Repository logo
 

Faculty of Health Sciences

Permanent URI for this communityhttp://ir-dev.dut.ac.za/handle/10321/11

Browse

Author: search.filters.author.King, Sasha Lee

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Immediate effects of cervical spine manipulation compared with muscle energy technique on neck muscle activity and range of motion in asymptomatic participants : a randomized study
    (Elsevier BV, 2022-07) King, Sasha Lee; Docrat, Aadil; Abdul-Rasheed, Ashura
    Objective: The purpose of this study was to investigate the immediate effects of cervical spine manipulation (SM) compared with muscle energy technique (MET) on neck muscle activity and range of motion in asymptomatic people. Methods: A randomized parallel-group study was conducted at a chiropractic teaching clinic in Durban, South Africa. Fifty asymptomatic participants between 18 and 35 years of age were randomly assigned into group 1 or group 2. Group 1 received cervical SM, and group 2 received MET. Participants were blinded to group allocation only. Baseline and post-test measurements consisted of resting upper trapezius and posterior cervical muscle activity and cervical spine range of motion (ROM) in lateral flexion and extension. Results: A significant difference was found in cervical ROM within groups (P < .001), with no significant difference observed between the 2 groups. The right posterior cervical muscles showed a significant difference in group 1 only (P = .012). No significant muscle activity changes occurred in group 2. Resting muscle activity measures showed no statistically significant changes between groups. Conclusion: A single application of SM and MET to the cervical spine immediately increased cervical ROM. Neither cervical SM nor MET changed resting posterior cervical and upper trapezius muscle activity.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    The effect of cervical spine manipulation compared to muscle energy technique on neck muscle activity and range of motion in asymptomatic participants
    (2020-06-10) King, Sasha Lee; Docrat, Aadil; Abdul-Rasheed, Ashura
    Background: Clinical evidence supports the use of spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) and muscle energy technique (MET) for the treatment of cervical spine dysfunctions. However, the physiologic mechanism behind their effectiveness is not well understood. Joint dysfunctions are associated with hypertonicity of segmentally related muscles and can occur in both symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals. Neck pain (NP) has been associated with cervical muscle dysfunction, due to the presence of altered muscle activity and impaired kinematics, demonstrated in NP patients. This includes the upper trapezius and posterior cervical muscles, whose dysfunction can be a source of NP. Spinal manipulative therapy and MET are mechanical interventions, that when applied to joint dysfunctions, produce neurophysiological changes, specifically the modulation of muscle activity and improved range of motion (ROM). However, the demonstration and comparison of the neurophysiological effects of SMT and MET in the neck, and its related musculature, are unknown. Aim: The aim is to determine the effect of cervical spine manipulation compared to MET on neck muscle activity and range of motion in asymptomatic participants. Method: This is a quasi-experimental study utilising a pre-test, post-test design, which employed 50 asymptomatic participants aged between 18 – 35 years of both genders and all races. The participants were randomly allocated into one of two treatment groups. Group 1 received cervical spine manipulation (CSM) and Group 2 received MET. Before and after the respective interventions, resting upper trapezius and posterior cervical electromyographic muscle activity and the cervical spine range of motion (CROM) (lateral flexion and extension) were measured. The IBM SPSS version 24 was used to analyse the data. The intra-group changes were compared pre- and post-intervention using paired Wilcoxon signed ranks tests. Median changes between pre- and post- were compared between the two treatment groups using Mann-Whitney U tests. A p value < 0.05 was considered as statistically significant. Results: None of the demographic or background variables differed significantly between the two groups. Both treatments had an effect, although not all significant, involving mostly reductions in resting electromyographic muscle activity and improvements in CROM. This was significant for the right posterior cervical muscles in the SMT group (p = 0.012) and for ROM in both groups (p < 0.001). No evidence of a difference in treatment effect was found. Conclusion: The results of this study suggest that SMT and MET mostly decrease resting neck muscle activity and improve CROM. Muscle energy technique may possibly be equally as effective as CSM. Concurrent changes in both outcomes suggest that more than one physiologic mechanism may likely explain these effects.