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

IJPR.2019.169

DOWNLOAD PDF
Table of Contents

Type of Article:  Original Research

Volume 7; Issue 5 (October 2019)

Page No.: 3232-3238

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.16965/ijpr.2019.169

COMPARISON OF NECK MUSCLE FLEXIBILITY, STRENGTH, ENDURANCE AND PROPRIOCEPTION AMONG THE VIDEO DISPLAY TERMINAL USER’S IN COLLEGE STUDENTS WITH NECK PAIN AND WITHOUT NECK PAIN

Priya S 1, Harish. S. Krishna 2, Bamania Bharat Kumar Veljbhai *3.

1 Associate professor, Department of physiotherapy, Laxmi Memorial College of physiotherapy, Mangalore, Karnataka, India.

2 Professor, Department of physiotherapy, Laxmi Memorial College of physiotherapy, Mangalore, Karnataka, India.           

*3 Department of physiotherapy, Laxmi Memorial College of physiotherapy, Mangalore, Karnataka, India.

Address for Correspondence: Bamania Bharat Kumar Veljbhai, Department of physiotherapy, Laxmi Memorial College of physiotherapy, Mangalore, Karnataka, India. E-Mail: bamania786@gmail.com

ABSTRACT

Background: Neck pain is one of the main causes of those who use video display terminal devices. Prolonged period of work in an awkward posture would mainly lead to neck pain among the VDT users. Studies show the prevalence of neck pain among VDT users as 45.5%. It is essential to identify factors for preventing people from getting neck pain. Studies show that musculoskeletal disorders are related to physical fitness level. Many factors in physical fitness can predict the incident of musculoskeletal disorders. There are still studies which are specific to neck pain and physical fitness in office workers.

The context and purpose of the study: The main aim of the study is to compare the flexibility, strength, endurance and proprioception of neck among the VDT users in college students with neck pain and without neck pain.

Results: The main finding of this study was that the video display terminal device users who use more than 4 hours / day have significantly lower flexibility, endurance and proprioception among student with neck pain compared to without pain VDT devices students. But there is no significant difference in strength among both groups.

Conclusion: The majority of VDT user’s students who have neck pain are more affected in range of motion, endurance and proprioception compare to without neck pain. But there is no significant difference in strength among both groups.

Implication: static posture without taking break in student who use VDT devices can be decrease in physical fitness of neck, so student are take break in between time to time and stretch their leg as well as arm ,neck.     

Key Words: VDT device, Neck pain, ROM of neck, endurance, proprioception, strength.

