Comparative Effects of Mulligan’s Mobilization, Spinal Manipulation, and Conventional Massage Therapy in Cervicogenic Headache—A Prospective, Randomized, Controlled Trial
Background: There is ample evidence supporting the use of manual therapy techniques for the treatment of cervicogenic headache (CGH). Objective: The objective of this study was to find and compare the effects of different manual therapy approaches to cervicogenic headache. Methods: A randomized, con...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
MDPI AG
2022-12-01
|
| Series: | Healthcare |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://www.mdpi.com/2227-9032/11/1/107 |
| _version_ | 1797625731979673600 |
|---|---|
| author | Gopal Nambi Mshari Alghadier Elturabi Elsayed Ebrahim Arul Vellaiyan Jaya Shanker Tedla Ravi Shankar Reddy Venkata Nagaraj Kakaraparthi Osama R. Aldhafian Naif N. Alshahrani Ayman K. Saleh |
| author_facet | Gopal Nambi Mshari Alghadier Elturabi Elsayed Ebrahim Arul Vellaiyan Jaya Shanker Tedla Ravi Shankar Reddy Venkata Nagaraj Kakaraparthi Osama R. Aldhafian Naif N. Alshahrani Ayman K. Saleh |
| author_sort | Gopal Nambi |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Background: There is ample evidence supporting the use of manual therapy techniques for the treatment of cervicogenic headache (CGH). Objective: The objective of this study was to find and compare the effects of different manual therapy approaches to cervicogenic headache. Methods: A randomized, controlled study was conducted on 84 CGH participants at the university hospital. The participants were divided into a Mulligan mobilization therapy group (MMT; n = 28), a spinal manipulation therapy group (SMT; n = 28), and a control group (Control; n = 28); they received the respective treatments for four weeks. The primary outcome (CGH frequency) and secondary outcomes (CGH pain intensity, CGH disability, neck pain frequency, pain intensity, pain threshold, flexion rotation (right and left), neck disability index, and quality of life scores) were measured at baseline, after 4 weeks, after 8 weeks, and at a 6-month follow-up. The one-way ANOVA test and repeated measures analysis of variance (rANOVA) test were performed to find the difference between the inter- and intra-treatment group effects. Results: Four weeks following training, the MMT group showed a statistically significant difference in the primary (CGH frequency) and secondary (CGH pain intensity, CGH disability, neck pain frequency, neck pain intensity, flexion rotation test, neck disability index, and quality of life) scores than those of the SMT and control groups (<i>p</i> < 0.001). The same difference was seen in the above variables at 8 weeks and at the 6-month follow-up. At the same time, the neck pain threshold level did not show any difference at the 4-week and the 8-week follow-up (<i>p</i> ≥ 0.05) but showed statistical difference at the 6-month follow-up. Conclusion: The study concluded that Mulligan’s mobilization therapy provided better outcomes in cervicogenic headache than those of spinal manipulation therapy and conventional massage therapy. |
| first_indexed | 2024-03-11T10:00:29Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-05a4bdfe5db24eb5b961d6db8eb73970 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2227-9032 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-11T10:00:29Z |
| publishDate | 2022-12-01 |
| publisher | MDPI AG |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Healthcare |
| spelling | doaj.art-05a4bdfe5db24eb5b961d6db8eb739702023-11-16T15:25:39ZengMDPI AGHealthcare2227-90322022-12-0111110710.3390/healthcare11010107Comparative Effects of Mulligan’s Mobilization, Spinal Manipulation, and Conventional Massage Therapy in Cervicogenic Headache—A Prospective, Randomized, Controlled TrialGopal Nambi0Mshari Alghadier1Elturabi Elsayed Ebrahim2Arul Vellaiyan3Jaya Shanker Tedla4Ravi Shankar Reddy5Venkata Nagaraj Kakaraparthi6Osama R. Aldhafian7Naif N. Alshahrani8Ayman K. Saleh9Department of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, College of Applied Medical Sciences, Prince Sattam bin Abdulaziz University, Al-Kharj 16278, Saudi ArabiaDepartment of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, College of Applied Medical Sciences, Prince Sattam bin Abdulaziz University, Al-Kharj 16278, Saudi ArabiaDepartment of Nursing, College of Applied Medical Sciences, Prince Sattam bin Abdulaziz University, Al-Kharj 16278, Saudi ArabiaDepartment of Nursing, College of Applied Medical Sciences, Prince Sattam bin Abdulaziz University, Al-Kharj 16278, Saudi ArabiaDepartment of Medical Rehabilitation Sciences, College of Applied Medical Sciences, King Khalid University, Abha 62529, Saudi ArabiaDepartment of Medical Rehabilitation Sciences, College of Applied Medical Sciences, King Khalid University, Abha 62529, Saudi ArabiaDepartment of Medical Rehabilitation Sciences, College of Applied Medical Sciences, King Khalid University, Abha 62529, Saudi ArabiaDepartment of Surgery, College of Medicine, Prince Sattam bin Abdulaziz University, Al-Kharj 16278, Saudi ArabiaOrthopedic Surgery Department, King Fahad Medical City, Ministry of Health, Riyadh 12231, Saudi ArabiaDepartment of Surgery, College of Medicine, Prince Sattam bin Abdulaziz University, Al-Kharj 16278, Saudi ArabiaBackground: There is ample evidence supporting the use of manual therapy techniques for the