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. (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.

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.

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 department (Murphy, 2000). Anti-inflammatory creams and gels are readily available to individuals suffering from musculoskeletal pain. The purpose of this study was to determine the effectiveness of Traumeel®S ointment together with chiropractic spinal manipulative therapy as a treatment form for posterior mechanical neck pain, with regards to pain, disability and cervical spine 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. Group A received chiropractic spinal manipulative therapy followed by the application of aqueous cream over the upper trapezius muscle area of the posterior neck. This was the placebo group. Group B received chiropractic spinal manipulative therapy followed by the application of Traumeel®S ointment over the upper trapezius muscle area of the posterior neck. This was the experimental group. Objective and subjective findings were based on the above treatment protocols. Procedure: Treatment consisted of seven consultations over a three week period. 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 Visual Analogue Scale (VAS). Objective readings were taken from measurements taken from the Cervical Range of Motion device (CROM). At the first to the sixth consultations participants received spinal manipulative therapy with either the application of aqueous cream or the application of Traumeel®S ointment depending on whether they were in group A or group B. Results: Clinically and statistically significant improvements in both group A and group B were seen over the course of the study with regards to cervical spine range of motion, pain and disability. Conclusion: The results show that both treatment protocols were effective in decreasing cervical spine pain and disability and increasing cervical spine ROM. Group B receiving Traumeel®S ointment did show a greater increase in cervical spine ROM clinically, but statistically there was no significant difference between the two groups.

Submitted in partial compliance with the requirements for the Master’s Degree in Technology: Chiropractic, Department of Chiropractic, Durban University of Technology, Durban, South Africa, 2016. / Background Literature has shown that clinical and radiological diagnoses do not always correlate in patients with neck pain (Ferrari and Russel, 2003; Peterson and Hsu, 2004). It is not known if this applies to the Chiropractic Day Clinic (CDC) at the Durban University of Technology (DUT) and if the radiological diagnosis leads to a change in the patient’s initial management plan. The impact of cervical spine plain film radiographs will therefore be investigated in the diagnosis and management of patients that presented with neck pain to the CDC at the DUT. It is also not known whether the reason for referral for cervical spine plain film radiographs is always indicated as per the indications in the clinic handbook and radiological referral guidelines. Objectives Objectives were: (1) To determine the suspected pre-radiographic clinical diagnosis and management of the selected clinical records prior to referral for cervical spine plain film radiography; (2) To record the reasoning to send for cervical spine plain film radiographic imaging and to establish whether these are in line with proposed guidelines for referral as found in the literature; (3) To determine the relationship between the suspected pre-radiographic clinical and the radiological diagnoses of patients with neck pain; (4) To determine the number of incidental findings in the selected patients’ plain film radiographs; (5) To determine any change in the pre-radiographic clinical diagnoses and management following radiological reporting of the selected patient’s plain film radiographs. Method This was a quantitative, retrospective, clinical study. The archives at the CDC at the DUT were searched for cervical spine plain film radiographs between 1 January 1997 to 31 December 2013 and these were matched with the corresponding clinical records. After applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria, 73 records were included in the study. The patient’s personal information was coded to ensure confidentiality (Appendix A) and specific clinical and radiological information was recorded (Appendix B). Statistical analysis included the use of frequency counts, percentages, mean, standard deviation and range for the descriptive objectives. Results A total of 73 clinical files and corresponding plain film radiographs were assessed. The mean age of the patients was 44 years. The gender distribution was 64.4% (n=47) females and 35.6% (n=26) males. The most frequent primary radiological diagnosis was loss of lordosis at 41.1% (n=30) followed by cervical spondylosis at 35.6% (n=26) and old cervical spinal trauma at 12.3% (n=9). Sixty four percent (n=47) of patients in this study were sent for cervical spine plain film radiographs after their initial clinical consultation. Reasons that are not considered relevant indications for plain film radiographic referral were present in 46.2% (n=34) of cases; these described non-specific mechanical disorders. The most common reason for plain film radiographic referral was due to positive orthopaedic tests 57.5% (n=42). A total of 27.4% (n=20) of clinical files reviewed had a change in their initial clinical diagnosis and 72.6% (n=53) of these patients had no change in diagnosis. All of the post-radiographic clinical diagnoses were non-specific mechanical conditions. Numerous treatment modalities were utilized by the students with the most common pre-radiographic treatment being soft tissue therapy at 63.0% (n=46). A total of 75% (n=55) of patients had a change of treatment after plain film radiographs were performed and spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) was the main treatment added in 41% of cases. Conclusion Cervical spine plain film radiographs have little impact on the diagnosis of patients with non-specific mechanical neck pain without red flags. It was however found that plain film radiographs had an impact on the management in the majority of cases, especially with an increase in SMT use after plain film radiographs. / M

