M.Tech. (Chiropractic) / Mechanical neck pain is the most common type of cervical spine pain encountered. It is also referred to as simple or non-specific neck pain and is common in all groups of people (Plaugher, 1993). A majority of individuals with neck pain do not experience a resolution in their pain and disability and this thus results in chronicity (Cote, Cassidy, Carrol and Kristman, 2004). Chiropractic manipulative therapy (CMT) is a specific form of articular manipulation, especially of the vertebral column. This is performed either manually, mechanically, actively or passively in order to restore normal articular alignment and function (Gatterman, 2005). Proprioceptive neck exercises are designed to retrain the cervical musculature to regain its position sense in space. Specific exercises are designed to locate the head to a neutral position and then to do a series of movements in other planes, and then to return the head to the neutral position (Revel, Minguet, Gergoy, Valliant and Manuel, 1994). Chiropractic manipulative therapy does have documented positive effects on the proprioceptive system within the cervical spine (Palmgren, 2006) as does proprioceptive exercises (Sarig-Bahat, 2003; Revel, Minguet, Gergoy, Vaillant, Manuel, 1994). The desired effects of combining both these treatments would be to increase the response rate in patients suffering from chronic mechanical neck pain. The aim of this study was to compare the effects of Chiropractic manipulative therapy (CMT) and proprioceptive neck exercises as stand-alone treatment protocols, as well as a combination treatment protocol with regards to neck pain, disability, cervical spine range of motion and Head Repositioning Accuracy (HRA). Participants were recruited from the University of Johannesburg Chiropractic Day Clinic. They were eligible to participate in the study once they met the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Participants were recruited by means of advertisements that were placed around the respective campuses of the University of Johannesburg as well as by word of mouth. Thirty participants, who presented with chronic mechanical neck pain, volunteered for this randomised comparative clinical study. The participants, aged between 18 - 40, were randomly divided into three groups of ten, with a half female to male ratio. Group 1 received Chiropractic manipulative therapy to the restricted joints in the cervical spine, Group 2 received proprioceptive neck exercises and Group 3 received a combination of both treatments. Participants were treated for a total of 6 visits over a three week period. Subjective and objective measurements were taken at the beginning of visits 1, 4 and at a final visit 7 during which only measurements were taken. Subjective measurements consisted of the Vernon-Mior Neck Pain and Disability Index (VMNPDI) and the Numerical Pain Rating Scale (NPRS) to assess the participants‟ neck pain and disability as well as their perception of pain. Objective measurements were obtained by using the Cervical Range of Motion device (CROM) as well as measuring the Head Repositioning Accuracy (HRA) as described by Revel, Andre-Deshays and Minguet (1991). Based on the results of the study, it could be concluded that both Group 1 (Chiropractic manipulative therapy to the restricted joints in the cervical spine) and Group 3 (a combination of cervical spine manipulation and proprioceptive neck exercises) can be used effectively to treat chronic mechanical neck pain and improve HRA. Group 1, 2 and 3 showed statistical improvements in certain areas and clinical improvements in all areas over time. It could not be statistically concluded whether one treatment is superior to the other, although clinically, Group 1 and Group 3 seemed to be more effective. Considering that Group 3 is a combination of cervical spine manipulation and proprioceptive neck exercises, it could be considered as a valid treatment protocol for chronic mechanical neck pain and improving HRA and could thus be used in a clinical setting.

