"A dissertation submitted in partial compliance with the requirements for the Master's Diploma in Technology: Chiropractic, Technikon Natal, 1995. / Mechanical lower back pain is a common clinical entity which encompasses a spectrum of disorders. studies show that spinal manipulative therapy is of value in the treatment of mechanical lower back pain, while some chiropractors are of the opinion that McManis traction offers an effective adjunct to spinal manipulative therapy in the treatment of such conditions / M

No description available.

Dissertation submitted in compliance with the requirement for a Master's Degree in Technology: Chiropractic, Technikon Natal, 1996. / The purpose of this study was to compare the effects of McMannis traction and Intermittent traction, both m conjunction with chiropractic manipulation in the treatment of chronic i.e. longer than four weeks, mechanical lower back pain. It was hypothesised by the author that McMannis traction would be the traction treatment of choice, as it enables the joints of the lumbar vertebrae to be moved through their normal anatomical range of motion while being traeticned axially. In addition this type of traction is more specific and allows the therapist to determine the amount of traction that is being applied to the patient because it is being applied manually. Intermittent traction on the other hand is a motorised non-specific traction and affects several joints at one time (Saunders 1979). / M

M.Tech. (Chiropractic) / Purpose: The purpose of this randomised comparative study was to establish the effects which these modalities had on pain perception and range of motion in patients with acute cervical facet syndrome. This was done by comparing manual cervical spine traction alone; to cervical spine adjustments alone to manual cervical spine traction applied post cervical spine adjustments. Method: A total of 30 participants were recruited for this study by placing advertisements in and around the University of Johannesburg, Doornfontein Campus. Participants had to meet the requirements of the inclusion criteria and were excluded if they were found to be unfit for this particular study. The 30 participants were asked to draw a number out of a bag which therefor randomly divided them into three groups of 10 participants each. Procedure: Participants in group A received manual cervical traction alone as their treatment. Participants in group B received cervical spine adjustments alone as their treatment. Finally, participants in group C were treated by performing manual cervical spine traction after the cervical spine adjustment. Each participant was treated a total of six times over a two week period. Measurements were taken on the first, fourth and a seventh consultation. Results: Regarding the Subjective readings, there was an improvement with regards to the Numerical Pain Rating Scale values for all three groups, but the combination group of manual cervical spine traction performed post cervical spine adjustment, showed the greatest improvement over the trial period on intra-group analysis. No statistical significant changes were found on inter group analysis. There was an improvement in Neck Pain Disability Index values for all three groups, but the cervical spine adjustment group showed the greatest improvement over the trial period on intra-group analysis. No statistical significant changes were found on inter group analysis. Regarding the Objective readings, there was an improvement in pressure algometer readings for all three groups, but the cervical spine adjustment group showed the greatest improvement over the trial period on intra-group analysis. No statistical significant changes were found on inter group analysis. There was an improvement in Cervical Range of Motion readings for all three groups, but the combination group of manual cervical spine traction performed post cervical spine adjustment showed the greatest improvement for flexion, extension and bilateral rotation on intra-group analysis. However, for bilateral lateral flexion, the cervical spine adjustment group showed the greatest improvement on intra group analysis. No statistical significant changes were found on inter group analysis. Conclusion: There were clinically significant improvements within each of the three groups on intra group analysis but no clinically significant differences were found on inter group analysis. Therefore, none of the groups could be singled out as being the best treatment approach for acute cervical facet syndrome. With regards to the Chiropractic profession the outcome of this study therefore suggests, that the chiropractic adjustment alone is sufficient in treatment of acute cervical facet syndrome as none of the groups proved to be superior.

Dissertation in partial compliance with requirements for the Masters Degree in Technology: Chiropractic, Durban University of Technology, 2010. / The aim of this study was establish if Leander versus Static traction was useful for the treatment of facet syndrome, a common type of mechanical lower back pain seen by chiropractors. Two groups of fifteen participants were chosen on the basis of the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The first objective was to determine if Static linear traction was effective for the treatment of lumbar facet syndrome in terms of subjective and objective findings. The second objective was to determine if Leander traction was effective for the treatment of lumbar facet syndrome in terms of subjective and objective clinical findings. Lastly the third objective was to compare the subjective and objective clinical findings for both groups. Design: A randomised, two group parallel controlled clinical trial was carried out between the two sample groups. Participants had to have had chronic lower back pain (> 3months). Thirty symptomatic volunteer participants between 25 and 55 were randomly divided into two equal groups – group A (Leander traction) received 5 treatments over a 2 week period. Similarly, group B (Static linear traction) also received 5 treatments over a 2 week period. Algometer readings, Numerical Pain Rating Scale (NRS101), Pain Severity Scale (PSS) and Oswestery Disabilty Index (ODI) were used as v assessment tools. Subjective and objective clinical findings were taken on the first and second visits (i.e. 48 hours) prior to treatment and immediately after treatment. Another set of subjective and objective readings were taken one week after the fifth treatment in order to gauge the long term effects of both treatments. No treatment was given on the sixth visit. Pressure tolerance measurements using an algometer were taken at the end ranges of motion in Kemp’s test and spinal extension. Outcome measures: SPSS version 15 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, Illinois, USA) was used for statistical analysis of data. A p value of <0.05 was considered as statistically significant. The two groups were compared at baseline in terms of demographics variables and location using Pearson’s chi square tests and ttests as appropriate. Intra-group comparisons were made between all time points. A significant time effect indicated successful treatment intervention. Inter-group comparisons were achieved using repeated measures ANOVA tests for each outcome measured separately. A significant time group interaction effect indicated a significant treatment effect. Profile plots were used to assess the trend and direction of the treatment effect. Results: The results of the study showed that Leander traction and Static linear traction were both effective for treating chronic lumbar facet syndrome and no statistically significant difference was found between subjective and objective clinical findings between the two groups.

