COMPARATIVE EFFECT OF CARPAL BONE MOBILIZATION VERSUS NEURAL MOBILIZATION IN IMPROVING PAIN, FUNCTIONAL STATUS AND SYMPTOMS SEVERITY IN PATIENTS WITH CARPAL TUNNEL SYNDROME

Vikranth  G. R.; Vinod Kumar  K. C.; Lawrence  Mathias

doi:10.15621/ijphy/2015/v2i3/67025

Authors

Vikranth G. R. Associate Professor in Physiotherapy, HOSMAT College of Physiotherapy, Bangalore, India.
Vinod Kumar K. C. Associate Professor in Physiotherapy, HOSMAT College of Physiotherapy, Bangalore.
Lawrence Mathias Professor, Department of Orthopedics, K. S. Hegde Medical Academy, Mangalore Karnataka, India.

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.15621/ijphy/2015/v2i3/67025

Keywords:

Carpal tunnel syndrome, neurodynamics, neural mobilization, carpal bone mobilization, pain, Functional Status, Symptom Severity, Functional disability

Abstract

Background: Carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) is a constellation of symptoms associated with compression of the median nerve at the wrist in carpal tunnel. The Purpose of this study is to find the comparative effective of carpal bone mobilization and neural mobilization in improving pain, Functional Status and Symptom Severity in patients with CTS.
Method: An experimental study design, 30 subjects with carpal tunnel syndrome were randomized into 2 groups with 15 subjects each in Group A and Group B. Subjects in Group A received carpal bone mobilization and subjects in Group B received median nerve mobilization. The duration of intervention was for two weeks. Outcome measurements such as pain using VAS, The Functional Status Score (FSS) and Symptom Severity Score (SSS) using the Boston’s questionnaire for CTS were measured before and after two weeks of intervention.
Results: Analysis using paired ‘t’ test found that there is a statistically significant improvement (p<0.05) in pain, Functional Status score and Symptom Severity score within the groups. Comparative analysis using independent ‘t’ test found that there is no statistically significant difference in improving pain, Functional Status score and Symptom Severity score between both the groups.
Conclusion: It is concluded that median nerve mobilization and carpal bone mobilization shown to be effective on improving pain, Functional Status and Symptom Severity in the treatment of patients presenting with carpal tunnel syndrome. However there is no significant difference in improvements obtained between the neural mobilization and carpal bone mobilisation.

References

1. Steves JC. The electrodiagnosis of carpal tunnel syndrome, revised. Rochester (MN). American association of electrodiagnostic medicine 1997. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Muscle Nerve 1997;20(12):1477-1486. 2. David M. Dawson. Entrapment Neuropathies of the Upper Extremities. N Engl J Med. 1993; 329: 2013-2018. 3. IsamAtroshi, Christina Gummersson, ragnarJhnsson, Edwald Ornstein, Jonas Ranstam, Ingmar Rosen. Prevalence of CTS in a general population. JAMA.1999;282(2):153- 158. 4. Hagberg M, Morgenstern H, Kelsh M. Impact of occupation on the prevalence of carpal tunnel syndrome. Scand J work Environ Health. 1992;18(6):337-345. 5. Macfarlane GJ. Identification and prevention of work- related CTS. The Lancet. 2001; 357, (9263), 1146–1147 6. Seema V. Kamarddi, Latti RG, Kodliwadmath MV. Determination of the prevalence of CTS in the laboratory workers of Jawaharlal Nehru Medical College, Belgaum. A cross sectional study. AJEBS. 2010;1(4):740-746. 7. Mackinnon SE. Pathophysiology of nerve compression. Hand Clin. 2002; 18(2):231-241. 8. Dimitrious Kostopoulos. Treatment of carpal tunnel syndrome: a review of the non-surgical approaches with emphasis in neural mobilization. Journal of Body work and Movement Therapies. 2004;8(1):2-8. 9. Michelle L Heebner, Toni S Roddey. The effects of neural mobilization in addition to standard care in persons with carpal tunnel syndrome from a community hospital. J Hand Therapy. 2008;21(3) 229-40. 10. Butler D. Mobilization of the Nervous system.1st edn;1993 11. Maitland GD. Peripheral Manipulation. 3rd edn;1991. 12. Patterson MM. Manipulation can Stretch the Transverse Carpal Ligament. Journal of the American Osteopathic Association. 1998; 98(12): 662. 13. Sucher BM, Hinrichs RN. Manipulative Treatment of CTS, Biomechanical and Osteopathic Intervention. Journal of American Osteopathic Association. 1998; 98(12); 679-686. 14. Mulligan BR. Manual Therapy “NAGS”, “SNAGS”,”PRP’S” etc. 2nd edition;1992. 15. LeighannLitchr Kelly, Sharon A. Martino, Joan E. Broderick and Arthur A. Stone. A systemic review of measures used to assess chronic musculoskeletal pain in clinical and Int J Physiother 2015; 2(3) Page | 530 randomized controlled clinical trials. Journal of pain. 2007; 8(12):906-913. 16. Oonstra, Anne M.a, Schiphorst Preuper, Henrica R.b d, Reneman, Michiel F.b d, Posthumus, Jitze B.a, Stewart, Roy E. Reliability and validity of the visual analogue scale for disability in patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain. International Journal of Rehabilitation Research.2008; 31(2):165-169. 17. Jose C de Carvalho Leite, Christina JeroschHerold and Fujian Song. A systematic review of the psychometric properties of the Boston Carpal Tunnel Questionnaire. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders 2006; 7:78. 18. LaJoie, A Scott, McCabe, Steven J, Thomas, Binu, Edgell, Stephen E. Determining the Sensitivity and Specificity of Common Diagnostic Tests for Carpal Tunnel Syndrome Using Latent Class Analysis. Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery.2005; 116 (2):502-507. 19. Robert G. Marx, Claire Bombardier, James G. Wright. Kuschner SH, Ebramzadeh E, Johnson D, Brien WW, Sherman R. What do we know about the reliability and validity of physical examination tests used to examine the upper extremity? J Hand Surg. 1999; 24(1):185–193.

COMPARATIVE EFFECT OF CARPAL BONE MOBILIZATION VERSUS NEURAL MOBILIZATION IN IMPROVING PAIN, FUNCTIONAL STATUS AND SYMPTOMS SEVERITY IN PATIENTS WITH CARPAL TUNNEL SYNDROME

Authors

DOI:

Keywords:

Abstract

References

Published

How to Cite

Issue

Section