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.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:netd.ac.za/oai:union.ndltd.org:uj/uj:8812 |
| Date | 19 July 2012 |
| Creators | Parbhoo, Kamal |
| Source Sets | South African National ETD Portal |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | Thesis |
Page generated in 0.0061 seconds