PubMed Health⌕ Search

SEARCH · PubMed Health

Results for “Manipulation, Spinal”

Explore indexed PubMed citations for clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health research. Read source abstracts and follow each citation to its original PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 145 records · Page 8Linked to original sources
PubMed2005

[Measurement technique for the cracking sounds during spinal manipulation].

OBJECTIVE: To design a set of equipment to collect, locate and analyze the cracking sounds during spinal manipulation. METHODS: On the basis of reviewing the current techniques for cracking sound measurement, we designed a cracking measurement system consisting of a pulse generator, transmission/reception interface, calibrating wave generator, compound sensors, computer, analytical software, and output components. RESULTS: Preliminary experiments demonstrated that the cracking sounds could be detected at a distance of 40 cm, suggesting that this system was technically feasible with some improvements to be made. CONCLUSION: This device can be used for collecting, locating and analyzing the cracking sounds during spinal manipulation.

Equipment Design↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Biomechanical measure validation for spinal manipulation in clinical settings.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the validity and fidelity of the Leander 900 Z Series treatment table (Leader Health Technologies Corporation, Port Orchard, Wash) with an imbedded AMTI force plate (Advanced Mechanical Technology, Inc, Watertown, Mass) as a sensing system and to test its ability to quantify small, statistically significant changes in biomechanical parameters of spinal manipulative therapy (SMT). SETTING: Technology bench testing and Chiropractic College. METHODS: Complex forces and moments were applied to the modified treatment table, including standardized static and dynamic loads and those exerted by chiropractic students when delivering spinal manipulative therapy. Manipulation data was postprocessed by a second-order Butterworth filter with a 5-Hz cutoff frequency. Changes in lumbar spinal manipulative therapy procedures performed by chiropractic students were digitally recorded using the sensing system at approximately 1-month intervals throughout the course of a trimester of training. RESULTS: The system frequency response remains relatively consistent over the interval of test loads from 89 N to 222 N and from 53 nm to 133 nm with fundamental frequencies 5.9 Hz and higher. Changes in biomechanical parameters, including peak amplitude, slope, and duration over time and training, were observed in student chiropractic manipulations. Results show a minimum of 18% (P =.0723) increase during interval 1 in mean peak amplitude and slope parameters. Only a slight (3%) mean reduction of the procedure duration was seen. CONCLUSIONS: The results support the fidelity of the sensing system and its ability to quantify small, statistically significant changes in biomechanical parameters. With this type of instrumentation, it is feasible to assess the skill of chiropractic physicians performing spinal manipulative therapy.

Adult↗
PubMed2001

Spinal manipulation causes variable spine kinematic and trunk muscle electromyographic responses.

STUDY DESIGN: Analytic cohort with a convenience sample in a research clinic. OBJECTIVES: To determine the influence of a spinal manipulation on trunk kinematics and associated trunk myoelectric activity. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND: While the mechanism of spinal manipulation is unknown, it has been theorized to influence spinal range of motion and trunk muscle activity. METHODS: Trunk kinematics were measured in low back pain patients (n = 14) during simple range of motion tasks in three planes, while trunk muscle electromyogram signals were recorded bilaterally from paraspinal and abdominal musculature. Kinematics and electromyogram signals were assessed pre-post manipulation. Electromyogram activity was also assessed pre-post manipulation during quiet stance. RESULTS: While no consistent kinematic or electromyographic changes occurred following manipulation across the population, individual changes were observed. The largest changes (> 6 degrees ) in range of motion occurred in the sagittal plane of three patients experiencing the greatest amount of pain. During quiet stance 17 muscles across all subjects exhibited changes in muscle activity following manipulation. Sixteen of those changes were decreases in muscle amplitude. CONCLUSIONS: This study offers some preliminary data on the short-term effects of manipulation on lumbar range of motion and dynamic electromyogram. The findings suggest that the response to manipulation is variable and dependent on the individual, with no change in some to the largest changes seen in the more pained patients. Relevance. Basic science investigations into the mechanisms and biomechanical influences of spinal manipulation are few. This study attempts to address issues of measureable functional change with manipulative therapy.

