The comparison of Manipulation with Mulligan Mobilization on sacroiliac joint dysfunction, disability and range of motion
Design
This study was a double blinded Randomized Clinical Trial. The patients and outcome assessor were blinded about the allocation of the groups.
Settings and conduct
The study was conducted in Evercare Hospital Lahore, outpatient department of physiotherapy.
Participants/Inclusion and exclusion criteria
INCLUSION CRITERIA:
• Patients with sacroiliac joint dysfunction. Screened through provocative sacroiliac joint tests:
Distraction test
Thigh thrust test
Compression test
Sacral thrust test
FABER test
Gaenslen test
• Age limit of 20y to 60years
• Both male and female, were included in this study.
EXCLUSION CRITERIA:
• Recent surgical procedure of Lumbar spine
• Spondylolisthesis
• Lumbar hypermobility
• Sacroiliac joint hypermobility
• Spinal structural deformity i.e., scoliosis
• Severe cardiovascular and bone diseases i.e. tumor
Intervention groups
Patients were randomly distributed to two groups with use of lottery method of randomization.
Group A: Patients treating with sacroiliac joint Manipulation, core stability exercises and heating pad.
Group B: Patients treating with Mulligan Mobilization, core stability exercises and heating pad.
COMPARISON OF MANIPULATION AND MULLIGAN MOBILIZATION IN PATIENTS WITH SACROILIAC JOINT DYSFUNCTION
Public title
COMPARISON OF MANIPULATION AND MULLIGAN MOBILIZATION IN PATIENTS WITH SACROILIAC JOINT DYSFUNCTION
Purpose
Health service research
Inclusion/Exclusion criteria
Inclusion criteria:
• Patients with sacroiliac joint dysfunction. Screened through provocative sacroiliac joint tests: Distraction test Thigh thrust test Compression test Sacral thrust test FABER test Gaenslen test
Exclusion criteria:
Recent surgical procedure of Lumbar spine
Spondylolisthesis
Lumbar hypermobility
Sacroiliac joint hypermobility
Spinal structural deformity i.e., scoliosis
Severe cardiovascular and bone diseases i.e., tumor
Age
From 20 years old to 60 years old
Gender
Both
Phase
1
Groups that have been masked
Participant
Outcome assessor
Sample size
Target sample size:
20
More than 1 sample in each individual
Number of samples in each individual:
3
pre-treatment, post-treatment and after 2 weeks
Actual sample size reached:
20
More than 1 sample in each individual
Actual sample size in each individual:
3
pre-treatment, post-treatment and after 2 weeks
Randomization (investigator's opinion)
Randomized
Randomization description
To collect the data non–probability convenience sampling technique was used but all patients were randomly assigned one of two treatment groups by lottery method during research.
Patients were randomly distributed to two groups with use of lottery method of randomization.
Group A: Patients treating with sacroiliac joint Manipulation, core stability exercises and heating pad.
Group B: Patients treating with Mulligan Mobilization, core stability exercises and heating pad.
Blinding (investigator's opinion)
Double blinded
Blinding description
This study was a double blinded Randomized Clinical Trial. The patients and outcome assessor were blinded about the allocation of the groups. while the physiotherapist were not blinded.
Placebo
Not used
Assignment
Single
Other design features
Randomized Clinical Trial
Secondary Ids
empty
Ethics committees
1
Ethics committee
Name of ethics committee
Riphah College of Rehabilitation & Allied Health Sciences
Street address
28-M, Quaid-e-Azam, Industrial Estate, Kot Lakhpat, Lahore, Punjab, Pakistan.