NCT06941220

Effect of Mulligan Versus Maitland Mobilization on Lumbar Proprioception in Patients With Chronic Nonspecific Low Back Pain

• Status: Completed
• Phase: N/A
• Study type: Interventional
• Enrollment: 90 (actual)
• Sponsor: Cairo University · Academic / Other
• Sex: All
• Age: 18 Years – 60 Years
• Healthy volunteers: Not accepted

Summary

this study will be conducted to compare between the effect of mulligan mobilization versus Maitland mobilization on pain ,function and lumbar proprioception in patients with chronic nonspecific low pain

Detailed description

Low back pain (LBP) is considered as one of the most widespread musculoskeletal disorders, impacting over 80% of the world's population, resulting in work absence, medical consultation, a decline in quality of life, and financial burden. Lumbar repositioning error was high around 30° of trunk flexion in individuals with CLB. When lumbar proprioceptive deficiencies arise, the activation pattern of back muscles is disturbed, the mechanics of the spinal unit differs from that of a healthy spine, and the recurrence rate of LBP increases . CLBP is managed using various intervention modalities, including drug therapy and physical therapy approaches . Physical therapy modalities, such as manual therapy, therapeutic exercises, and biopsychosocial techniques, are used for treating LBP. Manual therapy is a common and suggested modality for treating CLBP that has strong evidence. It is employed in physical therapy practice, including Maitland mobilization and Mulligan mobilization. Mulligan mobilization as well as Maitland mobilization has significant effect on pain ,function disability and lumbar repositioning error. But there is gap about which is more beneficial. So we conduct this study to determine which technique is more beneficial for patients

Conditions

• Low Back Pain

Interventions

Type	Name	Description
OTHER	mulligan group	SNAG technique was applied from a sitting position on the edge of the table while both feet were on a foot rest. A specialized Mulligan belt was used around the patient's waist and therapist's hips. The mobilizing force was applied parallel to the facet joint plane (cephalic direction) and over the spinous processes of the respective symptomatic spinal levels. The patients were asked to lean forward as much as possible during application of the mobilizing force and then return to the starting position while the therapist maintained his mobilizing force until the end. plus traditional therapy
OTHER	Maitland mobilization	The subjects were placed in the prone position on a plinth with their hands beside them, and the therapist stood on the subject's side, the ulnar surface of the hand (between pisiform and hamate) was placed over the hypomobile spinous process. The second hand was placed on top of the first to enhance its force. With the therapist's elbows slightly bent and shoulders exactly above the spinous process, an oscillatory movement of the vertebra was executed by applying a posterior-anterior force to the hypomobile or painful spinous process. Grade III mobilization was applied four times, each with 60 s of oscillation and 20 s of rest in between them (2 or 3 oscillations per second) plus traditional therapy
OTHER	traditional therapy	the patients will receive traditional therapy in the form of passive stretching, strengthening, and lumbar stabilization exercises

Timeline

• Start date: 2025-04-15
• Primary completion: 2026-01-31
• Completion: 2026-01-31
• First posted: 2025-04-23
• Last updated: 2026-02-10

Locations

1 site across 1 country: Egypt