Abstracting and Indexing

  • Google Scholar
  • CrossRef
  • WorldCat
  • ResearchGate
  • Academic Keys
  • DRJI
  • Microsoft Academic
  • Academia.edu
  • OpenAIRE

Comparison of Mulligan Mobilization Technique versus Mckenzie Exercises among Patient with Sacroilliac Joint Dysfunction: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Author(s): Faisal Ghafoor, Zunaira Ahmad, Afia Irfan, Aisha Munawar, Iqra Sabir, Faseeh Zulqernain

Background: Sacroiliac joint dysfunction frequently causes pain in low back. Localized tenderness and pain around the sacroiliac joint are signs. Objective: This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of mulligan mobilization Technique Versus McKenzie exercises among patients with sacroiliac joint Dysfunction.

Methodology: Total 58 patients, with sacroiliac joint dysfunction were included who were fulfilled the eligibility criteria. This trial was registered in Iranian registry with ref#NCT05404451 Dated 01-08-2022. This study is assessor blind. We have used the convenient sampling technique and the Lottery Method was used to randomly select. Participants were then divided into the two groups at random. The researcher and participants were not informed of the allocation process. In envelopes, the allocation was concealed. Group A received treatment with mulligan mobilization technique while group B received treatment with McKenzie exercises. Both groups received treatment for four weeks. Using the VAS and the MODI scale, pain and disability were evaluated before and after treatment.

Results: It was observed that McKenzie exercises were more effective than Mulligan mobilization techniques at reducing pain, disability, and enhancing sitting, standing, and walking in patients P value was (>0.005). While there was no significant difference has been observed in personal care lifting, sleeping, when comparing both groups P value was (>0.005).

Conclusion: The McKenzie exercises are more efficient than Mulligan's Mobilization technique when the two groups are compared (at reducing pain, disability, and enhancing sitting, standing, and walking in patients).

Journal Statistics

Impact Factor: * 4.3

CiteScore: 2.9

Acceptance Rate: 11.01%

Time to first decision: 10.4 days

Time from article received to acceptance: 2-3 weeks

Discover More: Recent Articles

Grant Support Articles

© 2016-2024, Copyrights Fortune Journals. All Rights Reserved!