scholarly journals Assessing forces during spinal manipulation and mobilization: factors influencing the difference between forces at the patient-table and clinician-patient interfaces

2020 ◽  
Vol 28 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Jérémie Mikhail ◽  
Martha Funabashi ◽  
Martin Descarreaux ◽  
Isabelle Pagé
Keyword(s):  
Influencing Factors ◽  
Muscle Activity ◽  
Spinal Manipulation ◽  
Spinal Manipulative Therapy ◽  
Manipulative Therapy ◽  
Factors Influencing ◽  
Patient Table ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Force Characteristics ◽  
Patient Interface

Abstract Background Spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) and mobilization (MOB) effects are believed to be related to their force characteristics. Most previous studies have either measured the force at the patient-table interface or at the clinician-patient interface. The objectives of this study were to determine 1) the difference between the force measured at the patient-table interface and the force applied at the clinician-patient interface during thoracic SMT and MOB, and 2) the influence of the SMT/MOB characteristics, participants’ anthropometry and muscle activity (sEMG) on this difference. Methods An apparatus using a servo-linear motor executed 8 SMT/MOB at the T7 vertebrae in 34 healthy adults between May and June 2019. SMT and MOB were characterized by a 20 N preload, total peak forces of 100 N or 200 N, and thrust durations of 100 ms, 250 ms, 1 s or 2 s. During each trial, thoracic sEMG, apparatus displacement as well as forces at the patient-table interface and the clinician-patient interface were recorded. The difference between the force at both interfaces was calculated. The effect of SMT/MOB characteristics on the difference between forces at both interfaces and correlations between this difference and potential influencing factors were evaluated. Results Force magnitudes at the patient-table interface were, in most trials, greater than the force at the clinician-patient interface (up to 135 N). SMT/MOB characteristics (total peak force, thrust duration and rate of force application) affected the difference between forces at both interfaces (all p-values< 0.05). No factor showed significant correlations with the difference between forces at both interfaces for the 8 SMT/MOB. Conclusions The results revealed that the force measured at the patient-table interface is greater than the applied force at the clinician-patient interface during thoracic SMT and MOB. By which mechanism the force is amplified is not yet fully understood.

scholarly journals Changes in pain sensitivity and spinal stiffness in relation to responder status following spinal manipulative therapy in chronic low Back pain: a secondary explorative analysis of a randomized trial

2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Casper Glissmann Nim ◽  
Gregory Neil Kawchuk ◽  
Berit Schiøttz-Christensen ◽  
Søren O’Neill
Keyword(s):  
Low Back Pain ◽  
Back Pain ◽  
Randomized Trial ◽  
Clinical Improvement ◽  
Spinal Manipulation ◽  
Pain Sensitivity ◽  
Spinal Manipulative Therapy ◽  
Low Back ◽  
Manipulative Therapy ◽  
Pressure Pain Thresholds

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.

The relative effectiveness of combined spinal manipulative therapy and action potential therapy versus combined spinal manipulative therapy and placebo action potential therapy in the treatment of mechanical low back pain

2000 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Micah Justin Atkinson
Keyword(s):  
Low Back Pain ◽  
Back Pain ◽  
Action Potential ◽  
Lower Back Pain ◽  
Spinal Manipulation ◽  
Spinal Manipulative Therapy ◽  
Current Therapy ◽  
Low Back ◽  
Manipulative Therapy ◽  
Lower Back

Lower back pain represents as a common disorder, with between 60% and 80% of the general population being affected (Kirkaldy-Willis 1992:2). This, apart from just the health aspects, has serious financial implications which are an ongoing concern to industry (Frymoyer 1991: 137). This study was designed to determine the effectiveness of combined spinal manipulation and "Action Potential" therapy versus spinal manipulative therapy and placebo "Action Potential" therapy in the treatment of mechanical lower back pain. It is currently accepted that spinal manipulation is of great benefit in the treatment of lower back pain (Di Fabio 1992), and it appears that "Action Potential Simulation" therapy, a new low-frequency electrical current therapy, would fit the criteria necessary to address the dysfunctional phase of low back pain as set out by the authors such as Kirkaldy- Willis (1988).

scholarly journals The relative effectiveness of specific passive mobilization versus spinal manipulation in the treatment of mechanical low back pain

1988 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Cornelius Myburgh
Keyword(s):  
Low Back Pain ◽  
Back Pain ◽  
Treatment Period ◽  
Spinal Manipulation ◽  
Relative Effectiveness ◽  
Spinal Manipulative Therapy ◽  
Low Back ◽  
Treatment Protocols ◽  
Manipulative Therapy ◽  
Passive Mobilization

