M.Tech. / Purpose: The aim of this study was to compare the effects of Chiropractic adjustments to Muscle Energy Technique (MET) with regards to pain, disability and range of motion in the cervical spine. Method: Thirty participants, male or female between the ages of 18 and 55 years, diagnosed with cervical facet syndrome were used in the study. The thirty participants were randomly divided into two groups consisting of fifteen individuals each, ensuring equal male to female and age ratios. Group A received Chiropractic adjustment/s over the restricted joint/s to the cervical spine. Group B received MET to the cervical spine.The trial consisted of seven visits over a treatment period of three weeks, of which the first six visits the participants received treatment and the seventh visit served the purpose of obtaining the final data. The data was gathered on the first, fourth and seventh visits. The data was always gathered before the treatment was performed. Objective data consisted of measuring cervical spine range of motion with a CROM instrument. Subjective data was obtained by using the Numerical Pain Rating Scale (NPRS) and the Vernon-Mior Neck Pain and Disability Index. Results: The results indicated that Group A (Chiropractic adjustments) proved to be the most effective treatment protocol. Although the other treatment protocol, Group B (Muscle Energy Technique), also showed good results. Both subjective and objective results showed that although Group B produced statistically significant results, Group A showed the best results overall. Thus it was noted that in order to achieve a potentially lasting increase in range of motion and a decrease in pain and disability, the treatment protocol used for Group A should be the treatment of choice. Conclusion: It was concluded, based on the results, that Chiropractic adjustments was more effective than MET in the treatment of cervical facet syndrome. This conclusion is based on the results that Chiropractic adjustments was more effective in all the objective and all the subjective measurements. However, this does not rule out MET as a treatment for neck pain, because MET treatment did show improvements in cervical spine ROM and a decrease in pain, although not as efficiently as Chiropractic treatment.

M.Tech. / Purpose: This randomised, controlled, comparative pilot study was undertaken in order to investigate the effectiveness of the chiropractic manipulation alone, the chiropractic manipulation followed by heat therapy or the chiropractic manipulation followed by cryotherapy in the treatment of cervical facet syndrome. It was hypothesised that all three treatment protocols would be effective, but that applying chiropractic manipulation followed by heat therapy would be the most effective protocol in the treatment of cervical facet syndrome. Method: Forty-five participants were recruited by means of advertisements posted around the University of Johannesburg Doornfontein campus and surrounding businesses. Only those participants who conformed to the inclusion criteria were accepted to form a part of the study. The forty-five participants were randomly placed into three groups of fifteen each. Procedure: Group 1 received chiropractic manipulation only as their treatment protocol. Group 2 received chiropractic manipulation followed by heat therapy as their treatment protocol and group 3 received chiropractic manipulation followed by cryotherapy as their treatment protocol. Each participant received six treatments over a two week period and attended a follow-up consultation in the third week. The follow-up consultation was used to assess the lasting effects of the treatment protocol. Results: The objective data in the form of cervical range of motion was obtained by means of the Cervical Range of Motion instrument. The subjective data was collected by means of the Vernon-Mior Neck Pain and Disability Index and the Numerical Pain Rating Scale. At the end of the trial, statistical analysis was performed to determine whether one treatment protocol was more effective compared to the other treatment protocols. The results indicated that group 2 (Chiropractic manipulation followed by heat therapy) proved to be the most effective treatment protocol. Although the other treatment protocol as well as the control group showed good objective results. Subjective results showed that although all three groups showed statistically significant results, group 2 showed the best results. Thus it is noted that in order to achieve a potentially lasting increase in range of motion and a decrease in pain and disability, the treatment protocol used for group 2 should be the treatment of choice. Conclusion: Trends indicate the most effective treatment protocol in the treatment of cervical facet syndrome is when chiropractic manipulation is followed by heat therapy. The advantage of this combination is that each treatment modality is used to its full potential, thereby providing the patient with the best results in terms of lasting benefits.