Adult↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Short-term effects of spinal manipulation on H-reflex amplitude in healthy and symptomatic subjects.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study is to assess Hoffman (H) reflex after spinal manipulation (1) as a function of experimental position in healthy subjects and (2) in patients with low back pain. METHODS: An intervention study was performed to evaluate the effects of sacroiliac (SI) joint manipulation on motoneuron excitability, as measured by the H-reflex. Manual treatment of the SI joint was performed. Hoffman reflex amplitudes before and after SI joint manipulations were measured with subjects lying on the right side (n = 12 healthy subject) or with subjects lying supine (n = 5 healthy subjects), which required turning of subjects onto their sides for SI joint manipulation. Hoffman reflex amplitudes were also measured in 15 patients with low back pain. RESULTS: No significant changes in H-reflex amplitude in healthy subjects receiving manipulation to the SI joint were observed, provided that H-reflex testing and treatments were performed in the same position, that is, the subject was not moved during the experimental procedure. However, changes in motoneuron excitability after SI joint manipulation were observed in patients with low back pain. CONCLUSIONS: It appears that H-reflex responses after spinal manipulation are sensitive to movement/repositioning, and that the H-reflex depressions after manipulation documented in previous studies were movement artifacts rather than treatment effects. The relationship between etiology of low back pain and changes in H-reflex amplitude after spinal manipulation is not clear and needs further investigation.

Adult↗
PubMed2005

[Spinal manipulative therapy and cervical artery dissections].

Severe complications after cervical spine manipulation are rare. As experts for medical treatment errors, we received between July 2002 and February 2004 cases with serious complications in the central nervous system after manipulation. 5 vertebral artery dissections with subsequent brain infarction were registered. In all cases, the patients showed complete persisting remission of symptoms. In addition, a kinematic estimation model was developed to study the possible causes of vertebral artery damage. We were able to demonstrate that material extension is dependent on cervical rotation and the "free length" of the vertebral artery in the upper cervical spine.

Adult↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Does the evidence for spinal manipulation translate into better outcomes in routine clinical care for patients with occupational low back pain? A case-control study.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Previous research has identified clinical characteristics of patients who are likely to respond favorably to thrust manipulation. The application of this evidence and its effect on clinical outcomes among patients with occupational low back pain has not been examined. PURPOSE: Examine patients treated in physical therapy with occupational low back pain who fit a subgroup likely to respond to thrust manipulation. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Retrospective review of clinical database. PATIENT SAMPLE: Patients with low back pain of less than 16 days duration with no symptoms distal to the knee or signs of nerve root compression receiving workers' compensation and referred to physical therapy were included. OUTCOME MEASURES: Self-report measures: numeric pain rating and Oswestry disability questionnaire. FUNCTIONAL MEASURES: Number of visits, duration, and costs of physical therapy. METHODS: Physical therapy notes for the first two sessions were examined. Patients were categorized as having received thrust manipulation, nonthrust manipulation, or no manipulation. Pain intensity and disability were recorded at initial and final sessions. The number of sessions, length of stay, and costs of physical therapy were recorded. Comparisons were made between patients receiving manipulation versus no manipulation, and between those receiving thrust versus nonthrust manipulation. RESULTS: Two hundred fifteen patients were included (mean age 35.9 [+/-10.1] years, 67.9% male). Thrust manipulation was received by 107 (49.8%) patients; 36 (16.7%) received nonthrust manipulation and 72 (33.5%) received no manipulation. Patients receiving manipulation (thrust or nonthrust) experienced greater reductions in pain and disability with treatment. Patients receiving thrust manipulation had fewer sessions, a shorter length of stay, and lower costs in physical therapy than patients receiving nonthrust manipulation. CONCLUSIONS: The evidence supporting superior clinical outcomes with the use of manipulation for a subgroup of patients was corroborated by this retrospective review of patients with occupational low back pain. The use of thrust manipulation appeared to be more efficient than the use of nonthrust manipulation for these patients.

Adult↗