treatment of cervicogenic headache (CGH). Objective: The objective of this study was to find and compare the effects of different manual therapy approaches to cervicogenic headache. Methods: A randomized, controlled study was conducted on 84 CGH participants at the university hospital. The participants were divided into a Mulligan mobilization therapy group (MMT; n = 28), a spinal manipulation therapy group (SMT; n = 28), and a control group (Control; n = 28); they received the respective treatments for four weeks. The primary outcome (CGH frequency) and secondary outcomes (CGH pain intensity, CGH disability, neck pain frequency, pain intensity, pain threshold, flexion rotation (right and left), neck disability index, and quality of life scores) were measured at baseline, after 4 weeks, after 8 weeks, and at a 6-month follow-up. The one-way ANOVA test and repeated measures analysis of variance (rANOVA) test were performed to find the difference between the inter- and intra-treatment group effects. Results: Four weeks following training, the MMT group showed a statistically significant difference in the primary (CGH frequency) and secondary (CGH pain intensity, CGH disability, neck pain frequency, neck pain intensity, flexion rotation test, neck disability index, and quality of life) scores than those of the SMT and control groups (<i>p</i> < 0.001). The same difference was seen in the above variables at 8 weeks and at the 6-month follow-up. At the same time, the neck pain threshold level did not show any difference at the 4-week and the 8-week follow-up (<i>p</i> ≥ 0.05) but showed statistical difference at the 6-month follow-up. Conclusion: The study concluded that Mulligan’s mobilization therapy provided better outcomes in cervicogenic headache than those of spinal manipulation therapy and conventional massage therapy.https://www.mdpi.com/2227-9032/11/1/107cervicogenic headacheMulligan mobilizationspinal manipulationmassage therapy |
| spellingShingle | Gopal Nambi Mshari Alghadier Elturabi Elsayed Ebrahim Arul Vellaiyan Jaya Shanker Tedla Ravi Shankar Reddy Venkata Nagaraj Kakaraparthi Osama R. Aldhafian Naif N. Alshahrani Ayman K. Saleh Comparative Effects of Mulligan’s Mobilization, Spinal Manipulation, and Conventional Massage Therapy in Cervicogenic Headache—A Prospective, Randomized, Controlled Trial Healthcare cervicogenic headache Mulligan mobilization spinal manipulation massage therapy |
| title | Comparative Effects of Mulligan’s Mobilization, Spinal Manipulation, and Conventional Massage Therapy in Cervicogenic Headache—A Prospective, Randomized, Controlled Trial |
| title_full | Comparative Effects of Mulligan’s Mobilization, Spinal Manipulation, and Conventional Massage Therapy in Cervicogenic Headache—A Prospective, Randomized, Controlled Trial |
| title_fullStr | Comparative Effects of Mulligan’s Mobilization, Spinal Manipulation, and Conventional Massage Therapy in Cervicogenic Headache—A Prospective, Randomized, Controlled Trial |
| title_full_unstemmed | Comparative Effects of Mulligan’s Mobilization, Spinal Manipulation, and Conventional Massage Therapy in Cervicogenic Headache—A Prospective, Randomized, Controlled Trial |
| title_short | Comparative Effects of Mulligan’s Mobilization, Spinal Manipulation, and Conventional Massage Therapy in Cervicogenic Headache—A Prospective, Randomized, Controlled Trial |
| title_sort | comparative effects of mulligan s mobilization spinal manipulation and conventional massage therapy in cervicogenic headache a prospective randomized controlled trial |
| topic | cervicogenic headache Mulligan mobilization spinal manipulation massage therapy |
| url | https://www.mdpi.com/2227-9032/11/1/107 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT gopalnambi comparativeeffectsofmulligansmobilizationspinalmanipulationandconventionalmassagetherapyincervicogenicheadacheaprospectiverandomizedcontrolledtrial AT msharialghadier comparativeeffectsofmulligansmobilizationspinalmanipulationandconventionalmassagetherapyincervicogenicheadacheaprospectiverandomizedcontrolledtrial AT elturabielsayedebrahim comparativeeffectsofmulligansmobilizationspinalmanipulationandconventionalmassagetherapyincervicogenicheadacheaprospectiverandomizedcontrolledtrial AT arulvellaiyan comparativeeffectsofmulligansmobilizationspinalmanipulationandconventionalmassagetherapyincervicogenicheadacheaprospectiverandomizedcontrolledtrial AT jayashankertedla comparativeeffectsofmulligansmobilizationspinalmanipulationandconventionalmassagetherapyincervicogenicheadacheaprospectiverandomizedcontrolledtrial AT ravishankarreddy comparativeeffectsofmulligansmobilizationspinalmanipulationandconventionalmassagetherapyincervicogenicheadacheaprospectiverandomizedcontrolledtrial AT venkatanagarajkakaraparthi comparativeeffectsofmulligansmobilizationspinalmanipulationandconventionalmassagetherapyincervicogenicheadacheaprospectiverandomizedcontrolledtrial AT osamaraldhafian comparativeeffectsofmulligansmobilizationspinalmanipulationandconventionalmassagetherapyincervicogenicheadacheaprospectiverandomizedcontrolledtrial AT naifnalshahrani comparativeeffectsofmulligansmobilizationspinalmanipulationandconventionalmassagetherapyincervicogenicheadacheaprospectiverandomizedcontrolledtrial AT aymanksaleh comparativeeffectsofmulligansmobilizationspinalmanipulationandconventionalmassagetherapyincervicogenicheadacheaprospectiverandomizedcontrolledtrial |