M.Tech. (Chiropractic) / Purpose: Patients presenting with mechanical cervical spine pain demonstrate myofascial trigger points of the surrounding cervical spine musculature (De Las Penas, Alonso-Blanco, Alguacil-Diego and Miangolarra-Page, 2006). Myofascial trigger points, from specifically the cervical spine musculature, have been seen to be involved to a large extent with not only the local mechanical cervical spine pain but also the accompanying referred pain patterns and symptoms (De Las Penas, Alonso-Blanco and Miangolarra-Page, 2007). The purpose of this study is to compare the efficacy of ischaemic compression and laser therapy respectively, applied to an active myofascial trigger point in participants with acute mechanical cervical spine pain associated with an active trapezius myofascial trigger point TP1, with regards to pain, activities of daily living, pressure pain threshold and cervical spine range of motion. Method: This study consisted of two groups, the ischaemic compression group with fifteen participants and the laser group with fifteen participants. The participants were between the ages of eighteen and forty-five years of age. Prior to becoming a participant of this study, individuals were assessed according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, a clinical case history, physical examination, cervical spine regional examination and upper trapezius muscle palpation to assess for an active trapezius myofascial trigger point 1. Treatment was applied to the active trapezius myofascial trigger point 1 only, from which the subjective and objective results were based. Procedure: Each participant was treated six times over a period of two consecutive weeks. Prior to initiation of the treatment, each participant was requested to complete the Vernon-Mior Neck Pain and Disability Index questionnaire and the Visual Analogue Scale. Algometer readings were obtained over the trapezius myofascial trigger point 1, bilaterally. The Cervical Range of Motion (CROM) goniometer was used to obtain numerical values for the participant’s active cervical spine ranges of motion: flexion, extension, lateral flexion, and rotation. Ischaemic compression and laser therapy, group 1 and group 2 respectively, then each received treatment of the active trapezius myofascial trigger point 1, for a total of six treatment sessions. Both subjective and objective data readings were obtained before the 1st, 4th, and at the 7th final consultation.

Thesis (M.Tech.: Chiropractic)-Dept. of Chiropractic, Durban University of Technology, 2007 xi, 61 leaves, Annexures A-E, 1-5 / Research is more than merely an academic exercise. It is a key ingredient in establishing chiropractic’s role in an evolving health care system (Dallas, 1997). Very little is known about the changes in the chiropractic patient population over time (Hartvigsen et al. 2003). Despite the widespread use of chiropractic, good descriptive data on chiropractors and their patients are limited (Coulter and Shekelle, 2005). Few studies have been reported which deal specifically with patients attending chiropractic teaching clinics (Nyiendo and Olsen, 1988). A teaching clinic is an outpatient clinic that provides health care for patients, as opposed to inpatients treated in a hospital. Teaching clinics are traditionally operated by educational institutes and provide free or low-cost services to patients (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teaching_clinic). In April 1994 the chiropractic day clinic was officially opened at the former Technikon Natal (now the Durban University of Technology). Thousands of patients have been treated at this clinic over this twelve year period. In 1994, Elga Renate Drews, conducted research aimed at identifying characteristics of chiropractic patients and their complaints at the chiropractic teaching clinic at Technikon Natal and private practices in South Africa. This survey was conducted from February 1994 to the end of April 1994. 162 Patients were involved in this study. A survey was completed which included the patient’s age, gender, occupation, presenting condition, duration of complaint, previous treatment, referral, severity, quality of pain and their disability. A comparison was made between patients seen in private practice and at the teaching clinic. It was found that generally both populations were very similar, with the exception of the patients’ age and occupation. No other research investigating patient characteristics has been undertaken at Durban University of Technology chiropractic day clinic after 1994. Furthermore, in the study conducted by Drews no mention was made of the type of treatment that was given to patients either in private practice or at the teaching clinic. Although the first successful chiropractic adjustment recorded was in the thoracic spine by Dr. D.D. Palmer, research since then has focused on the lumbar spine (Di Fabio, 1992). In reviewing literature relating to the thoracic spine, it is apparent that in comparison to the cervical and lumbar regions, the thoracic spine has been neglected (Edmonston and Singer, 1997). In South Africa there remains a paucity of information on the types of thoracic conditions chiropractors treat and the management protocols. The present research aimed to shed light on this aspect by collecting data from one of only two chiropractic teaching clinics in South Africa, namely the Durban University of Technology chiropractic day clinic. The purpose of this research was to investigate the age, gender, occupation (whether of a sedentary or non-sedentary nature), prevalence of pain, presenting complaints, common conditions treated and common management protocols of patients who presented with thoracic pain to the Durban University of Technology Chiropractic Day Clinic.

