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

Manipulation Versus Mobilization for Spine: a Systemic Review


Affiliations
1 Gian Sagar College of Physiotherapy, Ram Nagar, Rajpura, Punjab, India
2 Gian Sagar College of Physiotherapy, Ram Nagar, Rajpura, Punjab, India
3 Gian Sagar College of Physiotherapy, Ram Nagar, Rajpura (Punjab, India
     

   Subscribe/Renew Journal


Objectives: Objectives of the performed meta- analysis is to reaffirm the efficacy of manipulation and mobilisation and also compare between the two that which has been giving evidence based results, otherwise shown statistically significant results in randomised controlled trials and lastly to give a clear picture of manual therapy which should be applied clinically for future significant findings.

Method: Spine, Journal of manipulative and physiological therapeutics, American Journal of public health, The Spine Journal, Clinical Biomechanics, Journal of American physical therapy association, Journal Of Musculoskeletal Pain were searched for the period of 1992 to 2010. Data was extracted and assessed for methodologic quality. Pooled effects were calculated among homogenious trials using random effects model. Studies on efficacy of mobilization and manipulation on mechanical disorders of spine were included.

Results: 18 trials of high quality are included. Out of 18, in 1 trial mobilization and manipulation when given in conjunction with exercise was beneficial than exercise alone, in 10 trials manipulation gave better results, in 2 trials manipulation and mobilization when given to thoracic region cured cervical radiculopathy, 2 trials showed that both manipulation and mobilization gave beneficial results, 2 trials showed that mobilization is better than then manipulation and 1 trial evaluated negative results from both the manual therapy techniques.

Conclusion: There is some evidence that when mobilization and manipulation are given along with conventional therapy or individually have been proven beneficial so clinically worthwhile efforts are anticipated.


Keywords

Joint Manipulation, Graded Mobilisation, Manual Therapy and Mechanical Spinal Disorders
Subscription Login to verify subscription
User
Notifications
Font Size


  • Wikipedia, Joint Manipulation, viewed 18th April 2012.Available from: http://en.wikipedia.org/ wiki/Joint_manipulation.

  • Gross AR, Hoving JL, Haines TA et al. A Cochrane Review of Manipulation and Mobilization for Mechanical Neck Disorders. Spine 2004; 29(14):1541-1548.

  • Hurwitz EL, Morgenstern H, Harber P et al. A Randomized Trial of Chiropractic Manipulation and Mobilization for Patients with Neck Pain. American Journal of Public Health 2002; 92(10):1634-1641.

  • Coulter. Manipulation and Mobilization of the Cervical Spine: The Results of a Literature Survey and Consensus Panel. Journal of Musculoskeletal Pain 1996; 4(4):113-124.

  • Bronfort, G Haas, M Evans, RL Bouter, LM. Efficacy of spinal manipulation and mobilization for low back pain and neck pain: a systematic review and best evidence synthesis. The Spine Journal 2009; 4(3):335-356.

  • Cleland, JA Childs, JD McRae, M Palmer, JA & Stowell T. Immediate effects of thoracic manipulation in patients with neck pain: a randomized clinical trial. Manual Therapy 2005;10(2):127-135.

  • Costello M. Treatment of a Patient with Cervical Radiculopathy Using Thoracic Spine Thrust Manipulation, Soft Tissue Mobilization, and Exercise. Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy 2008;16(3):29–135.

  • Hadler NM, Curtis P, Gillings DB, Stinnett S. A Benefit of Spinal Manipulation as Adjunctive Therapy for Acute Low-Back Pain: A Stratified Controlled Trial. Spine 1997; 12(7):631-721.

  • Fabio RP. Efficacy of Manual Therapy. Physical Therapy 1992;72(12):853-864.

  • Koes, BW Assendelft, WJ Heijden, V Geert, JM & Bouter, LM 1996. ‘Spinal Manipulation for Low Back Pain: An Updated Systematic Review of Randomized Clinical Trials’, Spine, vol. 21, no. 24, pp. 2819-2932.

  • Cassidy JD, Lopes AA, Yong-Hing K. The immediate effect of manipulation versus mobilization on pain and range of motion in the cervical spine: a randomized controlled trial. Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics 1992; 15(9):570-5.

  • Shekelle PG, Adams AH, Chassin MR, Hurwitz ER, Brook RH.Spinal Manipulation for Low-Back Pain. Annals of Internal Medicine 1992; 117(7):590-598.

  • Assendelft WJ, Morton SC, Yu EI, Suttorp MJ & Shekelle PG.Spinal Manipulative Therapy for Low Back Pain:A Meta-Analysis of Effectiveness Relative to Other Therapies. Annals of Internal Medicine 2003; 138(11):871-899.

  • Leaver AM, Maher CG, Herbert RD et al. A Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Manipulation with Mobilization for Recent Onset Neck Pain. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 2010; 91(9):1313–1318.

  • Sran M and Khan K. Spinal manipulation versus mobilization. Canadian Medical Association Journal 2002;167(1):13-14.

  • Cote P, Mior SA,Vernon H. The short-term effect of a spinal manipulation on pain/pressure threshold in patients with chronic mechanical low back pain. Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics 1994; 17(6):364-8.


Abstract Views: 488

PDF Views: 8




  • Manipulation Versus Mobilization for Spine: a Systemic Review

Abstract Views: 488  |  PDF Views: 8

Authors

Aman Navneet Kaur
Gian Sagar College of Physiotherapy, Ram Nagar, Rajpura, Punjab, India
Anu Sharma
Gian Sagar College of Physiotherapy, Ram Nagar, Rajpura, Punjab, India
Amandeep Singh
Gian Sagar College of Physiotherapy, Ram Nagar, Rajpura (Punjab, India
Jagmohan Singh
Gian Sagar College of Physiotherapy, Ram Nagar, Rajpura (Punjab, India

Abstract


Objectives: Objectives of the performed meta- analysis is to reaffirm the efficacy of manipulation and mobilisation and also compare between the two that which has been giving evidence based results, otherwise shown statistically significant results in randomised controlled trials and lastly to give a clear picture of manual therapy which should be applied clinically for future significant findings.

Method: Spine, Journal of manipulative and physiological therapeutics, American Journal of public health, The Spine Journal, Clinical Biomechanics, Journal of American physical therapy association, Journal Of Musculoskeletal Pain were searched for the period of 1992 to 2010. Data was extracted and assessed for methodologic quality. Pooled effects were calculated among homogenious trials using random effects model. Studies on efficacy of mobilization and manipulation on mechanical disorders of spine were included.

Results: 18 trials of high quality are included. Out of 18, in 1 trial mobilization and manipulation when given in conjunction with exercise was beneficial than exercise alone, in 10 trials manipulation gave better results, in 2 trials manipulation and mobilization when given to thoracic region cured cervical radiculopathy, 2 trials showed that both manipulation and mobilization gave beneficial results, 2 trials showed that mobilization is better than then manipulation and 1 trial evaluated negative results from both the manual therapy techniques.

Conclusion: There is some evidence that when mobilization and manipulation are given along with conventional therapy or individually have been proven beneficial so clinically worthwhile efforts are anticipated.


Keywords


Joint Manipulation, Graded Mobilisation, Manual Therapy and Mechanical Spinal Disorders

References