Objetivo: comparar fixação transversa de enxertos tendinosos solidarizados versus não-solidarizados e entre duas posições rotacionais diferindo 90 graus entre si em túnel ósseo. Métodos: trinta e seis sistemas de fixação de tendões quádruplos bovinos em osso porcino foram confeccionados e divididos em quatro grupos de acordo com duas posições rotacionais de enxerto (diferindo 90◦) e presença ou não de solidarização. Em ensaio de tração, os dados de força e deslocamento nos pontos de falha (força máxima Fmax e primeiro pico válido Fp) e ponto de medida 445N foram medidos, comparados e utilizados para o cálculo de rigidez. Foram contabilizados os picos intermediários válidos. Resultados: os grupos “à cavaleiro” apresentaram maior força de ponto de falha com todos os parâmetros (p < 0,05) e maior rigidez com o uso de ponto de força máxima (P < 0,05). Nos grupos transfixantes, o grupo com solidarização apresentou maior Fmax e Fp (Fmax de 1555,4N ± 408 versus 1135,2 ± 448,7, Fp de 1539,9N ± 400,8 versus 950,5N ± 599,8). A quantidade de picos intermediários foi maior no grupo transfixante sem solidarização. Conclusão: A posição “à cavaleiro” apresentou maior Fmax, Fp e rigidez. Com a solidarização, o grupo transfixante obteve melhor resposta à tração. / Purpose: To make comparison between sewed and not sewed and between two different rotational positions of transverse fixed tendon graft inside bone tunnel. Methods: Thirty-six quadrupled bovine tendon grafts fixation systems in porcine femurs models were divided into four groups concerning rotational positioning inside de bone tunnel and the presence of sewing through the tendon sections. By measuring displacement and load at the resistance limit, first validated peak and 445N point, the groups were compared and the rigidity was achieved. The intermediate validated peaks were observed. Results: looped positioned groups showed higher fail points levels than the transfixed groups using all parameters (p<0,05), as well as greater rigidity when using the maximum load as fail parameter. In transfixed tendons groups, the sewed tendon group showed greater Fmax and Fp (Fmax 1555,4N ± 408 versus 1135,2N ± 448,7 and Fp 1539,9N ± 400,8 versus 950,5N ± 599,8), p<0,05. Intermediate peaks incidence was greater in the not-sewed/not-looped (transfixed) group Conclusion: looped positioned group gave better results: greater Fmax, Fp, and rigidity. The transfixed tendons group had better response to tensile load when sewed.

Objetivo: comparar fixação transversa de enxertos tendinosos solidarizados versus não-solidarizados e entre duas posições rotacionais diferindo 90 graus entre si em túnel ósseo. Métodos: trinta e seis sistemas de fixação de tendões quádruplos bovinos em osso porcino foram confeccionados e divididos em quatro grupos de acordo com duas posições rotacionais de enxerto (diferindo 90◦) e presença ou não de solidarização. Em ensaio de tração, os dados de força e deslocamento nos pontos de falha (força máxima Fmax e primeiro pico válido Fp) e ponto de medida 445N foram medidos, comparados e utilizados para o cálculo de rigidez. Foram contabilizados os picos intermediários válidos. Resultados: os grupos “à cavaleiro” apresentaram maior força de ponto de falha com todos os parâmetros (p < 0,05) e maior rigidez com o uso de ponto de força máxima (P < 0,05). Nos grupos transfixantes, o grupo com solidarização apresentou maior Fmax e Fp (Fmax de 1555,4N ± 408 versus 1135,2 ± 448,7, Fp de 1539,9N ± 400,8 versus 950,5N ± 599,8). A quantidade de picos intermediários foi maior no grupo transfixante sem solidarização. Conclusão: A posição “à cavaleiro” apresentou maior Fmax, Fp e rigidez. Com a solidarização, o grupo transfixante obteve melhor resposta à tração. / Purpose: To make comparison between sewed and not sewed and between two different rotational positions of transverse fixed tendon graft inside bone tunnel. Methods: Thirty-six quadrupled bovine tendon grafts fixation systems in porcine femurs models were divided into four groups concerning rotational positioning inside de bone tunnel and the presence of sewing through the tendon sections. By measuring displacement and load at the resistance limit, first validated peak and 445N point, the groups were compared and the rigidity was achieved. The intermediate validated peaks were observed. Results: looped positioned groups showed higher fail points levels than the transfixed groups using all parameters (p<0,05), as well as greater rigidity when using the maximum load as fail parameter. In transfixed tendons groups, the sewed tendon group showed greater Fmax and Fp (Fmax 1555,4N ± 408 versus 1135,2N ± 448,7 and Fp 1539,9N ± 400,8 versus 950,5N ± 599,8), p<0,05. Intermediate peaks incidence was greater in the not-sewed/not-looped (transfixed) group Conclusion: looped positioned group gave better results: greater Fmax, Fp, and rigidity. The transfixed tendons group had better response to tensile load when sewed.