BACKGROUND: Chronic low back dysfunction (CLBD) is one of the most common complain of the working age population, there are many factors that contributing to CLBD and large group of them are without clear etiology. Both Mulligan and Maitland techniques considered effective manual therapy techniques in treatment of CLBD. Yet difference in efficacy between both techniques is not known. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to compare between the efficacy of Mulligan and Maitland techniques on pain level and range of motion in patients with CLBD. METHODS: Thirty patients from, had participated in this study; they were randomly assigned in two groups (group A, B). With age ranged from 30 to 50 years. Group A consisted of 15 patient (8 males and 7 females) with mean age 40.0 (+/- 4.81) years, received Mulligan technique and conventional physical therapy program. Group B consisted of 15 patients (5 males, 10 females) with mean age 42.93 (+/- 6.68) years, received Maitland technique and conventional physical therapy program. Outcome measures: visual analogue scale (VAS) for pain and modified Shober test for ROM. RESULTS: The results revealed that there was no significant difference between Mulligan and Maitland techniques on pain level and ROM. CONCLUSION: Both Mulligan and Maitland techniques were shown to be effective in reducing pain level and improving ROM in patients with CLBD, no statistical significant difference was proven between both of them.

Full text (sometimes free) may be available at these link(s):      help

• PDF locator
• publisher