Objective: The objective of the study was to compare the effectiveness of neural mobilization technique with conservative treatment on pain intensity, cervical range of motion, and disability.
Methods: It was a randomized clinical trial; data was collected from Mayo Hospital, Lahore. Eighty-eight patients fulfilling the sample selection criteria were randomly assigned into group 1 (neural mobilization) and group 2 (conventional treatment). Pain intensity was measured on a numeric pain rating scale, range of motion with an inclinometer, and functional status with neck disability index (NDI). Data were analyzed using SPSS, repeated measure ANOVA for cervical ranges and the Friedman test for NPRS and NDI were used for within-group analysis. Independent samples t-test for cervical ranges and Mann-Whitney U test for NPRS and NDI were used for between-group comparisons.
Results: There was a significant improvement in pain, disability, and cervical range of motion after the treatment in both groups compared to the pre-treatment status (p < 0.001), and when both groups were compared neural mobilization was more effective than conventional treatment in reducing pain and neck disability (p < 0.001), but there was no significant difference present in the mean score of cervical range of motion between both groups. (p>0.05).
Conclusions: The present study concluded that both neural mobilization and conservative treatment were effective as an exercise program for patients with cervical radiculopathy, however, neural mobilization was more effective in reducing pain and neck disability in cervical radiculopathy.
Trial registration: RCT20190325043109N1.
Copyright: © 2022 Rafiq et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.