The efficacy of utilizing Kinesio® taping in isolation or in combination with spinal manipulation in the treatment of chronic neck pain

M.Tech. (Chiropractic)Introduction: Neck pain is a common condition which affects up to 70 percent of people at some point in their lives, and at any given time about 10 to 20 percent of the population reports neck problems. Although spinal manipulation on its own is effective in the treatment of chronic neck pain, chiropractors continue to search adjunctive modalities to improve the positive outcomes of their treatment. Therefore, it is important to look for the best possible treatment protocol as well as research alternatives, should contraindications for present protocols, such as spinal manipulation, arise. One such alternative could be Kinesio® taping. The purpose of this study was to determine the efficacy of utilising Kinesio® taping, spinal manipulation or the two therapies combined, for the treatment of chronic neck pain. It will also provide further evidence on the efficacy of spinal manipulation and Kinesio® taping in isolation. Method: This study was a comparative study consisting of three groups of ten participants. The method of treatment was determined by random group allocation. Group 1 received spinal manipulation to restriction(s) of the cervical spine only. Group 2 received Kinesio® taping to the longissimus cervicis muscles only. Group 3 received a combination of spinal manipulation and Kinesio® taping as previously described. Subjective measurements consisted of the Vernon-Mior Neck Pain and Disability Index and the Numerical Pain Rating Scale (NPRS) and objective measurements was assessed in degrees by making use of the Cervical-range-of-motion (CROM) instrument. Procedure: There were seven consultations in total. There were six treatment consultations over three weeks. The seventh consultation consisted of data collection only. Subjective and objective measurements were taken prior to treatment on the first and fourth consultation, and on the seventh consultation where no treatment took place. Subjective readings were taken from the Vernon-Mior Neck Pain and Disability Index and the NPRS. Objective readings were assessed in degrees by making use of the Cervical-range-of-motion (CROM) instrument. Results: It was evident from the data that all three groups responded well to their respective treatment protocols. With regards to the subjective measurements Group 1, 2 and 3 demonstrated statistically significant improvement in both neck pain severity and functional disability. As Group 1 had the highest clinical improvement with regards to the NPRS, it indicates that the Group 1 treatment protocol was more effective in decreasing the pain intensity throughout the treatment period. All three groups responded similarly with regards to the Vernon-Mior Neck Pain and Disability Index, although Group 1 responded the best clinically. With regards to the objective measurements Group 1, 2 and 3 demonstrated statistically significant improvement in all ranges of motion of the cervical spine. However, it was found that Group 3 clinically responded best to treatments in all the ranges of motion except for right lateral flexion in which Group 2 responded best to treatment. Conclusion: The study showed that the treatment protocols for Group 1, 2 and 3 were effective in treating chronic neck pain. The evidence suggests that the Group 1 treatment protocol, which received spinal manipulation, is more effective than Kinesio® taping alone and the two therapies combined in decreasing pain intensity and functional disability in the treatment of chronic neck pain. The evidence further suggests that the Group 3 treatment protocol, which received spinal manipulation in combination with Kinesio® taping, is more effective than spinal manipulation and Kinesio® taping alone in increasing all cervical spine ranges of motion in the treatment of chronic neck pain