A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z All
Singh, Amandeep
- Combined effects of Stretching and Ergonomic Advice in Computer Professionals on the Incidence of Upper Limb Disorders
Authors
1 Gian Sagar College of Physiotherapy, Ramnagar, Rajpura, Distt. Patiala, IN
Source
Indian Journal of Physiotherapy & Occupational Therapy-An International Journal, Vol 7, No 4 (2013), Pagination: 186-191Abstract
Introduction: Work-related upper limb disorders (WRULDs) continue to be problematic as the use of keyboard and mouse based work dominates the 21st century workforce. Musculoskeletal complaints in the neck and upper extremity amongst computer professionals are showing an increasing trend. Changes in work practice have led to the growing problem of work related upper limb disorders.Purpose of study: Previous studies have shown the effects of ergonomics and stretching separately on these work related upper limb disorders but none of the study so far has evaluated the combined effects of stretching and ergonomic interventions.
Materials and method: 90 subjects performing computer work for at least 20 hours per week with minimum four hours continuously per day from last two years were randomly divided into three groups. In group A, subjects received hydrocollator pack, advice on ergonomics and work style modifications. In group B, subjects received same intervention as in group A with additional stretching of upper fibres of trapezius muscle and levator scapulae muscle. And group C was control group and was provided only hot packs. Pre-test and Post-test values were collected by using standard goniometer as an outcome measure.
Results: After analyzing the results, significant improvement was found in all the three groups but both statistically and clinically, maximum improvement was found in group B.
Conclusion: It is recommended that patients with chronic neck disability associated with occupation will be given combination of stretching and ergonomic interventions along with other conservative treatments.
Keywords
Work-Related Upper Limb Disorders (Wrulds), Ergonomics, Stretching, Computer Professionals
References
- Abasolo L, Blanco M, Bachiller J et al. A health system program to reduce work disability related to musculoskeletal disorders. Annals of Internal medicine. 2005; 143(1): 404-414.
- Bernaards CM, Ariens AM, Knol DL, Hildebrandt VH. The effectiveness of work-style intervention and a lifestyle physical activity intervention on the recovery from neck and upper limb symptoms in computer workers. Pain. 2007; 132(1):142-153.
- Bernaards CM, Ariens AM, Hildebrandt VH. The (cost-) effectiveness of a lifestyle physical activity intervention in addition to a work style intervention on the recovery from neck and upper limb symptoms in computer workers. Bio Med Central Musculoskeletal Disorders. 2006; 7(80): 74-80.
- Drppanda. Computer professional’s pain and the remedy. Available at: http:/computerprofessional- pain.html. Cited: Sept 30, 2011.
- Kietrys D, Galper J, Verno V. Effects of at-work exercises on computer operators. Work: A journal of Assessment, Prevention and Rehabilitation. 2007; 28(1):67-75.
- Kisner C, Colby LA. Therapeutic Exercise: Foundations and Techniques. 5th ed. New Delhi: Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers Ltd; 2007.
- Podniece Z. Work related musculoskeletal disorders: Back to work report. Luxembourg: Office for official publications of the European Communities; 2007.
- Povlsen B, Rose L. Managing Type II Work related upper limb disorders in keyboard and mouse users who remain at work: A Case Series Report. Journal of Hand Therapy. 2008; 21(81):69-79.
- Schakenraad CH, Vendrig L, Sluiter JK, Veenstra W, Dresen M. Evaluation of a multidisciplinary treatment for patients with chronic non-specific upper-limb musculoskeletal disorders: a pilot study. Journal of Occupational Medicine. 2004; 54(8):576-578.
- Sleator A, Gore D, Vilder G. Work related upper limb disorders published in Great Britain Parliament, Library, House of Commons. 11. Yelin EH, Henke CJ, Epstein WV. Work disability among persons with musculoskeletal conditions. Arthritis and Rheumatism. 1986; 29:1322-33.
- Manipulation Versus Mobilization for Spine: a Systemic Review
Authors
1 Gian Sagar College of Physiotherapy, Ram Nagar, Rajpura, Punjab, IN
2 Gian Sagar College of Physiotherapy, Ram Nagar, Rajpura, Punjab, IN
3 Gian Sagar College of Physiotherapy, Ram Nagar, Rajpura (Punjab, IN
Source
Indian Journal of Physiotherapy & Occupational Therapy-An International Journal, Vol 8, No 1 (2014), Pagination: 1-4Abstract
Objectives: Objectives of the performed meta- analysis is to reaffirm the efficacy of manipulation and mobilisation and also compare between the two that which has been giving evidence based results, otherwise shown statistically significant results in randomised controlled trials and lastly to give a clear picture of manual therapy which should be applied clinically for future significant findings.
