Evidence-Based Clinical Comparison of Mulligan’s Mobilization With Movement and Kaltenborn Mobilization in Elbow Recovery: A Pilot Study
Mehlaqa Waseem, Nehal Fatima, Arslan IftikharBackground:
Post-traumatic stiffness is a pathological condition that results from injury and the soft tissue response, leading to reduced or lost joint motion and functional impairments.
Purpose:
This pilot study aimed to compare the efficacy of Kaltenborn mobilization and Mulligan Mobilization with movement (MWM) in managing post-traumatic elbow stiffness.
Methods:
A 6-month prospective non-randomized comparative interventional pilot study was conducted at Independent University Hospital, Faisalabad, Pakistan. Forty-five participants were equally divided into 3 groups: Group A (Active range of motion [A-RoM] + actinotherapy), Group B (Kaltenborn Grade III glides + actinotherapy), and Group C (MWM with sustained end-range glides + actinotherapy). Baseline assessments included demographics, elbow RoM (flexion, extension, pronation, supination), manual muscle testing, Mayo Elbow Performance Score, and Numeric Pain Rating Scale. This study was registered in the Clinical Trials Registry of Australia and New Zealand (ACTRN12625000820404). Post-intervention analysis using paired
Results:
The interventions in Group C were associated with the greatest improvements in RoM, strength, and pain relief compared to A-RoM exercises and Kaltenborn mobilization. Kaltenborn mobilization resulted in significant clinical improvement, whereas A-RoM exercises did not show any difference.
Conclusion:
The findings of this pilot study suggest that MWM may address biomechanical dysfunctions more effectively than Kaltenborn mobilization in patients with post-traumatic elbow stiffness. Further study is needed to confirm that MWM should be integrated into standard post-traumatic elbow rehabilitation protocols.
Level of Evidence:
Level III, Therapeutic Study.