M.Tech. / Purpose: This study aims to compare the effects of chiropractic manipulation versus mobilisation on Pressure Pain Threshold in chronic posterior mechanical cervical spine pain sufferers with regards to pain, disability and cervical spine range of motion. These effects were evaluated using a questionnaire consisting of a McGill Pain Questionnaire, and a Vernon – Mior Neck Pain and Disability Questionnaire, and by measuring cervical spine range of motion using a Goniometer as well as Algometer readings over the restricted facet joint/s in the cervical spine. The questionnaires were completed and the range of motion readings and algometer readings were taken prior to treatment on the first, fourth and seventh consultations. Method: Thirty participants who met the inclusion criteria were divided into two groups of equal size (15 participants each). Group one received spinal manipulation to restricted cervical spine joint/s. The second group received spinal mobilisation to restricted cervical spine joint/s. Participants were treated six times out of a total of seven sessions, over a maximum three week period. Procedure: Subjective data was collected at the beginning of the first and fourth consultations, as well as on the seventh consultation by means of a McGill Pain Questionnaire, and a Vernon – Mior Neck Pain and Disability Questionnaire in order to assess pain and disability levels. Objective data was collected at the beginning of the first and fourth session, as well as on the seventh consultation by means of a Goniometer and Algometer in order to assess cervical spine range of motion and to measure the Pressure Pain Threshold at the restricted facet joint/s in the cervical spine. Analysis of collected data was performed by a statistician. Results: Clinically significant improvements in group 1 and group 2 were noted over the duration of the study with reference to pain, disability, and cervical spine range of motion. Statistically significant changes were noted in group 1 and group 2 with reference to pain and disability, and in group 1 and group 2 with v reference to certain cervical spine range of motions as well as algometer readings to measure the Pressure Pain Threshold at the restricted facet joint/s. Conclusion: The results show that both spinal manipulation and mobilization are effective treatment protocols (as demonstrated clinically, and to a lesser extent, statistically) in decreasing pain and disability, and increasing cervical spine range of motion and most importantly Pressure Pain Threshold at the restricted facet joint/s in patients with chronic posterior mechanical cervical spine pain. Although the study did not allow for a definite conclusion to be drawn, the results suggest that Chiropractic manipulative therapy is an effective treatment protocol to increase the Pressure Pain Threshold in chronic posterior mechanical neck pain sufferers. The advantage of this is that the treatment modality is used to its full potential, thereby providing the patient with the best results in terms of lasting benefits. It also shows that in cases where manipulation is contra-indicated mobilization will have a similar effect, but the long term benefits are questionable.

M.Tech. / Purpose: This study was undertaken in order to demonstrate the effects of static magnetic field therapy on acupuncture points in the treatment of those suffering from mechanical neck pain. Isolated spinal manipulative therapy of the cervical spine was compared to spinal manipulative therapy of the cervical spine in conjunction with magnetic field therapy on acupuncture points using both objective and subjective measurements. Before the execution of this study, it was hypothesised that both treatment protocols would be effective in the treatment of mechanical neck pain, although the combined therapy would be more effective. Method: Patients were recruited by way of advertisements placed in and around the University of Johannesburg, Doornfontein campus and their health clinic. Thirty patients with mechanical neck pain were recruited and randomly divided into two groups. Group one received manipulation to the affected joints of the cervical spine and group two received manipulation to the cervical spine combined with magnetic field therapy on acupuncture points. Procedure: Each patient in each group attended six treatment sessions; three in the first week and three in the second week. The Vernon Mior Neck Pain and Disability Index and the Numerical Pain Rating Scale (subjective measurements) were completed by each patient and the Cervical Range of Motion instrument (objective measurements) was used to collect readings from each patient in both the control and experimental groups, subjective and objective measurements were taken before treatment one, three and six. Specific treatment protocols were then adhered to. Results: The results indicated that both treatment protocols were effective in reducing mechanical neck pain although not one group was more effective than VI the other. Both groups improved subjectively and objectively as they had cervical spinal manipulation directed at joint dysfunction. Conclusion: The experimental group who received spinal manipulative therapy to correct joint dysfunction in conjunction with magnetic field therapy on acupuncture points was not more effective than the control group who received spinal manipulation only, in the treatment of mechanical neck pain.

