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 Grade II and Grade III Mobilization by Maitland Technique in Low Back Pain


Affiliations
1 Chaitnya Medical Foundation College of Physiotherapy, Pune, Maharashtra, India
     

   Subscribe/Renew Journal


Aim: To find out the effect of grade II and grade III mobilization in Mechanical Low Back Pain.

Objectives: To find the effect of grade II mobilization and grade III mobilization on pain and on lumbar mobility and also to compare the effect of grade II and III mobilizations on pain and lumbar mobility.

Methodology: This is an experimental study with sample size of 30. Subjects complaining of Low back Pain between 8 weeks and 6 months are included by using Random sampling method and divided into two groups i.e. group A - Grade II Mobilization and Group B - Grade III mobilization. Subjects with Prolapse with neurological signs and symptoms requiring surgery, Pregnancy, Spondylolisthesis, Spondylolysis, Fractures, Malignancy, Osteoporosis, Previous back surgery, Known rheumatic, neurologic or mental disease are excluded. Baseline data was collected by assessing pain and function. Same therapist treated all Subjects with Four mobilizations lasting for 30 seconds each to be given for two week. Pain and lumbar mobility was assessed at 0 week, first week and second week.

Data Analysis: Data was analysed using paired and unpaired t - test.

Results: There was a statistically significant reduction in pain and improvement in lumbar mobility after application of grade II and III mobilization techniques at p=0.001.

Conclusion: Result suggests that grade II and III maitland mobilization is effective in improving lumbar mobility and VAS scores in patients with mechanical low back pain but grade III is proved to be better than grade II mobilization technique.


Keywords

Grades of Mobilization, Low Back Pain, Lumbar Mobility
Subscription Login to verify subscription
User
Notifications
Font Size


  • Freemont A.J. (2009). The cellular pathobiology of the degenerate intervertebral disc and discogenic back pain. Rheumatology 48, 5–10.

  • Antoniou J., Steffen T., Nelson F., Winterbottom N., Hollander A.P., Poole R.A., Aebi M., Alini M. (1996). The human lumbar intervertebral disc: evidence for changes in the biosynthesis and

  • denaturation of the extracellular matrix with growth, maturation, ageing, and degeneration. J. Clin. Invest. 98, 996–1003.

  • Acaroglu E.R., Iatridis J.C., Setton L.A., Foster R.J., Mow V.C., Weidenbaum M. (1995). Degeneration and aging affect the tensile behavior of human lumbar anulus fibrosus. Spine 20, 2690–2701.

  • Adams M.A., McNally D.S., Dolan P. (1996). ‘Stress’ distributions inside intervertebral discs. The effects of age and degeneration. J. Bone Joint Surg. Br. 78, 965–972.

  • Battie M.C., Videman T. (2006). Lumbar disc degeneration: epidemiology and genetics. J. Bone Joint Surg. Am. 88, 3–9.

  • Buckwalter J.A. (1995). Aging and degeneration of the human intervertebral disc. Spine 20, 1307–1314

  • Boxberger J.I., Sen S., Yerramalli C.S., Elliott D.M. (2006). Nucleus pulposus glycosaminoglycan content is correlated with axial mechanics in rat lumbar motion segments. J. Orthop. Res. 24, 1906–1915.

  • Bruehlmann S.B., Rattner J.B., Matyas J.R., Duncan N.A. (2002). Regional variations in the cellular matrix of the annulus fibrosus of the intervertebral disc. J. Anat. 201, 159–171.

  • Boos N., Weissbach S., Rohrbach H., Weiler C., Spratt K.F., Nerlich A.G. (2002). Classification of age-related changes in lumbar intervertebral discs: 2002 Volvo Award in basic science. Spine 27, 2631–2644.

  • Bogduk N. (1991). The lumbar disc and low back pain. Neurosurg. Clin. N. Am. 2, 791–806.

  • Cassidy J.J., Hiltner A., Baer E. (1989). Hierarchical structure of the intervertebral disc. Connect. Tissue Res. 23, 75–88.

  • Costi J.J., Stokes I.A., Gardner-Morse M.G., Iatridis J.C. (2008). Frequency-dependent behavior of the intervertebral disc in response to each of six degree of freedom dynamic loading: solid phase and fluid

  • phase contributions. Spine 33, 1731–1738.

  • Chan D., Song Y., Sham P., Cheung K.M. (2006). Genetics of disc degeneration. Eur. Spine J. 15, S317–S325

  • Guerin H.L., Elliott D.M. (2007). Quantifying the contributions of structure to annulus fibrosus mechanical function using a nonlinear, anisotropic, hyperelastic model. J. Orthop. Res. 25, 508–516.