The absence oftested theory has resulted in the continued variation of treatment protocols in the treatment of mechanical low back pain. This study was designed to determine the relative effectiveness of specific passive mobilization versus spinal manipulation in the treatment of uncomplicated mechanical low back pain. It was hypothesized that both spinal manipulative therapy and specific passive mobilization would be effective, but that manipulation would be significantly more effective in terms of objective and subjective findings, over the same two week treatment period

scholarly journals EFFICACY OF HIGH-VELOCITY LOW-AMPLITUDE SPINAL MANIPULATION FOR NON SPECIFIC LOW BACK PAIN

2014 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 4-14
Author(s):  
Sadaf Shafqat
Keyword(s):  
Low Back Pain ◽  
Back Pain ◽  
High Velocity ◽  
Spinal Manipulation ◽  
Spinal Manipulative Therapy ◽  
Systemic Review ◽  
Low Back ◽  
Manipulation Under Anesthesia ◽  
Manipulative Therapy ◽  
Low Amplitude

BACKGROUND Back pain is one of the most frequently seen health problems, affecting 9 out of 10 people in a population at some point during their lives. The lower back is the region most commonly affected. Low-back pain can be debilitating, and it is often challenging to treat Low Back Pain. OBJECTIVE The objective of this review is to evaluate the efficacy of High-Velocity Low-Amplitude (HVLA) Spinal Manipulative Therapy (SMT) for Non Specific Low Back Pain (NSLBP). STUDY DESIGN Systemic review METHODS Only articles that had adult (18 years and above) participants were included in this review and studies that classified the intervention as HVLA spinal manipulation were included. Studies that included spinal manipulation other than HVLA or studies of spinal manipulation under anesthesia were excluded. RESULTS Eight full text papers and three systemic reviews justifying the inclusion criteria are reviewed which revealed that high velocity low amplitude spinal manipulative therapy have significant effect in alleviating low back pain. CONCLUSION Spinal manipulation therapy is a distinctive approach that considerably decreases nonspecific low back pain however there is need of further clinical trials into this subject focusing solely on high velocity low amplitude spinal manipulation.

scholarly journals Spinal manipulation and exercise for low back pain in adolescents: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

2014 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Craig Schulz ◽  
Brent Leininger ◽  
Roni Evans ◽  
Darcy Vavrek ◽  
Dave Peterson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Low Back Pain ◽  
Back Pain ◽  
Spinal Manipulation ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Spinal Manipulative Therapy ◽  
Low Back ◽  
Manipulative Therapy ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Recurrent Low Back Pain

Abstract Background Low back pain is among the most common and costly chronic health care conditions. Recent research has highlighted the common occurrence of non-specific low back pain in adolescents, with prevalence estimates similar to adults. While multiple clinical trials have examined the effectiveness of commonly used therapies for the management of low back pain in adults, few trials have addressed the condition in adolescents. The purpose of this paper is to describe the methodology of a randomized clinical trial examining the effectiveness of exercise with and without spinal manipulative therapy for chronic or recurrent low back pain in adolescents. Methods/design This study is a randomized controlled trial comparing twelve weeks of exercise therapy combined with spinal manipulation to exercise therapy alone. Beginning in March 2010, a total of 184 participants, ages 12 to 18, with chronic or recurrent low back pain are enrolled across two sites. The primary outcome is self-reported low back pain intensity. Other outcomes include disability, quality of life, improvement, satisfaction, activity level, low back strength, endurance, and motion. Qualitative interviews are conducted to evaluate participants’ perceptions of treatment. Discussion This is the first randomized clinical trial assessing the effectiveness of combining spinal manipulative therapy with exercise for adolescents with low back pain. The results of this study will provide important evidence on the role of these conservative treatments for the management of low back pain in adolescents. Trial registration (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01096628).

scholarly journals Analysis of Medication Adherence and Its Influencing Factors in Patients with Schizophrenia in the Chinese Institutional Environment

2021 ◽  
Vol 18 (9) ◽  
pp. 4746
Author(s):  
Wei Yu ◽  
Jie Tong ◽  
Xirong Sun ◽  
Fazhan Chen ◽  
Jie Zhang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Medication Adherence ◽  
Activities Of Daily Living ◽  
Influencing Factors ◽  
Self Efficacy ◽  
Daily Living ◽  
Institutional Environment ◽  
Factors Influencing ◽  
Quality Of Life Scale

