https://www.ijmhr.org/ijpr.html editor_physiotherapy@hotmail.com
ISSN:       2321-1822 (E) 2321-8975 (P)

IJPR.2017.224

DOWNLOAD PDF
Table of Contents

Type of Article:  Original Research

Volume 5; Issue 6 (November 2017)

Page No.: 2443-2450

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.16965/ijpr.2017.224

MULLIGAN VERSUS KINESIO TAPE IN PATIENTS WITH MECHANICAL NECK PAIN

Hajar Mohammed Edris *, Wadida H. El-Sayed, Ghada Ismail Mohamed.

*1 Physiotherapist at Nahia family medicine center, Egyptian ministry of health, Egypt.

2 Professor of Physical Therapy for Basic Science Department, Faculty of Physical Therapy, Cairo University, Egypt.

3 Lecturer of Physical Therapy for Basic Science Department,Faculty of Physical Therapy,Cairo University, Egypt.

Address for Correspondence: Dr. Hajar Mohammed Edris, Physiotherapist at Nahia family medicine center, Egyptian ministry of health, Tel: 02- 01122243826 E-Mail: hagermohamed249@gmail.com

ABSTRACT

Introduction: Mechanical neck pain (MNP) is a problem that can be result from various causes but it is usually result from poor or faulty posture, overuse injuries or trauma.

Materials and Methods: Thirty patients with mechanical neck pain were assigned randomly into three groups: Group (A) 10 participants received conventional physical therapy program. Group (B) 10 participant received conventional physical therapy program plus natural apophyseal glides (NAGs). Group (C) 10 participant received conventional physical therapy program plus kinesio tape. Pain intensity level, neck functional disability level, and cervical range of motion were measured pre and post intervention period.  

Results: There was significant decrease in numerical pain rating scale and neck disability index. There was significant increase in range of motion for all groups.

Conclusion: The conventional physical therapy program and NAGS are effective in improving pain intensity level, neck functional disability level, and cervical range of motion in mechanical neck pain more than the conventional physical therapy program and kinesio tape and conventional physical therapy program alone.

Key Words: kinesio tape, Mechanical Neck Pain, Mulligan, Myrin Goniometer, Natural apophyseal glides, Neck Disability Index, Numerical Pain Rating Scale.