Method: Spine, Journal of manipulative and physiological therapeutics, American Journal of public health, The Spine Journal, Clinical Biomechanics, Journal of American physical therapy association, Journal Of Musculoskeletal Pain were searched for the period of 1992 to 2010. Data was extracted and assessed for methodologic quality. Pooled effects were calculated among homogenious trials using random effects model. Studies on efficacy of mobilization and manipulation on mechanical disorders of spine were included.
Results: 18 trials of high quality are included. Out of 18, in 1 trial mobilization and manipulation when given in conjunction with exercise was beneficial than exercise alone, in 10 trials manipulation gave better results, in 2 trials manipulation and mobilization when given to thoracic region cured cervical radiculopathy, 2 trials showed that both manipulation and mobilization gave beneficial results, 2 trials showed that mobilization is better than then manipulation and 1 trial evaluated negative results from both the manual therapy techniques.
Conclusion: There is some evidence that when mobilization and manipulation are given along with conventional therapy or individually have been proven beneficial so clinically worthwhile efforts are anticipated.
Keywords
Joint Manipulation, Graded Mobilisation, Manual Therapy and Mechanical Spinal DisordersReferences
- Wikipedia, Joint Manipulation, viewed 18th April 2012.Available from: http://en.wikipedia.org/ wiki/Joint_manipulation.
- Gross AR, Hoving JL, Haines TA et al. A Cochrane Review of Manipulation and Mobilization for Mechanical Neck Disorders. Spine 2004; 29(14):1541-1548.
- Hurwitz EL, Morgenstern H, Harber P et al. A Randomized Trial of Chiropractic Manipulation and Mobilization for Patients with Neck Pain. American Journal of Public Health 2002; 92(10):1634-1641.
- Coulter. Manipulation and Mobilization of the Cervical Spine: The Results of a Literature Survey and Consensus Panel. Journal of Musculoskeletal Pain 1996; 4(4):113-124.
- Bronfort, G Haas, M Evans, RL Bouter, LM. Efficacy of spinal manipulation and mobilization for low back pain and neck pain: a systematic review and best evidence synthesis. The Spine Journal 2009; 4(3):335-356.
- Cleland, JA Childs, JD McRae, M Palmer, JA & Stowell T. Immediate effects of thoracic manipulation in patients with neck pain: a randomized clinical trial. Manual Therapy 2005;10(2):127-135.
- Costello M. Treatment of a Patient with Cervical Radiculopathy Using Thoracic Spine Thrust Manipulation, Soft Tissue Mobilization, and Exercise. Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy 2008;16(3):29–135.
- Hadler NM, Curtis P, Gillings DB, Stinnett S. A Benefit of Spinal Manipulation as Adjunctive Therapy for Acute Low-Back Pain: A Stratified Controlled Trial. Spine 1997; 12(7):631-721.
- Fabio RP. Efficacy of Manual Therapy. Physical Therapy 1992;72(12):853-864.
- Koes, BW Assendelft, WJ Heijden, V Geert, JM & Bouter, LM 1996. ‘Spinal Manipulation for Low Back Pain: An Updated Systematic Review of Randomized Clinical Trials’, Spine, vol. 21, no. 24, pp. 2819-2932.
- Cassidy JD, Lopes AA, Yong-Hing K. The immediate effect of manipulation versus mobilization on pain and range of motion in the cervical spine: a randomized controlled trial. Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics 1992; 15(9):570-5.
- Shekelle PG, Adams AH, Chassin MR, Hurwitz ER, Brook RH.Spinal Manipulation for Low-Back Pain. Annals of Internal Medicine 1992; 117(7):590-598.
- Assendelft WJ, Morton SC, Yu EI, Suttorp MJ & Shekelle PG.Spinal Manipulative Therapy for Low Back Pain:A Meta-Analysis of Effectiveness Relative to Other Therapies. Annals of Internal Medicine 2003; 138(11):871-899.
- Leaver AM, Maher CG, Herbert RD et al. A Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Manipulation with Mobilization for Recent Onset Neck Pain. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 2010; 91(9):1313–1318.
- Sran M and Khan K. Spinal manipulation versus mobilization. Canadian Medical Association Journal 2002;167(1):13-14.
- Cote P, Mior SA,Vernon H. The short-term effect of a spinal manipulation on pain/pressure threshold in patients with chronic mechanical low back pain. Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics 1994; 17(6):364-8.
