scholarly journals Factors Associated With Clinical Responses to Spinal Manipulation in Patients With Non-specific Thoracic Back Pain: A Prospective Cohort Study

2022 ◽  
Vol 2 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mégane Pasquier ◽  
James J. Young ◽  
Arnaud Lardon ◽  
Martin Descarreaux
Keyword(s):  
Prognostic Factors ◽  
Back Pain ◽  
Spinal Manipulative Therapy ◽  
Short Term ◽  
Post Intervention ◽  
Manipulative Therapy ◽  
Pain Disability ◽  
Clinical Responses ◽  
Biomechanical Parameters

Introduction: The management of musculoskeletal disorders is complex and requires a multidisciplinary approach. Manual therapies, such as spinal manipulative therapy (SMT), are often recommended as an adjunct treatment and appear to have demonstrable effects on pain and short-term disability in several spinal conditions. However, no definitive mechanism that can explain these effects has been identified. Identifying relevant prognostic factors is therefore recommended for people with back pain.Objective: The main purpose of this study was to identify short-term candidate prognostic factors for clinically significant responses in pain, disability and global perceived change (GPC) following a spinal manipulation treatment in patients with non-specific thoracic back pain.Methods: Patients seeking care for thoracic spine pain were invited to participate in the study. Pain levels were recorded at baseline, post-intervention, and 1 week after a single session of SMT. Disability levels were collected at baseline and at 1-week follow-up. GPC was collected post-intervention and at 1-week follow-up. Biomechanical parameters of SMT, expectations for improvement in pain and disability, kinesiophobia, anxiety levels as well as perceived comfort of spinal manipulative therapy were assessed.Analysis: Differences in baseline characteristics were compared between patients categorized as responders or non-responders based on their pain level, disability level, and GPC at each measurement time point. Binary logistic regression was calculated if the statistical significance level of group comparisons (responder vs. non-responders) was equal to, or <0.2 for candidate prognostic factors.Results: 107 patients (62 females and 45 males) were recruited. Mean peak force averaged 450.8 N with a mean thrust duration of 134.9 ms. Post-intervention, comfort was associated with pain responder status (p < 0.05) and GPC responder status (p < 0.05), while expectation of disability improvement was associated with GPC responder status (p < 0.05). At follow-up, comfort and expectation of pain improvement were associated with responder GPC status (p < 0.05). No association was found between responder pain, disability or GPC status and biomechanical parameters of SMT at any time point.Discussion: No specific dosage of SMT was associated with short-term clinical responses to treatment. However, expectations of improvement and patient comfort during SMT were associated with a positive response to treatment.

A randomised controlled trial of spinal manipulative therapy in acute low back pain

2008 ◽  
Vol 68 (9) ◽  
pp. 1420-1427 ◽  
Author(s):  
P Jüni ◽  
M Battaglia ◽  
E Nüesch ◽  
G Hämmerle ◽  
P Eser ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Low Back Pain ◽  
Back Pain ◽  
Standard Care ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Spinal Manipulative Therapy ◽  
Low Back ◽  
Specific Patient ◽  
Manipulative Therapy ◽  
Acute Low Back Pain

Objective:To determine whether treatment with spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) administered in addition to standard care is associated with clinically relevant early reductions in pain and analgesic consumption.Methods:104 patients with acute low back pain were randomly assigned to SMT in addition to standard care (n  =  52) or standard care alone (n  =  52). Standard care consisted of general advice and paracetamol, diclofenac or dihydrocodeine as required. Other analgesic drugs or non-pharmacological treatments were not allowed. Primary outcomes were pain intensity assessed on the 11-point box scale (BS-11) and analgesic use based on diclofenac equivalence doses during days 1–14. An extended follow-up was performed at 6 months.Results:Pain reductions were similar in experimental and control groups, with the lower limit of the 95% CI excluding a relevant benefit of SMT (difference 0.5 on the BS-11, 95% CI −0.2 to 1.2, p = 0.13). Analgesic consumptions were also similar (difference −18 mg diclofenac equivalents, 95% CI −43 mg to 7 mg, p = 0.17), with small initial differences diminishing over time. There were no differences between groups in any of the secondary outcomes and stratified analyses provided no evidence for potential benefits of SMT in specific patient groups. The extended follow-up showed similar patterns.Conclusions:SMT is unlikely to result in relevant early pain reduction in patients with acute low back pain.

