Immediate Effects of Spinal Manipulation on Painful Sensitivity and Postural Stability in Patients with Chronic Nonspecific Low Back Pain: Study Protocol for A Controlled Randomised Clinical Trial.

Background: Low back pain is one of the main public health concerns. Chronic low back pain (cLBP)reduces functional capacity and affects postural stability.Although health professionals widely use spinal manipulation, its immediate effect on painful sensitivity and postural stability is lacking. This study aims to verify the immediate effects of lumbar spinal manipulation on the pressure pain threshold and postural stability in individuals with cLBP. Methods: A two-arm, placebo-controlled clinical trial with parallel groups and examiner-blinded will be conducted with 80 participants with cLBPfrom an outpatient physical therapy department,randomly allocated at a 1:1 distribution. The experimental group will receive a lumbar spinal manipulation technique, and the placebo group will receive a simulated lumbar spinal manipulation. Both groups will receive one session of treatment and will be evaluated before and immediately after the intervention.The primary outcomes will be the pressure pain threshold and postural stability. Pain intensity and patient´s expectation will be assessed as a secondary outcome. The pressure pain threshold will be assessed using a pressure algometer in 6 different anatomical regions. The evaluation of postural stability will be performed in a baropodometry exam by displacing the centre of pressure. The pain intensity will be measuredusing the Numeric Pain Rating Scale. A Likert scale will be used for the patient´s expectationabout the treatment. A two-way analysis of variance will compare the effect of the interventions between groups. Discussion:This study will provide insights regarding the immediate effects of spinal manipulation in patients with cLBPagainst a simulated spinal manipulation using objective outcomes and considering patients’ expectations regarding the treatment.Trial registration: Brazilian Registry of Clinical Trials:RBR-3ksq2c; registered on 13 July 2020.

The importance of selecting the correct site to apply spinal manipulation when treating spinal pain: Myth or reality? A systematic review

The concept that spinal manipulation therapy (SMT) outcomes are optimized when the treatment is aimed at a clinically relevant joint is commonly assumed and central to teaching and clinical use (candidate sites). This systematic review investigated whether clinical effects are superior when this is the case compared to SMT applied elsewhere (non-candidate sites). Eligible study designs were randomized controlled trials that investigated the effect of spinal manipulation applied to candidate versus non-candidate sites for spinal pain. We obtained data from four different databases. Risk of bias was assessed using an adjusted Cochrane risk of bias tool, adding four items for study quality. We extracted between-group differences for any reported outcome or, when not reported, calculated effect sizes from the within-group changes. We compared outcomes for SMT applied at a ‘relevant’ site to SMT applied elsewhere. We prioritized methodologically robust studies when interpreting results. Ten studies, all of acceptable quality, were included that reported 33 between-group differences—five compared treatments within the same spinal region and five at different spinal regions. None of the nine studies with low or moderate risk of bias reported statistically significant between-group differences for any outcome. The tenth study reported a small effect on pain (1.2/10, 95%CI − 1.9 to − 0.5) but had a high risk of bias. None of the nine articles of low or moderate risk of bias and acceptable quality reported that “clinically-relevant” SMT has a superior outcome on any outcome compared to “not clinically-relevant” SMT. This finding contrasts with ideas held in educational programs and clinical practice that emphasize the importance of joint-specific application of SMT.

Segmental Chiropractic Spinal Manipulation Does not Reduce Pain Amplification and the Associated Pain-Related Brain Activity in a Capsaicin-Heat Pain Model

