To Compare the Effectiveness of Manual Traction and Mechanical Traction in Patient with Cervicogenic Headache

Abstract:

Context: - Cervicogenic headache (CGH) is a secondary headache arising from cervical spine dysfunction. Both manual traction (MT) and mechanical traction are widely used physiotherapeutic modalities for the management of CGH.

Aims: - To compare the effectiveness of manual traction and mechanical traction in reducing pain intensity and improving functional outcomes in patients with CGH.

Study design: - Experimental study (Pre-test, post-test matched pair design)

Setting: - Outpatient Physiotherapy clinic.

Material and Methodology: A randomized controlled trial was conducted with 60 patients diagnosed with CGH, randomly assigned into two groups (n = 30 each). Group A received manual traction, while Group B received mechanical traction. Both groups underwent intervention for 4 weeks (3 sessions/week). Pain intensity (Visual Analogue Scale - VAS), neck disability (Neck Disability Index - NDI), and cervical range of motion (CROM) were measured at baseline and post-intervention.

Statistical analysis: The data was analyzed using SPSS 21.0. The software package and statistical test used are paired t-tests to compare the effectiveness of associated functional disability. A significant value of P <0.05 was set.

Results: Both groups showed significant improvement post-intervention. However, Group A (manual traction) showed.

Significantly greater reduction in VAS and NDI scores compared to Group B (mechanical traction) (p < 0.05). CROM improvement was also more pronounced in the manual traction group.

Conclusion: Manual traction appears to be more effective than mechanical traction in reducing pain and improving function in patients with cervicogenic headaches.

Cervicogenic headache, manual traction, mechanical traction, physiotherapy, , neck pain.

1. Bogduk N. Cervicogenic headache: Anatomic basis and pathophysiologic mechanisms. Curr Pain Headache Rep. 2001. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Fernández-de-las-Peñas C, et al. Manual therapy for cervicogenic headache: A systematic review. J Headache Pain. 2008. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Jull G, et al. Evidence-based treatment of cervicogenic headache with exercise and manual therapy. Cephalalgia. 2002. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Vernon H. Cervicogenic headache: Mechanisms and evidence-based physical therapy management. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2008. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Sjaastad O, Bakketeig LS, et. Al: Prevalence of cervicogenic headache: Vaga study of headache epidemiology. Acta neurolscand 2008; 117(3):173-80. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Bartschi–Rochaix W, et. A: Headache of cervical origin: North Holland, Amsterdam 1968; 5:192-203. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Haldeman S, et. Al; Cervicogenic headache: a critical review. The Spine Journal, 2001: 1(1): 31-46. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Posadzki P, Ernst E, et; Al; Spinal manipulations for cervicogenic headaches: A systemic review of randomized clinical trials. Headache: J Head Face Pain: 2011, 51:1132-1139. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Hall TM, Briffa K, et; Al; Comparative analysis and diagnostic accuracy of the cervical flexion – rotation test: J Headache pain 2010; 11(5): 391-397. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Walsh MT, et; Al; Upper limb neural tension and mobilization fact, fiction and a practical approach: Journal of Hand Therapy 2005; 18: 241-258. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Gross AR, Hengeveld E, et; Al; A Cochrane review of manipulation and mobilization for mechanical neck disorders: Spine; 2004; 29:1541-1548. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Mulligan BR. Manual Therapy: “NAGs”, “SNAGs”, “MWM” etc. Fifth edition. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Bronfort G, Hoving JL, et. Al; Effectiveness of manual therapies: The UK evidence report. Chiropr Osteopathy 2010, 18:3. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Tampin B, Briffa NK, et. Al; Identification of neuropathic pain in patients with neck/upper limb pain: Application of grading system and screening tools. Pain, 2013 Aug; 154(12): 2813-22. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Vasseljen O, Woodhouse A, et; Al; Natural course of acute neck and low back pain in the general population: The Hunt Study. Pain.: 2013 Aug, 154(8): 1237-44. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Dovrak J, Schneider W, et; Al; Musculoskeletal manual medicine: Diagnosis and Treatment: Thieme medical pub: 2008. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Christensen JO, Knardahl S, et. Al; Time-course of occupational psychological and social factors as predictors of new-onset and persistent neck pain: A three-wave prospective study over 4 years: Pain; 2014 July; 155(7): 1262-71. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Peterson C, Bolton J, et; Al; Predictors of outcome in neck pain patients undergoing chiropractic care: Comparison of acute and chronic patients: Chiropr Man therapy: 2012; 20:27. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Enthoven P, Skargen E, et. Al; Predictive factors for 1-year and 5-year outcome for disability in a working population of patients with low back pain treated in primary care: Pain: 2006; 122: 137-144. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Royuela A, Kovacs F.M, et. Al; Predicting outcomes of neuroreflexotherapy in patients with subacute or chronic neck or low back pain: Spine J; 2014; 14: 1588-1600. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Most Advanced Construction Material for Typical Boilers
• Nutrigenetic Impact of PEMT Gene Polymorphism Rs7946 On Choline Metabolism and Its Role in Personalised Nutrition
• Evaluating the Influence Factors of Media on Investor Sentiment Towards Stock Market Investments.
• Is Green Human Resource Management the Newest Trend or A Strategic Necessity?
• Battery Hazards and Safety: A Comprehensive Review for Lithium -Ion Battery System