Christine M Goertz1, Ting Xia2, Cynthia R Long2, Robert D Vining2, Katherine A Pohlman3, James W DeVocht2, Maruti R Gudavalli2, Edward F Owens4, William C Meeker5, David G Wilder6. 1. Palmer Center for Chiropractic Research, Palmer College of Chiropractic, Davenport, IA, USA. Electronic address: christine.goertz@palmer.edu. 2. Palmer Center for Chiropractic Research, Palmer College of Chiropractic, Davenport, IA, USA. 3. Department of Medicine & Dentistry, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada. 4. Dr. Sid E. Williams Center for Chiropractic Research, Life University, Marietta, GA, USA. 5. Palmer College of Chiropractic, West Campus, San Jose, CA, USA. 6. Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Low back pain (LBP) is a major health problem in industrialized societies. Spinal manipulation (SM) is often used for treating LBP, though the therapeutic mechanisms remain elusive. Research suggests that sensorimotor changes may be involved in LBP. It is hypothesized that SM may generate its beneficial effects by affecting sensorimotor functions. OBJECTIVES: To compare changes in sensorimotor function, as measured by postural sway and response to sudden load, in LBP patients following the delivery of high-velocity low amplitude (HVLA)-SM or low-velocity variable amplitude (LVVA)-SM versus a sham control intervention. DESIGN: A three-arm (1:1:1 ratio) randomized controlled trial. METHODS: A total of 221 participants who were between 21 and 65 years, having LBP intensity (numerical rating scale) ≥4 at either phone screen or the first baseline visit and ≥2 at phone screen and both baseline visits, and Quebec Task Force diagnostic classifications of 1, 2, 3 or 7 were enrolled to receive four SM treatments over two weeks. Study outcomes were measured at the first and fifth visits with the examiners blinded from participant group assignment. RESULTS: The LVVA-SM group demonstrated a significant increase in medial-to-lateral postural excursion on the soft surface at the first visit when compared to the control group. No other significant between-group differences were found for the two sensorimotor tests, whether during the first visit or over two weeks. CONCLUSIONS: It appears that short-term SM does not affect the sensorimotor functions as measured by postural sway and response to sudden load in this study.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND:Low back pain (LBP) is a major health problem in industrialized societies. Spinal manipulation (SM) is often used for treating LBP, though the therapeutic mechanisms remain elusive. Research suggests that sensorimotor changes may be involved in LBP. It is hypothesized that SM may generate its beneficial effects by affecting sensorimotor functions. OBJECTIVES: To compare changes in sensorimotor function, as measured by postural sway and response to sudden load, in LBP patients following the delivery of high-velocity low amplitude (HVLA)-SM or low-velocity variable amplitude (LVVA)-SM versus a sham control intervention. DESIGN: A three-arm (1:1:1 ratio) randomized controlled trial. METHODS: A total of 221 participants who were between 21 and 65 years, having LBP intensity (numerical rating scale) ≥4 at either phone screen or the first baseline visit and ≥2 at phone screen and both baseline visits, and Quebec Task Force diagnostic classifications of 1, 2, 3 or 7 were enrolled to receive four SM treatments over two weeks. Study outcomes were measured at the first and fifth visits with the examiners blinded from participant group assignment. RESULTS: The LVVA-SM group demonstrated a significant increase in medial-to-lateral postural excursion on the soft surface at the first visit when compared to the control group. No other significant between-group differences were found for the two sensorimotor tests, whether during the first visit or over two weeks. CONCLUSIONS: It appears that short-term SM does not affect the sensorimotor functions as measured by postural sway and response to sudden load in this study.
Authors: Christopher J Standaert; Janna Friedly; Mark W Erwin; Michael J Lee; Glenn Rechtine; Nora B Henrikson; Daniel C Norvell Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2011-10-01 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Sidney M Rubinstein; Marienke van Middelkoop; Willem J J Assendelft; Michiel R de Boer; Maurits W van Tulder Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2011-06 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: M L Magnusson; A Aleksiev; D G Wilder; M H Pope; K Spratt; S H Lee; V K Goel; J N Weinstein Journal: Eur Spine J Date: 1996 Impact factor: 3.134
Authors: David G Wilder; Robert D Vining; Katherine A Pohlman; William C Meeker; Ting Xia; James W Devocht; R Maruti Gudavalli; Cynthia R Long; Edward F Owens; Christine M Goertz Journal: Trials Date: 2011-06-28 Impact factor: 2.279
Authors: Leandro A Sturion; Alexandre H Nowotny; Fabrice Barillec; Gilles Barette; Gabriela K Santos; Fellipe A Teixeira; Karen P Fernandes; Rubens da Silva Journal: S Afr J Physiother Date: 2020-10-26
Authors: Ting Xia; Cynthia R Long; Robert D Vining; Maruti R Gudavalli; James W DeVocht; Gregory N Kawchuk; David G Wilder; Christine M Goertz Journal: BMC Complement Altern Med Date: 2017-06-09 Impact factor: 3.659
Authors: Jefferson Fagundes Loss; Luciano de Souza da Silva; Iã Ferreira Miranda; Sandro Groisman; Edgar Santiago Wagner Neto; Catiane Souza; Cláudia Tarragô Candotti Journal: Chiropr Man Therap Date: 2020-06-03