Literature DB >> 14673406

Neuromechanical characterization of in vivo lumbar spinal manipulation. Part I. Vertebral motion.

Tony S Keller1, Christopher J Colloca, Robert Gunzburg.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To quantify in vivo spinal motions and coupling patterns occurring in human subjects in response to mechanical force, manually assisted, short-lever spinal manipulative thrusts (SMTs) applied to varying vertebral contact points and utilizing various excursion (force) settings.
METHODS: Triaxial accelerometers were attached to intraosseous pins rigidly fixed to the L1, L3, or L4 lumbar spinous process of 4 patients (2 male, 2 female) undergoing lumbar decompressive surgery. Lumbar spine acceleration responses were recorded during the application of 14 externally applied posteroanterior (PA) impulsive SMTs (4 force settings and 3 contact points) in each of the 4 subjects. Displacement time responses in the PA, axial (AX), and medial-lateral (ML) axes were obtained, as were intervertebral (L3-4) motion responses in 1 subject. Statistical analysis of the effects of facet joint (FJ) contact point and force magnitude on peak-to-peak displacements was performed. Motion coupling between the 3 coordinate axes of the vertebrae was examined using a least squares linear regression.
RESULTS: SMT forces ranged from 30 N (lowest setting) to 150 N (maximum setting). Peak-to-peak ML, PA, and AX vertebral displacements increased significantly with increasing applied force. For thrusts delivered over the FJs, pronounced coupling was observed between all axes (AX-ML, AX-PA, PA-ML) (linear regression, R(2) = 0.35-0.52, P <.001), whereas only the AX and PA axes showed a significant degree of coupling for thrusts delivered to the spinous processes (SPs) (linear regression, R(2) = 0.82, P <.001). The ML and PA motion responses were significantly (P <.05) greater than the AX response for all SMT force settings. PA vertebral displacements decreased significantly (P <.05) when the FJ contact point was caudal to the pin compared with FJ contact cranial to the pin. FJ contact at the level of the pin produced significantly greater ML vertebral displacements in comparison with contact above and below the pin. SMTs over the spinous processes produced significantly (P <.05) greater PA and AX displacements in comparison with ML displacements. The combined ML, PA, and AX peak-to-peak displacements for the 4 force settings and 2 contact points ranged from 0.15 to 0.66 mm, 0.15 to 0.81 mm, and 0.07 to 0.45 mm, respectively. Intervertebral motions were of similar amplitude as the vertebral motions.
CONCLUSIONS: In vivo kinematic measurements of the lumbar spine during the application of SMTs over the FJs and SPs corroborate previous spinous process measurements in human subjects. Our findings demonstrate that PA, ML, and AX spinal motions are coupled and dependent on applied force and contact point.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 14673406     DOI: 10.1016/j.jmpt.2003.08.003

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


  12 in total

1.  Characteristics of Paraspinal Muscle Spindle Response to Mechanically Assisted Spinal Manipulation: A Preliminary Report.

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

2.  Validation of the cat as a model for the human lumbar spine during simulated high-velocity, low-amplitude spinal manipulation.

Authors:  Allyson Ianuzzi; Joel G Pickar; Partap S Khalsa
Journal:  J Biomech Eng       Date:  2010-07       Impact factor: 2.097

3.  The effect of spinal manipulation impulse duration on spine neuromechanical responses.

Authors:  Isabelle Pagé; François Nougarou; Claude Dugas; Martin Descarreaux
Journal:  J Can Chiropr Assoc       Date:  2014-06

Review 4.  Spinal manipulative therapy and somatosensory activation.

Authors:  J G Pickar; P S Bolton
Journal:  J Electromyogr Kinesiol       Date:  2012-02-19       Impact factor: 2.368

5.  Comparison of human lumbar facet joint capsule strains during simulated high-velocity, low-amplitude spinal manipulation versus physiological motions.

Authors:  Allyson Ianuzzi; Partap S Khalsa
Journal:  Spine J       Date:  2005 May-Jun       Impact factor: 4.166

6.  Increased multiaxial lumbar motion responses during multiple-impulse mechanical force manually assisted spinal manipulation.

Authors:  Tony S Keller; Christopher J Colloca; Robert J Moore; Robert Gunzburg; Deed E Harrison
Journal:  Chiropr Osteopat       Date:  2006-04-06

7.  Immediate effects of spinal manipulation on thermal pain sensitivity: an experimental study.

Authors:  Steven Z George; Mark D Bishop; Joel E Bialosky; Giorgio Zeppieri; Michael E Robinson
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2006-08-15       Impact factor: 2.362

8.  Neuromechanical response to spinal manipulation therapy: effects of a constant rate of force application.

Authors:  François Nougarou; Isabelle Pagé; Michel Loranger; Claude Dugas; Martin Descarreaux
Journal:  BMC Complement Altern Med       Date:  2016-06-02       Impact factor: 3.659

9.  Tissue loading created during spinal manipulation in comparison to loading created by passive spinal movements.

Authors:  Martha Funabashi; Gregory N Kawchuk; Albert H Vette; Peter Goldsmith; Narasimha Prasad
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2016-12-01       Impact factor: 4.379

10.  Neural Response During a Mechanically Assisted Spinal Manipulation in an Animal Model: A Pilot Study.

Authors:  William R Reed; Michael A K Liebschner; Randall S Sozio; Joel G Pickar; Maruti R Gudavalli
Journal:  J Nov Physiother Phys Rehabil       Date:  2015-04-06
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.