Mechanical traction for mechanical neck disorders

Author(s):  
N Graham ◽  
A Gross ◽  
C Goldsmith ◽  
J Klaber Moffett
2006 ◽  
Vol 38 (3) ◽  
pp. 145-152 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nadine Graham ◽  
Anita Gross ◽  
Charlie Goldsmith ◽  
the Cervical Overview Group

2015 ◽  
Vol 4 ◽  
pp. RPO.S24889
Author(s):  
Ajediran I. Bello ◽  
Jacquelyn A. Crabbe ◽  
Emmanuel Bonney

Objective The purpose of this study was to compare the therapeutic effects of portable and stationary tractions on treatment outcomes in patients with mechanical neck disorders (MNDs). Methods Forty-one participants with MNDs were randomly assigned to either portable traction or stationary traction. Participants' pain level, activity limitation, disability, and neck range of motion were measured before and after 6 weeks of intervention. Inferential statistics for comparing the treatment outcome involved paired t-test and two-way analysis of variance at P < 0.05. Results The mean age of participants was 47.3 ± 10.5 years. After intervention, there were significant improvements in both groups. However, the portable traction group had significantly higher score on neck flexion than the stationary traction group at baseline (portable: 27.1 ± 6.0, stationary: 22.1 ± 6.8; P = 0.009) and after intervention ( F-ratio = 15.0; P = 0.001). Conclusion Inclusion of both portable and stationary tractions to usual physiotherapy provided comparable treatment outcomes in patients with MNDs.


2012 ◽  
Vol 24 (11) ◽  
pp. 1127-1131 ◽  
Author(s):  
Abdulrahim Zakaria ◽  
Ashraf Ramadan Hafez ◽  
Syamala Buragadda ◽  
Ganeswara Rao Melam

Author(s):  
Paul Michael J Peloso ◽  
Anita Gross ◽  
Ted Haines ◽  
Kien Trinh ◽  
Charles H Goldsmith ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  

Author(s):  
Paul Michael J Peloso ◽  
Anita Gross ◽  
Ted Haines ◽  
Kien Trinh ◽  
Charles H Goldsmith ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document