Introduction: Musculoskeletal pain is a common problem in the working population. In Sweden, 40% of women and 30% of men report suffering from neck and shoulder pain weekly. The underlying cause for neck pain is often not known and the treatment is commonly guided by the individual’s symptoms. However, there is a lack of knowledge on how to receive the best effect based on the individual’s symptoms and functional limitations, and therefore this has been scarcely evaluated in research. Furthermore, the impact of work exposure and stress on long-term treatment for persons with neck pain is not clear. Aims: To develop (paper 1) and to evaluate a decision model for tailored treatment in women with neck pain (paper 2). Moreover, to determine if risk factors at work and stress influence intermediate and long-term treatment results (paper 3). Further, to investigate if changes in self-reported pain and disabilities are associated with changes of physical test outcomes of the neck and shoulder region after treatment (paper 4). Methods: In an RCT, 120 working women with non-specific neck pain were randomized to three different groups – tailored treatment (TT), non-tailored treatment (NTT) or treatment-as-usual (TAU) for an 11 weeks intervention with short-term, intermediate-term and long-term follow-ups. The TT group was guided by a decision model with cut-off levels to indicate impairments. The NTT group received two established treatment components randomly from those not indicated, and TAU group did not receive any treatment within the study. The RCT primary outcomes were self-reported neck pain and neck disability. A linear mixed model was used for analysing the effects. One week after the end of intervention work exposure and stress were assessed at a work-place visit and associations to treatment results were tested for, and mixed models were used to estimate longitudinal associations. Associations between self-reported neck problems and physical outcomes were estimated with univariate and multiple regressions analysis. Results: No differences between TT and NTT were revealed for neck pain and disability. In comparison to TAU, the TT and NTT groups both showed improvements at short-term follow-up, but not at intermediate and long-term follow-up. High stress level and low self-estimated control at work were associated with more pain and disability at the intermediate and long-term follow-ups. After intervention and at the intermediate-term follow-up, reduced neck pain, disability and frequency of symptoms were associated with increased peak speed of head rotation and cervical range of motion. Conclusion: Tailored treatment according to the decision model was not superior to the non-tailored treatment in women with non-specific neck pain. One explanation for this can be the weak relationships found between neck pain and disability and physical test outcomes. Further, perceived stress and psychosocial work exposure were associated with self-reported neck problems and should be taken into account to optimize the effects in neck pain rehabilitation. / Bakgrund: Nack- och skulder-smärta är ett vanligt tillstånd som förekommer över hela världen. I Sverige skattar 30-40% besvär från nacke och skuldror mätt under en veckas tid. Generellt rapporterar kvinnor mer nack- och skulder-besvär än män. I avhandlingen är det ospecifik nacksmärta som har studerats, det inkluderar inte t.ex. Whiplash-skador, diskbråck eller andra mer specifika diagnoser. Den bakomliggande orsaken till ospecifik nacksmärta är, precis som beteckningen antyder, ofta inte känd och individens symptom och funktion är istället vägledande i undersökning och behandling samt utvärdering av behandling. Studier har visat att i jämförelse med friska har individer med ospecifika nackbesvär ofta sämre muskulär nackstyrka, minskad rörlighet i nacken och är något långsammare vid test av huvudrörelser. Behandlingen riktar sig ofta mot något av dessa fynd med bl.a. styrketräning av nackmuskler och/eller manuella tekniker för rörelseökning. Studier har dock visat att behandlingen endast ger måttliga resultat och att de positiva resultaten bara är kortvariga. I kliniken försöker man individanpassa behandlingen utifrån patientens behov men det finns väldigt lite forskning om detta utan studier utvärderar likadan behandling för hela grupper. Det saknas fortfarande kunskaper om hur man på bästa sätt individanpassar behandling så att den blir skräddarsydd utifrån individens symptom och funktion samt utvärderar detta. Syftet med avhandlingen var att undersöka om en intervention med skräddarsydd behandling (som också innehöll specifik aktiv träning) utifrån en beslutsmodell med fysiska tester och frågor om symtom är effektivt för att uppnå positiva effekter i självskattad smärta och funktion (artikel 1 och 2).  