REFERENCES

  1. Nejati P, Lotfian S, Moezy A, Moezy A, Nejati M .The relationship of forward head posture and rounded shoulders with neck pain in Iranian office workers. Med J Islam Repub Iran 2014; 28:26.
  2. Hanvold TN, Veiersted KB, Waersted M: A prospective study of neck, shoulder, and upper back pain among technical school students entering working life. J Adolesc Health 2010, 46(5):488-494
  3. Katz JN, Amick BC, Carroll BB, Hollis C, Fossel AH, Coley CM. Prevalence of upper extremity musculoskeletal disorders in college students .Am J Med. 2000 Nov 1; 109(7):586-8.
  4. Menéndez CC, Amick BC, Jenkins M, Caroom C, Robertson M, Harrist RB, Katz JN. Upper extremity pain and computer use among engineering graduate students: a replication study. Am J Ind Med. 2009 Feb 1;52(2):113-23.
  5. Caspersen CJ, Powell KE, Christenson GM. Physical activity, exercise, and physical fitness: definitions and distinctions for health-related research. PHR. 1985 Mar; 100(2):126
  6. Young SA. The health effects of video display terminals. Professional Safety.1990 Nov 1;35(11):40.
  7. Ghori A. Exposure to video display terminals and associated neuromuscular pain and discomfort in male and female undergraduate university students. HTII.2015;3(1).
  8. Kwon JW, Nam SH, Choi YW, Kim CS .The effect of different head positions in sitting on head/shoulder posture and muscle activity. J Korean Med Sci. 2013;25.
  9. Nam KS, Kwon JW. The effects of head position in different sitting postures on muscle activity with/without forward head and rounded shoulder. J Korean Med Sci. 2014 Jun;26.
  10. Grimmer-Somers K, Milanese S, Louw Q. Measurement of cervical posture in the sagittal plane .J Manip Physiol Ther. 2008 Sep 1;31(7):509-17.
  11. Hanten WP, Olson SL, Russell JL, Lucio RM, Campbell AH. Total head excursion and resting head posture: normal and patient comparisons. ArchPhys Med. 2000 Jan 1;81(1):62-6.
  12. Lee H, Nicholson LL, and Adams RD. Neck muscle endurance, self-report, and range of motion data from subjects with treated and untreated neck pain. J Manip Physiol Ther 2005;28:25-32.
  13. Bostrom M, Dellve L, Thomee S, Hagberg M. Risk factors for generally reduced productivity a prospective cohort study of young adults with neck or upper extremity musculoskeletal symptoms. Scand J Work Environ Health .2008 Apr 1:120-32.
  14. Sitthipornvorakul E, Janwantanakul P, Purepong N, Pensri P, van der Beek AJ. The association between physical activity and neck and low back pain: a systematic review. Eur Spine J. 2011 May 1; 20(5):677-89.
  15. Cardon G, De Bourdeaudhuij I, De Clercq D, Philippaerts R, Verstraete S, Geldhof E. Physical fitness, physical activity, and self-reported back and neck pain in elementary schoolchildren. Pediatr Exerc Sci. 2004 May; 16(2):147-57.
  16. Ylinen J, Salo P, Nykanen M, Kautiainen H, Hakkinen A. Decreased isometric neck strength in women with chronic neck pain and the repeatability of neck strength measurements1 .Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2004 Aug 1;85(8):1303-8.
  17. Meechoovet C, Jalayondeja W, Jalayondeja C, Apinonkul B. F3-2 neck pain and physical fitness among office workers .Jpn. J. Ergon. 2017 Jun 1;53(S2):S446-9.
  18. Lee H, Nicholson LL, and Adams RD. Cervical range of motion associations with subclinical neck pain. Spine 2003;29:33-40.
  19. Kim K, Kim EK, and Lee DK. Effects of pnf patterns exercise on pain, functional disability and fear avoidance belief in chronic low back pain patients. J Kor Phys Ther 2014;26:110-6.
  20. Lee H, Song J .An overview of the icf’s use in Korea. J Kor Phys Ther 2015;27:356-63
  21. Kanchanomai S, Janwantanakul P, Pensri P, Jiamjarasrangsi W. Risk factors for the onset and persistence of neck pain in undergraduate students: 1-year prospective cohort study. BMC public health. 2011 Dec;11(1):566.
  22. Youdas JW, Garrett TR, Suman VJ, et al. : Normal range of motion of the cervical spine: an initial goniometric study. Phys Ther, 1992, 72: 770–780
  23. Yoo WG, An DH: The relationship between the active cervical range of motion and changes in head and neck posture after continuous VDT work. Ind Health, 2009, 47: 183–188
  24. Domenech MA, Sizer PS, Dedrick GS, McGalliard MK, Brismee JM. The deep neck flexor endurance test: normative data scores in healthy adults. PM R 2011;3:105-10.
  25. Jarman NF, Brooks T, James CR, Hooper T, Wilhelm M, Brismée JM, et al. Deep neck flexor endurance in the adolescent and young adult: normative data and associated attributes. PM R 2017;9:969-75.
