Effect of angular joint mobilization v/s maitland mobilization on pain, range of motion and function in patients with adhesive capsulitis of shoulder: a pilot study

Background: Which mobilization has better results in patients with frozen shoulder? What is Angular joint mobilization? Can we go beyond the conventional margins of concave-convex rule for deciding a glide during mobilizing a joint? Objective: H0: Angular joint mobilization and Maitland Mobilization will have equal effects on pain, range of motion and function in patients suffering from periarthritis of shoulder. H1: Angular joint mobilization will be more effective in reducing pain, increasing range of motion and improving function than Maitland Mobilization in patients suffering from periarthritis of shoulder. H2: Maitland Mobilization will be more effective in reducing pain, increasing range of motion and improving function than Angular joint mobilization in patients suffering from periarthritis of shoulder. Method: It was a comparative pilot study.30 out of which 45 patients with PA fell into the inclusion criteria. 20 patients followed up for the entire duration of 2 weeks (3 sessions/week) and were included in the study. Hence there were 10 in each group.Both the groups received conventional treatment but one group received AJM and the other group received Maitland mobilization. The outcome measures were taken using Goniometer and SPADI. Results: The result of paired t-test between ROM and SPADI within the AJM group and Maitland group was significant. Hence proving that both have a significant effect in improving ROM and reducing pain and disability. The result of unpaired t-test between the differences of outcomes was not significant except for improving internal rotation. Hence proving there is no significant difference in improving ROM and reducing pain and disability between the both groups. Except for improving internal rotation, AJM is better than Maitland. But if we see clinically, patients in the AJM group were reported to have 36.10% improvement as compared to 25.80% in the Maitland group, i.e. 10.30% more than the other group. Similarly for abduction, there was 23.30% improvement due to AJM than 14.40% due to Maitland, i.e. 8.90% more. And clinically 2.40% for improving flexion, 4.60% for external rotation, 6.20% for reducing pain and 6.40% for reducing disability. Conclusion: Angular joint mobilization and Maitland Mobilization are equally effective in reducing pain, improving range of motion and improving function.