J Donald Dishman1, Jeanmarie Burke. 1. Department of Anatomy, New York Chiropractic College, 2360 SR 89, Seneca Falls, NY 13148, USA. ddishman@nycc.edu
Abstract
BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Spinal manipulation (SM) is a commonly employed nonoperative treatment modality in the management of patients with neck, low back or pelvic pain. One basic physiologic response to SM is a transient decrease in motoneuron activity as assessed using the Hoffmann reflex (H-reflex) technique. Previous research from our laboratory indicates that both SM with a high-velocity, low-amplitude thrust and mobilization without thrust produced a profound but transient attenuation of motoneuronal activity of the lumbosacral spine in asymptomatic subjects. To date, effects of cervical SM procedures on the excitability cervical motoneuron pools are unknown. PURPOSE: The objective of this research was to a gain a more complete understanding of the physiologic effects of SM procedures on motoneuron activity, by comparing the effects of regional SM on cervical and lumbar motoneuron pool excitability. STUDY DESIGN/ SETTING: Maximal H-reflex amplitudes were recorded before and after SM in both the cervical and lumbar regions of asymptomatic subjects in two successive experimental sessions. PATIENT SAMPLE: Asymptomatic, young healthy volunteers were used in this study. OUTCOME MEASURES: Changes in flexor carpi radialis and gastrocnemius H-reflex amplitudes before and after SM procedures. METHODS: H-reflexes recorded form the tibial and median nerves were evaluated before and after lumbar and cervical SM, respectively. RESULTS: Both Lumbar and cervical SM produced a transient but significant attenuation of motoneuron excitability. The attenuation of the tibial nerve H-reflex amplitude was proportionately greater than that of the median nerve, which occurred after cervical SM. CONCLUSIONS: SM procedures lead to transient suppression of motoneuron excitability, as assessed by the H-reflex technique. Lumbar spine SM appears to lead to greater attenuation of motoneuron activity compared with that of the cervical region. Thus, these two distinct regions of the spine may possess different responsiveness levels to spinal manipulative therapy.
BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Spinal manipulation (SM) is a commonly employed nonoperative treatment modality in the management of patients with neck, low back or pelvic pain. One basic physiologic response to SM is a transient decrease in motoneuron activity as assessed using the Hoffmann reflex (H-reflex) technique. Previous research from our laboratory indicates that both SM with a high-velocity, low-amplitude thrust and mobilization without thrust produced a profound but transient attenuation of motoneuronal activity of the lumbosacral spine in asymptomatic subjects. To date, effects of cervical SM procedures on the excitability cervical motoneuron pools are unknown. PURPOSE: The objective of this research was to a gain a more complete understanding of the physiologic effects of SM procedures on motoneuron activity, by comparing the effects of regional SM on cervical and lumbar motoneuron pool excitability. STUDY DESIGN/ SETTING: Maximal H-reflex amplitudes were recorded before and after SM in both the cervical and lumbar regions of asymptomatic subjects in two successive experimental sessions. PATIENT SAMPLE: Asymptomatic, young healthy volunteers were used in this study. OUTCOME MEASURES: Changes in flexor carpi radialis and gastrocnemius H-reflex amplitudes before and after SM procedures. METHODS: H-reflexes recorded form the tibial and median nerves were evaluated before and after lumbar and cervical SM, respectively. RESULTS: Both Lumbar and cervical SM produced a transient but significant attenuation of motoneuron excitability. The attenuation of the tibial nerve H-reflex amplitude was proportionately greater than that of the median nerve, which occurred after cervical SM. CONCLUSIONS: SM procedures lead to transient suppression of motoneuron excitability, as assessed by the H-reflex technique. Lumbar spine SM appears to lead to greater attenuation of motoneuron activity compared with that of the cervical region. Thus, these two distinct regions of the spine may possess different responsiveness levels to spinal manipulative therapy.
Authors: Mark D Bishop; Rafael Torres-Cueco; Charles W Gay; Enrique Lluch-Girbés; Jason M Beneciuk; Joel E Bialosky Journal: Pain Manag Date: 2015-09-24
Authors: William R Reed; Joel G Pickar; Randall S Sozio; Michael A K Liebschner; Joshua W Little; Maruti R Gudavalli Journal: J Manipulative Physiol Ther Date: 2017-06-17 Impact factor: 1.437
Authors: Imran Khan Niazi; Kemal S Türker; Stanley Flavel; Mat Kinget; Jens Duehr; Heidi Haavik Journal: Exp Brain Res Date: 2015-01-13 Impact factor: 1.972
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