Aim: To compare effectiveness of neurodynamics with and without wrist splint in patients with carpal tunnel syndrome.Study design: Randomized controlled trial. Settings: Farooq Hospital & Akhtar Saeed Trust teaching hospital,Lahore. Methodology: In present study 34 patients were randomly allocated into two groups in which each group contains 17 patients. Group A received combined treatment approach of neurodynamics and wrist splint while group B received only neurodynamics for two weeks .Improvement in functions and pain were recorded after 2 weeks .Initially baseline measurements were taken on DASH questioner and VAS. Present RCT study was carried out at Akhtar Saeed Trust Hospital,Lahore. Analysis was established through SPSS. Results: Independent sample t test was applied in present study of 34 patients as the mean difference was greater in group A in which combined treatment approach of wrist splint and neurodynamics were applied as compared to other group B in which only neurodynamics were applied.The p value is < 0.05 which shows results were significant. Results were more significant and superior in group A as compared to group B. Conclusion: Group A in which neurodynamics and wrist splint were used found to be more effective as compared to group B in which only neurodynamics were used. Keywords: Carpal tunnel syndrome; neurodynamics; wrist splint.

Cervical radiculopathy (CR) is a most reported pathological problem mainly due to herniated disc material causing nerve compression or the formation of osteophytes. This impingement specifically causes cervical pain radiating to arm, numbness, and sensory deficit. It also affects the motor function of the neck and upper extremities. Objectives: To evaluate the comparative effectiveness of Maitland manipulation of thoracic spine versus grade I and II Maitland mobilization of cervical spine on Pain, intensity, and functional status in patients of cervical radiculopathy. Methods: Total 32 patients suffering from cervical radiculopathy were randomly assigned to receive Maitland manipulation on thoracic spine along with Conventional Physiotherapy (intermittent cervical traction, strengthening exercises) in Group A(n=16) and Maitland mobilization on cervical spines along with Conventional Physiotherapy in Group B (n=16). Total treatment sessions given to each group was 9 (3 sessions per week). To measure outcome numeric pain rating scale (NPRS) and neck disability index (NDI) questionnaire was used. Data collection was done at the beginning and post-treatment. Results: The study revealed that the mean age of patients was 47.59 with a range minimum of 27 years to a maximum of 59 years. Comparison of post-treatment of both groups showed mean NPRS score in group A (Maitland thoracic spine manipulation) was 4.56± 1.031 and group B (Maitland cervical spine mobilization) was 6.12± 0.50, while post-treatment NDI score group A was 22.44± 10.09 and group B was 36.88± 8.437 with p=0.000 that was p<0.05. Conclusion: The study concluded that both Maitland thoracic spine manipulation and Maitland cervical spine mobilization techniques have similar effects in reducing cervical radiculopathy and increasing active range of motion. However, Maitland thoracic spine manipulation showed better results in neck pain reduction and improved functional status on the comparison.