This randomized controlled trial aims to evaluate the effects of muscle energy techniques with and without manual axial distraction among post-mastectomy patients with axillary web syndrome. Fifty-eight participants will be randomly allocated into two groups and will receive the interventions for six weeks. It is hypothesized that the group that will receive both the muscle energy technique and manual axial distraction will produce greater improvements compared to the other group that will receive only MET.

Axillary web syndrome (AWS) is a common post-mastectomy complication characterized by painful, palpable cords that limit shoulder mobility and functional performance. Current rehabilitation approaches emphasize soft-tissue mobilization, stretching, and manual therapy, yet evidence regarding the combined application of muscle energy technique (MET) and manual axial distraction (MAD) remains limited. This randomized controlled trial is designed to compare the effectiveness of MET alone versus MET combined with MAD in improving pain, range of motion (ROM), cord resolution, and functional outcomes in women with AWS. Participants will be randomly assigned to one of two groups using a concealed allocation procedure. All participants will begin each session with a 10-minute heating pad application to promote tissue elasticity, followed by a standardized stretching protocol targeting shoulder flexion and abduction in both supine and sitting positions; each stretch will be repeated five times and held for 30 seconds. The intervention group will receive MET applied to the pectoralis major, supraspinatus, subscapularis, and latissimus dorsi muscles in addition to MAD. MET will be administered using approximately 20% isometric contraction effort without pain, held for 7-10 seconds, followed by therapist-assisted stretching to the new tissue barrier; this cycle will be repeated three times per muscle. Positioning will be adapted for each muscle based on anatomical considerations, such as supine positioning with arm abduction for pectoralis major and subscapularis, or seated positioning for supraspinatus. The MAD technique will be performed using sustained shoulder joint traction for 15-30 seconds combined with firm digital pressure along the fibrous cords until a palpable "snapping" sensation indicates cord release. The comparison group will receive the same stretching and MET protocol without MAD. All interventions will be delivered three times per week for six consecutive weeks, with each session lasting approximately 30-40 minutes and tailored to participant tolerance. Primary outcomes include pain (Numeric Rating Scale), shoulder ROM (goniometry). Secondary outcomes include functional outcome( DASH questionnaire) and cord visibility. Outcome assessments will be conducted at baseline and at six weeks by a blinded assessor. Statistical analysis will include normality testing followed by parametric (paired and independent t-tests, ANOVA) or non-parametric equivalents (Wilcoxon or Mann-Whitney U tests) as appropriate. Effect sizes will be calculated, and significance will be set at p < 0.05. The trial is designed to determine whether adding MAD to MET results in superior improvements in tissue extensibility, pain reduction, ROM enhancement, and functional recovery compared with MET alone, thereby providing evidence-based guidance for rehabilitation of post-mastectomy AWS.

Inclusion Criteria:

• Patients diagnosed with AWS following breast cancer surgery
• Females aged 30 to 60 years old
• Participants must be within 1 month to 2 years post-surgery
• Participants having limited shoulder ROM
• Participants must have completed their post-surgery radiation therapy and chemotherapy minimum of 2-3 weeks

Exclusion Criteria:

• Any previous history of shoulder pathology
• Patients with a cervical problem that radiates pain down the shoulder
• Pregnant females
• Bilateral mastectomy
• Ongoing cancer stage
• Participants with ongoing chemotherapy
• Frozen shoulder

Females

Due to the nature of the intervention, the blinding of participants and therapists was not feasible. To overcome the assessment bias, the outcome assessor remained blinded to group allocations, maintaining single blinded study design