| Literature DB >> 28167971 |
Akie Inami1, Takeshi Ogura2, Shoichi Watanuki1, Md Mehedi Masud3, Katsuhiko Shibuya4, Masayasu Miyake1, Rin Matsuda1, Kotaro Hiraoka1, Masatoshi Itoh4, Arlan W Fuhr5, Kazuhiko Yanai6, Manabu Tashiro1.
Abstract
Objective. The aim of this study was to investigate changes in brain and muscle glucose metabolism that are not yet known, using positron emission tomography with [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose ([18F]FDG PET). Methods. Twenty-one male volunteers were recruited for the present study. [18F]FDG PET scanning was performed twice on each subject: once after the spinal manipulation therapy (SMT) intervention (treatment condition) and once after resting (control condition). We performed the SMT intervention using an adjustment device. Glucose metabolism of the brain and skeletal muscles was measured and compared between the two conditions. In addition, we measured salivary amylase level as an index of autonomic nervous system (ANS) activity, as well as muscle tension and subjective pain intensity in each subject. Results. Changes in brain activity after SMT included activation of the dorsal anterior cingulate cortex, cerebellar vermis, and somatosensory association cortex and deactivation of the prefrontal cortex and temporal sites. Glucose uptake in skeletal muscles showed a trend toward decreased metabolism after SMT, although the difference was not significant. Other measurements indicated relaxation of cervical muscle tension, decrease in salivary amylase level (suppression of sympathetic nerve activity), and pain relief after SMT. Conclusion. Brain processing after SMT may lead to physiological relaxation via a decrease in sympathetic nerve activity.Entities:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28167971 PMCID: PMC5267084 DOI: 10.1155/2017/4345703
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Evid Based Complement Alternat Med ISSN: 1741-427X Impact factor: 2.629
Figure 1The location of cervical adjustment by the activator adjusting instrument (AAI) in the treatment condition. Spinal manipulation therapy (SMT) by AAI was performed by contact on the joints and did not include muscle massage. SMT on all subjects was performed by the same chiropractor, who was an advanced practitioner of Activator Methods.
Figure 2Diagram of the study protocol. Half of the subjects were randomly assigned to be scanned first in the resting condition and then in the treatment condition; the other half were scanned in the reverse order. The intensity of subjective pain was evaluated before and after spinal manipulation therapy only in the treatment condition. Muscle stiffness and salivary amylase were measured before and after the treatment or resting period. MT = muscle tension, VAS = visual analog scale.
Brain metabolic changes associated with the spinal manipulation therapy intervention.
| Anatomical region | Coordinates | Brodmann area | Cluster equiv. | Voxel |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Activation | ||||
| Broca's area | −34, 6, 28 | 44 | 110 | 5.84 |
| ACC | 2, 8, 40 | 32 | 228 | 5.72 |
| SSAC | 16, −26, 48 | 5 | 114 | 5.65 |
| Wernicke's area | 46, −48, 20 | 22 | 30 | 5.52 |
| VAC | −6, −88, 38 | 19 | 31 | 5.32 |
| CV | 6, −62, −4 | — | 14 | 5.28 |
| VC (V2) | 24, −80, 6 | 18 | 17 | 5.24 |
| Deactivation | ||||
| IPL | −40, −40, 34 | 39/40 | 286 | 6.74 |
| FP | −2, 68, −8 | 10 | 160 | 6.66 |
| IFG PT | 40, 28, 16 | 45 | 117 | 6.53 |
| PSMA | 30, 14, 44 | 6 | 348 | 6.34 |
| PMC (M1) | −28, −18, 56 | 4 | 45 | 6.12 |
| FEF/dl-PFC | −30, 12, 44 | 8/9 | 157 | 5.93 |
| dl-PFC | −38, 26, 24 | 46 | 309 | 5.70 |
| AG/FG | −40, −60, 8 | 39/37 | 177 | 5.58 |
| ITG | −70, −22, −20 | 20 | 20 | 5.66 |
| TP | 40, 22, −44 | 38 | 12 | 5.64 |
| CV (V1) | −14, −66, 24 | 17 | 46 | 5.29 |
Brain metabolic changes detected by SPM8 are presented (voxel height threshold p < 0.05 with corrections for multiple comparisons, extent threshold 10 voxels minimum). The statistical significance of regional metabolic changes is given as Z scores [(Meantreatment − Meancontrol)/SDcontrol].
ACC, anterior cingulate cortex; SSAC, somatosensory association cortex; VAC, visual association cortex; CV, cerebellar vermis; VC, visual cortex; IPL, inferior parietal lobule; FP, frontal pole; IFG, inferior frontal gyrus; PT, pars triangularis; PSMA, premotor area/supplementary motor area; PMC, primary motor cortex; FEF, frontal eye field; dl-PFC, dorsolateral prefrontal cortex; AG, angular gyrus; FC, fusiform gyrus; ITG, inferior temporal gyrus; TP, temporal pole.
Figure 3Regional activation (left) and deactivation (right) after spinal manipulation therapy (SMT) using an activator adjusting instrument. Glucose metabolism is increased in regions including the anterior cingulate cortex and cerebellar vermis but is relatively reduced in many sites, including the prefrontal cortex, after SMT. The voxel height threshold is p < 0.05, corrected for multiple comparisons; the extent threshold is 10 voxels minimum.
Figure 4Results of positron emission tomography analysis of cervical muscles (paired t-test). The error bars represent standard deviations. The results indicate a trend toward reduction of mean standardized uptake value (SUV) after SMT; however, the difference is not statistically significant. Trap., trapezius muscle; Splenius, splenius muscles; Lev. Scap., levator scapulae; Semispinalis, semispinalis muscles; C7-T1, between the seventh cervical spine and the first thoracic spine; C6-C7, between the sixth cervical spine and the seventh cervical spine.
Figure 5Muscle tension is significantly reduced after spinal manipulation therapy. p < 0.0001.
Figure 6Changes in salivary amylase level. Salivary amylase level is reduced after spinal manipulation therapy but increased in the control condition. p < 0.05.
Figure 7Changes in subjective pain in the treatment condition. The pain scale score is significantly decreased after spinal manipulation therapy. p < 0.0001.