Advances in Clinical and Experimental Medicine

Title abbreviation: Adv Clin Exp Med
JCR Impact Factor (IF) – 2.1
5-Year Impact Factor – 2.2
Scopus CiteScore – 3.4 (CiteScore Tracker 3.7)
Index Copernicus  – 161.11; MNiSW – 70 pts

ISSN 1899–5276 (print)
ISSN 2451-2680 (online)
Periodicity – monthly

Download original text (EN)

Advances in Clinical and Experimental Medicine

2014, vol. 23, nr 5, September-October, p. 769–774

Publication type: original article

Language: English

Assessment of the Cervical Spine Range of Motion After the Use of the Saunders Traction Device in Different Positioning of the Upper Extremities

Andrzej Myśliwiec1,2,A,B,C,D,F, Edward Saulicz1,3,A,C,E,F, Michał Kuszewski1,A,C,E,F, Przemysław Sładkowski4,B,C,D, Tomasz Wolny1,3,E,F, Mariola Saulicz1,3,E,F

1 Department of Physiotherapy, The Jerzy Kukuczka Academy of Physical Education in Katowice, Poland

2 Department of Physiotherapy, College of Strategic Planning in Dąbrowa Górnicza, Poland

3 Academy of Business in Dąbrowa Górnicza, Poland

4 Graduate Studies, Department of Kinesiotherapy and Special Physiotherapy Methods, The Jerzy Kukuczka Academy of Physical Education in Katowice, Poland

Abstract

Background. Among the procedures used in the therapy of spinal pain syndromes one of the most frequently recommended is the cervical traction. The methods of performing the traction are varied.
Objectives. It was decided to examine in the research whether the abduction and external rotation of the brachium, causing relaxation of the pectoral girdle muscles as well as the cervical spine, affects the quality and efficiency of traction in the patient’s subjective assessment and the changes in the cervical spine range of motion.
Material and Methods. Fifty subjects aged 20 to 42 were involved in the study, including 26 women and 24 men. The criterion of inclusion into the research project was the age between 20 and 40 years and the result of questionnaire containing the NDI scale for evaluation of the degree of dysfunction of the cervical spine, ranging in value between 5 and 14 points. The admitted group of 50 subjects was randomly divided into two experimental groups. The traction of the cervical spine was performed twice in both groups by means of the Saunders device. In the first group used the traditional positing, with the upper extremities placed along the torso, was adapted as first whereas in the second group the modified position was applied, in which the upper extremities were in the external rotation in abduction and with flexion in the cubital articulation, in other words the patients placed their hands next to head. In both cases the patient was in the supine position on a therapeutic table with a support roll under the knees.
Results. The evaluation of the cervical spine range of motion pointed, that in both position all the obtained differences proved statistical significance. The subjects taking part in the research claimed that the procedure performed by means of the traditional method was more pleasant.
Conclusion. No significant difference was discovered in the effectiveness of the suggested positioning of the arms during performing the traction procedure of the cervical spine. The modified position caused greater sensation of discomfort than position with traditional arrangement of the arms.

Key words

traction, neck, pain, range of motion.

References (31)