Dissertation submitted in partial compliance with the requirements for the Masters Degree in Technology: Chiropractic at the Durban University of Technology, 2009. / It has been noted that in many recent research studies mechanical neck pain is a serious problem in the world today. There are epidemiological and statistical studies documenting the high incidence and prevalence of mechanical neck pain, which effects people’s daily living (Drew, 1995; Ferrari and Russell, 2003; Cote et al., 2000, Venketsamy, 2007 and Haldeman et al., 2008). Background: Treatments for chronic neck pain, which are non-surgical, appear to be the most beneficial for patients (Haldeman, 2008). In brief, the presentation of chronic mechanical neck pain is defined as localised, asymmetrical neck pain with restricted range of motion and dysfunctional musculature (Grieve, 1988). The muscular dysfunction known as the upper cross syndrome is defined as tightness of the upper trapezius, pectoralis major and levator scapulae and weakness of rhomboids, serratus anterior, middle and lower trapezius and deep neck flexors. These muscles are responsible for stabilizing the scapula and the patient may present with rounded, elevated shoulders and anterior head carriage when diagnosed with this syndrome (Liebenson, 1996). Clinical trials conducted by Cassidy et al., (1992 a, b) concluded that spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) was highly effective in treating mechanical dysfunctions within the cervical spine. However, due to multi systemic involvement of the muscular, neural and passive systems in mechanical neck pain, the treatment may need to target all three of the subsystems of spinal stability to be most effective (Panjabi, 1992 a, b; Lee et al., 1998; Lee 2004 and Richardson et al., 2002). No research has been conducted on the effects and benefits of treatment directed on the cervical spine and upper cross syndromes. This research will compare scapula stabilization training and SMT to SMT in isolation, as a treatment for chronic mechanical neck pain. Objectives: The purpose of this study was to determine the effect that scapula stabilization had on chronic mechanical neck pain. Pilates exercises were used to strengthen and stabilize the scapula muscles (this included stretching out the hypertonic musculature of the upper cross syndrome). The aim was to improve posture as well as to decrease the mechanical stress on the neck. SMT was also concomitantly used to correct any cervical restrictions that were present. These results were then compared to the results of a group that only received spinal manipulative therapy. The null hypothesis was that the intervention group would not respond differently to the treatment protocol in terms of the subjective and objectives measurements. iv Method: This clinical trial was conducted on a sample population of 30 patients with chronic mechanical neck pain. Each patient was assigned to one of two groups (n=15) according to convenience sampling. Both groups received SMT to the cervical spine, while group B (intervention group) also received pilates classes twice weekly for four weeks, which retrained the scapula stabilization muscles to function optimally. The patients each underwent six spinal manipulative treatments over four weeks and a seventh consultation in the fifth week for data collection. Both groups were evaluated in terms of subjective and objective clinical findings. Subjectively the assessment included 2 questionnaires (Numerical Pain Rating Scale and Canadian Memorial Chiropractic College [CMCC] neck disability index). Objective assessment included cervical motion palpation, Cervical Range Of Motion goniometer (CROM) measurements, scapula stabilization tests and a postural analysis with the use of digital photography. The statistics were completed under the guidance of a biostatistician, from the College of Health Science, University of KwaZulu – Natal, (Esterhuizen, 2008) who analyzed the captured data with the use of SPSS version 15. All outcome measures were quantitative. Repeated measures ANOVA testing was used to assess the presence of a different effect for each outcome measure over time between the two treatment groups. A statistically significant time by group effect would indicate a significant treatment effect. The minimum significance level was 0.05. The trends and direction of the effect were assessed via profile plots. Result: According to the statistical analysis, both groups showed improvements - subjectively and objectively - with regards to chronic mechanical neck pain, which is in keeping with the literature. In terms of the inter-group comparison the SMT group (Group A) showed a more constant improvement in range of motion, pain and disability indexes with the SMT only group while the SMT and pilates group (Group B) showed a greater effect in stabilizing the scapula and increasing the functionality of the surrounding musculature. Conclusions and Recommendations: The intervention treatment (Group B) did not have a greater effect on the short-term treatment of chronic mechanical neck pain than the reference group (Group A). It was also evident that the intervention group (Group B) often continued to improve when the SMT (Group A) only group often regressed at the follow up sessions. This improvement was either not significant enough or v the follow up session did not allow for enough time for a true reflection to be noted. It is recommended that more research be carried out to gain conclusive results indicating whether there is a more beneficial long term result to this treatment protocol.

