M.Tech. (Homoeopathy) / Neck pain is a common condition usually experienced due to mechanical or degenerative problems (Colledge et al., 2010). The onset of neck pain may be acute and associated with asymmetrical restriction of neck movements and a history of awkward posture or sudden onset. Acute neck pain is an aching pain in the cervical paraspinal muscles and ligaments. It is associated with muscle spasm, stiffness and tightness in the upper back and shoulders that lasts up to six weeks. Headaches may be present (Bickley & Szilagyi, 2009). Causes of neck pain can be mechanical, inflammatory, metabolic, neoplastic, due to referred pain or other underlying aetiologies (Colledge et al., 2010). The most common treatments for neck pain are nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, physiotherapy, chiropractic adjustment or therapeutic massage (Taylor, 2010). The NeuroTrac® MultiTENS device provides a non-invasive, drug-free method of controlling acute pain by transmitting mild electrical impulses via surface electrodes through the skin (Verity Medical Ltd., 2013). There have been many studies done on Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation (TENS) devices, but little on its immediate effect on acute neck pain. The aim of this study was to determine the immediate effect of the NeuroTrac® MultiTENS device on acute neck pain, using the Neck Pain Disability Index, Visual Analogue Scale and the Cervical Range of Motion (CROM). This study was an unblinded, single-group experimental design (Brink, 2010). The study took place at the University of Johannesburg Campus Clinic. Recruitment took place by means of advertisements (Appendix H) placed at the University of Johannesburg campuses. Inclusion criteria consisted of males and females between the ages of eighteen to fifty years. Participants had to be suffering from aching pain in the cervical paraspinal muscles and ligaments with associated muscle spasm, stiffness and tightness in the upper back and shoulders that was present for more than one day and no longer than one week, with decreased range of motion on CROMs (Appendix G) and a minimum score of 10 on the Neck Pain Disability Index (Appendix D). Exclusion criteria consisted of participants suffering from severe headaches with meningeal signs associated nausea, blurred vision, photophobia and phonophobia or fever; a history of thrombus formation or transient ischaemic attack (Longmore et al., 2010); if they had a pacemaker or if they have had any head and neck surgery; if they suffered from cardiac arrhythmia or myocardial infarction; pregnancy or suspected pregnancy; if they had a general skin sensitivity or known allergy to adhesives or if they have had a recent chiropractic adjustment. A total of forty participants were selected. The participants acted as their own baseline control. The researcher was only required to see participants once for one forty minute session to determine the immediate vi effect of the NeuroTrac® MultiTENS device on acute neck pain. Participants were asked to fill in an Information (Appendix A) and Consent Form (Appendix B). Participants came in for an initial consult where a history was taken on the type of neck pain experienced and the cause of the pain experienced. Vital signs were recorded on a case taking form (Appendix C). Thereafter participants were asked to fill in the Vernon and Mior Neck Pain Disability Index (Appendix D) relating to the neck pain they experienced and to complete a Visual Analogue Scale to rate their neck pain (Appendix F). The CROM goniometer device was placed on the participant’s head to measure all cervical spine ranges of motion, to the limit of pain (Appendix G). All forty participants received treatment at a frequency of 90Hz with a 200μS pulse width with the electronic pads placed on the shoulders. NeuroTrac® MultiTENS device treatment was administered for forty minutes to the participants in a seated position. The treatment was administered by the researcher. Once the treatment ended, participants were asked to fill in an amended questionnaire (Appendix E) that assessed if they noticed a change in the neck pain they were experiencing, to complete the Visual Analogue Scale (Appendix F) and their vital signs were again recorded on a case taking form (Appendix C). The CROM goniometer device was again placed on the participant’s head to measure all cervical spine ranges of motion to assess if there was a change in the readings recorded (Appendix G). The data obtained was statistically analysed by the researcher with the aid of a statistician at Statkon. The Shapiro-Wilk test and the Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test (non-parametric test) were used (Van Staden, 2014) ...