REFERENCES

  1. Fejer R and Kyvik K. The prevalence of neck pain in the world population: a systematic critical review of the literature. Spine 2006;32(3):E353-E362.
  2. Hoving J, Koes B, de Vet H. Manual therapy, physical therapy, or continued care by a general practitioner for patients with neck pain: A randomized, controlled trial. Annals of Internal Medicine 2002;136:E713-E722.
  3. Sanjay K, Badu V, Kumar S. et al. shprt term efficacy of kinesiotaping and exercises on choronic mechanical neck pain. Int J Physiother Res 2013; 1 (5):E283-E92.
  4. Hernandez S, Sanchez C, Morales A. et al. Short-Term effects of kinesio taping versus thrust manipulation in patients with mechanical neck pain: A Randomized clinical trial. Journal of Ortopedics and Sports Physical Therapy 2012;42(8):E724-E30.
  5. Jensen I and Harms-Ringdahl K. Stratiges for prevention and management of musculoskeletal conditions, Neck Pain, Best Practice and Research. Clinical Rheumatology 2007;21:E93-E108.
  6. Hussain S, Ahmad A, Amjad F. et al. Effectiveness of Natural Apophyseal Glides Versus Grade I and II Maitland Mobilization in Non Specific Neck Pain 2016;22(1):E23-E29.
  7. Halseth T, McChesney J, DeBeliso M. et al. The effects of Kinesio taping on proprioception at the ankle. Journal of Sports Science and Medicine 2004; 3: E1–E7.
  8. Mulligan B. Manual Therapy: “Nags”, “Snags” “Mwms”. 4th edition. New Zealand: Wellington 2004.
  9. Exelby L. Mobilisations with movement: a personal view. Physiotherapy 1995;81(12):E724–E729.
  10. Mariana C and Carmen-Oana T. Massage versus kinesio taping. Possibilities to enhance the kinetic program in mechanically triggered neck pain. Procedia Soc Behav Sci 2014;117:E639-E45.
  11. Vifar M and Wertz J. A Systematic Review of the Effectiveness of Kinesio Taping for Musculoskeletal Injury. The Journal of Physician and Sports medicine 2012;40(4):E0091-E3847.
  12. Ismail M. The Effect of Neck Endurance Training as a Component of an Exercise Program for Chronic non-Specific Neck Pain. Bull Fac. Ph. Th. Cairo Univ. 2008;13(1):E309-E315.
  13. Fejer R, Jordan A, Hartvigsen J. Categorising the severity of neck pain: establishment of cut points for use in clinical and epidemiological research. Pain 2005;119:E176-E82.
  14. Shaheen A, Omar M, Vernon H. Cross-cultural adaptation, reliability, and validity of the Arabic version of neck disability index in patients with neck pain 2013;38(10):E609-E615.
  15. Malmstrom E, Karlberg M, Melander A. et al. Zebris versus myrin: a comparative study between a three-dimensional ultrasound movement analysis and an inclinometer/compass method: intra-device reliability, concurrent validity, inter-tester comparison, intratester reliability, and intra-individual variability. Spine 2003;28(21):E433-E440.
  16. Added A, Costa O, Fukuda Y. et al. Efficacy of adding the kinesio taping method to guideline-endorsed conventional physiotherapy in patients with chronic nonspecific low back pain: a randomized controlled trial. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2013;24:E14:301.
  17. Mulligan B.Manual therapy: NAGS, SNAGS, MWMs etc. 4th ed. Wellington: Plane View Services Ltd 1999.
  18. Kase K and Wallis J. The latest kinesio taping method. Ski-Journal 2002:35.
  19. Hussain S, Ahmad A, Amjad F. et al. Effectiveness of Natural Apophyseal Glides Versus Grade I and II Maitland Mobilization in Non Specific Neck Pain. 2016;22(1):E23-29.
  20. Hing W, Bigelow R, Bremner T. Mulligan’s mobilisation with movement: a review of the tenets and prescription of MWMs. NZJ Physiother. 2008;36(3): E144-E64.
  21. Kumar D. Efficacy of Mulligan concept (NAGS) on pain at available end range in cervical spine pain: a randomized control trial. Indian journal of Physiotherapy and Occupational Therapy 2011;5(1):E154-E15.
  22. Gautam R, Dhamija J, Puri A. et al. Comparison of Maitland And Mulligan Mobilization In Improving Neck Pain, ROM and Disability. Int J Physiother Res 2014;2(3):E561-E566.
  23. Dawood S, Kattabei M., Nasef A. et al. Effectiveness of Kinesio Tapping Versus Cervical Traction on Mechanical Neck Dysfunction. International Journal of Therapies and Rehabilitation Research 2013;2(2):E20-E30.
  24. Ali F, El-Wardany H, Alduraibi K. Effect of Kinesio Taping in Patients with Mechanical Neck Dysfunction.  J. Cairo Univ. 2013;83(1):E867-E873.
  25. Mahgoub M, Abd El-Aziz H, Saleh A. et al. Efficacy of kinesio taping versus phonophoresis on mechanical neck dysfunction. International Journal of Recent Advances in Multidisciplinary Research 2014;1(12):E0128-E0134.

Cite this article: Hajar Mohammed Edris, Wadida H. El-Sayed, Ghada Ismail Mohamed. MULLIGAN VERSUS KINESIO TAPE IN PATIENTS WITH MECHANICAL NECK PAIN. Int J Physiother Res 2017;5(6):2443-2450. DOI: 10.16965/ijpr.2017.224
Post Views: 0