COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS OF NERVE GLIDING AND MOBILIZATION IN PATIENTS WITH CARPAL TUNNEL SYNDROME; RANDOMIZED CONTROL TRIAL

Faiqa Razzaq, Samraiz Mughal, Sidra Shaban, Farha Fayyiz, Anam Amin, Neha Arshad, Arjumand Razzaq

Abstract

Compression of the median nerve within the carpal tunnel characterizes the widespread condition known as carpal tunnel a syndrome (CTS), which manifests as pain, numbness, and hand weakness. Physical therapy techniques are among the conservative therapies usually used to lessen symptoms and improve functional outcomes. In the management of CTS, nerve gliding and nerve mobilization are two specific techniques that have shown promise. The effectiveness of nerve gliding and nerve mobilizing in CTS patients will be compared in this randomized control experiment.

Introduction:

Carpal tunnel syndrome affects a sizable portion of the populace, particularly those who often use their hands or those who have certain medical conditions. Non-surgical CTS therapies include splinting, exercise, and manual therapy in an effort to improve function and minimize discomfort. Because of their capacity to improve nerve mobility and alleviate symptoms, techniques for nerve gliding and mobilization have attracted interest among the numerous conservative therapies. The effectiveness of these two therapies for CTS patients is compared in this study.

Methods:

A randomized control experiment with patients with CTS was conducted. Participants were divided into the nerve mobilization or nerve gliding groups at random. In the trial, there were 100 participants—50 in each group. Baseline examinations were conducted to determine the severity of symptoms and functional limitations using the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) for pain, the Boston Carpal Tunnel Questionnaire (BCTQ), and the grip strength test. For the entire eight-week intervention period, participants in the intervention attended twice-weekly treatment sessions.

Results:

After the eight-week intervention, both groups displayed improvements in grip strength, functional outcomes, and pain alleviation. The nerve mobilization group, however, demonstrated notably greater benefits than the nerve gliding group. The VAS scores for pain alleviation were 50% lower in the nerve mobilization group compared to the nerve gliding group (p 0.05). In terms of symptom severity and functional status, the BCTQ ratings in the nerve mobilization group likewise considerably improved (p 0.05). Although grip strength increased for all groups, the nerve mobilization group displayed a larger improvement (p 0.05).

Discussion:

The results of this randomized control experiment demonstrate the effectiveness of both nerve mobilization and gliding techniques in the treatment of carpal tunnel syndrome. The findings do suggest that nerve mobilization, as opposed to nerve gliding, may be preferable in terms of pain reduction, functional improvement, and enhancement of grip strength. These results show that nerve mobilization has the potential to be an effective CTS treatment.

Conclusion

In patients with carpal tunnel syndrome, both nerve gliding and nerve mobilization treatments have been effective in reducing discomfort and improving functional outcomes. However, this randomized control experiment suggests the prospect that nerve mobilization may result in better results in terms of pain relief, functional improvement, and enhancement of grip strength. These statistics provide clinicians and therapists with crucial direction for determining the optimal therapies for CTS patients. Additional research is required to support and expand on these findings, taking into account long-term effects and comparisons to other traditional therapeutic modalities.