Submitted in partial compliance with the requirements for the Master's degree in technology in Technology : Homeopathy, Durban University of Technology, Durban, South Africa, 2015. / Introduction There is no proper definition of acute mechanical neck pain (AMNP) but it has been theorized that it has a sudden onset pain and lasts for a relatively short time. It occurs with or without injury and presents with pain in the shoulder and upper arm. Acute mechanical neck pain should not be accompanied by an inflammatory disease, neurological disease, fracture, dislocation, neoplasm or infection AIM The purpose of this study was to compare the relative effectiveness of homoeopathic Simillimum against Traumeel® (a commercial homoeopathic complex) in the treatment of acute mechanical neck pain using the neck disability scale, range of motion measurements and a subjective observation. METHODOLOGY This study was a double blind, quantitative, comparative; clinical trial that involved two treatment groups: Half the participants received the homoeopathic Simillimum and the other half received oral Traumeel® drops. Patients self-selected homoeopathic treatment. Patients were screened and only those who fit the inclusion criteria of suffering from AMNP of maximal two weeks duration, were English conversant and between the ages of 18 and 55 were included. Those suffering with AMNP were required to sign an informed consent form after the procedure was explained thoroughly. Each patient read through the procedure of the clinical trial and were informed that their participation was on a voluntary basis and they could withdraw at any time. Convenience sampling was utilised in which an independent person, using a simple sampling method, randomly allocated the patients into the respective groups. Of the 30 patients, 15 received Traumeel® and 15 received homoeopathic Simillimum. It was hypothesized that the homoeopathic Simillimum treatment would be more effective in the treatment of acute mechanical neck pain than oral Traumeel®. The treatment protocol consisted of three homoeopathic consultations within a seven day period, with the consultations scheduled on days one, three and seven. Subjective and objective measurements were taken at each of the three consultations, Durban University of Technology Homoeopathic Day Clinic, Steve Biko Campus. A Simillimum treatment was prescribed for every patient based on full homoeopathic case history. This Simillimum was confirmed by the co-supervisor. Half of the patients were dispensed the Simillimum and the other half received Traumeel® according to the randomisation list. At the first follow up, on day three, the patients were reassessed according to their progress, perception and their range of motion, and the progress of the patient was analysed. In the last consultation on day seven, the progress of the patient was analysed using the perceptive questionnaire of the Neck Disability Index and the objective cervical range of motion. Full physical examinations were carried out during all three consultations. Upon collection of data, the statistical package SPSS 22.0 was used to record and analyse the data. Non parametric statistical tests were used as the data were non parametric - it does not follow any distribution, was ordinal (not relying on numbers but rather a ranking order of sorts). Inter-group comparisons were made using Mann-Whitney U-test. RESULTS The effectiveness of Traumeel® and homoeopathic Simillimum was measured firstly, in terms of the patients’ perception of the responses to the treatment applying the Neck Disability Index and secondly the increase in degree of movement in the range of motion of the cervical region. When applying an ANOVA with repeated measures with a Greenhouse-Geisser correction, the mean scores between groups were statistically not significantly different (p = 0.112). CONCLUSION Both the Traumeel® and Simillimum treatments were effective in the treatment of acute mechanical neck pain, but there was no evidence that one treatment was more beneficial than the other. The p-values (sig.) reported were greater than 0.05, thus implying that there is no significant difference between the groups.

Submitted in partial compliance with the requirements for the Master’s degree in technology in Technology: Homoeopathy, Durban University of Technology, Durban, South Africa, 2017. / Background: According to Picavet and Schouten (2003) the incidence of neck pain is increasing at a greater rate than other spine problems (Hoving et al. 2004). Furthermore, chronic neck pain is a substantial burden to society with chronic neck pain being the fourth leading cause of disability worldwide (Hoy et al. 2014). Chronic mechanical neck pain (CMNP) has been defined as localised, asymmetrical neck pain with restricted range of motion and dysfunctional musculature (Grieve, 1988). Treatments for those suffering with chronic pain, which are non-surgical, appear to be the most beneficial for patients according to Haldeman et al. (2008). Giles and Müller (1999) have stated that spinal manipulation is the most effective method of treating spinal pain on its own. However, the literature suggests that there is benefit in combining manipulation with an “anti-inflammatory type” drug (Crawford 1988; Oberbaum 1998; Serrentino 2003). Many studies have been successfully conducted on Homoeopathic complexes to treat neck pain (Fisher 1986; Bohmer and Ambrus 1992; Hepburn 2000; Soeken 2004) however no study has yet to been carried out on the combination of Homoeopathic Simillimum (single remedy) and spinal manipulation for CMNP. Objective: The aim of this study was to determine if spinal manipulation and Homoeopathic Simillimum in combination are more relatively effective than spinal manipulation alone in the treatment of chronic mechanical neck pain. Methodology: This study was a randomised, blinded placebo controlled quantitative trial with a comparative clinical trial design. Thirty consenting participants with CMNP who met the inclusion criteria were randomly distributed between two treatment groups. Group A received spinal manipulation as well as Homoeopathic Simillimum and group B received spinal manipulation with placebo medication. Each participant received three treatments over a period of a week; with subjective and objective readings taken at every consultation. The subjective tools included the Numerical Pain Rating Scale and Canadian Memorial College of Chiropractic Neck Disability Index. Objective tools included the Algometer and CROM-II Goniometer. All data captured was analysed using SPSS version 24.0. Inferential and non-parametric analysis of the data were also be performed. Results: The results showed that no statistically significant differences were observed between the two groups in terms of subjective and objective measurements. However, there were statistically significant improvements seen in both groups equally in terms of ANOVA subjective and objective measurements i.e. both groups showed improvement. Conclusion: The results of this study concluded that no statistical or clinically significant changes were noticed between the groups and therefore the Homoeopathic Simillimum added no statistical significant improvements in those who received it over those participants who received placebo in the treatment of chronic mechanical neck pain. / M