M.Tech. (Chiropractic) / Purpose: The effectiveness of cervical spine adjustments for improving spinal function and relieving pain has been well established. However, the mechanisms responsible for these changes after spinal adjustments are still being researched. Further scientific evidence regarding the neurological and physiological effects following spinal adjustments is warranted. Evidence suggesting that spinal dysfunction has an effect on central neural processing is growing. A number of palpation from the first to the sixth visit. The seventh visit consisted of gathering data only. Results: Clinical and statistical improvements in the entire group were shown over the course of the treatment with regards to cervical spine range of motion, touch pressure threshold and neck pain and disability. Conclusion: The results show that lower cervical spine adjustments do have an effect on touch pressure threshold, cervical spine range of motion and neck pain and disability in patients with chronic cervical facet syndrome. Touch pressure threshold returned to optimal function, cervical spine range of motion increased and neck pain and disability decreased in all participants over time. authors have suggested that spinal dysfunction may lead to altered sensory input to the central nervous system (Murphy and Taylor, 2008). Aim: The aim of this study was to determine the effect of C6, C7 and T1 spinal adjustment therapy on those individuals with posterior neck pain due to chronic cervical facet syndrome and its influence on touch pressure threshold, neck pain and disability as well as cervical spine range of motion. Method: This study consisted of a single group of thirty participants between the ages of eighteen and fourty-five. The potential participants were examined and accepted according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The only method of treatment administered to each participant was cervical spine adjustments delivered to restricted C6, C7 and Tl segments in the lower cervical spine. Subjective and objective findings followed. Procedure: Treatment consisted of seven visits. Subjective and objective data was taken at the first, fourth and seventh visit. Objective data consisted of cervical spine range of motion readings taken using a Cervical Range of Motion measuring instrument (CROM), and touch pressure threshold results obtained via the Semmes Weinstein monofilaments. Subjective data was taken in the form of a Vernon Mior Neck Pain and Disability Index. Cervical spine adjustments were applied to restricted segments in the lower cervical spine (C6, C7, Tl), identified through motion

M.Tech. / Purpose: The cervical facet joints have attracted relatively little attention as possible sources of neck pain and referred pain. Multiple authors have described the management of cervical facet joint pain but not the cause (Manchikanti et al., 2002). Method: This study consisted of one group of 100 participants. The participants were between the ages of 18 and 40 years. Potential participants were examined and accepted based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria. All the participants received a cervical spine adjustment. Objective and subjective readings were taken. Procedure: The participants were seen only once. The Visual Analogue Scale was completed by each participant before treatment. Algometer readings were taken over the most restricted cervical spine facet joint and cervical spine range of motion (CROM) machine readings were taken measuring the ranges of motion of the cervical spine. The participants received an adjustment to the most restricted cervical spine facet joint as determined by motion palpation. The CROM machine and algometer readings were taken again immediately after the adjustment and the algometer readings were taken again 10 minutes later. Results: In terms of subjective measurements based on the Visual Analogue Scale, all participants experienced clinically significant pain before starting the trial.In terms of objective measurements based on algometer readings, a clinically significant difference was found as the pressure pain threshold increases over a period of time. In terms of the CROM machine readings there was a clinical improvement from the pretreatment ranges of motion to the post-treatment ranges of motion. The algometer and CROM readings were statistically incomparable to begin with. Conclusion: The results proved that there was a statistical significant noted immediately after the adjustment and 10 minutes later, however, this does not mean much as thegroups were not comparable to begin with. A statistically significant difference was noted for all ranges of cervical spine motion (flexion, extension, right and left lateral flexion and rotation), thus showing that the cervical spine adjustment was successfully delivered to the restricted segments.

