Grant D Sanders1, Arthur J Nitz2, Mark G Abel3, T Brock Symons4, Robert Shapiro5, W Scott Black6, James W Yates7. 1. Exercise Science Doctoral Candidate, College of Education, Department of Kinesiology and Health Promotion, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY. 2. Professor, College of Health Sciences, Division of Physical Therapy, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY. 3. Associate Professor, College of Education, Department of Kinesiology and Health Promotion, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY. 4. Assistant Professor, College of Education and Human Development, Department of Health and Sport Sciences, University of Louisville, Louisville, KY. 5. Professor and Associate Dean for Research and Innovation, College of Education, Department of Kinesiology and Health Promotion, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY. 6. Physician, University Health Service, UK Healthcare, Lexington, KY. 7. Emeritus Faculty, College of Education, Department of Kinesiology and Health Promotion, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of manual manipulations targeting the lumbar spine and/or sacroiliac joint on concentric knee extension and flexion forces. Torque production was measured during isometric and isokinetic contractions. METHODS: This was a randomized, controlled, single-blind crossover design with 21 asymptomatic, college-aged subjects who had never received spinal manipulation. During 2 separate sessions, subjects' peak torques were recorded while performing maximal voluntary contractions on an isokinetic dynamometer. Isometric knee extension and flexion were recorded at 60° of knee flexion, in addition to isokinetic measurements obtained at 60°/s and 180°/s. Baseline measurements were acquired before either treatment form of lumbosacral manipulation or sham manipulation, followed by identical peak torque measurements within 5 and 20 minutes posttreatment. Data were analyzed with a repeated measures analysis of variance. RESULTS: A statistically significant difference did not occur between the effects of lumbosacral manipulation or the sham manipulation in the percentage changes of knee extension and flexion peak torques at 5 and 20 minutes posttreatment. Similar, nonsignificant results were observed in the overall percentage changes of isometric contractions (spinal manipulation 4.0 ± 9.5 vs sham 1.2 ± 6.3, P = .067), isokinetic contractions at 60°/s (spinal manipulation - 4.0 ± 14.2 vs sham - 0.3 ± 8.2, P = .34), and isokinetic contractions at 180°/s (spinal manipulation - 1.4 ± 13.9 vs sham - 5.5 ± 20.0, P = .18). CONCLUSION: The results of the current study suggest that spinal manipulation does not yield an immediate strength-enhancing effect about the knee in healthy, college-aged subjects when measured with isokinetic dynamometry.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of manual manipulations targeting the lumbar spine and/or sacroiliac joint on concentric knee extension and flexion forces. Torque production was measured during isometric and isokinetic contractions. METHODS: This was a randomized, controlled, single-blind crossover design with 21 asymptomatic, college-aged subjects who had never received spinal manipulation. During 2 separate sessions, subjects' peak torques were recorded while performing maximal voluntary contractions on an isokinetic dynamometer. Isometric knee extension and flexion were recorded at 60° of knee flexion, in addition to isokinetic measurements obtained at 60°/s and 180°/s. Baseline measurements were acquired before either treatment form of lumbosacral manipulation or sham manipulation, followed by identical peak torque measurements within 5 and 20 minutes posttreatment. Data were analyzed with a repeated measures analysis of variance. RESULTS: A statistically significant difference did not occur between the effects of lumbosacral manipulation or the sham manipulation in the percentage changes of knee extension and flexion peak torques at 5 and 20 minutes posttreatment. Similar, nonsignificant results were observed in the overall percentage changes of isometric contractions (spinal manipulation 4.0 ± 9.5 vs sham 1.2 ± 6.3, P = .067), isokinetic contractions at 60°/s (spinal manipulation - 4.0 ± 14.2 vs sham - 0.3 ± 8.2, P = .34), and isokinetic contractions at 180°/s (spinal manipulation - 1.4 ± 13.9 vs sham - 5.5 ± 20.0, P = .18). CONCLUSION: The results of the current study suggest that spinal manipulation does not yield an immediate strength-enhancing effect about the knee in healthy, college-aged subjects when measured with isokinetic dynamometry.
Authors: Joshua M Drouin; Tamara C Valovich-mcLeod; Sandra J Shultz; Bruce M Gansneder; David H Perrin Journal: Eur J Appl Physiol Date: 2003-09-24 Impact factor: 3.078
Authors: Gisela Sole; Jonas Hamrén; Stephan Milosavljevic; Helen Nicholson; S John Sullivan Journal: Arch Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2007-05 Impact factor: 3.966
Authors: Melissa Corso; Silvano A Mior; Sarah Batley; Taylor Tuff; Sophia da Silva-Oolup; Scott Howitt; John Srbely Journal: Chiropr Man Therap Date: 2019-06-07