Background: Factors related to medication adherence in patients with schizophrenia have always been key to the treatment and rehabilitation of these patients. However, the treatment modes in different countries are not the same, and there is no research on the factors influencing medication adherence under different mental health service modes. Objectives: The purpose of this study was to explore medication adherence and its influencing factors in patients with schizophrenia in the Chinese institutional environment. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional study of hospitalized persons living with schizophrenia from November 2018 to January 2019. A systematic sampling method was used to select 217 hospitalized persons living with schizophrenia. The Medication Adherence Rating Scale (MARS), Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS), General Self-Efficacy Scale (GSES), Schizophrenia Quality of Life Scale (SQLS), and Scale of Social Skills for Psychiatric Inpatients (SSPI) were used to explore medication compliance and its influencing factors in the Chinese institutional environment. Results: The descriptive analysis and ANOVA showed that there were no significant differences in medication adherence when assessed by demographic characteristics such as sex, marital status, and education level (p > 0.05). A correlation analysis showed that there was no significant correlation between medication adherence and mental symptoms (p > 0.05) but that there was a positive correlation with self-efficacy, quality of life, and activities of daily living (p < 0.01). The linear regression analysis showed that self-efficacy, psychosocial factors, symptoms/side effects, and activities of daily living had significant effects on medication adherence (F = 30.210, p < 0.001). Conclusions: Our findings show that the self-efficacy, quality of life, and social function of patients with schizophrenia are important self-factors influencing medication adherence in the Chinese institutional environment.

scholarly journals The global summit on the efficacy and effectiveness of spinal manipulative therapy for the prevention and treatment of non-musculoskeletal disorders: a systematic review of the literature

2021 ◽  
Vol 29 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Pierre Côté ◽  
Jan Hartvigsen ◽  
Iben Axén ◽  
Charlotte Leboeuf-Yde ◽  
Melissa Corso ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Musculoskeletal Disorders ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Spinal Manipulative Therapy ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Primary Dysmenorrhea ◽  
Review Of The Literature ◽  
Manipulative Therapy ◽  
Randomized Controlled

Abstract Background A small proportion of chiropractors, osteopaths, and other manual medicine providers use spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) to manage non-musculoskeletal disorders. However, the efficacy and effectiveness of these interventions to prevent or treat non-musculoskeletal disorders remain controversial. Objectives We convened a Global Summit of international scientists to conduct a systematic review of the literature to determine the efficacy and effectiveness of SMT for the primary, secondary and tertiary prevention of non-musculoskeletal disorders. Global summit The Global Summit took place on September 14–15, 2019 in Toronto, Canada. It was attended by 50 researchers from 8 countries and 28 observers from 18 chiropractic organizations. At the summit, participants critically appraised the literature and synthesized the evidence. Systematic review of the literature We searched MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health, and the Index to Chiropractic Literature from inception to May 15, 2019 using subject headings specific to each database and free text words relevant to manipulation/manual therapy, effectiveness, prevention, treatment, and non-musculoskeletal disorders. Eligible for review were randomized controlled trials published in English. The methodological quality of eligible studies was assessed independently by reviewers using the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) criteria for randomized controlled trials. We synthesized the evidence from articles with high or acceptable methodological quality according to the Synthesis without Meta-Analysis (SWiM) Guideline. The final risk of bias and evidence tables were reviewed by researchers who attended the Global Summit and 75% (38/50) had to approve the content to reach consensus. Results We retrieved 4997 citations, removed 1123 duplicates and screened 3874 citations. Of those, the eligibility of 32 articles was evaluated at the Global Summit and 16 articles were included in our systematic review. Our synthesis included six randomized controlled trials with acceptable or high methodological quality (reported in seven articles). These trials investigated the efficacy or effectiveness of SMT for the management of infantile colic, childhood asthma, hypertension, primary dysmenorrhea, and migraine. None of the trials evaluated the effectiveness of SMT in preventing the occurrence of non-musculoskeletal disorders. Consensus was reached on the content of all risk of bias and evidence tables. All randomized controlled trials with high or acceptable quality found that SMT was not superior to sham interventions for the treatment of these non-musculoskeletal disorders. Six of 50 participants (12%) in the Global Summit did not approve the final report. Conclusion Our systematic review included six randomized clinical trials (534 participants) of acceptable or high quality investigating the efficacy or effectiveness of SMT for the treatment of non-musculoskeletal disorders. We found no evidence of an effect of SMT for the management of non-musculoskeletal disorders including infantile colic, childhood asthma, hypertension, primary dysmenorrhea, and migraine. This finding challenges the validity of the theory that treating spinal dysfunctions with SMT has a physiological effect on organs and their function. Governments, payers, regulators, educators, and clinicians should consider this evidence when developing policies about the use and reimbursement of SMT for non-musculoskeletal disorders.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document