Literature DB >> 14673407

Neuromechanical characterization of in vivo lumbar spinal manipulation. Part II. Neurophysiological response.

Christopher J Colloca1, Tony S Keller, Robert Gunzburg.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To simultaneously quantify vertebral motions and neuromuscular and spinal nerve root responses to mechanical force, manually assisted, short-lever spinal manipulative thrusts.
METHODS: Four patients underwent lumbar laminarthrectomy to decompress the central spinal canal and neuroforamina, as clinically indicated. Prior to decompression, finely threaded, 1.8-mm diameter intraosseous pins were rigidly fixed to the lumbar spinous process (L1 or L3) using fluoroscopic guidance, and a high-frequency, low-noise, 10-g, triaxial accelerometer was mounted to the pin. Following decompression, 4 needle electromyographic (nEMG) electrodes were inserted into the multifidus musculature adjacent to the pin mount bilaterally, and 2 bipolar platinum electrodes were cradled around the left and right S1 spinal nerve roots. With the spine exposed, spinal manipulative thrusts were delivered internally to the lumbosacral spinous processes and facet joints and externally by contacting the skin overlying the respective spinal landmarks using 2 force settings ( approximately 30 N, < 5 milliseconds (ms); approximately 150 N, < 5 ms) and 2 force vectors (posteroanterior and superior; posteroanterior and inferior).
RESULTS: Spinal manipulative thrusts resulted in positive electromyographic (EMG) and compound action potential (CAP) responses that were typically characterized by a single voltage potential change lasting several milliseconds in duration. However, multiple EMG and CAP discharges were observed in numerous cases. The temporal relationship between the initiation of the mechanical thrust and the neurophysiologic response to internal and external spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) thrusts ranged from 2.4 to 18.1 ms and 2.4 to 28.6 ms for EMG and CAP responses, respectively. Neurophysiologic responses varied substantially between patients.
CONCLUSIONS: Vertebral motions and resulting spinal nerve root and neuromuscular reflex responses appear to be temporally related to the applied force during SMT. These findings suggest that intersegmental motions produced by spinal manipulation may play a prominent role in eliciting physiologic responses.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 14673407     DOI: 10.1016/j.jmpt.2003.08.004

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


  21 in total

1.  What effect can manual therapy have on a patient's pain experience?

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

2.  Effects of Lumbosacral Manipulation on Isokinetic Strength of the Knee Extensors and Flexors in Healthy Subjects: A Randomized, Controlled, Single-Blind Crossover Trial.

Authors:  Grant D Sanders; Arthur J Nitz; Mark G Abel; T Brock Symons; Robert Shapiro; W Scott Black; James W Yates
Journal:  J Chiropr Med       Date:  2015-11-06

3.  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

4.  A randomized sham-controlled trial of a neurodynamic technique in the treatment of carpal tunnel syndrome.

Authors:  Joel E Bialosky; Mark D Bishop; Don D Price; Michael E Robinson; Kevin R Vincent; Steven Z George
Journal:  J Orthop Sports Phys Ther       Date:  2009-10       Impact factor: 4.751

5.  The effects of spinal manipulative therapy on lower limb neurodynamic test outcomes in adults: a systematic review.

Authors:  Christina Melanie Maxwell; Douglas Thomas Lauchlan; Philippa Margaret Dall
Journal:  J Man Manip Ther       Date:  2019-02-05

6.  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

7.  Spinal manipulation does not affect pressure pain thresholds in the absence of neuromodulators: a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Max K Jordon; Paul F Beattie; Sarah D'Urso; Sarah Scriven
Journal:  J Man Manip Ther       Date:  2016-09-12

Review 8.  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

Review 9.  Basis for spinal manipulative therapy: a physical therapist perspective.

Authors:  Joel E Bialosky; Corey B Simon; Mark D Bishop; Steven Z George
Journal:  J Electromyogr Kinesiol       Date:  2011-12-23       Impact factor: 2.368

10.  Regional interdependence and manual therapy directed at the thoracic spine.

Authors:  Amy McDevitt; Jodi Young; Paul Mintken; Josh Cleland
Journal:  J Man Manip Ther       Date:  2015-07
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.