Literature DB >> 11208218

Effect of direction of applied mobilization force on the posteroanterior response in the lumbar spine.

B Caling1, M Lee.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to investigate whether changing the direction of applied force affects measured posteroanterior stiffness and associated pelvic (sacral) and lower thoracic rotations.
DESIGN: A repeated measures design was used.
SETTING: University biomechanical laboratory. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty-four subjects (14 male, 10 female) with no history of recent low back pain or contraindications to mobilization volunteered for testing. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Posteroanterior stiffness was assessed at vertebral levels L3 and L5 through use of 3 sagittal plane directions of applied force; the directions differed by 10 degrees. The amount of sacral and lower thoracic rotation that occurred during loading between 30 and 100 N was also recorded.
RESULTS: A small but significant variation of stiffness with direction of applied force was found. At L3, mean stiffness was greatest when the posteroanterior force was applied in a base direction; it was 11% less when the force was applied 10 degrees more caudad than the base direction and 14% less when the force was applied 10 degrees more cephalad than the base direction. There was no significant effect of direction when the force was applied at L5. Both sacral and thoracic rotations displayed significant variation with direction of force when load was applied at L5, with decreasing rotation as the force was applied in a more caudal direction.
CONCLUSION: Posteroanterior stiffness in individuals without back pain is affected by the sagittal plane direction in which the posteroanterior force is applied to the lumbar spine. Remote (thoracic and sacral) movements are also affected by the direction of posteroanterior force. Direction of applied force should therefore be controlled, particularly in the research setting.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11208218     DOI: 10.1067/mmt.2001.112568

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Manipulative Physiol Ther        ISSN: 0161-4754            Impact factor:   1.437


  5 in total

1.  Preliminary investigation of the mechanisms underlying the effects of manipulation: exploration of a multivariate model including spinal stiffness, multifidus recruitment, and clinical findings.

Authors:  Julie M Fritz; Shane L Koppenhaver; Gregory N Kawchuk; Deydre S Teyhen; Jeffrey J Hebert; John D Childs
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2011-10-01       Impact factor: 3.468

2.  Comparison of posteroanterior spinal stiffness measures to clinical and demographic findings at baseline in patients enrolled in a clinical study of spinal manipulation for low back pain.

Authors:  Edward F Owens; James W DeVocht; M Ram Gudavalli; David G Wilder; William C Meeker
Journal:  J Manipulative Physiol Ther       Date:  2007-09       Impact factor: 1.437

3.  Criterion validity of manual assessment of spinal stiffness.

Authors:  Shane L Koppenhaver; Jeffrey J Hebert; Greg N Kawchuk; John D Childs; Deydre S Teyhen; Theodore Croy; Julie M Fritz
Journal:  Man Ther       Date:  2014-06-12

4.  Changes in spinal stiffness with chronic thoracic pain: Correlation with pain and muscle activity.

Authors:  Isabelle Pagé; François Nougarou; Arnaud Lardon; Martin Descarreaux
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-12-11       Impact factor: 3.240

5.  The effects of the Mulligan Sustained Natural Apophyseal Glide (SNAG) mobilisation in the lumbar flexion range of asymptomatic subjects as measured by the Zebris CMS20 3-D motion analysis system.

Authors:  Maria Moutzouri; Evdokia Billis; Nikolaos Strimpakos; Polixeni Kottika; Jacqueline A Oldham
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2008-10-01       Impact factor: 2.362

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.