Maitland mobilization versus mulligan mobilization in sub-acute and chronic non-specific neck pain

Abstract

Background: Neck pain is a public health problem and a common source of disability. Maitland and Mulligan mobilization are common techniques of manual therapy. Limited evidence about which technique is better in improving chronic neck pain. Furthermore, the effect of mobilization in sub-acute neck pain hasn’t been studied. The objective of study to compare the short term effect of Maitland and Mulligan mobilization in sub-acute and chronic non specific neck pain to improve pain pressure threshold, rang of motion, joint position sense and to evaluate the effect of treatment on psychological factors. Study design: Randomized clinical trial.Method: 44 patients with sub-acute or chronic neck pain were randomized into Maitland group: 22 patients received central postro anterior pressure or unilateral postero anterior pressure. Mulligan group: 22 patients received sustain natural apophyseal glides. The treatment was 2 times /week for three weeks. The outcome measurements were pain pressure threshold, cervical range of motion and joint position sens. Measurements were being taken before and after treatment.Result: Cervical PPT was significantly improved in Maitland group only but the tibialis PPT was significantly improved for both groups. The cervical ROM was significantly improved in extension and rotation only in Maitland group, while Mulligan group had significant improvement in all ROM directions. The JPS in Maitland group was significantly changed in THPE for extension and left rotation and changed in NHPE for extension, right lateral flexion and right rotation. The JPS for Mulligan group was significantly improved in THPE for both lateral flexions.Conclusion: Mulligan mobilization had greater effect in cervical ROM than Maitland mobilization. Maitland mobilization had more significant improvement of cervical pain pressure threshold than Mulligan mobilization.