Submitted in partial compliance with the requirements for the Master’s Degree in Technology: Chiropractic Durban University of Technology, 2013. / Background : Chronic non-specific neck pain is a common condition that negatively affects cervical muscle functioning and activities of daily living. Combined exercise and mobilisation are currently recommended as the most effective treatment for this condition. Mobilisation, such as mobilisation of the cervical spine, provides short-term pain relief and affects neural activity, while the craniocervical flexion exercise provides immediate pain relief and activates the deep cervical flexors. The short-term effect of mobilisation and the craniocervical flexion exercise have not been compared. Objectives : This study aimed to compare mobilisation and craniocervical flexion exercise in terms of subjective and objective outcome measures at a short-term follow-up consultation for the treatment of chronic non-specific neck pain. The null-hypothesis was that the mobilisation group would not respond differently to the craniocervical flexion exercise group. Method : A group of thirty females between the ages of 20 and 35 complaining of non-specific neck pain for more than three months were randomly allocated into either the mobilisation or craniocervical flexion exercise groups. During the first two consultations, a mobilisation was administered to the mobilisation group. Whereas the craniocervical flexion exercise and a posture correcting exercise were taught to the participants of the craniocervical flexion exercise group. The Numerical Pain Rating Scale, Neck Disability Index, Neck Bournemouth Questionnaire, cervical range of motion and algometer readings were taken at each of the three consultations. The Patient Global Impression of Change Scale was administered at the last consultation one week after the first consultation. Results : Both the mobilisation and craniocervical flexion exercise groups showed significant improvements in all of the subjective outcomes. The Neck Disability Index score of the craniocervical flexion exercise group was the only subjective outcome that did not decrease enough to be considered clinically significant. The PGIC score of the mobilisation group was slightly higher than that of the craniocervical flexion exercise group. There was no statistically significant improvement in the objective outcomes of either group. All ranges of motion decreased in both groups, while pain pressure threshold improved in both groups. There was no significant difference between the results of the subjective and objective outcomes of the mobilisation and craniocervical flexion exercise groups. Conclusions and recommendations : The two interventions were found to have a similar effect in the treatment of chronic non-specific neck pain in terms of subjective and objective outcome measures. Participants of both groups indicated on the subjective scales that their conditions improved, even though objective outcomes showed no significant change. In future studies, a larger sample size should be used and the sample should be stratified for ethnicity to increase validity of the results.

Dissertation completed in partial compliance with the requirements for the Master’s Degree in Technology: Chiropractic, Durban University of Technology, 2013. / Background: Mechanical neck pain is a common complaint characterized by pain, limited range of motion and myofascial trigger points. The most common treatments for it are manual therapy and drug therapy. The former includes massage and exercise therapy and more specific to this study spinal manipulation and dry needling. The latter includes non-steroidal anti-inflammatories (NSAIDs) and analgesics. Manipulation assists in increasing range of movement and reduces muscle spasm, while dry-needling inactivates trigger points and decreases local and referred pain. NSAIDs reduce pain and muscle spasm by inhibiting inflammatory pathways. Traumeel®S is a commonly used, safe and well tolerated homoeopathic anti-inflammatory with similar efficacy as NSAIDs but without the adverse gastrointestinal effects. It has also been shown to be highly effective in the treatment of myofascial pain. Methodology: This study was designed as a randomized comparative clinical trial. Fourty participants between ages 18-55 years of age were randomly allocated to two groups of twenty participants each. Group A received spinal manipulation and dry needling in trapezius trigger point two; while Group B received spinal manipulation and Traumeel®S solution injection in trapezius trigger point two. The study took place over a period of two weeks and involved four consultations. Subjective and objective readings were taken at every consultation. Subjective tools included the Numerical pain rating scale (NRS) and Canadian Memorial Chiropractic College (CMCC) neck disability index. Objective tools included the pressure algometer and cervical range of motion (CROM-II) goniometer. SPSS version 20.0 was used in the data analysis. A p-value of <0.05 was considered as statistically significant. 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 subjective and objective measurements i.e. both groups showed improvement. Conclusion: The results of this study concluded that the effectiveness of spinal manipulation and dry needling versus spinal manipulation and Traumeel®S Injectable solution in the treatment of mechanical neck pain associated with trapezius myofascial trigger points is equivalent to each other. No statistically or clinically significant changes were noticed between the groups.

