Ceylan İ, Büyükturan Ö, Aykanat Ö, Büyükturan B, Şaş S, Ceylan MF. The effectiveness of mobilization with movement on patients with mild and moderate carpal tunnel syndrome: A single-blinded, randomized controlled study.
J Hand Ther 2023;
36:773-785. [PMID:
37573157 DOI:
10.1016/j.jht.2023.02.004]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/05/2022] [Revised: 02/02/2023] [Accepted: 02/07/2023] [Indexed: 08/14/2023]
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN
Single-blinded, randomized controlled study.
INTRODUCTION
Carpal Tunnel Syndrome (CTS) causes pain and loss of function in the affected hand. The mobilization with movement (MWM) technique is a manual therapy method applied to correct joint movement limitation and to relieve pain and functional disorders.
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
This study aimed to examine the effectiveness of MWM technique on pain, grip strength, range of motion, edema, hand reaction, nerve conduction, and functional status in patients with CTS.
METHODS
A total of 45 patients enrolled in the study. The MWM group (n = 18) completed a 4-week combined conservative physiotherapy and MWM program, whereas the control group (n = 18) received only the 4 weeks of conservative physiotherapy. Pain severity according to the numerical rating scale was used as primary outcome.
RESULTS
We found an improvement within the subjects in resting pain (MWMG:5.1 ± 3.6 vs 1.1 ± 2.4, Effect Size (ES)=1.3; CG:4.5 ± 3.3 vs 1.0 ± 2.2, ES=1.1), in activity pain (MWMG:6.5 ± 3.7 vs 1.1 ± 2.4, ES=1.5; CG:4.8 ± 3.4 vs 2.2 ± 2.3, ES=1) and in night pain (MWMG:5.9 ± 3.2 vs 1.8 ± 2.5, ES=1.2; CG:5.3 ± 4.2 vs ± 2.3 ± 3.5, ES=0.9). For between the groups, a statistical difference was found for the activity pain, Disabilities of the Arm Shoulder and Hand Questionnaire score (MWMG:52.2 ± 23.8 vs 27 ± 24.7, ES=1.3; CG:47.0 ± 24.8 vs 41.5 ± 22.1, ES=0.2), Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire (MHQ-1), (MWMG:44.4 ± 23.7 vs 74.7 ± 24.5, ES=1.3; CG:44.8 ± 17.4 vs 57.4 ± 21.7, ES=0.9) and MHQ-5 (MWMG:68.8 ± 13.1 vs 82.5 ± 11.5, ES=0.9; CG:63.4 ± 26.7 vs 59.3 ± 25.8, ES=0.1) parameters in favour of MWM group.
DISCUSSION
This study showed that MWM compared to conservative physiotherapy might be more effective in reducing perceived symptoms in mild and moderate CTS patients.
CONCLUSIONS
MWM produced a small benefit to recovery of activity pain and upper extremity functionality level outcomes of patients with mild to moderate CTS when added to a traditional CTS physical therapy program.
Collapse