  26. Lee KC, Cho SM, Pedagogy S. The Korean national curriculum for physical education: a shift from edge to central subject. Phys Educ Sport Pedag 2014;19:522-32.
  27. Choi JY, Chang AK, Choi EJ. Sex differences in social cognitive factors and physical activity in Korean college students. J Phys Ther Sci 2015;27:1659-64.
  28. Chung N, Park HY, Park MY, Hwang YY, Lee CH, Han JS, et al. Association of daily physical activity level with health-related factors by gender and age-specific differences among Korean adults based on the sixth (2014-2015) Korea National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. J Exerc Nutrition Biochem 2017; 21:30-8.
  29. Wing Chiu TT, Hung Law EY, Fai Chiu TH. Performance of the craniocervical flexion test in subjects with and without chronic neck pain. Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy. 2005 Sep;35(9):567-71.
  30. Strimpakos N, Oldham JA. Objective measurementsof neck function. A critical review of their valid-ity and reliability. Phys Ther Rev. 2001;6(1):39—51,http://dx.doi.org/10.1179/108331901786161573.
  31. Juul T, Langberg H, Enoch F, Søgaard K. The intra-and inter-rater reliability of five clinical muscle performance tests in patients with and without neck pain. BMC musculoskeletal disorders. 2013 Dec;14(1):339.
  32. Van Blommestein AS, MaCrae S, Lewis J, Morrissey M. Reliabilityof measuring thoracic kyphosis angle, lumbar lordosis angle andstraight leg raise with an inclinometer. Open Spine J. 2012,http://dx.doi.org/10.2174/1876532701204010010.
  33. Hoving JL, Pool JJ, van Mameren H, et al. Repro-ducibility of cervical range of motion in patients withneck pain. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2005;6(1):59,http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2474-6-59.
  34. Jordan K. Assessment of published reliability stud-ies for cervical spine range-of-motion measurementtools. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2000;23(3):180—195,http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0161-4754(00)90248-3.
  35. Swait G, Rushton AB, Miall RC, Newell D. Evalua-tion of cervical proprioceptive function: optimizingprotocols and comparison between tests in normal sub-jects. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2007;32(24):E692–E701,http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e318155a1b.
  36. Misailidou V, Malliou P, Beneka A, Karagiannidis A,Godolias G. Assessment of patients with neck pain:a review of definitions, selection criteria, and mea-surement tools. J Chiropr Med. 2010;9(2):49—59,http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcm.2010.03.002.
  37. Treleaven J, LowChoy N, Darnell R, Panizza B, Brown-RothwellD, Jull G. Comparison of sensorimotor disturbance between subjects with persistent whiplash-associated disorder and subjects with vestibular pathology associated with acous-tic neuroma. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2008;89(3):522—530,http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2007.11.002.
  38. Revel M, Minguet M, Gergoy P, Vaillant J, Manuel JL.Changes in cervicocephalic kinesthesia after a proprioceptive rehabilitation program in patients with neck pain: a randomized controlled study. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1994:75, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0003-9993(94)90115-5.
  39. Kristjansson E, Dall’Alba P, Jull G. Cervicocephalic kinaesthe-sia: reliability of a new test approach. Physiother Res Int.2001;6(4):224—235, http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/pri.230.
  40. Rix GD, Bagust J. Cervicocephalic kinesthetic sensi-bility in patients with chronic, nontraumatic cervicalspine pain. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2001;82(7):911—919,http://dx.doi.org/10.1053/apmr.2001.23300.1
  41. Dumas JP, Arsenault A, Boudreau G, et al. Physicalimpairments in cervicogenic headache: traumatic vs.nontraumatic onset. Cephalalgia. 2001;21(9):884—893,http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1468-2982.2001.00264.x.

Cite this article: Priya S, Harish. S. Krishna, Bamania Bharat Kumar Veljbhai. COMPARISON OF NECK MUSCLE FLEXIBILITY, STRENGTH, ENDURANCE AND PROPRIOCEPTION AMONG THE VIDEO DISPLAY TERMINAL USER’S IN COLLEGE STUDENTS WITH NECK PAIN AND WITHOUT NECK PAIN. Int J Physiother Res 2019;7(5):3232-3238. DOI: 10.16965/ijpr.2019.169
Post Views: 0