IJPR.2021.148

Type of Article:  Original Research

Volume 9; Issue 4 (August 2021)

Page No.: 3928-3936

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.16965/ijpr.2021.148

Effect of Spencer Muscle Energy Technique Versus Maitland’s Mobilization Technique on Pain, ROM and Disability in Patients with Frozen Shoulder: A Comparative Study

Raksha R. Jivani *¹, Dharti N Hingarajia ².

¹ Assistant Physiotherapist, sahyog physiotherapy and fitness centre, Surat, Gujarat, India.  

^*2 Sr. Lecturer, SPB Physiotherapy College, Surat, Gujarat, India.

Corresponding Author: Raksha R. Jivani, Assistant Physiotherapist, Sahyog Physiotherapy and Fitness Centre, Surat, Gujarat, India. E-mail: rakshajivani4163@gmail.com

ABSTRACT

Background: Adhesive capsulitis is characterized by a painful, gradual loss of both active and passive glenohumeral motion resulting from progressive fibrosis and ultimate contracture of the glenohumeral joint capsule. Patients with Adhesive capsulitis have difficulties in everyday activities and shoulder pain also disturbs sleep at night on the affected side. Muscle energy technique helps in increasing shoulder range of motion. Maitland Mobilization is commonly used in the treatment of frozen shoulder. SPENCER Muscle Energy Technique (MET) is unique in its application as the client provides the initial effort while the practitioner facilitates the process.

Objective: Objectives of the study was to compare the effect of Spencer MET Vs Maitland’s mobilization on pain, Range of Motion (ROM) and Disability in the patients with frozen shoulder.

Methods: In the present experimental study, total 58 patients with frozen shoulder were included. Inclusion criteria were male and female with age of 40 to 60 year with unilateral frozen shoulder (at least 3-month duration). Patients were randomly allocated in two groups with 29 patients in each group: SPENCER MET and Conventional physiotherapy and   MM and conventional physiotherapy for 5days a week with total duration of 4 weeks. Pre and post intervention assessment was carried out by using VAS, SPADI and ROM. Data was analysed by using SPSS 15 version.

Results: Paired t test was applied within group comparison and result showed statistically significant difference in post intervention measurement compared to pre intervention for improving pain, reducing disability and increasing all ROM in both the groups. Independent t test was applied between group comparison and result showed statistically significant difference between groups mean pre-post differences in improving pain, reducing disability and increasing all ROM except extension and internal rotation.

Conclusion: This study concludes that both the techniques used in the present study i.e., Spencer Muscle Energy Technique and Maitland Mobilization are effective for improving pain, reducing disability, and increasing ROM. However, SPENCER MET is the more effective for improving pain, reducing disability, and increasing ROM compared to Maitland Mobilization in patients with frozen shoulder.

KEY WORDS: Frozen shoulder, SPENCER MET, Maitland mobilization, Shoulder Pain and Disability Index, Visual Analogue Scale.

REFERENCES

[1]. Codman EA. The Shoulder.Boston, Massachusetts: Thomas Todd Company; 1934.
[2]. Andrew S. Neviaser, Jo A. Hannafin. Adhesive Capsulitis: A Review of Current Treatment. The American Journal of Sports Medicine, 2010;38(11):2346-2356.
[3]. Usman Iqbal Janjua, Shaukat Ali. Physical Therapy & Maitland’s Manual Joint Mobilization Techniques (GRADE II & III) are effective to manage the stage I Adhesive Capsulitis. Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary Research in Business, 2011;3(8):243-248
[4]. James P. Tasto, David W. Elias. Adhesive Capsulitis. Sports Med Arthrose Rev., 2007;15(4):216-221.
[5]. Duplay ES. De la periarthrite scapulohumerale et des raideurs de l’epaule qui en son la consequence. Arch Gen Med., 1872;20:513-542.
[6]. Adkitte R, Rane SG, Yeole U, Nandi B, Gawali P. Effect of muscle energy technique on flexibility of hamstring muscle in Indian national football players. Saudi J Sports Med 2016;16:28-31.
[7]. Neviaser JS, Washington DC. Adhesive capsulitis of the shoulder. J Bone Joint Surg Am., 1945;17(2):211-222.
[8]. John Gibbon. Introduction to muscle energy technique. International Therapist. July 2011;97:26-28.
[9]. DA Patriquin. The evolution of osteopathic manipulative technique: The spencer technique. The Journal of the American Osteopathic Association 1992; 62(9): 1134.
[10]. Robert C. Ward. Foundations for Osteopathic Medicine. 2nd ed. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2003.
[11]. ES Contractor, DS Agnihotri, RM Patel – Effect of Spencer Muscle Energy Technique on pain and functional disability in cases of adhesive capsulitis of shoulder joint -iaimjournal.com 2016; 3(8):126-131.
[12]. Maitland GD. Treatment of the glenohumeral joint by passive movement. Physiotherapy, 1983;69:3–7.
[13]. Abhay Kumar, Suraj Kumar, Anoop Agarwal, Ratnesh Kumar, and Pooja Ghosh Das. Effectiveness of Maitland Techniques in Idiopathic Shoulder Adhesive Capsulitis. 2012;10:5402.
[14]. Leighann Litchr 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 randomized controlled clinical trials. Journal of pain 2007;8(12):906-913.
[15]. Richard L Gajdosik and Richard W Bohannon. Review of goniometry emphasizing reliability and validity. Journal of the American Physical Therapy Association 1987;67(12):1867-72.
[16]. Riddle DL, Rothstein JM, Lamb RL, Goniometric reliability in a clinical setting. Shoulder measurements. Physical Therapy 1987;67(5):668-73.
[17]. Breckenridge JD, Mc Auley JH. Shoulder pain and disability index (SPADI). Journal of Physiotherapy 2011;57(3):197.
[18]. Leon Chaitow. Muscle Energy Techniques. 3rd ed. Churchill Livingstone Elsevier; 2006.
[19]. Eileen L. DiGiovanna, Stanley Schiowitz, Dennis J. Dowling. An Osteopathic Approach to Diagnosis and Treatment. 3rd ed. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2005.
[20]. Lundberg A, malmgren: Role of joint afferents in motor control exemplified by effects on reflex pathways from 1b afferents. 1978;284:327-343.
[21]. Gupta S, Jaiswal, P, Chhabra D. A Comparative Study between Postisometric Relaxation and Isometric Exercises in Non-Specific Neck Pain. Journal of Exercises Science and Physiotherapy, 2008;4(2):88-94.
[22]. Donateli R, Wooden JM. Orthopedic physical therapy, Churchill Leving stone, New York, NY, USA, 2nd edition (1994).
[23]. Vermeulen, H.M., Obermann, W.R. and Burger.B.J. End-range mobilization techniques in adhesive capsulitis of the shoulder joint: a multiple –subject case report. Physical therapy 2000;80:1204-1213.
[24]. Kumar A, kumar S, et.,al.Effectiveness of maitland technique in idiopathic shoulder Scholarly Reasearch Network ISRN rehabilitation.2012;1:8.
[25]. Zaky AL. End range mobilization (ERM) versus mobilization with movement (MWM) in treatment of adhesive capsulitis. Bulletin of faculty of physical therapy cairo university.2012;17(2):47-53.
[26]. Edrish saifee contractore, et al. Effect of Spencer Muscle Energy Technique on pain and functional disability in cases of adhesive capsulitis of shoulder joint. International Archives of Integrated Medicine, 2016;3(8).

Share this Research

Facebook

Twitter

Linkedin

email

Print

Pinterest