Short-term effectiveness of spinal manipulative therapy versus functional technique in patients with chronic nonspecific low back pain: a pragmatic randomized controlled trial

2016 ◽  
Vol 16 (3) ◽  
pp. 302-312 ◽  
Author(s):  
Adelaida María Castro-Sánchez ◽  
Inmaculada C. Lara-Palomo ◽  
Guillermo A. Matarán-Peñarrocha ◽  
César Fernández-de-las-Peñas ◽  
Manuel Saavedra-Hernández ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Randomized Controlled Trial ◽  
Low Back Pain ◽  
Back Pain ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Spinal Manipulative Therapy ◽  
Low Back ◽  
Short Term ◽  
Manipulative Therapy ◽  
Pragmatic Randomized Controlled Trial ◽  
Randomized Controlled

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.

scholarly journals Effects of spinal manipulative therapy on inflammatory mediators in patients with non-specific low back pain: a non-randomized controlled clinical trial

2021 ◽  
Vol 29 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Julita A. Teodorczyk-Injeyan ◽  
John J. Triano ◽  
Robert Gringmuth ◽  
Christopher DeGraauw ◽  
Adrian Chow ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Low Back Pain ◽  
Back Pain ◽  
Inflammatory Mediators ◽  
Interleukin 1 ◽  
Spinal Manipulative Therapy ◽  
Controlled Clinical Trial ◽  
Low Back ◽  
Manipulative Therapy ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Link Type

Abstract Background The inflammatory profiles of patients with acute and chronic nonspecific low back pain (LBP) patients are distinct. Spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) has been shown to modulate the production of nociceptive chemokines differently in these patient cohorts. The present study further investigates the effect(s) of SMT on other inflammatory mediators in the same LBP patient cohorts. Methods Acute (n = 22) and chronic (n = 25) LBP patients with minimum pain scores of 3 on a 10-point numeric scale, and asymptomatic controls (n = 24) were recruited according to stringent exclusion criteria. Blood samples were obtained at baseline and after 2 weeks during which patients received 6 SMTs in the lumbar or lumbosacral region. The in vitro production of tumor necrosis factor (TNFα), interleukin-1 β (IL-1β), IL-6, IL-2, interferon ɣ (IFNɣ), IL-1 receptor antagonist (IL-1RA), TNF soluble receptor type 2 (sTNFR2) and IL-10 was determined by specific immunoassays. Parametric as well as non-parametric statistics (PAST 3.18 beta software) was used to determine significance of differences between and within study groups prior and post-SMT. Effect size (ES) estimates were obtained using Cohen’s d. Results Compared with asymptomatic controls, SMT-related change scores were significant (P = 0.03–0.01) in reducing the production levels of TNFα in both patient cohorts and those of IL-6, IFNɣ and sTNFR2 (P = 0.001–0.02) in patients with chronic LBP. Above-moderate to large ES (d > 0.6–1.4) was observed for these mediators. Compared with respective baselines, a significant post-SMT reduction (P = 0.01) of IL-6 production was detected only in patients with chronic LBP while a significant increase of IL-2 production (P = 0.001 vs. control, and P = 0.004 vs. chronic LBP group) and a large ES (d = 0.87) were observed in patients with acute LBP. Pain and disability scores declined significantly (P < 0.001) in all LBP patients, and were positively correlated (P = 0.03) with IFNɣ and IL-2 levels in the acute LBP cohort. Conclusion The short course of SMT treatments of non-specific LBP patients resulted in significant albeit limited and diverse alterations in the production of several of the mediators investigated in this study. This exploratory study highlights the potential of SMT to modulate the production of inflammatory components in acute and chronic non-specific LBP patients and suggests a need for further, randomized controlled clinical trials in this area. Trial registration This study was prospectively registered April 2012 with Clinical Trials.gov (#NCT01766141). https://register.clinicaltrials.gov/prs/app/action/SelectProtocol?sid=S0003ZIL&selectaction=Edit&uid=U0001V74&ts=2&cx=-axvqtg

scholarly journals Prognosis and Course of Disability in Patients With Chronic Nonspecific Low Back Pain: A 5- and 12-Month Follow-up Cohort Study

2013 ◽  
Vol 93 (12) ◽  
pp. 1603-1614 ◽  
Author(s):  
Karin Verkerk ◽  
Pim A.J. Luijsterburg ◽  
Martijn W. Heymans ◽  
Inge Ronchetti ◽  
Annelies L. Pool-Goudzwaard ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cohort Study ◽  
Low Back Pain ◽  
Prognostic Factors ◽  
Back Pain ◽  
Short Form ◽  
Low Back ◽  
Multidisciplinary Therapy ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Specific Disability