Musculoskeletal injuries lead to sensitization of nociceptors and primary hyperalgesia (hypersensitivity to painful stimuli). This occurs with back injuries, which are associated with acute pain and increased pain sensitivity at the site of injury. In some cases, back pain persists and leads to central sensitization and chronic pain. Thus, reducing primary hyperalgesia to prevent central sensitization may limit the transition from acute to chronic back pain. It has been shown that spinal manipulation (SM) reduces experimental and clinical pain, but the effect of SM on primary hyperalgesia and hypersensitivity to painful stimuli remains unclear. The goal of the present study was to investigate the effect of SM on pain hypersensitivity using a capsaicin-heat pain model. Laser stimulation was used to evoke heat pain and the associated brain activity, which were measured to assess their modulation by SM. Eighty healthy participants were recruited and randomly assigned to one of the four experimental groups: inert cream and no intervention; capsaicin cream and no intervention; capsaicin cream and SM at T7; capsaicin cream and placebo. Inert or capsaicin cream (1%) was applied to the T9 area. SM or placebo were performed 25 min after cream application. A series of laser stimuli were delivered on the area of cream application (1) before cream application, (2) after cream application but before SM or placebo, and (3) after SM or placebo. Capsaicin cream induced a significant increase in laser pain (p < 0.001) and laser-evoked potential amplitude (p < 0.001). However, SM did not decrease the amplification of laser pain or laser-evoked potentials by capsaicin. These results indicate that segmental SM does not reduce pain hypersensitivity and the associated pain-related brain activity in a capsaicin-heat pain model.

Influence of vertebral manipulations on the autonomic nervous system

Introduction. Although its neurophysiological effects have not been fully elucidated, current evidence suggests the clinical effectiveness of spinal manipulation. Different studies suggest that manual therapy induces changes in the autonomic nervous system (ANS). Recent studies showed that mobilization produced a sympatheticexcitatory effect. However, studies using thrust manipulation appeared to be less consistent in their results.Objectives. The main objective of this review was to evaluate whether spinal manipulation induces effects on the ANS. Another objective was to correlate the changes in the measured variables with the activation or inhibition of the sympathetic or parasympathetic nervous system and with the level of spinal manipulation.Materials and methods. We performed a literature search in the following databases: PubMed, PEDro, CINAHL and OVID, using the keywords «Manipulation, spinal» and «Autonomic Nervous System». The PEDro scale was used to assess the methodological quality.Results. Nine studies met the inclusion criteria. Six trials measured cardiovascular function indicators (blood pressure, heart rate, Heart Rate Variability). Three other trials measured the pupil reaction. In most studies, cervical or upper thoracic region was manipulated.Conclusions. Our review does not provide definitive evidence of the effects of spinal manipulation on the ANS. However, most studies observed the existence of autonomic effects by modifying parameters such as blood pressure or Heart Rate Variability after manipulation. Increased parasympathetic activation probably occurs after cervical and lumbar treatment and increased sympathetic activation after dorsal treatment.

Chiropractic website claims related to non-musculoskeletal conditions: a cross-sectional study

Background Chiropractors frequently use spinal manipulation therapy as a treatment modality in the management of musculoskeletal (MSK) conditions such as spinal pain and sometimes in the treatment of non-MSK disorders. The latter is not supported by evidence. This study aimed to investigate the extent of non-MSK website claims from French chiropractors to assess if websites were aligned with current recommendations on evidence-based practice. Methods This was a cross-sectional study of a representative sample of French chiropractors. Information on non-MSK conditions was collected from chiropractic professional websites by two independent observers in June 2020. For each non-MSK condition, it was noted whether a clarifying explanation justifying the mentioning of the condition was available. In addition, data on professional association affiliation status, country of education, years since graduation, and special clinical focus (e.g., seniors, children) were collected. Results A total of 287 randomly selected websites were included in the study corresponding to 22% of all chiropractors registered in France. One or more of 42 different non-MSK conditions were identified on 231 websites, of which 5 (2.2%) provided a clarifying explanation. 226 (79%) websites mentioned a non-MSK condition without a clarifying explanation. The non-MSK conditions most often mentioned were sleep problems, constipation/digestive problems, unease/discontent in children and menstrual cramps/pains. A larger proportion of the websites advertising treatment for non-MSK disorders was found among those claiming a special clinical focus on infants/children, seniors, pregnant women or athletes compared to those that did not. Also, a larger proportion of chiropractors who were affiliated with a professional association were advertising treatment for non-MSK disorders compared to those who were not affiliated. Conclusions Eight out of ten chiropractic websites mentioned one or more non-MSK diagnoses or symptoms. It is unclear if this reflects inaccurate communication or if treatments for non-MSK conditions are provided by the chiropractors.