Den skräddarsydda behandlingen jämfördes mot en grupp som fick samma upplägg men inte skräddarsydd behandling. Vidare undersöktes om båda dessa behandlingsgrupper var effektivare än en grupp som inte fick någon behandling i studien. Dessutom undersöktes om påverkan från arbetsmiljön i form av fysisk och psykosocial belastning samt upplevd stress påverkade behandlingsresultaten efter interventionen (artikel 3). Slutligen undersöktes om de fysiska testerna och den självskattade smärtan, funktionen och symptomen hade koppling till varandra dels före interventionen och dels i termer av förändringar efter interventionen (artikel 4). Metod: I en randomiserad kontrollerad interventionsstudie (RCT) inkluderades 120 kvinnor i åldrarna 20-65, alla i arbete, och som hade ospecifika nackbesvär.  De lottades till tre grupper, (1) skräddarsydd behandling (Tailore treatment, TT), (2) icke-skräddarsydd behandling (Non-tailored treatment, NTT) och (3) en kontrollgrupp (Treatment-as-usual, TAU) som inte fick någon behandling i studien men var fria att söka vård på egen hand. Kvinnorna i TT-gruppen fick behandlings-komponenter utifrån testresultaten i beslutsmodellen. Det kunde läggas till någon behandlingskomponent om det visade sig behövas utifrån individens behov i vardagen. Detta undersöktes genom en strukturerad intervju-teknik som kallas Problem Elicitation Technique (PET). Kvinnorna i NTT-gruppen fick två lottade behandlings-komponenter som inte matchade deras behov utifrån testerna i beslutsmodellen. För båda behandlings-grupperna var interventionen 11 veckor med inbokade behandlingstillfällen 2-3 gånger per vecka, samtliga tillfällen vägledda av fysioterapeut. Data för alla tre grupper samlades in innan interventionen samt 3, 9 och 15 månader efter start av interventionen. Gruppskillnaderna analyserades med en ”linear mixed model”. En vecka efter intervention gjordes ett arbetsplatsbesök hos individerna i alla tre grupper. En erfaren ergonom observerade individernas fysiska arbetsbelastning med ett ergonomiskt bedömningsinstrument, Quick Exposure Check (QEC), och individerna skattade också den psykosociala arbetsmiljön i ett frågeformulär, QPS Nordic, samt upplevd stress. För att undersöka om den fysiska och psykosociala arbetsbelastningen samt stress påverkade resultaten från interventionen analyserades data med linjär regression och mixed model. För att undersöka om de fysiska testerna och den självskattade smärtan, funktionen och symptomen hade något samband användes linjär regressionsanalys. Resultat: Att skräddarsy behandlingen utifrån den testade beslutsmodellen var inte effektivare än att inte skräddarsy. I jämförelse med kontrollgruppen självskattade båda behandlingsgrupperna mindre smärta, bättre funktion och mindre symptom efter interventionen. I de länge uppföljningarna (9 och 15 månader) var dock skillnaderna mellan grupperna inte längre signifikanta förutom att båda behandlingsgrupperna, till skillnad från kontrollgruppen, upplevde sig bättre än innan behandling. Det visade sig att upplevd hög stressnivå och låg kontroll på arbetet hade samband med mer självskattad nacksmärta, sämre funktion och lägre arbetsproduktivitet. De fysiska testerna och självskattade nackbesvär hade bara svaga samband. På baslinjenivå, innan interventionen, fanns det samband mellan hög nackstyrka och låg självskattad funktion och låg frekvens på symptomen, samt mellan att vara långsam i testet av snabba huvudrörelser och hög smärta. Efter interventionen hade individernas förändring i självskattad smärta fortfarande bara samband med snabba huvudrörelser. Förbättring i självskattad funktion och symptom hade samband till ökad hastighet i snabba huvudrörelser och ökat rörelseutslag nackrotation. Sammanfattning: För kvinnor i arbete med ospecifika nackbesvär var det inte mer effektivt att skräddarsy behandling/träning utifrån en beslutsmodell jämfört med att slumpmässigt välja ut behandlingskomponenter från samma behandlingsarsenal. En förklaring kan vara att det fanns endast låga samband mellan självskattad smärta och funktion och de fysiska testerna. Upplevd stress och kontroll i arbetet visade sig ha samband med självskattad smärta, funktion och arbetsproduktivitet och bör tas i beaktande i framtida interventioner för individer med nacksmärta.

