The relative effectiveness of spinal manipulative therapy versus spinal manipulative therapy in conjunction with the administration of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in patients with facet syndrome

• Main Author: Williamson, Andrew Roger
• Other Authors: Till, A. G.
• Format: Others
• Language: en
• Published: 2017
• Subjects: Chiropractic; Cervical vertebrae; Spinal adjustment
• Online Access: http://hdl.handle.net/10321/2100

A dissertation presented in partial compliance with the requirements for the Master's Degree in Technology: Chiropractic, Technikon Natal, 1999. === The paucity of clinical research into the efficacy and effects of the different treatment protocols available for cervical facet syndrome has led to a continued variation in standard care for this condition. The aim of this study was to determine the relative effectiveness of spinal manipulative therapy in conjunction with the administration of a nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drug (NSAID) versus spinal manipulative therapy in conjunction with the administration of a placebo medication in the treatment of cervical facet syndrome. It was hypothesised that treatment with spinal manipulative therapy and NSAIDs over a two week period, with a further four week follow-up period, would be more effective than spinal manipulative therapy and placebo medication in terms of the objective and subjective clinical findings. The study design chosen was that of a double-blind, comparative, clinical trial. Thirty consecutive patients diagnosed with cervical facet syndrome were randomly assigned either to the manipulation and NSAID group or the manipulation and placebo group. The age range of the patients extended from nineteen to fifty-three years. Forty percent of patient occupations in both groups involved work on a computer. Each patient in the NSAID group received 139.5mg of diclofenac free acid a day over five days. The placebo group received the same dosage of similar appearance and taste over the same period. Each group of fifteen patients received treatment three times a week for two weeks. After a follow-up period of four weeks the patients were re-assessed. The patients were assessed by means of obtaining subjective information consisting of three questionnaires: the McGill Short-Form Pain Questionnaire, the Numerical Pain === M