  • G.D.Maitland (2001). Maitland’s Vertebral Manipulation. Sixth Edition.

  • Heuer F., Schmidt H., Wilke H.J. (2008). Stepwise reduction of functional spinal structures increase disc bulge and surface strains. J. Biomech. 41, 1953–1960

  • Humzah M.D., Soames R.W. (1988). Human intervertebral disc: structure and function. Anat. Rec. 220, 337–356.

  • Marchand F., Ahmed A.M. (1990). Investigation of the laminate structure of lumbar disc anulus fibrosus. Spine 15, 402–410.

  • Miller J.A.A., Schmatz C., Schultz A.B. (1988). Lumbar disc degeneration: correlation with age, sex and spine level in 600 autopsy specimens. Spine 13, 173–178.

  • Maroudas A., Stockwell R.A., Nachemson A., Urban J. (1975). Factors involved in the nutrition of the human lumbar intervertebral disc: cellularity and diffusion of glucose in vitro. J. Anat. 120, 113–130.

  • O’Connell G.D., Johannessen W., Vresilovic E.J., Elliott D.M. (2007a). Human internal disc strains in axial compression measured noninvasively using magnetic resonance imaging. Spine 32, 2860–2868

  • Johannessen W., Cloyd J.M., O’Connell G.D., Vresilovic E.J., Elliott D.M. (2006). Trans-endplate nucleotomy increases deformation and creep response in axial loading. Ann. Biomed. Eng. 34, 687–696.

  • Roughley P.J., Melching L.I., Heathfield T.F., PearceR.H., Mort J.S. (2006). The structure and degradation of aggrecan in human intervertebral disc. Eur Spine J. 15, S326–S332.

  • Rajasekaran S., Babu J.N., Arun R., Armstrong B.R., Shetty A.P., Murugan S. (2004). ISSLS prize winner: a study of diffusion in human lumbar discs: a serial magnetic resonance imaging study documenting the influence of the endplate on diffusion in normal and degenerate discs. Spine 29, 2654–2667.

  • Urban J.P., Smith S., Fairbank J.C. (2004). Nutrition of the intervertebral disc. Spine 29, 2700–2709.

  • Schmidt H., Kettler A., Heuer F., Simon U., Claes L., Wilke H.J. (2007). Intradiscal pressure, shear strain, and fiber strain in the intervertebral disc under combined loading. Spine 32, 748–755.

  • Nerlich A.G., Schaaf R., Walchli B., Boos N. (2007). Temporo-spatial distribution of blood vessels in human lumbar intervertebral discs. Eur. Spine J. 16, 547–555.


Abstract Views: 928

PDF Views: 0




  • Effect of Grade II and Grade III Mobilization by Maitland Technique in Low Back Pain

Abstract Views: 928  |  PDF Views: 0

Authors

Seema Saini
Chaitnya Medical Foundation College of Physiotherapy, Pune, Maharashtra, India

Abstract


Aim: To find out the effect of grade II and grade III mobilization in Mechanical Low Back Pain.

Objectives: To find the effect of grade II mobilization and grade III mobilization on pain and on lumbar mobility and also to compare the effect of grade II and III mobilizations on pain and lumbar mobility.

Methodology: This is an experimental study with sample size of 30. Subjects complaining of Low back Pain between 8 weeks and 6 months are included by using Random sampling method and divided into two groups i.e. group A - Grade II Mobilization and Group B - Grade III mobilization. Subjects with Prolapse with neurological signs and symptoms requiring surgery, Pregnancy, Spondylolisthesis, Spondylolysis, Fractures, Malignancy, Osteoporosis, Previous back surgery, Known rheumatic, neurologic or mental disease are excluded. Baseline data was collected by assessing pain and function. Same therapist treated all Subjects with Four mobilizations lasting for 30 seconds each to be given for two week. Pain and lumbar mobility was assessed at 0 week, first week and second week.

Data Analysis: Data was analysed using paired and unpaired t - test.

Results: There was a statistically significant reduction in pain and improvement in lumbar mobility after application of grade II and III mobilization techniques at p=0.001.

Conclusion: Result suggests that grade II and III maitland mobilization is effective in improving lumbar mobility and VAS scores in patients with mechanical low back pain but grade III is proved to be better than grade II mobilization technique.


Keywords


Grades of Mobilization, Low Back Pain, Lumbar Mobility

References