La cervicalgia es un problema de salud ocupacional en los odontólogos y está presente desde las prácticas del pregrado. Se realizó un estudio cuasi experimental para evaluar el efecto de un programa de gimnasia laboral en todos los estudiantes de cuarto año de un escuela de odontología de Lima para reducir la prevalencia de cervicalgia. El programa duró seis semanas, consistía en dos charlas para que realicen ejercicios de estiramiento de 5 minutos 3 veces por día y un recordatorio diario por mensaje de texto. 31 estudiantes fueron evaluados al inicio y final de la intervención, 13/31 manifestaron no haber realizado los ejercicios. Se encontró que la prevalencia de cervicalgia en las últimos 4 semanas se redujo de 90,3% a 71,0% (p=0,034) y la intensidad del dolor se redujo de 5,4 a 3,6 (p=0,009). El programa demostró reducir la cervicalgia, futuras intervenciones deben buscar alternativas para incrementar la adherencia.

M.Tech. / Purpose: Posterior mechanical neck pain is considered a debilitating musculoskeletal problem and is one of the most common reasons for visiting an emergency sector (Murphy, 2000). This study aims to compare the effects of Chiropractic manipulative therapy directed at the thoracic spine to that directed at the cervical spine for the treatment of chronic neck pain with regards to pain, disability and cervical range of motion. Method: This study was a comparative study and consisted of two groups of fifteen. The participants were between the ages of eighteen and forty-five, with a half male to female ratio. The potential participants were examined and accepted according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The method of treatment administered to each participant was determined by group allocation. Group 1 received chiropractic spinal manipulative therapy to restriction(s) of the upper thoracic region only. Group 2 received chiropractic spinal manipulative therapy to restriction(s) of the cervical spine only. Objective and subjective findings were based on the above treatment protocols. Procedure: Treatment consisted of six treatment consultations with an additional follow up consultation over a three week period, with two consultations being performed per week interval. Objective and subjective readings were taken at the beginning of the first, fourth and seventh consultations. Subjective readings were taken from the Vernon-Mior Neck Pain and Disability Index as well as from the Numerical Pain Rating Scale (NPRS). Objective readings were taken from measurements taken from the Cervical Range of Motion device (CROM). Analysis of collected data was performed by a statistician. The Chiropractic manipulative techniques used were based on restrictions identified during motion palpation and were applied at the first six consultations, with the seventh consultation consisting of data gathering only. Results: Clinically significant improvements in both Group 1 and Group 2 were seen over the course of the study with regards to cervical spine range of motion, pain and disability. However group 1 showed greater statistically significant improvements in their mean cervical range of motion whereas group 2 showed a greater statistically significant improvement in their subjective readings of pain and disability.

