Comparison of two mobilization techniques in management of chronic non-specific low back pain

Abstract

AimThe aim of the study was to compare between the effects of Maitland's postero-anterior (PA glide) mobilization and Mulligan's sustained natural apophyseal glide (SNAG) on pain, mobility, muscle activation and functional disability in subjects with chronic, non-specific low back pain. MethodsThe study was a two arm repeated measure design with random allocation of subjects (n = 33). Subjects in group 1 received Maitland's PA glide mobilization and those in group 2 received Mulligan's SNAG. Along with the respective mobilization technique, individualized exercises were common for subjects in both the groups. Subjects in both groups received treatment for 4 days a week for 4 weeks. The outcome measures were numeric pain rating scale (NPRS) scores, lumbar flexion and extension range of motion, erector spinae muscle activity and Oswestry low back pain disability questionnaire score. ResultsThe outcome measure scores showed statistical significance in time effect on NPRS (p = 0.001); lumbar flexion and extension range of motion (p = 0.001); erector spinae muscle activity (0.001); Oswestry low back pain disability questionnaire score (p = 0.001); group effect on lumbar flexion (p = 0.03) and extension range of motion (p = 0.05); and interaction effect (time x group) on lumbar flexion (p = 0.003) and extension range of motion (p = 0.002); and, erector spinae muscle activity (p = 0.05) at the 3rd lumbar vertebral level. ConclusionThe addition of Maitland or Mulligan mobilization techniques of the spine does not show a difference in the improvement of symptoms associated with chronic non-specific low back pain.