“A Comparative Study to Find the Effects of Mulligan Sustained Natural Apophyseal Glide Versus Sub-Occipital Myofascial Release Techinique for the Treatment of Cervicogenic Headache.”
Authors
Serves as the Principal and Professor at Grace College of Physiotherapy under KNR University of Health Sciences, Warangal (India)
As Principal and Professor at Care College of Physiotherapy, under KNR University of Health Sciences (India)
As Assistant Professor at Grace College of Physiotherapy, under KNR University of Health Sciences (India)
Professor at Navodaya College of Physiotherapy, Raichur, affiliated with Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences, Bangalore (India)
Article Information
DOI: 10.51584/IJRIAS.2025.1010000016
Subject Category: Physiotherapy
Volume/Issue: 10/10 | Page No: 222-232
Publication Timeline
Submitted: 2025-10-14
Accepted: 2025-10-23
Published: 2025-10-28
Abstract
Background: Headache is a common condition which physiotherapists have to deal in clinical practice. Headache which arises from the cervical spine are termed as cervicogenic headache. The upper cervical joints namely the occiput- C1 and C1-C2 segments are most common origin of pain. It causes pain, reduced range of motion of neck and altered sleep. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of Mulligan SNAG and Sub-Occipital MFR in patients with cervicogenic headache. Pre-test and post-test evaluation was done with HIT-6 and NPRS
Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness of Sustained Natural Apophyseal Glide and Sub- occipital Myofascial Release Technique on improving Cervicogenic Headache. And to compare the effectiveness of Sustained Natural Apophyseal Glide versus Sub-occipital Myofascial Release in Cervicogenic headache patients.
Materials And Methods: 20 subjects with cervicogenic headache who fulfilled the inclusion and exclusion criteria were selected for the study and 10 subjects were randomly assigned to each group. Group A received Mulligan SNAG with Conventional therapy and group B received Sub-Occipital MFR with conventional therapy. Treatment was given for a period of 6 weeks. Pre-test and post-test evaluation was done with HIT-6 and NPRS.
Results: The result of this study showed that interventions given to both groups showed improvement in HIT-6 and NPRS. Based on the post-test comparison between two groups it can be said that Mulligan SNAG showed significant differences in HIT-6 and NPRS than Sub- Occipital MFR group in cervicogenic headache patients
Conclusion: This study concludes that both Mulligan SNAG with Conventional therapy and Sub-Occipital MFR with Conventional therapy is effective in treating the patients with cervicogenic headache. However, Mulligan SNAG showed more improvement in pain and functions compared to Sub-Occipital MFR.
Keywords
Mulligan SNAG, Sub-Occipital MFR, Cervicogenic Headache, Conventional therapy.
Downloads
References
1. David M. Blondi, Do. Cervicogenic headache: mechanisms, evaluation, and treatment strategies. JAOA. September 2000; 100(9):7-14. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
2. Kanniappan. V. Abraham. S. S. and Veeragoudhaman. T. S. (2022. Prevalence of Cervicogenic Headache Among Young Population. International Journal of Research - GRANTHAALAYAH, 10(9), 14-26. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
3. Eui-Ju Shin, Byoung-Hee Lee. The effect of sustained natural apophyseal glides on headache, duration, and cervical function in women with cervicogenic headache. Journal of Exercise Rehabilitation. 2014; 10(2):131-135. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
4. Al Khalili Y, Ly N, Murphy PB. Cervicogenic Headache. StatPearls. March 2022. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
5. Neeti Christian. Comparative study to find the effect of mulligan’s SNAG technique (C1- C2) versus Maitland’s technique (C1-C2) in cervicogenic headache among information technology professionals. IJPHY. June 2017; 4(3):178-183. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
6. Phil Page, PhD, PT. Cervicogenic headaches: An evidence-LED approach to clinical management. September 2011; 6(3): 254-266. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
7. Mathew E. Alix, Deanna K. Bates. A proposed etiology of Cervicogenic headache: The neurophysiologic basis and anatomic relationship between the dura mater and the rectus posterior capitis minor muscle. JMPT. February 1999; 22(8):534-539. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
8. Neumann, Donald A. Kinesiology of the Musculoskeletal System : Foundations for Physical Rehabilitation. St. Louis :Mosby, 2002. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
9. Jean-Philippe Paquin, Yannick Tousignant-Laflamme, Jean-Pierre Dumas. Effects of SNAG mobilization combined with a self-SNAG home-exercise for the treatment of cervicogenic headache: a pilot study. Journal of manual and manipulative therapy. 2021;29(4):244-254. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
10. Prasad Kharwandikar, Dr. Mahendra shende. Effectiveness of sub-occipital myofascial release and cervical manipulation in patients with cervicogenic headache. IJHBR. July 2019;7(4):25-32. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
11. Ebrahim Ramezani, Amir Massoud Arab, Mohammad Reza Nourbakhsh. Sub-occipital myofascial release technique in subjects with cervicogenic headache. Pharmacophore. 2017; 8(6S). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
12. Peter H. Seidenberg, Anthony I. Beutler : The Sports Medicine Resource Manual.1st edition. 2008; 34:441-442. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
13. Manual therapy NAGS, SNAGS, MWMS, etc by Brian R.Mulligan, 6th edition, 2010. 14.) Venkata Naveen Kumar V, Seema Saini. Effect of Sub Occipital Release, Myofascial with IASTM Tool on Cervicogenic Headache. Indian journal of physiotherapy and occupational therapy. December 2020; 14(4):204-210. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]