Background Few data are available on the course of and predictors for disability in patients with chronic nonspecific low back pain (CNSLBP). Objective The purpose of this study was to describe the course of disability and identify clinically important prognostic factors of low-back-pain–specific disability in patients with CNSLBP receiving multidisciplinary therapy. Design A prospective cohort study was conducted. Methods A total of 1,760 patients with CNSLBP who received multidisciplinary therapy were evaluated for their course of disability and prognostic factors at baseline and at 2-, 5-, and 12-month follow-ups. Recovery was defined as 30% reduction in low back pain–specific disability at follow-up compared with baseline and as absolute recovery if the score on the Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale (QBPDS) was ≤20 points at follow-up. Potential prognostic factors were identified using multivariable logistic regression analysis. Results Mean patient-reported disability scores on the QBPDS ranged from 51.7 (SD=15.6) at baseline to 31.7 (SD=15.2), 31.1 (SD=18.2), and 29.1 (SD=20.0) at 2, 5, and 12 months, respectively. The prognostic factors identified for recovery at 5 and 12 months were younger age and high scores on disability and on the 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36) (Physical and Mental Component Summaries) at baseline. In addition, at 5-month follow-up, a shorter duration of complaints was a positive predictor, and having no comorbidity and less pain at baseline were additional predictors at 12-month follow-up. Limitations Missing values at 5- and 12-month follow-ups were 11.1% and 45.2%, respectively. Conclusion After multidisciplinary treatment, the course of disability in patients with CNSLBP continued to decline over a 12-month period. At 5- and 12-month follow-ups, prognostic factors were identified for a clinically relevant decrease in disability scores on the QBPDS.

scholarly journals Improvement of Back and Leg Pain after Lumbar Spinal Decompression without Fusion

2018 ◽  
Vol 80 (02) ◽  
pp. 081-087
Author(s):  
Nicola Bongartz ◽  
Christian Blume ◽  
Hans Clusmann ◽  
Christian Müller ◽  
Matthias Geiger
Keyword(s):  
Back Pain ◽  
Spinal Stenosis ◽  
Lumbar Spinal Stenosis ◽  
Leg Pain ◽  
Short Term ◽  
Clear Trend ◽  
Long Term Follow Up ◽  
Lumbar Spinal

Background To evaluate whether decompression in lumbar spinal stenosis without fusion leads to sufficient improvement of back pain and leg pain and whether re-decompression alone is sufficient for recurrent lumbar spinal stenosis for patients without signs of instability. Material and Methods A successive series of 102 patients with lumbar spinal stenosis (with and without previous lumbar surgery) were treated with decompression alone during a 3-year period. Data on pre- and postoperative back pain and leg pain (numerical rating scale [NRS] scale) were retrospectively collected from questionnaires with a return rate of 65% (n = 66). The complete cohort as well as patients with first-time surgery and re-decompression were analyzed separately. Patients were dichotomized to short-term follow-up (< 100 weeks) and long-term follow-up (> 100 weeks) postsurgery. Results Overall, both back pain (NRS 4.59 postoperative versus 7.89 preoperative; p < 0.0001) and leg pain (NRS 4.09 versus 6.75; p < 0.0001) improved postoperatively. The short-term follow-up subgroup (50%, n = 33) showed a significant reduction in back pain (NRS 4.0 versus 6.88; p < 0.0001) and leg pain (NRS 2.49 versus 6.91: p < 0.0001). Similar results could be observed for the long-term follow-up subgroup (50%, n = 33) with significantly less back pain (NRS 3.94 versus 7.0; p < 0.0001) and leg pain (visual analog scale 3.14 versus 5.39; p < 0.002) postoperatively. Patients with previous decompression surgery benefit significantly regarding back pain (NRS 4.82 versus 7.65; p < 0.0024), especially in the long-term follow-up subgroup (NRS 4.75 versus 7.67; p < 0.0148). There was also a clear trend in favor of leg pain in patients with previous surgery; however, it was not significant. Conclusions Decompression of lumbar spinal stenosis without fusion led to a significant and similar reduction of back pain and leg pain in a short-term and a long-term follow-up group. Patients without previous surgery benefited significantly better, whereas patients with previous decompression benefited regarding back pain, especially for long-term follow-up with a clear trend in favor of leg pain.

Spinal manipulative therapy for low-back pain

2013 ◽  
Author(s):  
Willem JJ Assendelft ◽  
Sally C Morton ◽  
Emily I Yu ◽  
Marika J Suttorp ◽  
Paul G Shekelle
Keyword(s):  
Low Back Pain ◽  
Back Pain ◽  
Spinal Manipulative Therapy ◽  
Low Back ◽  
Manipulative Therapy
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document