M.Tech. (Chiropractic) / Introduction: Neck pain is a common condition which affects up to 70 percent of people at some point in their lives, and at any given time about 10 to 20 percent of the population reports neck problems. Although spinal manipulation on its own is effective in the treatment of chronic neck pain, chiropractors continue to search adjunctive modalities to improve the positive outcomes of their treatment. Therefore, it is important to look for the best possible treatment protocol as well as research alternatives, should contraindications for present protocols, such as spinal manipulation, arise. One such alternative could be Kinesio® taping. The purpose of this study was to determine the efficacy of utilising Kinesio® taping, spinal manipulation or the two therapies combined, for the treatment of chronic neck pain. It will also provide further evidence on the efficacy of spinal manipulation and Kinesio® taping in isolation. Method: This study was a comparative study consisting of three groups of ten participants. The method of treatment was determined by random group allocation. Group 1 received spinal manipulation to restriction(s) of the cervical spine only. Group 2 received Kinesio® taping to the longissimus cervicis muscles only. Group 3 received a combination of spinal manipulation and Kinesio® taping as previously described. Subjective measurements consisted of the Vernon-Mior Neck Pain and Disability Index and the Numerical Pain Rating Scale (NPRS) and objective measurements was assessed in degrees by making use of the Cervical-range-of-motion (CROM) instrument. Procedure: There were seven consultations in total. There were six treatment consultations over three weeks. The seventh consultation consisted of data collection only. Subjective and objective measurements were taken prior to treatment on the first and fourth consultation, and on the seventh consultation where no treatment took place. Subjective readings were taken from the Vernon-Mior Neck Pain and Disability Index and the NPRS. Objective readings were assessed in degrees by making use of the Cervical-range-of-motion (CROM) instrument. Results: It was evident from the data that all three groups responded well to their respective treatment protocols. With regards to the subjective measurements Group 1, 2 and 3 demonstrated statistically significant improvement in both neck pain severity and functional disability. As Group 1 had the highest clinical improvement with regards to the NPRS, it indicates that the Group 1 treatment protocol was more effective in decreasing the pain intensity throughout the treatment period. All three groups responded similarly with regards to the Vernon-Mior Neck Pain and Disability Index, although Group 1 responded the best clinically. With regards to the objective measurements Group 1, 2 and 3 demonstrated statistically significant improvement in all ranges of motion of the cervical spine. However, it was found that Group 3 clinically responded best to treatments in all the ranges of motion except for right lateral flexion in which Group 2 responded best to treatment. Conclusion: The study showed that the treatment protocols for Group 1, 2 and 3 were effective in treating chronic neck pain. The evidence suggests that the Group 1 treatment protocol, which received spinal manipulation, is more effective than Kinesio® taping alone and the two therapies combined in decreasing pain intensity and functional disability in the treatment of chronic neck pain. The evidence further suggests that the Group 3 treatment protocol, which received spinal manipulation in combination with Kinesio® taping, is more effective than spinal manipulation and Kinesio® taping alone in increasing all cervical spine ranges of motion in the treatment of chronic neck pain.

M.Tech. / The aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness of cervical adjustment therapy, dry needling of the levator scapulae muscle and a combination of the two in the treatment of chronic mechanical neck pain. Forty-five patients were recruited via posters and advertisements from in and around the University of Johannesburg. The participants had to present with bilateral neck pain, decreased range of motion and an active levator scapulae muscles trigger point, which was diagnosed using range of motion and trigger point examination. The participants were randomly allocated into three groups of fifteen participants each. Prior to treatment a full case history, physical examination and cervical regional examination were performed to ensure that the patients were eligible to partake in the clinical trial. Group 1 was the adjusting group; group 2 was the combination group while group 3 was the needling group. Participants were treated five times over a period of three weeks. The objective measurements used in this clinical trial involved a cervical range of motion instrument (C.R.O.M., Performance Attainment Associates) and an algometer (Wagner Instruments). Subjective measurements were achieved using the Neck Pain and Disability Index (Appendix G) and the Numerical Pain Rating Scale (Appendix H). Each measurement was taken prior to treatment on the first and third visits and after treatment on the fifth visit with three measurements per participant overall. The statistical analysis was conducted using the Kruskal-Wallis, Friedman and Wilcoxon tests to compare data. The results indicated that the three groups responded favourably to their respective treatments. Overall, this study has indicated that dry needling of the Levator scapulae muscle provides no statistically significant contribution to the conservative treatment of mechanical neck pain caused by levator scapulae trigger points.

