Examining the Efficacy of Saunders Cervical Traction Device for

Alleviating Neck Pain: A Systematic Review

Dr. Bharti Dangar1, Dr. Priyanshu Rathod2, Dr. Amit Sharma3
Rk University, Rajkot

Abstract

Neck pain is a common musculoskeletal complaint with significant impact on individuals'

quality of life. Cervical traction devices, such as the Saunders Cervical Traction Device, are
commonly used interventions to alleviate neck pain. This systematic review aims to assess the
effectiveness of the Saunders Cervical Traction Device in managing neck pain. A comprehensive
search was conducted across multiple electronic databasesor relevant studies published up to
January 2024. Studies evaluating the use of the Saunders Cervical Traction Device in patients
with neck pain were included. Outcome measures such as pain intensity, disability, range of
motion, and adverse effects were analyzed. Preliminary findings suggest that the Saunders
Cervical Traction Device may have potential benefits in reducing neck pain and improving
functional outcomes in patients with neck pain. However, further high-quality randomized
controlled trials are warranted to confirm these findings and establish the optimal protocols for
using the device in clinical practice. This review provides valuable insights for clinicians and
researchers regarding the efficacy of the Saunders Cervical Traction Device in the management
of neck pain.

Introduction traction has been used for decades, there

Neck pain is a prevalent and
debilitating musculoskeletal condition that
affects a significant proportion of the
population worldwide. It poses substantial
challenges to individuals' daily activities,
work productivity, and overall quality of
life. Among the various treatment modalities
available for neck pain management,
cervical traction has been widely utilized as
a non-invasive intervention aimed at
alleviating symptoms and improving
functional outcomes.
The Saunders Cervical Traction Device is
one such tool commonly employed in clinical
practice to provide traction to the cervical
spine. This device applies a controlled, gentle
force to the neck region, with the goal of
decompressing spinal structures, reducing
pain, and improving mobility. While cervical
remains ongoing debate regarding its
efficacy, optimal protocols, and suitability for
different patient populations.
Despite the widespread use of the Saunders
Cervical Traction Device, there is a need for
a comprehensive evaluation of its
effectiveness in managing neck pain.
Previous studies examining the efficacy of
cervical traction devices have yielded
conflicting results, and there is a lack of
consensus regarding their clinical utility.
Therefore, a systematic review focusing
specifically on the Saunders Cervical
Traction Device is warranted to synthesize
existing evidence, identify gaps in
knowledge, and provide clinicians with
evidence-based recommendations for its use.
Methodology: A comprehensive search
strategy will be developed in collaboration
with a medical librarian and will involve
electronic databases including PubMed,
Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane Library. The
search will encompass articles published up
to January 2024. The search terms will
include variations and combinations of
keywords related to "Saunders Cervical
Traction Device," "neck pain," and
"systematic review.
Inclusion Criteria: Studies investigating the
use of the Saunders Cervical Traction
Device as an intervention for neck pain.
Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-
experimental studies, and observational
Fig.1: PRISMA Diagram of the Study
studies. Studies involving adult participants
(18 years or older) with neck pain of any
etiology. Studies report outcomes such as
pain intensity, disability, range of motion,
and adverse events.
Exclusion Criteria: Non-English language
studies (unless an English translation of the
full text is available). Studies not reporting
relevant outcomes or using other traction
devices. Case reports, case series, letters,
commentaries, and reviews.
 Table: Characteristics of Selected Studies

Study title Inclusive Exclusive groups treatment Outco results

criteria criteria me
measur
es

The Confirmed Torticollis 174 Group 1 CROM The study revealed

effectiveness of diagnosis of participants 3-wks. (15 VAS that although both
cervical cervical Scars sessions) NDI axial traction with
spondylosis spondylosis 2 group of Saunders the Saunders
therapy with 88 & 86 cervical traction, cervical traction
Hypermobility
Saunders Age range: force applied device and high-
traction device of vertebral- 16_18kg, with intensity laser
24-67 years
and high- motion 8-10 min therapy initially
intensity laser segment duration. improved pain and
therapy: A Group 2 mobility for
randomized Severe 2-wks. (10 cervical
controlled trial osteoporosis sessions) spondylosis
(2017) (2) High-intensity patients, HILT
Major operated laser therapy showed more
head neck cases The wavelength sustained benefits
of 980 nm, over 12 weeks,
Cancer radiation power despite Saunders
of 600 MW, demonstrating a
energy density superior immediate
Epilepsy of 5 j/m, effect on range of
administered in motion
Acute continuous wave improvement.
inflammation and pulse mode
(25 Hz),
3-5 min per
session duration

The effect of Chronic Trauma related 39 12 session 3 Cervica Group 2 shows

Saunders neck pain cases participants weeks l ROM significant
traction and Age - 26-62 in 3 groups Group 1 improvement in
transcutaneous yrs. Saunders CROM particularly
electrical nerve traction in flexion and
stimulation on Group 2 rotation.
the cervical Saunders Group 1 shows
spine range of traction, TENS greater
motion in Group 3 improvement in
patients Tens extension, lateral
reporting neck flexion, and is not
pain. Pilot study effective in
(2012)(4) rotation.
Group 3 did not
show significant
improvement.

Assessment of Age - 20-40 Hyper mobility 50 subjects Group 1 Cervica Traditional

the cervical yrs. Vertebral artery with 2 Saunders l ROM positioning
spine range of Ndi score- occlusion group traction, provides better pain
motion after the 5 to 14 Neoplastic traditional reduction.
use of the points disease position Modified
Saunders Overloads Group 2 positioning
traction device in induce Saunders provides better
different cause. traction, CROM, less pain
positioning of modified reduction
the upper position
extremities (3)

Results Conclusion

The study findings highlight the efficacy
of traction therapy in improving the
ROM significantly. Superiority over
TENS but compared to HILT revealed
that while both initially improved pain,
mobility but over 12-week period HILT
sustained benefits over Saunders cervical
traction. Additionally, considering the
positioning during traction, noting
modified positioning improves ROM,
while traditional is more effective in
pain reduction.
Saunders cervical traction is both safe
and effective in improving cervical
ROM and reducing pain, especially
when combined with TENS for
enhanced efficacy however its traction
effect tends to diminish after certain
period of time. More RCTs with large
sample sizes are needed to accurately
assess the effectiveness of Saunders
cervical traction therapy.

References

Saunders, H. D., & Stultz, M. R. (2011). U.S. Patent No. 8083705. Washington, DC: U.S.
Patent and Trademark Office.

Haładaj R, Pingot M, Topol M. The Effectiveness of Cervical Spondylosis Therapy with

Saunders Traction Device and High-Intensity Laser Therapy: A Randomized Controlled
Trial. Med Sci Monit. 2017 Jan 20;23:335-342. doi: 10.12659/msm.899454. PMID:
28104903; PMCID: PMC5279870.

Myśliwiec A, Saulicz E, Kuszewski M, Sładkowski P, Wolny T, Saulicz M. Assessment of

the cervical spine range of motion after the use of the saunders traction device in different
positioning of the upper extremities. Adv Clin Exp Med. 2014 Sep-Oct;23(5):769-74. doi:
10.17219/acem/37249. PMID: 25491692

Myśliwiec A, Saulicz E, Kuszewski M, Wolny T, Saulicz M, Knapik A. The effect of

Saunders traction and transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation on the cervical spine range
of motion in patients reporting neck pain - pilot study. Ortop Traumatol Rehabil. 2012 Nov-
Dec;14(6):515-24. doi: 10.5604/15093492.1024714. PMID: 23382279.