- A Study to Validate Diagnostic Strength of ULNT1 in Cervical Radiculopathy
Authors
1 Gian Sagar College of Physiotherapy, Ram Nagar, Distt. Patiala (PUNJAB), IN
Source
Indian Journal of Physiotherapy & Occupational Therapy-An International Journal, Vol 6, No 4 (2012), Pagination: 111-114Abstract
Introduction: Neural tissue provocation tests (NTPT) have been increasingly incorporated into clinical practice. Unfortunately, the early terminology used in describing these tests-'neural tension test' and 'adverse mechanical tension'- did little to further the acceptance, understanding or credibility of the physical treatment of neurogenic pain.
A more appropriate term is 'neural tissue provocation tests' as they are passive test applied in a manner to selectively stress different neural tissues in order to assess their sensitivity to mechanical provocation. Many experts in the field of neurodynamics have clearly stated the importance of the reproduction of a patient's symptoms, which implies the presence of pathology. The other feature which is vital to the interpretation of any neuromusculoskeletal clinical measure is the comparison between sides. It is essential to compare sides for there is tremendous variation in flexibility of the peripheral nervous system in both the lower and upper quarter.
Objectives: While there has been considerable research on neurodynamics, there has been little research investigating the diagnostic validity of such tests. The purpose of this study was to find out the rate of true positive (sensitivity) Upper limb neurodynamic test for median nerve (ULNT1) in patients with cervical spine mediated neural symptoms. This research also attempted to find bilateral variability, that is, difference in the angles of elbow extension within the range at which the responses were provoked, between the asymptomatic and symptomatic side of the patient.
Methods: Experimental same subject study design with 30 randomly selected patients in the age group of 20-60 years. Sample population was drawn from physiotherapy out-patient department of Gian Sagar Medical College and Hospital and New Hope Physiotherapy Centre, based on inclusion and exclusion criteria. Subjects with cervical pain and associated neural signs and symptoms (unilateral) went through ULNT1.
Results: Out of 30 patients, 26 were tested positive with ULNT1. True positive rate (sensitivity) was calculated using simple percentage. To find difference in the angles of elbow extension between asymptomatic and symptomatic side, paired t-test was used.
Conclusion: It was concluded that Neural tissue provocation test (ULNT1) is highly sensitive in diagnosing the patients with cervical spine mediated neural signs and symptoms. Significant difference in the angles of elbow extension existed between the asymptomatic and symptomatic sides.
Keywords
NTPT, Sensitivity, ULNT1, Range of Motion, Bilateral VariabilityReferences
- Kelsey, JL 1978, ‘Epidemiology of radiculopathies’, Advances in Neurology, vol. 19, pp. 385–398.
- Radhakrishnan, K, Litchy, WJ, O’Fallon, WM & Kurland, LT 1994, ‘Epidemiology of cervical radiculopathy. A population-based study from Rochester, Minnesota, 1976 through 1990’, Brain, vol. 117, part 2, pp. 325–335.
- Sweeney, PJ 1995, ‘Clinical evaluation of cervical radiculopathy and myelopathy’, Neuroimaging Clinics of North America, vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 321–327.
- Shafaie, FF, Wippold, FJ, Gado, M, Pilgram, TK & Riew, KD 1999, ‘Comparison of computed tomography myelography and magnetic resonance imaging in the evaluation of cervical spondylotic myelopathy and radiculopathy’, Spine, vol. 24, no. 17, pp. 1781- 1785.
- Han, JJ & Kraft, GH 2003, ‘Electrodiagnosis of neck pain’, Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Clinics of North America, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 549–567.
- Tong, HC, Haig, AJ & Yamakawa, K 2002, ‘The Spurling test and cervical radiculopathy’, Spine, vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 156–159.
- Viikari-Juntura, E, Porras, M & Laasonen, EM 1989, ‘Validity of clinical tests in the diagnosis of ischolar_main compression in cervical disc disease’, Spine, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 253–257.
- Kenneally, M, Rubenach, H & Elvey, RL 1988, ‘The upper limb tension test: the SLR of the arm, in Clinics in physical therapy. Physical therapy of the cervical and thoracic spine, 1st edn, ed Grant R, Churchill Livingstone, New York, pp 167-194.
- Shacklock, MO 1995, ‘Clinical applications of neurodynamics’, in Moving in on pain, eds Shacklock MO, Buttersworth-Heinemann, Australia, pp. 123-131.
- Butler, DS 1991, Mobilisation of the nervous system, Churchill Livingstone, Melbourne.
