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.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:netd.ac.za/oai:union.ndltd.org:uj/uj:7458 |
| Date | 17 April 2013 |
| Creators | Packett, Brent N. |
| Source Sets | South African National ETD Portal |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | Thesis |
| Rights | University of Johannesburg |
Page generated in 0.0028 seconds