JOURNAL BROWSE
Search
Advanced SearchSearch Tips
Effects of Two Different Joint Mobilization Positions on Neck Pain, Function and Treatment Satisfaction in Patient with Acute Mechanical Neck Pain
facebook(new window)  Pirnt(new window) E-mail(new window) Excel Download
 Title & Authors
Effects of Two Different Joint Mobilization Positions on Neck Pain, Function and Treatment Satisfaction in Patient with Acute Mechanical Neck Pain
Lee, Nam-Yong; Song, Hyeon-Seung; Kim, Suhn-Yeop;
  PDF(new window)
 Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of the present study was to apply joint mobilization in a sitting position and in a prone position to patients with acute mechanical neck pain and compare the immediate treatment effects in these two positions. METHODS: After the baseline was assessed, 46 patients were randomly assigned to two groups: experimental group I () for joint mobilization in the sitting position and experimental group II () for joint mobilization in the prone position at the symptomatic cervical level. The patients in both groups received treatment by unilateral posterior-anterior gliding for 30 seconds per trial, 10 trials per session, for a total of 5 minutes, and two trials of 10 active extending motions with distraction per trial. RESULTS: In the Wilcoxon signed-rank test, all the pain and physical function variables were significantly improved after intervention in both groups (p<.05). In the Mann-Whitney U test, which compared the differences before and after the intervention between the two groups, experimental group I showed significant improvement over experimental group II in resting pain (p<.01), satisfaction with the treatment (p=.01), left rotation (p<.01) and CCFE (p<.01). In the analysis of covariance results, experimental group I showed significant improvement over experimental group II in the most painful motion pain (p<.01) and the most painful quadrant motion pain (p<.01). CONCLUSION: These outcomes suggest that joint mobilization should be applied in sitting positions for patients with acute mechanical neck pain that feel pain during sustained positions, extension or rotation.
 Keywords
Acute mechanical neck pain;Mobilization;Pain;Position;Range of motion;
 Language
Korean
 Cited by
 References
1.
Ahn NU, Ahn UM, Ipsen B, et al. Mechanical neck pain and cervicogenic headache. Neurosurgery. 2007;60(1 Supp1 1):S21-7.

2.
Aprill C, Bogduk N. The prevalence of cervical zygapophyseal joint pain. A first approximation. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1992;17(7):744-7. crossref(new window)

3.
Aquino RL, Caires PM, Furtado FC, et al. Applying joint mobilization at different cervical vertebral levels does not influence immediate pain reduction in patients with chronic neck pain: A randomized clinical trial. J Man Manip Ther. 2009;17(2):95-100. crossref(new window)

4.
Armstrong BS, McNair PJ, Williams M. Head and neck position sense in whiplash patients and healthy individuals and the effect of the cranio-cervical flexion action. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2005;20(7):675-84. crossref(new window)

5.
Bogduk N. The anatomy and pathophysiology of neck pain. Phyl MedRehabilClin N Am. 2011;22(3):367-82.

6.
Bovim G, Schrader H, Sand T. Neck pain in the general population. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1994;19(12): 1307-9. crossref(new window)

7.
Cote P, Cassidy JD, Carroll LJ, et al. The annual incidence and course of neck pain in the general population: A population-based cohort study. Pain. 2004;112(3): 267-73. crossref(new window)

8.
Collins N, Teys P, Vicenzino B. The initial effects of a Mulligan's mobilization with movement technique on dorsiflexion and pain in subacute ankle sprains. Man Ther. 2004;9(2):77-82. crossref(new window)

9.
Creighton D, Kondratek M, Krauss J, et al. Ultrasound analysis of the vertebral artery during non-thrust cervical translatoric spinal manipulation. J Man Manip Ther. 2011;19(2):84-90. crossref(new window)

10.
Danneels L, Beernaert A, De Corte K, et al. A didactical approach for musculoskeletal physiotherapy: The planetary model. J Musculoskeletal Pain. 2011;19(4): 218-24. crossref(new window)

11.
Domenech MA, Sizer PS, Dedrick GS, et al. The deep neck flexor endurance test: Normative data scores in healthy adults. PM R. 2011;3(2):105-10. crossref(new window)

12.
Dunning JR, Cleland JA, Waldrop MA, et al. Upper cervical and upper thoracic thrust manipulation versus nonthrust mobilization in patients with mechanical neck pain: A multicenter randomized clinical trial. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2012;42(1):5-18. crossref(new window)

13.
Dewitte V, Beernaert A, Vanthillo B, et al. Articular dysfunction patterns in patients with mechanical neck pain: A clinical algorithm to guide specific mobilization and manipulation techniques. Man Ther. 2014;19(1):2-9. crossref(new window)

14.
Ernst E, Canter PH. A systematic review of systematic reviews of spinal manipulation. J R Soc Med. 2006;99(4): 192-6. crossref(new window)

15.
Fernandez-de-las-Penas C, Downey C, Miangolarra-Page JC. Validity of the lateral gliding test as tool for the diagnosis of intervertebral joint dysfunction in the lower cervical spine. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2005;28(8):610-6. crossref(new window)

16.
Fischer D, Stewart AL, Bloch DA, et al. Capturing the patient's view of change as a clinical outcome measure. JAMA. 1999;282(12):1157-62. crossref(new window)

17.
Gemmell H, Miller P. Comparative effectiveness of manipulation, mobilisation and the activator instrument in treatment of non-specific neck pain: A systematic review. Chiropr Osteopat. 2006;14:7. crossref(new window)

18.
Gong W. The effects of cervical joint manipulation, based on passive motion analysis, on cervical lordosis, forward head posture, and cervical ROM in university students with abnormal posture of the cervical spine. J Phys Ther Sci. 2015;27(5):1609-11. crossref(new window)

19.
Gross AR, Goldsmith C, Hoving JL, et al. Conservative management of mechanical neck disorders: A systematic review. J Rheumatol. 2007;34(5):1083-102.

