 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
| |
|
|
| |
Activator Methods International Ltd.
2950 N. Seventh Street, Suite 200
Phoenix, AZ 85014
ofc 602-224-0220
fax 602-224-0230
toll free 1-800-598-0224
|
| |
|
 |
|
|
Subject: Cervical Disc Herniations, Activator Adjustments Article |
|
| Title: A Pilot Randomized Clinical Trial on the Relative Effect of Instrumental Versus Manual Thrust Manipulation in the Treatment of Cervical Spine Dysfunction. |
|
| Reference: Wood TG, Colloca CJ, Matthews R. J Manipulative Physiol Ther 2001;24:260-71 |
|
Abstract: Objective: To determine the relative effect of instrument-delivered as compared to traditional manual-delivered thrust cervical manipulations in the treatment of cervical spine dysfunction.
Design: Prospective, randomized, comparative clinical trial.
Setting: Outpatient chiropractic clinic, Technikon Natal, South Africa.
Patients: Thirty patients diagnosed with neck pain and restricted cervical spine range of motion, for at least one month, without complicating pathology were included in the study.
Interventions: The patients were randomized into two groups, A and B. Group A received mechanical force, manually-assisted (MFMA) manipulation to the cervical spine delivered by means of a hand-held instrument, the ActivatorÒ II Adjusting Instrument (AAI). Group B received specific contact high
velocity, low amplitude (HVLA) manipulation consisting of standard Diversified rotatory/lateral break techniques to the cervical spine. Both groups received only the specific therapeutic intervention with no other treatment modalities or interventions utilized including medication use until asymptomatic status was achieved or a maximum of eight treatments.
Main Outcome Measures: Both treatment groups were assessed using subjective (Numerical Pain Rating Scale 101, McGill Short-Form Pain Questionnaire, and Neck Disability Index) and objective (goniometer cervical range of motion) measurement parameters at specific intervals during the treatment period, and at one month follow-up. The data was assessed using two tailed non-parametric paired and unpaired analysis, descriptive statistics, and power analysis of the data.
Results: The results indicated that both treatment methods had a positive effect on the subjective and objective clinical outcome measures, with no significant difference observed between the two groups (p less than 0.025). The subjective data from all three questionnaires showed statistically significant changes from initial to final as well as from initial to 1-month follow-up. (p<0.025). The objective, range of motion measures showed statistically significant changes in group A (instrumental) for left and right rotation and left and right lateral flexion from initial to final consultations and right rotation and right lateral flexion from initial to 1 month follow-up. While group B (manual) showed only left rotation as statistically significant from first to final and first to 1 month follow-up.
Conclusions: The results of this clinical trial indicate that both instrumental (MFMA) and manual (HVLA) manipulation had a beneficial effect associated with reducing pain and disability and improving cervical range of motion in this patient population. A randomized, controlled, clinical trial in a similar patient base with a larger sample size is necessary to verify the clinical relevance of these findings. |
|
| Key Words: Activator, Biomechanics, Cervical Spine, Chiropractic -Manipulation, Instrument, Pain, Range of Motion. |
|
|
Print
|
|
|
|
