized hot pack is 40-45C.Conventional TENS applied for 10 mins. Baseline NPRS, NDI, Cervical ROMs, and posterior tangent angle.These pre and post intervention values were mentioned in questionnaire. The participants were administered with muscle energy technique (PIR) and data was collected again 2 and 4 weeks after the interventions.

Treatment:

Other: Muscle energy Technique

Experimental Group (2): Facets joint mobilizations, Moist Hot pack and TENS.

Experimental group

Description:

Experimental group includedMoist Hot pack of 14/15' over cervical region for 15 mins. Hydro collator Temperature according to standardized hot pack is 40-45οC.Conventional TENS applied for 10 mins. Baseline NPRS, NDI, Cervical ROMs, and posterior tangent angle. These pre and post intervention values were mentioned in questionnaire. The participants were administered with Facet joint mobilization (UPA \& SNAGS) and data was collected again 2 and 4 weeks after the interventions.

Treatment:

Other: Muscle energy Technique

Control Group:Conventional Therapy (Stretching, strengthening , Moist Hot pack and TENS)

Active Comparator group

Description:

Control group includedMoist Hot pack of 14/15' over cervical region for 15 mins. Hydro collator Temperature according to standardized hot pack is 40-45οC.Conventional TENS applied for 10 mins. Baseline NPRS, NDI, Cervical ROMs, and posterior tangent angle. These pre and post intervention values were mentioned in questionnaire. The participants were administered with Conventional (sustained stretching and isometric strengthening) physical therapy and data was collected again 2 and 4 weeks after the interventions.

Treatment:

Other: Muscle energy Technique