Submitted in partial compliance with the requirements for the Master’s Degree in Technology: Chiropractic, Durban University of Technology, Durban, South Africa, 2016. / Aim: This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of the Impulse iQ® Adjusting Instrument and ischaemic compression on trigger points in pain relief and quality of life in adults presenting with non-specific neck pain. Methodology: This study was a randomised single-blinded clinical trial which consisted of 40 participants residing in the eThekwini municipality, divided into two groups of 20 each. The participants were randomly assigned using concealed allocation to one of two treatment groups of 20 viz. Impulse iQ® Adjusting Instrument (IAI) trigger point therapy group and ischaemic compression (IC) group. Neck pain level was determined using a numerical pain rating scale (NRS). Degree of lateral flexion (LF) was determined by a cervical range of motion (CROM) goniometer. Pain pressure thresholds (PPT) were measured with a pain pressure algometer. The effect of neck pain on participants’ activities of daily living was assessed using the Canadian Memorial Chiropractic College (CMCC) Neck Disability Index (NDI). The participants’ overall perception of improvement since the initiation of treatment was assessed using the Patients Global Impression of Change (PGIC). The participants received three treatments over a two and half week period with the fourth consultation being used for the final subjective and objective measurements. Results: Repeated measures ANOVA testing was used to examine the intra-group effect of time and the inter-group effect of treatment on the outcomes of NRS, algometer readings and CROM goniometer measurements. Profile plots were used to assess the direction and trends of the effects. An intra-group analysis revealed that, objectively and subjectively, all groups responded positively to treatment over time, with no significant time-group interaction. It was noted that there was a higher rate of improvement in IAI Group with respect to algometer readings over time; however, this difference was not statistically significant. Conclusion: This study concluded that neither IAI nor IC is more effective than the other with respect to participants’ pain perception and CROM. However, the IAI was more effective on pain pressure threshold. Based on the results collected from this study, both therapies can used in the treatment protocols of neck pain associated with MFTPs. / M

M.Tech. (Chiropractic) / Aim of this study was to compare which treatment either Proprioceptive Neuromuscular Facilitation or chiropractic manipulation, whether by itself or in combination, was more effective and beneficial in the treatment of mechanical neck pain. The effectiveness was measured by the use of a Visual Analogue Scale, Vernon- Mior Neck Pain and Disability Index questionnaire and the measurement of cervical spine range of motion using an analogous cervical spine range of motion inclinometer (CROM). The questionnaire and the measurements were taken prior to the treatments at the first, fourth and seventh consultations.Thirty participants who met the inclusion criteria were randomly placed into three groups of equal size (10 participants each). Group one received a Proprioceptive Neuromuscular Facilitation (PNF) stretching protocol to the cervical spine. Group two received a chiropractic manipulation to the cervical spine. Group three received a combination treatment, first receiving chiropractic manipulation and then a PNF stretching protocol to the cervical spine. Participants were treated six times out of a total of seven sessions, over a maximum of a three week period.Subjective data was collected at the beginning of the first, fourth and seventh consultations. This was done by means of a Visual Analogue Scale and a Vernon-Mior Neck Pain and Disability Index Questionnaire, in order to assess pain and disability levels. Objective data was collected by means of measuring cervical spine range of motion using a cervical range of motion (CROM) inclinometer. Analysis of collected data was performed by a statistician from STATKON, a department of the University of Johannesburg.Clinically significant improvements in group 1, group 2 and group 3 were noted over the duration of the study with reference to pain and disability. Statistically significant changes were seen in all three groups with reference to pain and disability. Group 3 was shown to improve the most with regard to pain and disability. Group 1 had statistically significant improvement with regard to cervical range of motion in the ranges of left and right rotation. Group 2 experienced a decrease range of cervical motion with regard to extension. As the study consisted of a small group of participants further, more extensive studies are needed...

M.Tech. (Chiropractic) / The aim of the study was to compare the efficacy of treating the active levator scapulae trigger point (TP1) with either chiropractic adjustments combined with ischemic compression or chiropractic adjustments combined with ultrasound therapy in physically active people in order to determine which of the two treatment protocols was superior.This study was a comparative study consisting of two groups of fifteen participants each. Participants were between the ages of eighteen and forty-five and there was an equal male to female ratio. Prior to becoming a participant in this study individuals were assessed according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The International Physical Activity Questionnaire, a clinical case history, full physical examination, a cervical regional examination and examination of the levator scapulae muscle for an active central trigger point (TP1) were completed. The method of treatment for each participant was determined by random group allocation. Group 1 received cervical spine chiropractic adjustments combined with ischemic compression to the active levator scapulae trigger point. Group 2 received cervical spine chiropractic adjustments combined with ultrasound therapy to the active levator scapulae trigger point. Subjective and objective readings were based on the above treatment protocols.Treatment consisted of seven consultation sessions over a three week period. There were six treatment visits with the seventh visit used only for data collection. There were two treatments each week with at least two days in between visits. The third week consisted of three visits with the last visit used only for data collection. Subjective data was collected from the Vernon-Mior Neck Pain and Disability Index Questionnaire and the Numerical Pain Rating Scale. Objective data was collected from the pressure algometer readings. Subjective and objective data was collected before treatment on the first and fourth visits and on the seventh final data collection visit. Analysis of the data collected was done by a statistician. The chiropractic adjustments used were based on motion palpation findings on the treatment visits and re-assessed on each visit.Clinically significant improvements regarding neck pain and disability and trigger point severity were seen in both Group 1 and Group 2 over the three week period. Group 2 showed greater improvements in all subjective and objective readings over the three weeks compared to Group 1.