- Kleinrensink, GJ, Stoeckart, R, Mulder, PGH, van der Hoek, G, Broek, TH, Vleeming, A & Snijders, CJ 2000, ‘Upper limb tension tests as tools in the diagnosis of nerve and plexus lesions. Anatomical and biomechanical aspects’, Clinical Biomechanics, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 9-14.
- Sandmark, H & Nisell, R 1995, ‘Validity of five common manual neck pain provoking tests’, Scandinavian Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, vol. 27, no. 3, pp.131–136.
- Wainner, R, Fritz, J, Irrgang, J, Delitto, A, Allison, S & Boninger, M 2005, ‘Development of a clinical prediction rule for the diagnosis of carpal tunnel syndrome’, Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, vol. 86, no. 4, pp. 609–618.
- Schmid, AB, Brunner, F, Luomajoki, H, Held, U, Bachmann, LM, Künzer, S & Coppieters, MW 2009, ‘Reliability of clinical tests to evaluate nerve function and mechanosensitivity of the upper limb peripheral nervous system’, BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, vol. 10, article no. 11.
- Quintner, JL 1989, ‘A study of upper limb pain and paraesthesiae following neck injury in motor vehicle accidents: assessment of the brachial plexus tension test of Elvey’, Rheumatology, vol. 28, no. 6, pp. 528-533.
- Pullos, J 1986, ‘The upper limb tension test’, Australian Journal of Physiotherapy, vol. 32, no. 4, pp. 258-259.
- Davis, DS, Anderson, BI, Carson, MG, Caroline, LE & Lindsey, BS 2008, ‘Upper limb neural tension and seated slump tests: The false positive rate among healthy young adults without cervical or lumbar symptoms’, Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy, vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 136–141.
- Jaberzadeha, S, Scutter, S & Nazeran, H 2005, ‘Mechansensitivity of the median nerve and mechanically produced motor responses during upper limb neurodynamic test 1’, Physiotherapy, vol. 91, no. 2, pp. 94-100.
- Coppieters, MW, Stappaerts, KH, Everaert, DG & Staes, FF 2001b, ‘Addition of test components during neurodynamic testing: effect on range of motion and sensory responses’, Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy, vol. 31, no. 5, pp. 226-237.
- Van der Heide, B, Allison, GT & Zusman, M 2001, ‘Pain and muscular responses to a neural tissue provocation test in the upper limb’, Manual Therapy, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 154-162.
- Van der Heide, B, Bourgoin, C, Eils, G, Garnevall, B & Blackmore, M 2006, ‘Test-retest reliability and face validity of a modified neural tissue provocation test in patients with cervicobrachial pain syndrome’, Journal of Manual and Manipulative Therapy, vol. 14, No. 1, pp. 30-36(7).
- Lohkamp, M & Small, K 2011, ‘Normal response to Upper Limb Neurodynamic Test 1 and 2A’, Manual Therapy, vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 125-130.
- Van Hoof, T, Vangestel, C, Forward, M, Verhaeghe, B, Van Thilborgh, L, Plasschaert, F, De Muynck, M, Vanderstraeten, G & D’Herde, K 2008b, ‘The impact of muscular variation on the neurodynamic test for the median nerve in a healthy population with Langer’s axillary arch’, Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics, vol. 31, no. 6, pp. 474-83.
- A Study to Validate Diagnostic Strength of Modified Slump Test in Lumbar Radiculopathy
Authors
1 Gian Sagar College of Physiotherapy, Ram Nagar, Distt. Patiala (PUNJAB), IN
Source
Indian Journal of Physiotherapy & Occupational Therapy-An International Journal, Vol 6, No 4 (2012), Pagination: 275-278Abstract
Introduction: Neural tissue provocation tests (NTPT) have been increasingly incorporated into clinical practice. Unfortunately, the early terminology used in describing these tests-'neural tension test' and 'adverse mechanical tension'- did little to further the acceptance, understanding or credibility of the physical treatment of neurogenic pain. A more appropriate term is 'neural tissue provocation tests' as they are passive test applied in a manner to selectively stress different neural tissues in order to assess their sensitivity to mechanical provocation. Many experts in the field of neurodynamics have clearly stated the importance of the reproduction of a patient's symptoms, which implies the presence of pathology. The other feature which is vital to the interpretation of any neuromusculoskeletal clinical measure is the comparison between sides. It is essential to compare sides for there is tremendous variation in flexibility of the peripheral nervous system in both the lower and upper quarter.
