Effect of Cervical Traction verses Strengthening Exercises in patients of Cervical Radiculopathy

Abstract

Background: Cervical radiculopathy is one of the regularly happened conditions caused by the pressure of nerve roots and manual exercise based recuperation has the key part in its administration. Both the strengthening activities and traction has its adequacy, and the present investigation was intended to evaluate their belongings. Aim: To determine the effects of traction on cervical region verses effects of strengthening exercises in patients diagnosed with cervical radiculopathy. Methods: A total of 20 patients (10 males and 10 females) were arbitrarily chosen and retained into two groups A and B. The inclusion standard was patients who were with diagnosed cervical radiculopathy on physical examination with age ranged 25-50 years. The Group A was treated with cervical traction, while group B was treated with strengthening exercises for 3 weeks. The NDI (Neck Disability Index) and Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) were used to amount and measure the disability and searing pain. To analyze the data SPSS version 21 was used and paired t- test was applied at 95% level of implication to determine the statistical results. Results: Patients in group A showed marked improvement as compare to group B. P-value (0.000) less than 0.05 is considered significant. Conclusion: It is concluded that manual traction is far more operative and effective than strengthening exercises for the management of disability and radicular pain in patients diagnosed with cervical radiculopathy. Keywords: Cervical radiculopathy, Manual Traction, Strengthening exercises

Conservative Management of Cervical Radiculopathy

“…Fifty studies compared the intervention group to other interventions (nonoperative or operative), 4 studies compared the intervention group to placebo/sham, and 5 studies included a waitlist control group. Across the trials, there were 4108 participants (1589 males, 2123 females, and 396 sex not specified) and 39 trials were single centre31–71 and 20 were multicentre 41,72–91. Fourteen trials included participants with an acute duration of symptoms (≤3 mo),41,45,49,54–56,60,70,73,81,82,84,92 21 included participants with a chronic duration of symptoms (>3 mo),31–34,37,38,44,48,52,68,69,72,74–76,78,79,83,85–88,91,93 9 included participants with a mixture of acute and chronic symptoms,39,43,46,58,62,63,77,80,89,90 and 15 did not report symptom duration 35,36,42,47,50,51,57–59,64–67,71,88…”

“…Table 1 outlines the ROB assessments for the included studies. Fifty-six assessments were completed for patient-reported outcomes and 23 assessments were completed for objective outcomes (ie, ROM and grip strength) 31–38,42,48–50,58–60,62,63,71,72,83–86,88,90,91. Of the 79 ROB assessments completed, 2 assessments from 1 study were rated as low ROB,81 28 assessments were evaluated as some concerns,31–35,41,49,60,62,63,69,73,74,76,78,79,82–87,89–91 and 49 assessments were evaluated as high ROB 36–40,42–48,50–59,61,62,64–68,70–72,77,81,88,90,92.…”

“…Fifty-six assessments were completed for patient-reported outcomes and 23 assessments were completed for objective outcomes (ie, ROM and grip strength) 31–38,42,48–50,58–60,62,63,71,72,83–86,88,90,91. Of the 79 ROB assessments completed, 2 assessments from 1 study were rated as low ROB,81 28 assessments were evaluated as some concerns,31–35,41,49,60,62,63,69,73,74,76,78,79,82–87,89–91 and 49 assessments were evaluated as high ROB 36–40,42–48,50–59,61,62,64–68,70–72,77,81,88,90,92. As a result of insufficient information provided for randomization and concealment, and/or significant differences in key baseline values, 24/59 trials were rated as high risk in domain 1 (randomization process), whereas 33/59 were rated as low risk or “some concerns”.…”

“…[31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38]42,[48][49][50][58][59][60]62,63,71,72,[83][84][85][86]88,90,91 Of the 79 ROB assessments completed, 2 assessments from 1 study were rated as low ROB, 81 28 assessments were evaluated as some concerns, [31][32][33][34][35]41,49,60,62,63,69,73,74,76,78,79,[82][83][84][85][86][87][89][90][91] and 49 assessments were evaluated as high ROB. 36-40,42-48,50-59, 61,62,64-68, [70][71][72]77,…”

Eligibility Criteria of Participants in Randomized Controlled Trials Assessing Conservative Management of Cervical Radiculopathy: A Systematic Review

“…Of the 68 distinct trials, 50 required at least one positive clinical examination test for participant inclusion 13,16–23,25–34,36–40,42–52,54–60,62–72,86–89. Sixteen trials included the Wainner cluster of tests (Spurling, ULTT, cervical distraction test, cervical ROM<60°), with 12 requiring three out of four positive tests,26,43,46,56,58–60,62,63,65,68,71 while four trials required all four to be positive 27,49,50,88.…”