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. / OBJECTIVE: To determine the most effective treatment protocol in the treatment of Upper Crossed Syndrome by comparing objective results gained from Spinal Manipulative Therapy and a stretching program only and a combination of these treatments directed at the shoulder girdle and cervical spine. DESIGN: The study was a clinical trial in which three experimental groups of fifteen participants each were compared to each other. These participants were recruited from the local general population and were selected on the basis of inclusion and exclusion criteria, presenting with Upper Crossed Syndrome and demonstrating unremarkable clinical and radiological findings.

M.Tech. (Chiropractic) / The purpose of this study is to evaluate whether action potential simulation (APS) therapy is more effective than placebo therapy in terms of pain relief and improvement in lumbar spine range of motion when treating chronic lumbar spine pain. The comparison of the two therapies was accomplished by objective and subjective assessments. The study was conducted by means of a double blind clinical trial with two experimental groups. Thirty subjects eighteen years of age and older who suffered from chronic lumbar spine pain were chosen from the general population who responded to the advertisements and from Tarentaal Home for the Aged. The researcher examined each of these subjects in order to be accepted into the study. Each subject was treated ten times over a two-week period and underwent a one-month follow-up consultation to be re-examined. Subjects in both groups received therapy for eight minutes at an amplitude of 1-2mA. Only the APS group received the electric current and the placebo group did not receive the electric current. The objective assessment was by means of measurement of the lumbar spine ranges of motion using an inclinometer. The subjective assessment was measured by means of two questionnaires, which are widely accepted in the research community namely: a) Oswestry Low Back Pain and Disability Questionnaire b) McGill Pain Questionnaire. The results, which were obtained, were statistically analyzed using the Mann-Whitney Rank Sum test (inter-group comparison) and the Wilcoxon Signed Rank test (intra-group comparison). Graphs were created using the actual values of each patient in each group and using the medians obtained. The study concluded that both the APS and the placebo group improved in terms of lumbar spine range of motion and pain relief even though not all the results were statistically significant. The graphs representing the mean values at the first, final and one-month follow-up consultations of each group showed the apparent improvement in terms of range of motion in the lumbar spine and pain relief. The APS group's mean values, at the above mentioned consultations, showed a greater improvement in range of motion and pain relief when being compared to the placebo group's mean values that are represented on the respective graphs.

M.Tech. (Chiropractic) / This study aims to determine whether muscle energy technique of the psoas muscle can be used as an effective treatment for low back pain with lower crossed syndrome or whether it is better to be used alone or in conjunction with spinal adjustments with regards to pain and disability, lumbar range of motion and degree of lumbar lordosis. Thirty participants who met the inclusion criteria were randomly allocated to one of three different groups of ten participants each. Group 1 had muscle energy technique performed on the psoas muscle of each participant. Group 2 received spinal adjustment/s over the restricted joint/s in the lumbar spine. Group 3 received spinal adjustment/s over the restricted joint/s in the lumbar spine in conjunction with muscle energy technique on the psoas muscle. All participants were assessed over a four week period. All groups attended six treatment sessions over three weeks of which muscle energy technique and/or spinal manipulation was performed. In the fourth week only measurements were taken and no treatment was administered.Subjective data was collected at the first and fourth consultations prior to treatment, as well as on the seventh consultation by means of a Numerical Pain Rating Scale and Oswestry Low Back Pain Disability Questionnaire to assess pain and disability. Objective data was collected at the first and fourth consultations prior to treatment, as well as on the seventh consultation by means of a digital inclinometer for assessing active lumbar range of motion and a flexible ruler for measuring the degree of lumbar lordosis. Analysis of collected data was performed by a statistician.Statistically significant improvements were seen in Groups 1, 2 and 3 over the duration of the study with regards to pain, disability and lumbar range of motion as well as degree of lumbar lordosis. The data gathered in this study showed statistically significant changes in Groups 1, 2, 3 with regards to lumbar range of motion, lumbar lordosis, pain and disability, with Group 3 showing the most statistically significant changes with regard to pain and disability...