20.
Harris KD, Heer DM, Roy TC, et al. Reliability of a measurement of neck flexor muscle endurance. Phys Ther. 2005; 85(12):1349-55.

21.
Hing W, Reid D, Monaghan M. Manipulation of the cervical spine. Man Ther. 2003;8(1):2-9. crossref(new window)

22.
Hurwitz EL, Aker PD, Adams AH, et al. Manipulation and mobilization of the cervical spine. A systematic review of the literature. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1996;21(15): 1746-59; discussion 59-60. crossref(new window)

23.
Kaltenborn F, Kaltenborn B, Morgan D, et al. Manual mobilization of the joints: Joint examination and basic treatment(5th ed). Oslo. Norli. 2009.

24.
Kanlayanaphotporn R, Chiradejnant A, Vachalathiti R. The immediate effects of mobilization technique on pain and range of motion in patients presenting with unilateral neck pain: A randomized controlled trial. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2009;90(2):187-92. crossref(new window)

25.
Karas S, Olson Hunt MJ. A randomized clinical trial to compare the immediate effects of seated thoracic manipulation and targeted supine thoracic manipulation on cervical spine flexion range of motion and pain. J Man Manip Ther. 2014;22(2):108-14. crossref(new window)

26.
Kelly AM. The minimum clinically significant difference in visual analogue scale pain score does not differ with severity of pain. Emerg Med J. 2001;18(3):205-7. crossref(new window)

27.
Kondratek M, Creighton D, Krauss J. Use of translatoric mobilization in a patient with cervicogenic dizziness and motion restriction: A case report. J Man Manip Ther 2006;14:140-1. crossref(new window)

28.
Krauss JR, Evjenth O, Creighton D. Translatoric spinal manipulation for physical therapists. Rochester (MI). Lakeview Media LLC. 2006.

29.
Kulig K, Landel R, Powers CM. Assessment of lumbar spine kinematics using dynamic MRI: A proposed mechanism of sagittal plane motion induced by manual posterior-to-anterior mobilization. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2004;34(2):57-64.

30.
Kulig K, Powers CM, Landel RF, et al. Segmental lumbar mobility in individuals with low back pain: in vivo assessment during manual and self-imposed motion using dynamic MRI. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2007;8:8. crossref(new window)

31.
Leaver AM, Maher CG, Herbert RD, et al. A randomized controlled trial comparing manipulation with mobilization for recent onset neck pain. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2010;91(9):1313-8. crossref(new window)

32.
Maitland GD, Hengeveld E, Banks K, et al. Maitland's Vertebral Manipulation(7th ed). Edinburgh. Elsevier Butterworth Heinemann. 2005.

33.
McNair PJ, Portero P, Chiquet C, et al. Acute neck pain: Cervical spine range of motion and position sense prior to and after joint mobilization. Man Ther. 2007;12(4):390-4. crossref(new window)

34.
Mulligan BR. Manual Therapy NAGS SNAGS MWMS etc (5th ed). Plane View. Wellington, New Zealand: Services Ltd, 2004:3-90.

35.
Ostelo RW, de Vet HC. Clinically important outcomes in low back pain. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol. 2005;19(4): 593-607. crossref(new window)

36.
Pal GP, Routal RV, Saggu SK. The orientation of the articular facets of the zygapophyseal joints at the cervical and upper thoracic region. J Anat. 2001;198(Pt 4):431-41. crossref(new window)

37.
Reid SA, Rivett DA, Katekar MG, et al. Comparison of mulligan sustained natural apophyseal glides and maitland mobilizations for treatment of cervicogenic dizziness: A randomized controlled trial. Phys Ther. 2014;94(4): 466-76. crossref(new window)

38.
Schomacher J. The effect of an analgesic mobilization technique when applied at symptomatic or asymptomatic levels of the cervical spine in subjects with neck pain: A randomized controlled trial. J Man Manip Ther. 2009;17(2):101-8. crossref(new window)

39.
Senstad O, Leboeuf-Yde C, Borchgrevink C. Frequency and characteristics of side effects of spinal manipulative therapy. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1997;22(4):435-440. crossref(new window)

40.
Slaven EJ, Goode AP, Coronado RA, et al. The relative effectiveness of segment specific level and non-specific level spinal joint mobilization on pain and range of motion: Results of a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Man Manip Ther. 2013;21(1): 7-17. crossref(new window)

41.
Sterling M, Jull G, Vicenzino B, et al. Development of motor system dysfunction following whiplash injury. Pain. 2003;103(1-2):65-73. crossref(new window)

42.
Takasaki H, Hall T, Oshiro S, et al. Normal kinematics of the upper cervical spine during the Flexion-Rotation Test-In vivo measurements using magnetic resonance imaging. Man Ther. 2011;16(2):167-71. crossref(new window)

43.
Tousignant M, Duclos E, Lafleche S, et al. Validity study for the cervical range of motion device used for lateral flexion in patients with neck pain. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2002;27(8):812-7. crossref(new window)

44.
Twomey LT. A rationale for the treatment of back pain and joint pain by manual therapy. Phys Ther. 1992;72(12): 885-92. crossref(new window)

45.
Watanabe N, Reece J, Polus BI. Effects of body position on autonomic regulation of cardiovascular function in young, healthy adults. Chiropr Osteopat. 2007;15:19. crossref(new window)