scholarly journals Improvements in chronic cervicalgia, bilateral hand dysesthesia, and lumbar disability with instrument assisted soft tissue mobilization and spinal manipulative therapy

2019 ◽  
Vol 10 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brigette Kinard ◽  
Susan Esposito ◽  
Tammy Costello Hales
Keyword(s):  
Soft Tissue ◽  
Spinal Manipulative Therapy ◽  
Manipulative Therapy ◽  
Soft Tissue Mobilization

scholarly journals A comparative study of spinal manipulative therapy and spinal manipulative therapy combined with soft tissue therapy in the management of mechanical low back pain

1997 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Adrian Neil Gomes
Keyword(s):  
Low Back Pain ◽  
Back Pain ◽  
Soft Tissue ◽  
Spinal Manipulative Therapy ◽  
Physiological Effects ◽  
Combined Effects ◽  
Low Back ◽  
Manipulative Therapy ◽  
Tissue Therapy ◽  
Soft Tissue Therapy

There have been few studies performed to determine the combined effects of spinal manipulative therapy with other modalities known to have beneficial physiological effects, especially in terms of mechanical low back pain (Ottenbacher and Difabio 1985).

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.

scholarly journals Correction to: 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 ◽  
Musculoskeletal Disorders ◽  
Spinal Manipulative Therapy ◽  
Review Of The Literature ◽  
Manipulative Therapy ◽  
Prevention And Treatment

An amendment to this paper has been published and can be accessed via the original article.

Does soft tissue mobilization assist static stretching to improve hamstring flexibility? A randomized controlled trial

2020 ◽  
Vol 0 (0) ◽  
Author(s):  
Shibili Nuhmani
Keyword(s):  
Soft Tissue ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Knee Extension ◽  
Repeated Measure ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Static Stretching ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Hamstring Flexibility ◽  
Soft Tissue Mobilization ◽  
Experimental Group

AbstractObjectivesObjective of the study is to investigate whether Soft tissue mobilization (STM) can assist with static stretching to improve hamstring flexibly.MethodsThe design of the study was repeated measure design. The study was conducted at the physical therapy laboratory of Jamia Hamdard University, New Delhi. Participants included 78 healthy males with hamstring tightness, randomly assigned to either the control group (static stretching) or the experimental group (STM and static stretching). The experimental group received five sets of four different STM techniques, followed by two sets of 30-s static stretches 3 days per week over the course of 12 weeks. The control group received 5 min of sham ultrasound with an inactive probe prior to static stretching. Active knee extension test (AKE) was the outcome measure.ResultsBoth groups showed significant improvement in AKE compared with the baseline measurements. With ingroup analysis showed a significant difference in AKE across all measured time periods (weeks 4, 8, and 12) with pre-test in both groups (p<0.05). No significant difference in AKE improvement was found between groups (p>0.05).ConclusionThe results of this study show that STM prior to static stretching does not significantly improve hamstring flexibility among healthy individuals. Although this study cannot be generalized, the results may be useful for evidence-based practice in the management of hamstring tightness.

scholarly journals Soft Tissue Mobilization and Stretching for Shoulder in CrossFitters: A Randomized Pilot Study

2021 ◽  
Vol 18 (2) ◽  
pp. 575
Author(s):  
Marcos Jusdado-García ◽  
Rubén Cuesta-Barriuso
Keyword(s):  
Soft Tissue ◽  
Internal Rotation ◽  
Repeated Measures ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Average Weight ◽  
Average Height ◽  
Shoulder Injury ◽  
Glenohumeral Internal Rotation Deficit ◽  
Posterior Shoulder ◽  
Soft Tissue Mobilization

Background. The shoulder in CrossFit should have a balance between mobility and stability. Glenohumeral internal rotation deficit and posterior shoulder stiffness are risk factors for overhead shoulder injury. Objective. To determine the effectiveness of instrument-assisted soft tissue mobilization and horizontal adduction stretch in CrossFit practitioners’ shoulders. Methods: Twenty-one regular CrossFitters were allocated to experimental (stretching with isometric contraction and instrument-assisted soft tissue mobilization) or control groups (instrument-assisted soft tissue mobilization). Each session lasted 5 min, 2 days a week, over a period of 4 weeks. Shoulder internal rotation and horizontal adduction (digital inclinometer), as well as posterior shoulder stretch perception (Park scale), were evaluated. Shapiro–Wilk test was used to analyze the distribution of the sample. Parametric Student’s t-test was used to obtain the intragroup differences. The inter- and intra-rater differences were calculated using a repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA). Results. Average age was 30.81 years (SD: 5.35), with an average height of 178 (SD: 7.93) cm and average weight of 82.69 (SD: 10.82) kg. Changes were found in the experimental group following intervention (p < 0.05), and when comparing baseline and follow-up assessments (p < 0.05) in all variables. Significant differences were found in the control group following intervention (p < 0.05), in right horizontal adduction and left internal rotation. When comparing the perception of internal rotation and horizontal adduction in both groups, significant differences were found. Conclusions. Instrument-assisted soft tissue mobilization can improve shoulder horizontal adduction and internal rotation. An instrument-assisted soft tissue mobilization technique yields the same results alone as those achieved in combination with post-isometric stretch with shoulder adduction.

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document