Effectiveness Of Mulligan Mobilization with Movement Versus Conventional Physiotherapy Exercises in Type 2 Diabetic Individuals with Frozen Shoulder
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.69980/ajpr.v27i2.456Keywords:
Frozen shoulder, Mulligan Mobilization with Movement, Type 2 Diabetes mellitus, physiotherapy, Range of motion, Random blood sugar, Shoulder rehabilitationAbstract
Background:
Introduction: Frozen shoulder frequently affects individuals with diabetes mellitus, resulting in pain, restricted shoulder mobility, and function. Conventional physiotherapy exercises are often prescribed to address these symptoms. Mulligan’s Mobilization with Movement (MWM) is a manual therapy technique increasingly recognized for its benefits in joint dysfunctions.
Objective: Aim of this study is to evaluate and compare the effectiveness of Mulligan mobilization with Movement and Conventional Physiotherapy Exercises in Type 2 Diabetic individuals with Frozen shoulder.
Methods: A randomized controlled trial was conducted involving 30 Type 2 Diabetic participants diagnosed with Frozen shoulder. Participants were randomly divided into two groups: Experimental Group received Mulligan Mobilization with Movement, and Control Group received Conventional Physiotherapy exercises. Both groups were treated over a period of 4 weeks, with adjunctive ultrasound therapy and Moist heat provided to all the participants. Outcome measures including the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) for pain, shoulder range of motion (ROM) assessed using a goniometer, and Random Blood Sugar (RBS) levels. Evaluations were performed pre- and post-intervention.
Results: Both groups exhibited significant improvements in pain levels, ROM, and RBS values post-treatment (p < 0.05). However, Experimental Group (Mulligan Mobilization with Movement) demonstrated greater reduction in pain scores and superior improvements in shoulder ROM compared to Control Group (Conventional Physiotherapy Exercises) (p < 0.01). Although both groups showed slight reduction in RBS levels, there was no statistically significant difference between them.
Conclusion: Mulligan Mobilization with Movement is more effective than Conventional Physiotherapy Exercises in reducing pain and enhancing shoulder mobility in Type 2 Diabetic individuals with Frozen shoulder. While minor improvements in glycemic control were observed, further investigation to determine the sustained metabolic benefits of such physiotherapeutic interventions. Integrating MWM into routine rehabilitation may support more efficient functional recovery in Type 2 Diabetic population.
References
1. Neviaser AS, Hannafin JA. Adhesive Capsulitis: a review of current treatment. Am J Sports Med. 2010;38(11):2346–56.
2. Zuckerman JD, Rokito A. Frozen shoulder: a consensus definition. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2011;20(2):322–5.
3. Captuli M. Frozen shoulder: an update. Shoulder Elbow. 2009;1(4):175–84.
4. Reeves B. The natural history of the frozen shoulder syndrome. Scand J Rheumatol. 1975;4(4):193–6.
5. Hannafin JA, Chiaia TA. Adhesive Capsulitis: a treatment approach. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2000;(372):95–109.
6. Lundberg BJ. The frozen shoulder. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1969;30: 166–73.
7. Bridgman JF. Periarthritis of the shoulder and diabetes mellitus. Ann Rheum Dis. 1972;31(1):69–71.
8. Pal B, Anderson J, Dick WC, Griffiths ID. Limitation of joint mobility and shoulder capsulitis in insulin- and non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus. Br J Rheumatol. 1986;25(2):147–51.
9. Thomas SJ, McDougall C, Brown ID, et al. Prevalence of shoulder pain in a community-based cohort of diabetic patients. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2007;16(4):267–71.
10. Rodeo SA, Hannafin JA, Tom J, Warren RF, Wickiewicz TL. Immunolocalization of cytokines and their receptors in Adhesive Capsulitis of the shoulder. J Orthop Res. 1997;15(3):427–36.
11. Kelley MJ, Shaffer MA, Kuhn JE, et al. Shoulder pain and mobility deficits: Adhesive Capsulitis. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2013;43(5): A1–31.
12. Ibrahim MI, Johnson AJ, Tawy GO, Hegazy FA. Effect of passive stretching versus active stretching on range of motion in patients with Adhesive Capsulitis: a randomized controlled trial. Physiother Res Int. 2016;21(4):232–8.
13. Griggs SM, Ahn A, Green A. Idiopathic Frozen shoulder: a prospective functional outcome study of nonoperative treatment. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2000;82(10):1398–407.
14. Mulligan BR. Manual Therapy: NAGS, SNAGS, MWMS, etc. 6th ed. Wellington: Plane View Services; 2010.
15. Doner G, Guven Z, Atalay NS, et al. Evaluation of Mulligan’s Mobilization Technique in Patients with Adhesive Capsulitis. J Back MusculoskeletRehabil. 2013;26(4):363–8.
16. Goyal M, Chhabra D, Jain A, et al. Effectiveness of Mobilization With Movement on Shoulder Range of Motion and Pain in Adhesive Capsulitis: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Int J Health Sci Res. 2016;6(8):135–41.
17. Doner G, Duyur Cakit B, Durmus O, Ulasli AM, Gundogdu I, Aki S. The effectiveness of Mulligan mobilization technique in Adhesive Capsulitis: a randomized controlled study. Clin Rehabil. 2013;27(6):521–9.
18. Goyal M, Chaturvedi A, Jindal A. Efficacy of Mulligan’s mobilization with movement on pain and shoulder range of motion in frozen shoulder. Int J Health Sci Res. 2016;6(3):222–9.
19. Ibrahim MI, Tawy GO, El-Meniawy GH. Comparative study between mobilization with movement and muscle energy technique in the treatment of Adhesive Capsulitis. Bull Fac Phys Ther. 2016;21(1):1–6.
20. Reeves B. The natural history of the frozen shoulder syndrome. Scand J Rheumatol. 1975;4(4):193–6.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 American Journal of Psychiatric Rehabilitation
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License permitting all use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the work is properly cited.