Dissertation submitted in partial compliance with the requirements for the Master's Degree in Technology: Chiropractic, Technikon Natal, 1999. / To investigate the efficacy of adjusting the ankle in the treatment of subacute and chronic grade I and II ankle inversion sprains. The researcher hypothesised that adjusting a symptomatic ankle, in terms of the above, would result in a more significant improvement than that of a placebo treatment / M

A dissertation submitted in partial compliance with the requirements for a Masters Degree in Technology: Chiropractic, Durban Institute of Technology, 2003. / The purpose of this study was to compare the relative effectiveness of manual manipulation versus the Activator Adjusting Instrument in the management of acute facet syndrome of the lumbar spine / M

A dissertation submitted in partial compliance with the requirements for a Masters Degree in Technology: Chiropractic at the Durban Institute of Technology, 2004. / Scholars, researchers and health care practitioners have long known that patients not only benefit from the specific manual therapy given from their health care providers, but also from the manner in which it is given. The latter is believed to have significant effects on the patient's perception of quality of care and clinical outcome. / M

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. (Chiropractic) / Myofascial pain syndrome has become a significant cause of chronic pain and disability in today‟s society. Conditions causing chronic pain can not only cause disability due to pain, but can also lead to other problems such as psychological and behavioural disturbances. Physical deconditioning can also occur due to lack of exercise because of myofascial pain (Rachlin, 1994). The aim of this study was to compare dry needling therapy and ultrasound therapy in the treatment of myofascial trigger points in order to demonstrate any superiority between the two modalities. Participants for this study were recruited by word of mouth and advertisements that were placed around the University of Johannesburg Doornfontein Campus. Thirty people participated in the trial, all of whom conformed to the specific inclusion and exclusion criteria. The participants were randomly placed into two groups. Group A received dry needling therapy, namely the fanning technique, and Group B received ultrasound therapy. Participants in Group A received one treatment per week for four weeks and subjective and objective measurements were taken at each visit. Participants in Group B received two treatments per week for three weeks and measurements were taken at visits one, three, five and seven. Subjective data was obtained through the use of the Visual Analogue Pain Scale, which measured the perception of pain of the participants. Objective data was obtained from pressure algometer readings, which measured pain pressure thresholds of participants, and through the Cervical Range Of Motion (CROM) device. The results of this study indicated that dry needling therapy and ultrasound therapy both significantly benefited participants in terms of the treatment of active myofascial trigger points. Based on the final results, both dry needling therapy and ultrasound therapy are equally effective modalities in the treatment of active myofascial trigger points, with neither modality showing superiority over the other.

M.Tech. / Purpose: The aim of this study was to compare the effects of Chiropractic adjustments to Muscle Energy Technique (MET) with regards to pain, disability and range of motion in the cervical spine. Method: Thirty participants, male or female between the ages of 18 and 55 years, diagnosed with cervical facet syndrome were used in the study. The thirty participants were randomly divided into two groups consisting of fifteen individuals each, ensuring equal male to female and age ratios. Group A received Chiropractic adjustment/s over the restricted joint/s to the cervical spine. Group B received MET to the cervical spine.The trial consisted of seven visits over a treatment period of three weeks, of which the first six visits the participants received treatment and the seventh visit served the purpose of obtaining the final data. The data was gathered on the first, fourth and seventh visits. The data was always gathered before the treatment was performed. Objective data consisted of measuring cervical spine range of motion with a CROM instrument. Subjective data was obtained by using the Numerical Pain Rating Scale (NPRS) and the Vernon-Mior Neck Pain and Disability Index. Results: The results indicated that Group A (Chiropractic adjustments) proved to be the most effective treatment protocol. Although the other treatment protocol, Group B (Muscle Energy Technique), also showed good results. Both subjective and objective results showed that although Group B produced statistically significant results, Group A showed the best results overall. Thus it was noted that in order to achieve a potentially lasting increase in range of motion and a decrease in pain and disability, the treatment protocol used for Group A should be the treatment of choice. Conclusion: It was concluded, based on the results, that Chiropractic adjustments was more effective than MET in the treatment of cervical facet syndrome. This conclusion is based on the results that Chiropractic adjustments was more effective in all the objective and all the subjective measurements. However, this does not rule out MET as a treatment for neck pain, because MET treatment did show improvements in cervical spine ROM and a decrease in pain, although not as efficiently as Chiropractic treatment.