Dissertation submitted in partial compliance with the requirements for the Master's Degree in Technology: Chiropractic, Durban Institute of Technology, 2006. / Lower back pain and lower back injuries have been documented as one of the most common musculoskeletal problems in both amateur and professional tennis players. It has also been documented that the serve, which may be considered one of the most important strokes of the game, is also the most likely stroke to cause back pain. A good tennis serve requires considerable trunk rotation. The serve is the highest stress strain action during tennis. In a two set game the minimum number of serves a player may hit is 24 with a maximum excluding deuces and advantages of 96. The “Topspin serve” in particular requires the player to arch their back and this puts the lumbar spine into hyperextension. These movements thus put considerable pressure on the facet joints and multifidi muscles. It stands to reason that any joint related clinical entity can change biomechanics and affect the serve. In research done on golfers with mechanical lower back pain, it was found that club head velocity as well as pain decreased in symptomatic golfers with mechanical lower back pain after manipulation (Jermyn, 2004). No research has yet been done on manipulation of tennis players with lower back pain. The aim of this investigation was to determine the immediate effect of a lumbar manipulation on the clinical and performance measures of amateur tennis players suffering from lower back discomfort associated with playing tennis. / M

Dissertation submitted in partial compliance with the requirements for the Masters Degree in Technology: Chiropractic at the Durban University of Technology, 2009. / It has been noted that in many recent research studies mechanical neck pain is a serious problem in the world today. There are epidemiological and statistical studies documenting the high incidence and prevalence of mechanical neck pain, which effects people’s daily living (Drew, 1995; Ferrari and Russell, 2003; Cote et al., 2000, Venketsamy, 2007 and Haldeman et al., 2008). Background: Treatments for chronic neck pain, which are non-surgical, appear to be the most beneficial for patients (Haldeman, 2008). In brief, the presentation of chronic mechanical neck pain is defined as localised, asymmetrical neck pain with restricted range of motion and dysfunctional musculature (Grieve, 1988). The muscular dysfunction known as the upper cross syndrome is defined as tightness of the upper trapezius, pectoralis major and levator scapulae and weakness of rhomboids, serratus anterior, middle and lower trapezius and deep neck flexors. These muscles are responsible for stabilizing the scapula and the patient may present with rounded, elevated shoulders and anterior head carriage when diagnosed with this syndrome (Liebenson, 1996). Clinical trials conducted by Cassidy et al., (1992 a, b) concluded that spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) was highly effective in treating mechanical dysfunctions within the cervical spine. However, due to multi systemic involvement of the muscular, neural and passive systems in mechanical neck pain, the treatment may need to target all three of the subsystems of spinal stability to be most effective (Panjabi, 1992 a, b; Lee et al., 1998; Lee 2004 and Richardson et al., 2002). No research has been conducted on the effects and benefits of treatment directed on the cervical spine and upper cross syndromes. This research will compare scapula stabilization training and SMT to SMT in isolation, as a treatment for chronic mechanical neck pain. Objectives: The purpose of this study was to determine the effect that scapula stabilization had on chronic mechanical neck pain. Pilates exercises were used to strengthen and stabilize the scapula muscles (this included stretching out the hypertonic musculature of the upper cross syndrome). The aim was to improve posture as well as to decrease the mechanical stress on the neck. SMT was also concomitantly used to correct any cervical restrictions that were present. These results were then compared to the results of a group that only received spinal manipulative therapy. The null hypothesis was that the intervention group would not respond differently to the treatment protocol in terms of the subjective and objectives measurements. iv Method: This clinical trial was conducted on a sample population of 30 patients with chronic mechanical neck pain. Each patient was assigned to one of two groups (n=15) according to convenience sampling. Both groups received SMT to the cervical spine, while group B (intervention group) also received pilates classes twice weekly for four weeks, which retrained the scapula stabilization muscles to function optimally. The patients each underwent six spinal manipulative treatments over four weeks and a seventh consultation in the fifth week for data collection. Both groups were evaluated in terms of subjective and objective clinical findings. Subjectively the assessment included 2 questionnaires (Numerical Pain Rating Scale and Canadian