Abstract : ABSTRACT
Background: Mechanical neck pain can be defined as generalized neck and/or shoulder pain with mechanical characteristics including symptoms provoked by maintained neck postures or by movement. Mechanical neck pain causes morning stiffness, pain on forward flexion and also returning to erect position, pain is often aggravated by extension, lateral flexion, rotation and exercises. When playing chess on chess board for many hours continuously the players may notice increasing aches and pain in neck.
Objective : To find out the effectiveness of trigger point release versus cervical mobilization in chess players with mechanical neck pain
Study design: Pre-test Post-test Experimental study design
Methods : Subjects will be randomly selected through inclusion criteria and exclusion criteria. Pre and post treatment assessment of pain and Disability using Neck Disability Index and range of motion using Universal Goniometer will be taken Subject will be assigned to group A and group B with 15 patients in each group. Treatment will be given 3 sessions in 1 week for 1 month duration.
Outcome Measures: Neck Disability Index and Universal Goniometer
Results: There is significant difference in effectiveness of trigger point release versus cervical manipulation in chess players with mechanical neck pain.
Conclusion: This experimental study was performed on 30 subjects 15 subjects in each group with complaints of neck pain with intervention in the form of trigger point release and SNAG. The group treated with SNAG approach had significant improvement in ROM of cervical joint, pain and disability due to mechanical neck pain than those treated with trigger point release.
Keyword : Trigger point release, Sustained Natural Apohyseal Glide, Chess player, Mechanical neck pain, Range of motion
Abstract : Cosmetic Soft Contact Lenses are expected to affect the contrast sensitivity function to some extent. The study was performed to determine the effect of cosmetic SCL on the contrast sensitivity of the normal CL wearers.
MATERIALS & METHODS: In this study 25 CL users fulfilling the following criteria were enrolled.
• Age range between 11-30 years.
• Pupil size 4-7mm in moderate illumination.
• Visual acuity of 6/6 with no refractive correction in both the eyes (separately).
Exclusion Criteria (history of one or more):
• Glaucomatous or/ and neurological visual field defects.
• Moderate to severe dry eyes (where CLs are contraindicated).
• Presence of corneal scar or lenticular opacity.
• Allergic to any ingredient of the CL solutions
Informed consent was taken from all the CL wearers enrolled for the study. All wearers were worked up in the CL clinic & complete history (Family, Ocular & Occupational), ocular examination on Slit Lamp bio-microscope, evaluation of cosmetic SCL Fitting & Contrast sensitivity testing with & without CL were recorded. Finally, the values were compared statistically with paired student’s t-test.
RESULTS: Percentage change in average contrast sensitivity was found to be 7.12%, 7.60% & 5.32% in R/E, L/E & B/E respectively.
CONCLUSION: Cosmetic soft Contact lenses could be used for occasional wearing purposes and also for cosmetic purposes in case of disfigured eyes with special care and regular follow-up.