Chiropractic Spinal Manipulation for Low Back Pain of Pregnancy: A Retrospective Case Series

Abstract Background In a prior randomized trial, we demonstrated that participants receiving spinal manipulative therapy at a pain-sensitive segment instead of a stiff segment experienced increased mechanical pressure pain thresholds. We hypothesized that the targeted segment mediated this increase through a segment-dependent neurophysiological reflective pathway. Presently, it is not known if this decrease in pain sensitivity is associated with clinical improvement. Therefore, we performed an explorative analysis to examine if changes in experimental pain sensitivity (mechanical and thermal) and lumbar stiffness were further dependent on clinical improvement in disability and patient-reported low back pain. Methods This study is a secondary explorative analysis of data from the randomized trial that compared 132 participants with chronic low back pain who received lumbar spinal manipulative therapy applied at either i) the stiffest segment or ii) the segment having the lowest pain threshold (i.e., the most pain-sensitive segment). We collected data at baseline, after the fourth session of spinal manipulation, and at 14-days follow-up. Participants were dichotomized into responders/non-responders using different clinical variables (disability and patient-reported low back pain) with varying threshold values (0, 30, and 50% improvement). Mixed models were used to assess changes in experimental outcomes (stiffness and pain sensitivity). The fixed interaction terms were time, segment allocation, and responder status. Results We observed a significant increase in mechanical pressure pain thresholds for the group, which received spinal manipulative therapy at the most pain-sensitive segment independent of whether they improved clinically or not. Those who received spinal manipulation at the stiffest segment also demonstrated increased mechanical pain sensitivity, but only in the subgroup with clinical improvement. We did not observe any changes in lumbar stiffness. Conclusion Our results suggest the existence of two different mechanistic pathways associated with the spinal manipulation target. i) A decrease of mechanical pain sensitivity independent of clinical outcome (neurophysiological) and ii) a decrease as a reflection of the clinical outcome. Together, these observations may provide a novel framework that improves our understanding of why some respond to spinal manipulative therapy while others do not. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04086667 registered retrospectively September 11th 2019.

Download Full-text

A mixed treatment comparison of selected osteopathic techniques used to treat acute nonspecific low back pain: a proof of concept and plan for further research

Journal of Osteopathic Medicine ◽

10.1515/jom-2020-0268 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 0 (0) ◽

Author(s):

James W. Price

Keyword(s):

Low Back Pain ◽

Back Pain ◽

Spinal Manipulation ◽

Conventional Care ◽

Mixed Treatment Comparison ◽

Low Back ◽

Acute Low Back Pain ◽

Treatment Comparison ◽

Randomized Controlled ◽

Mixed Treatment

Abstract Context Back injuries have a high prevalence in the United States and can be costly for both patients and the healthcare system at large. While previous guidelines from the American College of Physicians for the management of acute nonspecific low back pain (ANLBP) have encouraged nonpharmacologic management, those treatment recommendations involved only superficial heat, massage, acupuncture, and spinal manipulation. Investigation about the efficacy of spinal manipulation in the management of ANLBP is warranted. Objectives To compare the results in previously-published literature documenting the outcomes of osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT) techniques used to treat ANLBP. The secondary objective of this study was to demonstrate the utility of using Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) to perform a mixed treatment comparison (MTC) of a variety of osteopathic techniques. Methods A literature search for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of ANLBP treatments was performed in April 2020 according to PRISMA guidelines by searching MEDLINE/PubMed, OVID, Cochrane Central, PEDro, and OSTMED.Dr databases; scanning the reference lists of articles; and using the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health grey literature checklist. Each database was searched from inception to April 1, 2020. The following search terms were used: acute low back pain, acute low back pain plus physical therapy, acute low back pain plus spinal manipulation, and acute low back pain plus osteopathic manipulation. The validity of eligible trials was assessed by the single author using an adapted National Institute for Health and Care Excellence methodology checklist for randomized, controlled trials and an extraction form based on that checklist. The outcome measure chosen for this NMA was the Visual Analogue Scale of pain. The NMA were performed using the GeMTC user interface for automated NMA utilizing a Bayesian hierarchical model of random effects. Results The literature search initially found 483 unduplicated records. After screening and full text assessment, five RCTs were eligible for the MTC, yielding a total of 430 participants. Results of the MTC model suggested that there was no statistically significant decrease in reported pain when exercise, high-velocity low-amplitude (HVLA), counterstrain, muscle energy technique, or a mix of techniques were added to conventional treatment to treat ANLBP. However, the rank probabilities assessment determined that HVLA and the OMT mixed treatment protocol plus conventional care were ranked superior to conventional care alone for improving ANLBP. Conclusions While this study failed to provide definitive evidence upon which clinical recommendations can be based, it does demonstrate the utility of performing NMA for MTCs of osteopathic modalities used to treat ANLBP. However, to take full advantage of this statistical technique, future studies should be designed with consideration for the methodological shortcomings found in past osteopathic research.

Download Full-text