M.Tech. (Chiropractic) / Purpose: The aim of this comparative study was to compare the effects of spinal adjustment with static passive stretch to the cervical spine, and spinal adjustment with proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation to the cervical spine in the treatment of chronic posterior neck pain with regards to pain, disability and cervical spine range of motion. These effects were based on a questionnaire consisting of a Numerical Pain Rating Scale, a Vernon-Mior Neck Pain and Disability Index Questionnaire, and on cervical spine ROM readings taken using an analogous cervical spine ROM inclinometer. The questionnaire was completed and the ROM readings taken prior to treatment at the first, fourth and seventh consultation. Method: Thirty participants who met the inclusion criteria were randomly diversified in number and gender between two groups of equal size (15 participants each). Group one received spinal adjustment/s to restricted cervical spine joints followed by static passive stretching. The second group received spinal adjustment/s to restricted cervical spine joints followed by proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation. Participants were treated six times out of a total of seven sessions, over a maximum three week period. Procedure: Subjective data was collected at the beginning of the first and fourth consultations, as well as on the seventh consultation by means of a Numerical Pain Rating Scale (NPRS) and a Vernon-Mior Neck Pain and Disability Questionnaire in order to assess pain and disability levels. Objective data was collected at the beginning of the first and fourth session, as well as on the seventh consultation by means of a cervical spine range of motion inclinometer in order to assess cervical spine range of motion. Analysis of collected data was performed by a statistician. Results: Clinically significant improvements in group 1 and group 2 were noted over the duration of the study with reference to pain, disability, and cervical spine range of motion. Statistically significant changes were noted in group 1 and group 2 with reference to pain, disability, and cervical spine range of motion over time except for cervical spine extension range of motion.

Magister Scientiae - MSc / Neck pain is a common health problem affecting the general population and it can be associated with significant activity limitation, It contributes to a number of lost work days and high costs in its management. The purpose of this study was to identify the trends in the physiotherapy management of patients suffering from episodes of neck pain at the physiotherapy department of the Muhimbiki Orthopaedic Institute (MOI), Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. / South Africa

M. Tech. / Purpose: Many studies have shown the effect of treatment of the cervical spine on parts distant to the spine itself, which are linked anatomically, biomechanically or neurologically, e.g. the temporomandibular joint (Curl, 1994). Curl (1994) reports a neurological link between the cervical spine and the temporomandibular joint, and Reggars (1994) reports a biomechanical link between the temporomandibular joint and cervical spine. These links may affect the cervical spine when adjusting the temporomandibular joint. For these reasons, further study is necessary to establish the possibility of temporomandibular joint involvement in the formation of neck pain, and the possibility of chiropractic manipulative therapy delivered to the temporomandibular joint as a successful alternative treatment for neck pain. The purpose of the study was to determine the effectiveness of chiropractic adjustment of the temporomandibular joint, compared to cervical spine adjustment of the upper cervical spine as a treatment form for neck pain, with regards to pain, disability and cervical spine range of motion. Method: This study consisted of two groups of 15 participants between the ages of eighteen to thirty-five, similar in age and gender ratios. The potential participants were examined and accepted according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The method of treatment administered to each participant was determined by group allocation. Group 1 received chiropractic adjustment techniques delivered to the temporomandibular joint and group 2 received cervical spine adjustment techniques delivered to restrictions of the upper cervical spine.