Immediate effects of the central posteroanterior mobilization technique on pain and range of motion in patients with mechanical neck pain
Purpose. To determine the immediate effects of the central posteroanterior (PA) mobilization technique on both pain and active cervical range of motion in patients with mechanical neck pain presenting with central or bilateral symptoms. Methods. A randomized controlled trial was conducted in 60 pati...
Saved in:
Main Authors: | , , |
---|---|
Other Authors: | |
Format: | Article |
Published: |
2018
|
Subjects: | |
Online Access: | https://repository.li.mahidol.ac.th/handle/123456789/29732 |
Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
Institution: | Mahidol University |
id |
th-mahidol.29732 |
---|---|
record_format |
dspace |
spelling |
th-mahidol.297322018-09-24T16:31:29Z Immediate effects of the central posteroanterior mobilization technique on pain and range of motion in patients with mechanical neck pain Rotsalai Kanlayanaphotporn Adit Chiradejnant Roongtiwa Vachalathiti Chulalongkorn University Mahidol University Medicine Purpose. To determine the immediate effects of the central posteroanterior (PA) mobilization technique on both pain and active cervical range of motion in patients with mechanical neck pain presenting with central or bilateral symptoms. Methods. A randomized controlled trial was conducted in 60 patients who were randomly allocated into either 'central PA' or 'random' mobilization group. Two physical therapists and one assessor participated. Outcome measures included neck pain at rest, pain on the most painful movement, and active cervical range of motion taken before and immediately 5min after the mobilization treatment. Results. Significant reductions in pain at rest and on the most painful movement were noted within-group comparisons (p<0. 001). However, the 'central PA' mobilization group obtained a significantly greater reduction in pain on the most painful movement than the 'random' mobilization group (p<0. 05). Both mobilization techniques had no effects on the active cervical range of motion. However, the differences in the means of pain reduction between both mobilization techniques were modest (<10mm). Conclusion. The clinical recommendation regarding the selection of the central PA mobilization technique for treating patients with central or bilateral mechanical neck pain is therefore arguably. © 2010 Informa UK Ltd. 2018-09-24T09:31:29Z 2018-09-24T09:31:29Z 2010-03-15 Article Disability and Rehabilitation. Vol.32, No.8 (2010), 622-628 10.3109/09638280903204716 14645165 09638288 2-s2.0-77749295475 https://repository.li.mahidol.ac.th/handle/123456789/29732 Mahidol University SCOPUS https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=77749295475&origin=inward |
institution |
Mahidol University |
building |
Mahidol University Library |
continent |
Asia |
country |
Thailand Thailand |
content_provider |
Mahidol University Library |
collection |
Mahidol University Institutional Repository |
topic |
Medicine |
spellingShingle |
Medicine Rotsalai Kanlayanaphotporn Adit Chiradejnant Roongtiwa Vachalathiti Immediate effects of the central posteroanterior mobilization technique on pain and range of motion in patients with mechanical neck pain |
description |
Purpose. To determine the immediate effects of the central posteroanterior (PA) mobilization technique on both pain and active cervical range of motion in patients with mechanical neck pain presenting with central or bilateral symptoms. Methods. A randomized controlled trial was conducted in 60 patients who were randomly allocated into either 'central PA' or 'random' mobilization group. Two physical therapists and one assessor participated. Outcome measures included neck pain at rest, pain on the most painful movement, and active cervical range of motion taken before and immediately 5min after the mobilization treatment. Results. Significant reductions in pain at rest and on the most painful movement were noted within-group comparisons (p<0. 001). However, the 'central PA' mobilization group obtained a significantly greater reduction in pain on the most painful movement than the 'random' mobilization group (p<0. 05). Both mobilization techniques had no effects on the active cervical range of motion. However, the differences in the means of pain reduction between both mobilization techniques were modest (<10mm). Conclusion. The clinical recommendation regarding the selection of the central PA mobilization technique for treating patients with central or bilateral mechanical neck pain is therefore arguably. © 2010 Informa UK Ltd. |
author2 |
Chulalongkorn University |
author_facet |
Chulalongkorn University Rotsalai Kanlayanaphotporn Adit Chiradejnant Roongtiwa Vachalathiti |
format |
Article |
author |
Rotsalai Kanlayanaphotporn Adit Chiradejnant Roongtiwa Vachalathiti |
author_sort |
Rotsalai Kanlayanaphotporn |
title |
Immediate effects of the central posteroanterior mobilization technique on pain and range of motion in patients with mechanical neck pain |
title_short |
Immediate effects of the central posteroanterior mobilization technique on pain and range of motion in patients with mechanical neck pain |
title_full |
Immediate effects of the central posteroanterior mobilization technique on pain and range of motion in patients with mechanical neck pain |
title_fullStr |
Immediate effects of the central posteroanterior mobilization technique on pain and range of motion in patients with mechanical neck pain |
title_full_unstemmed |
Immediate effects of the central posteroanterior mobilization technique on pain and range of motion in patients with mechanical neck pain |
title_sort |
immediate effects of the central posteroanterior mobilization technique on pain and range of motion in patients with mechanical neck pain |
publishDate |
2018 |
url |
https://repository.li.mahidol.ac.th/handle/123456789/29732 |
_version_ |
1763493611831296000 |