  1. Falla D: Unravelling the complexity of muscle impairment in chronic neck pain. Man Ther 2004, 9, 125–133.
  2. Falla D, Jull G, Hodges P, Vicenzimo B: An endurance–strength training regime in effective in reducing myoelectric manifestation of cervical flexor muscle fatigue in females with chronic neck pain. Neurophysiol Clin 2006, 117, 828–837.
  3. Cote P, Cassidy JD, Carroll L: The epidemiology of neck pain: what we have learned from our population – based studies. JCCA 2003, 47, 284–290.
  4. Nowotny J, Nowotny-Czupryna O, Brzęk A, Kowalczyk A, Czupryna K: Body posture and syndromes of back pain. Ortop Traumatol Rehabil 2011, 13, 1, 59–71.
  5. Hill J, Levis M, Papageorgiou A, Dziedzic K, Croft P: Predicting persistent neck pain. Spine 2004, 29, 1648–1654.
  6. Saunders HD, Saunders R: Evaluation, Treatment and Prevention of Musculoskeletal Disorders. The Saunders Group, Minnesota 1995.
  7. Pascarelli EF, Hsu Yp: Understanding work-related upper extremity disorders; clinical findings in 485 computer users, musicians and others. Journal Occupy Rehab 2001, 11, 1–21.
  8. Ariens GA, van Mechelen W: Physical risk factors for neck pain. Scand J Work Environ Health 2000, 26, 7–19.
  9. Myers TW: Anatomy Trains. Myofascial Meridians for manual and movement therapists. Churchill Livingston, Elsevier, Wrocław 2009, 2nd ed.
  10. Gieremek K, Saulicz E, Piłat A, Molicka D: La eficacia del aparato vibratorio de extension cervical en el tratamiento de los pacientes con espondylosis cervical. Cuestiones Fisioterapia 2003, 21–28.
  11. Myśliwiec A, Saulicz E, Kuszewski M, Kokosz M, Wolny T: Assessment of the influence of Saunders traction and trancutaneous electrical nerve stimulation on hand grip force in patients with neck pain. Ortop Traumatol Rehabil 2011, 1960, 13, 37–44.
  12. Tsai CT, Chang WD, Kao MJ, Wang CJ, Lai PT: Changes in blood pressure and related autonomic function during cervical traction in healthy women. Orthopedics 2011, 34, 295–301.
  13. Peake N, Harte A: The effectiveness of cervical traction. Phys Ther Rev 2005, 10, 217–229.
  14. Klaber-Moffett JA, Hughes GI, Griffiths P: An investigation of the effects of cervical traction. Clinical effectiveness. Clin Rehabil 1990, 4, 205–211.
  15. Baker P, Marcoux BC: The effectiveness of home cervical traction on relief of neck pain and impaired cervical range of motion. Phys Ther 1999, 2, 145–151.
  16. Moeti P, Marchetti G: Clinical outcome from mechanical intermittent cervical traction for the treatment of cervical radioculopathy:a case series. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2001, 31, 207–213.
  17. Zylbergold RS, Piper MC: Cervical spine disorders. A comparison of three types of traction. Spine 1985, 10, 864–871.
  18. Constantoyannis C, Konstantinou D, Kourtopoulos H, Papadakis N: Intermittent cervical traction for cervical radioculopathy causes by large – volume herniated disks. J Manipulative Physiol Ther 2002, 25, 188–192.
  19. Pan PJ, Tsai PH, Tsai CC, Chou CL, Lo MT, Chiu JH: Clinical response and autonomic modulation as seen in heart rate variability in mechanical intermittent cervical traction: o pilot study. J Rehabil Med 2011, 44, 229–234.
  20. Shakoor M, Ahmed MS, Kibria G, Khan AA, Mian MAH, Hasan SA: Effects of cervical traction and exercise therapy in cervical spondylosis. Bangladesh MRC Bull 2002, 28, 61–69.
  21. Brewerton DA, Beardwell A, Blower PW, Brown MR, Campbell EDR, Cochrane GM: British association of physical medicine. Pain in the neck and arm: a multicentre trial of the effects of physiotherapy. BMJ 1996, 2, 253–258.
  22. Saal JS, Saal JA, Yurth F: Non-operative management of herniated cervical intervertebral disc with radiculopathy. Spine 1996, 21, 1877–1883.
  23. Myśliwiec A, Saulicz E, Kuszewski M, Kokosz M, Gnat R, Wolny T: Changes in the subjective sensation of pain in patients with cervical spine dysfunction treated by mean of Saunders traction and TENS. FP 2010, 3, 10, 211–221.
  24. Valtonen EJ, Kiuru E: Cervical traction as a therapeutic tool. Scand J Rehabil Med 1970, 2, 29–36.
  25. Vernon H, Mior S: The neck disability index: a study of reliability and validity. J Manipulative Physiol Ther 1991, 14, 409–415.
  26. Hole DE, Cook JM, Bolton JE: Reliability and concurrent validity of two instruments for measuring cervical range of motion: effects of age and gender. Man Ther 1995, 1, 36–42.
  27. Wewers ME, Lowe NK: A critical review of visual analogue scales in the measurement of clinical phenomena. Res Nurs Health 1990, 13, 227–236.
  28. Kilderso J, Wyon D, Skov T, Schneider T: Visual analogue scales for detecting changes in symptoms of sick building syndrome in an intervention study. Scan J Work Environ Health 1999, 25, 361–367.
  29. Sipko T, Bieć E, Demczuk-Włodarczyk E, Ciesielska B: Mobility of cervical spine and postural equilibrium in patients with spinal overload syndrome. Ortop Traumatol Rehabil 2007, 2, 9, 141–148.
  30. Kleinresink GJ, Stoeckart R, Mulder PG, Hoek G, Broek T, Vleeming A, Snijders C: Upper limbs tension tests as tools in the diagnosis of nerve and plexus lesions. Anatomical and biomechanical aspects. Clin Biomech 2000, 15, 9–14.
  31. Shacklock M: Clinical neurodynamics. A new system of musculoskeletal treatment. Elsevier, Wrocław 2008.