背景:有充分的证据支持使用手动治疗技术治疗颈源性头痛(CGH)。
目的:本研究的目的是发现和比较不同手法治疗颈源性头痛的效果。
方法:随机,在大学医院对84名CGH参与者进行了对照研究。参与者被分为Mulligan动员治疗组(MMT;n=28),脊柱操纵治疗组(SMT;n=28),和对照组(对照组;n=28);他们接受各自的治疗4周。主要结果(CGH频率)和次要结果(CGH疼痛强度,CGH残疾,颈部疼痛频率,疼痛强度,痛阈值,屈曲旋转(左右),颈部残疾指数,和生活质量评分)在基线测量,4周后,8周后,在6个月的随访中。进行单向ANOVA检验和重复测量方差分析(rANOVA)检验,以发现治疗组间和治疗组内效应之间的差异。
结果:训练后四周,MMT组在原发性(CGH频率)和继发性(CGH疼痛强度,CGH残疾,颈部疼痛频率,颈部疼痛强度,屈曲旋转试验,颈部残疾指数,和生活质量)得分高于SMT组和对照组(p<0.001)。在8周和6个月随访时,上述变量也有相同的差异。同时,颈部疼痛阈值水平在4周和8周随访时无差异(p≥0.05),但在6个月随访时有统计学差异.
结论:该研究得出的结论是,与脊柱推拿疗法和常规按摩疗法相比,Mulligan的动员疗法在颈源性头痛中的疗效更好。
Background: There is ample evidence supporting the use of manual therapy techniques for the treatment of cervicogenic headache (CGH). Objective: The objective of this
study was to find and compare the effects of different manual therapy approaches to cervicogenic headache. Methods: A randomized, controlled
study was conducted on 84 CGH participants at the university hospital. The participants were divided into a Mulligan mobilization therapy group (MMT; n = 28), a spinal manipulation therapy group (SMT; n = 28), and a control group (Control; n = 28); they received the respective treatments for four weeks. The primary outcome (CGH frequency) and secondary outcomes (CGH pain intensity, CGH disability, neck pain frequency, pain intensity, pain threshold, flexion rotation (right and left), neck disability index, and quality of life scores) were measured at baseline, after 4 weeks, after 8 weeks, and at a 6-month follow-up. The one-way ANOVA test and repeated measures analysis of variance (rANOVA) test were performed to find the difference between the inter- and intra-treatment group effects. Results: Four weeks following training, the MMT group showed a statistically significant difference in the primary (CGH frequency) and secondary (CGH pain intensity, CGH disability, neck pain frequency, neck pain intensity, flexion rotation test, neck disability index, and quality of life) scores than those of the SMT and control groups (p < 0.001). The same difference was seen in the above variables at 8 weeks and at the 6-month follow-up. At the same time, the neck pain threshold level did not show any difference at the 4-week and the 8-week follow-up (p ≥ 0.05) but showed statistical difference at the 6-month follow-up. Conclusion: The
study concluded that Mulligan’s mobilization therapy provided better outcomes in cervicogenic headache than those of spinal manipulation therapy and conventional massage therapy.