Mulligan Versus Conventional Neurodynamic Mobilization in Patients with Cervical Radiculopathy - A Randomized Controlled Trial

Authors

  • Amita Aggarwal Dr. D. Y. Patil College of Physiotherapy, Pimpri Pune 411018, Maharashtra, India. Email address: amita15pgi@gmail.
  • Ruvitte Gomes Post Graduate Student, Department of Physiotherapy, Dr. D. Y. Patil College of Physiotherapy, Pimpri, Pune 411018, Maharashtra, India.
  • Tushar J Palekar Principal, Department of Physiotherapy, Dr.D.Y.Patil College of Physiotherapy, Pimpri, Pune 411018, Maharashtra, India.

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.15621/ijphy/2021/v8i2/998

Keywords:

Mulligan concept, Neck pain, Patient-Specific Functional Scale, Upper Limb Tension Test.

Abstract

Background: Cervical radiculopathy is a type of neck disorder. Here a nerve root in the cervical spine becomes inflamed or impinged, resulting in neurological functions. They may radiate anywhere from the neck into the shoulder, arm, hand, or fingers. While the clinical diagnostic tests of cervical radiculopathy are well established in the literature, studies finding the usefulness of rehabilitation interventions are few. Therefore, the objective of the present study was to compare the effectiveness of mulligan mobilization versus conventional neurodynamics in cervical radiculopathy.
Methods: 30 subjects with age group 30 – 55 years who were clinically diagnosed with cervical radiculopathy &having one Upper Limb Tension Test positive were included in the study. They were randomized to Mulligan Neurodynamic Mobilization Group or Conventional Neurodynamics Group. The treatment sessions (3 repetitions, 3 sets) in both groups lasted for 5 consecutive days. Outcomes were measured using the Numerical Pain Rating Scale(NPRS) for pain, Cervical ranges, and patient-specific functional scale (PSFS) for disability.
Results: Wilcoxon test was used for within-group whereas the Mann-Whitney test was used for between-group comparisons. The test revealed similar improvements in pain and disability in both groups (p>0.05); however, the Mulligan Neurodynamic Mobilization Group showed better results in terms of cervical ranges (p<0.05).
Conclusion: Both the techniques were equally effective, but Mulligan Group had better cervical ranges, especially extension, rotation, and lateral flexion.

References

Pierre Langevin, Jean Roy & Francis Desmeules. Cervical radiculopathy: Study protocol of a randomised clinical trial evaluating the effect of mobilisations & exercises targeting the opening of intervertebral foramen. Bio Med Central Musculoskeletal disorders. 2012; 13(10):1-8.

C.M. ShilpaShekar, Dr. R. Raja ,Dr. R. Vedavathi. A study on assessing the effectiveness of cold laser therapy with neural mobilization along with exercises and transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation with neural mobilization along with exercises in discogenic cervical radiculopathy-comparative study.IOSR Journal of Dental and Medical Sciences.2016 ; 15(12):107-116.

MayurSolanki, ChandiniSolanki. Effectiveness of mulligan mobilization versus neural mobilization in patients with cervical radiculopathy: A comparative study. International Journal of Science & Research. 2015; 4 (5):2387-89.

SreenivasuKotagiri, Anup Kumar Songa, Mayuri Gad &NazzSulthan. Effectiveness of mulligan mobilization with upper limb movement & McKenzie exercises with neural mobilization in patients with cervical spondylitis. International Archives of Integrated Medicine(IAIM).2018;5(5):146-155.

Kelsey JL, Githens PB, Walter SD, O’Connor T. An epidemiological study of acute prolapsed cervical intervertebral disc. Journal of Bone Joint Surg Am. 1984 ; 66(6): 907-14.

Brian Mulligan & Dr. Deepak Kumar. Manual of Mulligan Concept.1st edition; 2014.

Aatit Paungmali, Shaun O Leary, Tina Soulvis. Hypoalgesic&sympathoexcitatory effects of mobilization with movement for lateral epicondyalgia. Physical Therapy Journal.2003; 83: 374-83.

Michael Shacklock. Clinical Neurodynamics - A new system of musculoskeletal treatment. 1st edition; 2005.

Ghada Abdallah, Rabab Mohamed & Moussa Sharaf. Effect of mulligan SNAGs versus Low Level Laser therapy on patients with unilateral cervical radiculopathy. International Journal of Physiotherapy & Research. 2017; 5(4):2240-48.

Wadida Sayed, Ahmed Mohamed, Ghada Abd El-Monem, Hassan Ahmed. Effect of Mulligan SNAGs on chronic cervical radiculopathy: A Randomized Clinical Trial. Medical Journal of Cairo University. March 2017; 85 (2):787-793.

Ylinen J, TakalaEp, Nykanen M. Active muscle training in treatment of chronic neck pain in women: a randomized control trial. Journal of American Medical Association(JAMA). 2003; 289(19):2509-16.

Roopa Nair, Shobhalakshmi Holla, Sayli Rajadhyaksha. Effect of neural tissue mobilization on grip strength in patients with cervical radiculopathy. Journal of Society of Indian Physiotherapists. 2017;1(2):47-52.

S. Iyer, Kim H. cervical radiculopathy. Current reviews in musculoskeletal medicine. 2016 ; 9(3): 272-280.

Bill Vincenzino, Aatit Paungmali , Pamela Teys. Mulligan’s Mobilization with movement, positional faults & pain relief: current concepts from a critical review of literature. Journal of Manual therapy. 2007;12(2):98-108.

Shereen Said, Olfat Ali, Shimaa Abo Elazm, Neveen Abdelraoof. Mulligan self mobilization versus mulligan SNAGs on cervical position sense. International Journal of Physiotherapy.2017;4(20):93-100.

Richard F. Ellis, B. Phty, Wayne A. Hing. Neural Mobilization: A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials with an Analysis of Therapeutic Efficacy. The Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy. 2008;16(1):8–22.

Published

09-06-2021
Statistics
Abstract Display: 1687
PDF Downloads: 1204

How to Cite

Amita Aggarwal, Ruvitte Gomes, & Tushar J Palekar. (2021). Mulligan Versus Conventional Neurodynamic Mobilization in Patients with Cervical Radiculopathy - A Randomized Controlled Trial. International Journal of Physiotherapy, 8(2), 143–149. https://doi.org/10.15621/ijphy/2021/v8i2/998

Issue

Section

Original Articles