• Samar M Alansari, Enas F Youssef, and Alsayed A Shanb.
• Department of Physical Therapy, King Abdulaziz Hospital, Jeddah, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. E-mail. samar_alansari@hotmail.com.
• Saudi Med J. 2021 Jan 1; 42 (1): 82-90.

ObjectivesTo compare the effectiveness of Maitland versus Mulligan mobilization techniques on pain, functional disability, and psychological status in patients with neck pain.MethodsForty-four patients with nonspecific neck pain were randomly assigned to the Maitland group (n=22 patients received Maitland therapy [central or unilateral postero-anterior pressure] for 2 sessions/week for 3 weeks) and Mulligan group (n=22 patients received Mulligan sustained natural apophyseal glides for 2 sessions/week for 3 weeks).  This study was conducted at the Rehabilitation Clinic, King Abdulaziz Hospital, Jeddah, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia between December 2016 to May 2017. The outcome measures were the numeric pain rating scale score, neck disability index score, beck depression inventory score, State-trait anxiety inventory score, fear avoidance beliefs questionnaire, and pain catastrophic scale results. The independent t-test, Shapiro-Wilk test, and paired t-test were used in data analysis.ResultsThere were significant improvements in mean values of the numeric pain rating scale, neck disability index, beck depression inventory, state-trait anxiety inventory scores, and pain catastrophic scale results after the interventions in both groups (p less than 0.05, all except fear avoidance beliefs results in mulligan group p greater than 0.05), and there were no significant differences in mean values between the groups (p greater than 0.05).  Conclusion. In patients with nonspecific neck pain, Maitland and Mulligan mobilization techniques have positive effects on neck pain, functional disability, and selected psychological features with no significant difference between them.

16 keywords...

hide…