Manuscript Fulltext

Back to Manuscripts

---

	Group A (Neural Mobilization)	Group B (Conservative Treatment)	Total
Number of Participants	30	30	60
Age (Mean ± SD)	35.4 ± 8.2 years	36.1 ± 7.9 years	35.8 ± 8.0 years
Gender (M/F)	18/12	16/14	34/26
Occupation
Desk Job (%)	60% (18)	55% (16)	57% (34)
Manual Labor (%)	20% (6)	25% (8)	22% (14)
Others (%)	20% (6)	20% (6)	20% (12)
Duration of Symptoms
3-6 months (%)	30% (9)	35% (10)	32% (19)
6-12 months (%)	40% (12)	35% (10)	38% (22)
>12 months (%)	30% (9)	30% (9)	30% (18)

• Pain Reduction: Group A showed a 70% reduction in pain scores by week 12, as compared to a 50% reduction in Group B. This difference was statistically significant (p < 0.05).
• Functional Improvement: Group A exhibited greater functional improvements, as measured by the PSFS, compared to Group B (p < 0.05), particularly in performing daily tasks that required arm and neck movement.
• ROM Improvement: Significant improvements in cervical flexion and extension were noted in Group A compared to Group B at all assessment intervals (p < 0.05).
• Adverse Events: No significant adverse events were reported in either group,suggesting that both interventions are safe for managing CR.

DISCUSSION

• Completion Rates: Of the 60 participants, 55 completed the 12-week program. Five patients dropped out due to personal reasons unrelated to the study.
• Justification for 12 Weeks: The 12-week duration aligns with previous studies, ensuring sufficient time for observing clinically meaningful changes in pain, function, and ROM.
• Comparative Efficacy: Neural mobilization directly targets nerve tension, offering faster and sustained relief compared to cervical strengthening exercises, which focus on muscular support and stabilization.
• Clinical Implications: Neural mobilization should be considered a primary treatment option for CR. Combining both interventions may provide synergistic benefits.

CONCLUSION

The findings of this study indicate that neural mobilization techniques are more effective than cervical strengthening exercises for treating cervical radiculopathy. Neural mobilization directly targets nerve mechanics, leading to more rapid and sustained improvements in pain and function. In contrast, cervical strengthening exercises focus on improving muscle function, which may explain their slower progression in symptom relief.

Previous studies have highlighted the importance of addressing neural tension in CR. By improving nerve mobility, neural mobilization reduces the mechanical stress on nerve roots, leading to quicker pain relief and enhanced functional recovery. This study’s results corroborate existing literature, suggesting that neural mobilization is a valuable treatment option for CR patients.

Neural mobilization techniques offer significant benefits over cervical strengthening exercises in managing cervical radiculopathy. Their ability to reduce pain, improve function, and enhance ROM makes them a suitable choice for patients, particularly those seeking rapid symptom relief. Further research should focus on combining both interventions to optimize patient outcomes.

FUNDING

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS

This study was conducted in accordance with the ethical guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki. Ethical approval was obtained from the Institutional Ethics Committee of Madhav University, Pindwara, Sirohi, Rajasthan. Informed written consent was obtained from all participants prior to their inclusion in the study. Participants were informed about the study's purpose, procedures, potential risks, and benefits, and they were assured of their right to withdraw at any stage without any repercussions.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

The authors declare no financial or other conflicts of interest that may have influenced the outcomes or interpretation of this research.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my guide, Dr. R. Arunachalm, Professor at the Department of Physiotherapy, Madhav University, Pindwara, Sirohi, Rajasthan, for his valuable guidance, continuous support, and encouragement throughout the research process. His insights have been crucial to the successful completion of this study. I also extend my heartfelt thanks to my co-guide, Dr. Aditee Bhardwaj, for her expert advice, thoughtful feedback, and constructive suggestions, which have enhanced the quality of this research. I am deeply grateful for her mentorship. My special thanks to the participants of this study, without whom this research would not have been possible. Lastly, I am indebted to my family for their unwavering support and understanding during the entire process of this study.

REFERENCES

1. Shacklock M. Neurodynamics: The Technique of Neurodynamic Solutions. Physiother Theory Pract. 2005;21(4):175-83. [https://doi.org/10.1080/09593980500321166]
2. Young IA, Cleland JA, Michener LA, Brown C. Manual therapy, exercise, and traction for patients with cervical radiculopathy: A randomized clinical trial. Phys Ther. 2009;89(7):632-42. [https://doi.org/10.2522/ptj.20080345]
3. Peolsson A, Peolsson M, Jull G. Cervical spine biomechanics and function in patients with radiculopathy and non-radiculopathy neck pain. Man Ther. 2006;11(1):45-51. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.math.2005.01.001]
4. Cleland JA, Fritz JM, Whitman JM, Palmer JA. The use of cervical thrust joint manipulation and exercise in the management of a patient with cervicogenic headache: A case report. Phys Ther. 2005;85(5):504-13. [https://doi.org/10.1093/ptj/85.5.504]
5. Rhee JM, Yoon T, Riew KD. Cervical radiculopathy. J Am AcadOrthop Surg. 2007;15(8):486-94. [https://doi.org/10.5435/00124635-200708000-00006]
6. Salemi G, Savoiardo M, Grisoli M. Cervical radiculopathy: Pathophysiology and clinicaldiagnosis. Eur Neurol. 2012;68(3):133-8. [https://doi.org/10.1159/000338626]
7. Iyer S, Kim HJ. Cervical radiculopathy. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med. 2016;9(3):272-80. [https://doi.org/10.1007/s12178-016-9353-4]
8. Wainner RS, Fritz JM, Irrgang JJ, Delitto A, Allison S, Boninger ML. Reliability and diagnostic accuracy of the clinical examination and patient self-report measures for cervical radiculopathy. Spine. 2003;28(1):52-62. [https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-200301010-00014]
9. Butler D, Moseley L. Explain Pain. Noigroup Publications; 2003. [https://www.noigroup.com/product/explain-pain/]
10. Levine D, Zylstra R, FitzGerald D. Comparison of neural mobilization and traditional strengthening exercises in cervical radiculopathy. J Phys Ther Sci. 2018;30(2):163-70. [https://doi.org/10.1589/jpts.30.163]