Indian Journal of Physiotherapy & Occupational Therapy-An International Journal

Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Subscription Access
Open Access Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Restricted Access Subscription Access

Effect of Maitland Spinal Mobilization Therapy Versus Conventional Therapy in Lumbar Spondylosis with Radiculopathy


Affiliations
1 N.D.M.V.P'S college of Physiotherapy, Nashik, Maharashtra, India
     

   Subscribe/Renew Journal


Objectives: To compare SMT with conventional therapy in lumbar spondylosis with radiculopathy.

Design : Randomized controlled trial.

Material : Inch tape, pen , goniometer, SWD , lumbar traction unit , Hot packs.

Method: A RCT was done and patients with lumbar spondylosis were allocated in two group. Gr. I received Maitland's mobilization in P-A , rotational and transverse mobilization with hot packs and core stabilization. Gr. 2 received lumbar traction, Shortwave diathermy and core stabilization. Each group had 20 patients and they were evaluated on day one pre treatment and day 30 post treatment. Outcome measures used for assessment were pain on VAS scale, spinal ROM by Schober's test SLR and Oswestry Disability Scale for functional evaluation.

Results: Spinal mobilization and conventional therapy both showed improvement in pain and spinal ROM but spinal mobilization however mobilization therapy showed significant improvement than conventional group (t value = 2.149, p < 0.05). SLR & ODI showed improvement within group but not between the two groups.

Conclusion : Spinal mobilization is better than routine conventional therapy .


Subscription Login to verify subscription
User
Notifications
Font Size


  • Andersson G-B-J, Leucente-T, Devis-A-M et al. A comparison of osteopathic spinal manipulation with standard treatment for patients with low back pain. New England journal of medicine, 4th nov, 1999. vol/issue/pg-341-119.

  • Raymond Lee Y N, Hongkong A critical outlook at what postero-anterior mobilization does to lumbar spine. PT journal vol 12 1990 ISSN- 1073-1075

  • vicenzino B , Collins D : Benson H An investigation of the interrelationship between manipulative therapy induced hypoalgesia and sympathoexcitation. JMPT (J manipulative physiol ther ) 998 sept : 21 (7) ; 448 -53 (58)

  • Back stability –Christopher Norris.

  • Barr KP,Griggs M, 2005 Lumbar Stabilization Program to treat low back pain, an overview, American Journal of Physical Medical Rehabilitation.Jun;84;473-80.

  • Christena A. NIOSI, Thomas R Degenerative mechanics of the lumbar spine. , spine journal 4 (2004) 2025-2085

  • Ferreira M L ,Ferreira P H et al Does spinal manipulative therapy help people with chronic low back pain. Australian journal of physiotherapy, 2002, vol/iss/pg-48/4(277-284),

  • Geert JMG Vander Heijden ,Amma JHM Benrskens , et al Efficacy of traction for back and neck pain . a systematic , blinded review of randomized clinical trials . Physical therapy /vol 75, nov 2 /feb 1995

  • Ajit Chiradejnant, Christopher J Maher, etal Efficacy of therapist selected versus randomly selected mobilization technique for therapeutic treatment of low back pain. A RCT. Australian journal of physiotherapy 2003 vol – 49.

  • Tony S Keller, Christopher J, Colloca, Jean – BuyBelive Force deformation response of lumbar spine sagittal plane model of PA mobilization. Clin Biomech 17(2002) 185-196

  • Heliovaara M risk factors for LBP and sciatica .Ann Med 1989 21:257-264

  • Hurwitz E L ,Morgenstern, correlates of back problem and back related disability in U.S. J clinical epidemiology 1997 ;50 669-681

  • Judovich B ,Nobel G R : traction therapy : a study of resistance force : Am J, surgery 93:108-114, 1957

  • Krauze M , Dessen M et al , Lumbar spine traction , evaluation of effect and recommended approach for treatment . Manual therapy (5) 2 72-81, 2000

  • Loads on lumbar spine during traction and mobilization Raymond Y M Lee and Jolin H Evans Australian Journal of Physiotherapy 2001 vol47

  • MacNab backache -3 edn.

  • Maitland vertebral manipulation 1986, 5th edn., London.

  • McGill SM,1998 ‘ Low Back Stability’an issue for improving performance and rehabilitation. Exercise. Physical Therapy journal, Jul; 78; 754-65

  • Moret NC , Vander strap M, Hagmerjer R et al. Design and feasibility fo randomized trial of traction in patients of lumbar radiculopathy . Mannual therapy 3 :203 -211: 1998

  • O’Sullivan,Twomey 1998. Altered abdominal muscle recruitment in patients with chronic low back pain following a specific exercise intervention.JOSPT;27;Feb 1998.

  • Ricardson CA,Hides JA.1996. Multifidus muscle recovery is not automatic after resolution of acute,first-episode low back pain.Spine;21;2763- 69;1996.

  • Spinal manipulation therapy for low back pain: an updated systematic review of RCT. Spine 21, (24), 2860-2871, dec 15 1996. Koes, Bart W, Assendelft, Van der Heijden et.

  • Twomey,O’Sullivan 1997 Altered patterns of abdominal muscle activation in patients with chronic low back pain.Australian journal of physiotherapy;43;Mar;1997.

  • VAS reliability –Ong K.S. Seymour R A Pain measured in humans 2004: 2 15 -25(7_)

  • Wordon R E ,Humprey T L therapeutic effect of spinal traction on digit of body .Arch Physical Med Rehabil 45, 318-320, 1964


Abstract Views: 1404

PDF Views: 0




  • Effect of Maitland Spinal Mobilization Therapy Versus Conventional Therapy in Lumbar Spondylosis with Radiculopathy

Abstract Views: 1404  |  PDF Views: 0

Authors

Priya Igatpurikar
N.D.M.V.P'S college of Physiotherapy, Nashik, Maharashtra, India

Abstract


Objectives: To compare SMT with conventional therapy in lumbar spondylosis with radiculopathy.

Design : Randomized controlled trial.

Material : Inch tape, pen , goniometer, SWD , lumbar traction unit , Hot packs.

Method: A RCT was done and patients with lumbar spondylosis were allocated in two group. Gr. I received Maitland's mobilization in P-A , rotational and transverse mobilization with hot packs and core stabilization. Gr. 2 received lumbar traction, Shortwave diathermy and core stabilization. Each group had 20 patients and they were evaluated on day one pre treatment and day 30 post treatment. Outcome measures used for assessment were pain on VAS scale, spinal ROM by Schober's test SLR and Oswestry Disability Scale for functional evaluation.

Results: Spinal mobilization and conventional therapy both showed improvement in pain and spinal ROM but spinal mobilization however mobilization therapy showed significant improvement than conventional group (t value = 2.149, p < 0.05). SLR & ODI showed improvement within group but not between the two groups.

Conclusion : Spinal mobilization is better than routine conventional therapy .


References