TY - JOUR
T1 - COMPARISON OF EFFICACY OF MECHANICAL INTERMITTENT AND KALTENBORN CERVICAL TRACTION MOBILIZATION WITH BELT IN RADIATING NECK PAIN
T2 - A RANDOMIZED CLINICAL TRIAL
AU - Sahasrabudhe, Amala
AU - Eapen, Charu
AU - Zulfeequer, C. P.
PY - 2017/12/1
Y1 - 2017/12/1
N2 - Purpose: The aim of this paper is to see the effectiveness of cervical traction manual or mechanical as an adjunct to physical therapy in the treatment of radiating neck pain. Method: 50 subjects with radiating neck pain, 25 in each group were taken. Both groups received moist heat and cervical retraction exercises for five sessions. The KTr group received Kaltenborn manual traction and the Tr group received mechanical cervical traction. Outcome measures: Numeric Pain Rating Scale and cervical ROM were taken at baseline, after first treatment and at the end of 5th day. Neck disability index and Patient-Specific Functional Scale were taken at baseline and at the end of fifth session. Results: After 5 days of treatment, statistical improvements ((Formula presented.).05) were observed in all outcome measures in both groups. The immediate reduction in pain intensity and increased range of motion was observed in the KTr group. Conclusion: The study showed that both traction methods are equally effective when used as adjunct to physical therapy in radiating neck pain treatment. Immediate effects in reduction of pain and increase in the ROM are more in the manual traction group. Hence, manual cervical traction along with physical therapy can be considered as choice of treatment for immediate improvements in pain and ROM of the cervical spine.
AB - Purpose: The aim of this paper is to see the effectiveness of cervical traction manual or mechanical as an adjunct to physical therapy in the treatment of radiating neck pain. Method: 50 subjects with radiating neck pain, 25 in each group were taken. Both groups received moist heat and cervical retraction exercises for five sessions. The KTr group received Kaltenborn manual traction and the Tr group received mechanical cervical traction. Outcome measures: Numeric Pain Rating Scale and cervical ROM were taken at baseline, after first treatment and at the end of 5th day. Neck disability index and Patient-Specific Functional Scale were taken at baseline and at the end of fifth session. Results: After 5 days of treatment, statistical improvements ((Formula presented.).05) were observed in all outcome measures in both groups. The immediate reduction in pain intensity and increased range of motion was observed in the KTr group. Conclusion: The study showed that both traction methods are equally effective when used as adjunct to physical therapy in radiating neck pain treatment. Immediate effects in reduction of pain and increase in the ROM are more in the manual traction group. Hence, manual cervical traction along with physical therapy can be considered as choice of treatment for immediate improvements in pain and ROM of the cervical spine.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85038929932&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85038929932&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1142/S0218957717500233
DO - 10.1142/S0218957717500233
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85038929932
SN - 0218-9577
JO - Journal of Musculoskeletal Research
JF - Journal of Musculoskeletal Research
ER -