Objectives: While there has been considerable research on neurodynamics, there has been little research investigating the diagnostic validity of such tests. The purpose of this study was to find out the rate of true positive (sensitivity) Slump Test (modified) in patients with lumbar spine mediated neural symptoms. This research also attempted to find bilateral variability, that is, difference in the angles of knee extension within the range at which the responses were provoked, between the asymptomatic and symptomatic side of the patient.
Methods: Experimental same subject study design with 30 randomly selected patients in the age group of 20-60 years. Sample population was drawn from physiotherapy out-patient department of Gian Sagar Medical College and Hospital and New Hope Physiotherapy Centre, based on inclusion and exclusion criteria. Subjects with lumbar pain and associated neural signs and symptoms (unilateral) went through modified Slump Test (ST1). The test was performed bilaterally, first on asymptomatic and then on the symptomatic side of the patient.
Results: Out of 30 patients, 28 were tested positive with ST1. True positive rate (sensitivity) was calculated using simple percentage. To find difference in the angles of knee extension between asymptomatic and symptomatic side, paired t-test was used.
Conclusion: It was concluded that Neural tissue provocation test (ST1) is highly sensitive in diagnosing the patients with lumbar spine mediated neural signs and symptoms. Significant difference in the angles of knee extension existed between the asymptomatic and symptomatic sides.
Keywords
Neural Tissue Provocation Test, Sensitivity, ST1, Range of Motion, Bilateral VariabilityReferences
- Beith, I, Robins, E & Richards, P 1995, ‘An assessment of the adaptive mechanisms within and surrounding the peripheral nervous system, during changes in nerve bed length resulting from underlying joint movement’, in Moving in on pain, ed M Shacklock, Butterworth Heinemann, Sydney, Australia, pp. 194-203.
- Maitland, GD 1979, ‘Negative disc exploration: Positive canal signs’, Australian Journal of Physiotherapy, vol. 25, no. 3, pp. 129-134.
- Magarey, M 1984, ‘Canal signs: their significance in examination and treatment of spine’, in Lecture presented at the school of physiotherapy, Lincoln Institute.
- Kornberg, C & Lew, P 1987, ‘The effect of using slump as a stretching technique on grade one hamstring injuries’, in Proceedings of the fifth biennial conference of the manipulative therapists association of Australia, Melbourne, pp. 183-191.
- Maitland, GD 1985, ‘The slump test: Examination and treatment’, Australian Journal of Physiotherapy, vol. 31, no. 6, pp. 215-219.
- Butler, DS 1991, Mobilisation of the nervous system, Churchill Livingstone, Melbourne.
- Philip, K, Lew, P & Matyas, TA 1989, ‘The intertherapist reliability of the slump test’, Australian Journal of Physiotherapy, vol. 35, no. 2, pp. 89-94.
- Stankovic, R, Johnell, O, Maly, P & Wilmer, S 1999, ‘Use of lumbar extension, slump test, physical and neurological examination in the evaluation of patients with suspected herniated nucleus pulposus: A prospective clinical study’, Manual Therapy, vol. 4, no. 1, pp.25-32.
- Majlesi, J, Togay, H, Ünalan, H & Toprak, S 2008, ‘The sensitivity and specificity of the slump and the straight leg raising tests in patients with lumbar disc herniation’, Journal of Clinical Rheumatology , vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 87-91.
- Johnson, EK & Chiarello, CM 1997, ‘The slump test: The effects of head and lower extremity position on knee extension’, Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy, vol. 26, no. 6, pp. 310-317.
- Woolf, CJ 1991, ‘Generation of acute pain: central mechanisms’, British Medical Bulletein, vol. 47, no. 3, pp. 523-533.
- Butler, D & Gifford, L 1989b, ‘The concept of adverse mechanical tension in the nervous system. Part 2: Examination and treatment’, Physiotherapy, vol. 75, no.11, pp 629–636.
- Davis, DS, Anderson, BI, Carson, MG, Caroline, LE & Lindsey, BS 2008, ‘Upper limb neural tension and seated slump tests: The false positive rate among healthy young adults without cervical or lumbar symptoms’, Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy, vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 136–141.
- Tucker, N, Duncan, R & McNair, P 2007, ‘Reliability and measurement error of active knee extension range of motion in a modified slump test position: A pilot study’, The Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy, vol. 15, no. 4, pp. E85-E91.
- Herrington, L, Bendix, K, Cornwell, C, Fielden, N & Hankey, K 2008, ‘What is the normal response to structural differentiation within the slump and straight leg raise tests?’, Manual Therapy, vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 289-294.