An Analysis Upon Comparison of Mulligan’S Vs. Maitland’S Mobilization Techniques In Improving Neck Pain, Disability, Rom and Adhesive Capsulitis of Shoulder Joint: A Comparative Study on the Effectiveness of Mulligan's and Maitland's Mobilization Techniques for Neck Pain and Frozen Shoulder

Abstract

Neck pain is a common problem with point prevalence of 13 % (Bovim G etal 1994)1.Two-third of the population having neck pain at some point in theirlives (Binder AL 2007 )2 Neck pain is increasing in both intensity, frequencyand severity of episodes as people are increasingly sedentary. Different typesof mobilization are employed to treat neck pain, but limited studies are doneto compare their effectiveness of two different mobilization techniques intreatment of neck pain. Pain, disability and ROM were assessed by numerical painradiating scale, NDI and universal goniometer. Assessment was done at 0, 15thand 30th day of treatment. Anova and Paired t-test were used. Statisticalsignificance was set at 5% level. This study showed that mulligan mobilizationis more effective in improving pain, ROM and disability. Although bothexperimental groups showed decrease in pain, disability and improved ROM butMulligan mobilization was found to be more effective in improving pain, ROM anddisability. Physical therapy is the most important part of conservative treatment offrozen shoulder. Both Maitland and Mulligan’s techniques have been foundeffective. We here did a comparative study to find the effectiveness of boththese techniques in frozen shoulder rehabilitation. Both the treatmenttechniques i.e. Maitland and Mulligan are improve the pain VAS score, butresponse to Mulligan’s was better. Mulligan mobilization technique is betterthan Maitland in terms of improvement in the range of extension while remainingranges were similarly improved by both techniques.