The effect of spinal manipulative therapy and ischaemic compression versus muscle energy technique in chronic nonspecific neck pain

Abstract

Neck pain has become a problem experienced worldwide and it poses a global healthcare challenge to practising medical professions. There are numerous manual and non-manual treatments available for this frequently encountered problem. Frequently utilised and effective therapies are spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) and ischaemic compression (IC); however, these have been associated with several contraindications. An alternative form of treatment with less contraindications that may be of benefit to the patient is muscle energy technique (MET). Therefore, the aim of this study was to determine the effect of spinal manipulative therapy and ischaemic compression compared to muscle energy technique in chronic nonspecific neck pain. Methodology: This study was a quantitative randomised, single blinded clinical trial. Forty participants with nonspecific pain, aged 20-50 years, were randomly allocated into two groups using a random allocation chart provided by a statistician. Group one received SMT and IC, whereas group two received MET alone. The numerical pain rating scale (NRS) was used to determine the level of neck pain. The cervical range of motion (CROM) goniometer was used to calculate the degree of lateral flexion occurring at the neck. The pain pressure algometer was used to determine the pain pressure thresholds (PPT). The Canadian Memorial Chiropractic College (CMCC) Neck Disability Index (NDI) was used to assess the disability in activities of daily living as a consequence of neck pain. Each participant had four consultations over a two-week period, receiving treatment on the first three consultations with the fourth being purely subjective and objective measurements. Results: Repeated measures ANOVA testing was utilised to examine the changes over time in each group. Profile plots were used to visually explore the trends of each group over time. Intra-group analysis of subjective and objective measurements revealed that both groups had a beneficial response to the treatment over time. Inter-group analysis showed that there were no statistically significant differences between the two groups in terms of subjective and objective measurements. Conclusion: In conclusion, this study revealed that the use of MET is as equally effective as a combination of SMT and IC in the treatment of chronic nonspecific neck pain