Memorial Chiropractic College [CMCC] neck disability index). Objective assessment included cervical motion palpation, Cervical Range Of Motion goniometer (CROM) measurements, scapula stabilization tests and a postural analysis with the use of digital photography. The statistics were completed under the guidance of a biostatistician, from the College of Health Science, University of KwaZulu – Natal, (Esterhuizen, 2008) who analyzed the captured data with the use of SPSS version 15. All outcome measures were quantitative. Repeated measures ANOVA testing was used to assess the presence of a different effect for each outcome measure over time between the two treatment groups. A statistically significant time by group effect would indicate a significant treatment effect. The minimum significance level was 0.05. The trends and direction of the effect were assessed via profile plots. Result: According to the statistical analysis, both groups showed improvements - subjectively and objectively - with regards to chronic mechanical neck pain, which is in keeping with the literature. In terms of the inter-group comparison the SMT group (Group A) showed a more constant improvement in range of motion, pain and disability indexes with the SMT only group while the SMT and pilates group (Group B) showed a greater effect in stabilizing the scapula and increasing the functionality of the surrounding musculature. Conclusions and Recommendations: The intervention treatment (Group B) did not have a greater effect on the short-term treatment of chronic mechanical neck pain than the reference group (Group A). It was also evident that the intervention group (Group B) often continued to improve when the SMT (Group A) only group often regressed at the follow up sessions. This improvement was either not significant enough or v the follow up session did not allow for enough time for a true reflection to be noted. It is recommended that more research be carried out to gain conclusive results indicating whether there is a more beneficial long term result to this treatment protocol.

M.Tech. (Chiropractic) / Purpose: The aim of this study was to look at the effectiveness of massage with MYO₂ gel in conjunction with Spinal Manipulative Therapy (SMT) for the treatment of patients with posterior mechanical neck pain, with regards to pain, disability and cervical spine range of motion. The effect of these treatments was evaluated using a questionnaire consisting of Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) and a Vernon-Mior Neck Pain and Disability Index Questionnaire, and by measuring cervical spine range of motion using a cervical range of motion (CROM) measuring device. Method: 30 participants with posterior mechanical neck pain were randomly divided into two groups based on the order they start the study in. Group A – control group, received SMT to the cervical spine, followed by massage with ultrasound gel over the upper trapezius muscle and the area of the posterior neck musculature. Group B – experimental group, received SMT of the cervical spine, followed by massage with MYO₂ gel over the upper trapezius muscle and the area of the posterior neck musculature. 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 and seventh consultations. This was done by means of a Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) and a Vernon- Mior Neck Pain and Disability Index Questionnaire in order to assess pain and disability levels. Objective data was collected at the beginning of the first, fourth session, and seventh consultation by means of measuring cervical spine range of motion using a cervical range of motion (CROM) measuring device. Analysis of collected data was performed by a statistician from STATKON; a department of the University of Johannesburg. Results: When comparing the VAS of the initial with the final consultation it showed a statistically significant difference in both groups. This indicated that both interventions were effective in decreasing the perceived level of neck pain (VAS score). When comparing the Neck Pain and Disability Index of the initial with the final consultation it showed a statistically significant difference in both groups. This indicated that both interventions were effective in decreasing neck pain and disability of the cervical spine. When comparing the Cervical Range of Motion (CROM) of the initial consultation with the final consultation it showed a statistically significant improvement in both groups in all directions of motion. Both groups resulted in an increase in range of motion over time. Group B had a greater average CROM percentage increase of 28.60% average compared to Group A which had an average percentage increase of 22.25%.

Thesis (M.Tech.: Chiropractic)-Dept. of Chiropractic, Durban University of Technology, 2007 xii, 72, Annexures 1-10, [19] leaves / The purpose of this research was to conduct a descriptive study of cervical cases recorded at the Durban University of Technology Chiropractic Day Clinic from 1995 to 2005 as there is a paucity of information on the recorded cases of neck pain in South Africa.