EFECTS OF INVERSION TABLE THERAP VERSUS MULLIGAN TECHNIQUES ON PAIN AND LUMBAR FLEXIBILITY IN PATIENTS WITH CHRONIC LOW BACK PAIN
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.71000/n6tsxg70Keywords:
Inversion table therapy, Mulligan Technique, Lumber flexibility, William Flexion, Chronic Low Back pain.Abstract
Background: The Chronic low back pain (CLBP) is a prevalent yet difficult to manage and to treat public wellbeing with a significant treatment failure rate. Both inversion table therapy and mulligan techniques are very effective in reducing low back pain. A number of literatures supports the effectiveness of both techniques individually but there is no literature available that provide comparison between these two techniques.
Objective: To finding the effectiveness of inversion table therapy vs. mulligan techniques on pain and lumbar flexibility among patients with chronic low back pain.
Methodology: A double-blinded RCT was conducted in different private setups of Lahore. It comprised patients of both gender aged 30 to 50years. They was randomized into two equal groups having same baseline treatment. Group 1 Experimental group was exposed to Inversion Table Therapy. Group 2 control group was exposed to Mulligan Technique. Pain was assessed by NPRS and to identify level of disability or severity of lower back pain ODI will be used, Sit and Reach test were used to measure lumber flexibility through flexing lumber spine and Rand SF-36 is a questionnaire was used to assess the quality of life. For data analyzation SPSS 26 version was used.
Results: For between-group comparisons, the null hypothesis was kept for NPRS and RAND-36 (as p > 0.05), whereas the alternative hypothesis was accepted for ODI and SRT (as p < 0.05).
Conclusions: To conclude, the null hypothesis for within-group comparisons was rejected because both treatments significantly improved outcomes within each group. The Mulligan Technique was better at lowering impairment in people with persistent low back pain, but Inversion Table Therapy was better at increasing flexibility overall.
References
Urits, I., et al., Low back pain, a comprehensive review: pathophysiology, diagnosis, and treatment. Current pain and headache reports, 2019. 23(3): p. 23.
Achar, S. and J. Yamanaka, Back pain in children and adolescents. American family physician, 2020. 102(1): p. 19-28.
Fourré, A., et al., Low-back related leg pain: is the nerve guilty? How to differentiate the underlying pain mechanism. 2023, Taylor & Francis. p. 57-63.
Hauser, R.A., et al., Lumbar instability as an etiology of low back pain and its treatment by prolotherapy: A review. Journal of back and musculoskeletal rehabilitation, 2022. 35(4): p. 701-712.
Almeida, D.C. and D.C. Kraychete, Low back pain-a diagnostic approach. Revista Dor, 2017. 18(02): p. 173-177.
Hodges, P.W. and L. Danneels, Changes in structure and function of the back muscles in low back pain: different time points, observations, and mechanisms. Journal of orthopaedic & sports physical therapy, 2019. 49(6): p. 464-476.
De Sousa, C.S., et al., Lower limb muscle strength in patients with low back pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of musculoskeletal & neuronal interactions, 2019. 19(1): p. 69.
Peck, J., et al., A comprehensive review of over the counter treatment for chronic low back pain. Pain and Therapy, 2021. 10(1): p. 69-80.
Hayden, J.A., et al., Exercise therapy for chronic low back pain. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2021(9).
Nalawade, M.S.D. and M. Jadhav, A Study of Inversion Traction Therapy: for Lower Back Pain Problems. Int J Engin Res Tech, 2019. 8: p. 491-494.
Kastelic, K., Ž. Kozinc, and N. Šarabon, Sitting and low back disorders: an overview of the most commonly suggested harmful mechanisms. Collegium antropologicum, 2018. 42(1): p. 73-79.
Fatoye, F., T. Gebrye, and I. Odeyemi, Real-world incidence and prevalence of low back pain using routinely collected data. Rheumatology international, 2019. 39(4): p. 619-626.
Bhat, V., et al., Myofascial release versus Mulligan sustained natural apophyseal glides’ immediate and short-term effects on pain, function, and mobility in non-specific low back pain. PeerJ, 2021. 9: p. e10706.
Mendelow, A.D., et al., Lumbar disc disease: the effect of inversion on clinical symptoms and a comparison of the rate of surgery after inversion therapy with the rate of surgery in neurosurgery controls. Journal of Physical Therapy Science, 2021. 33(11): p. 801-808.
Tanabe, H., et al., Immediate effect of mechanical lumbar traction in patients with chronic low back pain: a crossover, repeated measures, randomized controlled trial. Journal of Orthopaedic Science, 2021. 26(6): p. 953-961.
Cheng, Y.-H., C.-Y. Hsu, and Y.-N. Lin, The effect of mechanical traction on low back pain in patients with herniated intervertebral disks: a systemic review and meta-analysis. Clinical rehabilitation, 2020. 34(1): p. 13-22.
Khan, S., N. Al Torairi, and S. Shamsi, Comparative study of SNAGS and Maitland’s mobilization in chronic low back pain. European Journal of Physical Education and Sport Science, 2018.
Solangi, T.A., et al., Effectiveness of Mulligan Mobilization and Maitland Mobilization Methods in Alleviating Pain and Enhancing Functional Mobility Among Chronic Low Back Pain (CLBP) Sufferers. Journal of Health, Wellness, and Community Research, 2025: p. e395-e395.
Pozas, O.M., et al., Effectiveness of mobilization with movement on conditioned pain modulation, mechanical hyperalgesia, and pain intensity in adults with chronic low back pain: A randomized controlled trial. Musculoskeletal Science and Practice, 2025. 75: p. 103220.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Faiz Ur Rehman, Asima Arshad, Qurba Kiran (Author)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
