Cheryl L Sparks1, Wen C Liu2, Joshua A Cleland3, Joseph P Kelly4, Sarah J Dyer5, Kathryn M Szetela5, James M Elliott6. 1. Rehabilitation Center of Expertise, OSF Healthcare, Peoria, Illinois. Electronic address: cheryllsparks@gmail.com. 2. Department of Radiology, Saint Francis Medical Center, OSF Healthcare, Peoria, Illinois. 3. Department of Physical Therapy, Franklin Pierce University, Concord, New Hampshire. 4. Department of Physical Therapy, Bradley University, Peoria, Illinois. 5. OSF Rehabilitation at Saint Francis Medical Center, OSF Healthcare, Peoria, Illinois. 6. Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to examine whether cerebral activation in response to noxious mechanical stimuli varies with thrust manipulation (TM) when compared with sham manipulation (SM) as measured by blood oxygenation level-dependent functional magnetic resonance imaging. METHODS:Twenty-four volunteers (67% female) with complaints of acute or subacute mechanical (nontraumatic) neck pain satisfied eligibility requirements and agreed to participate. Participants were randomized to receive TM to the thoracic spine or SM, and then underwent functional magnetic resonance scanning while receiving noxious stimuli before and after TM or SM. An 11-point numeric pain rating scale was administered pre- and postmanipulation for neck pain and to determine perceptions of pain intensity with respect to neck pain and mechanical stimuli. Blood oxygenation level-dependent functional magnetic resonance imaging recorded the cerebral hemodynamic response to the mechanical stimuli. RESULTS: Imaging revealed significant group differences, with those individuals in the manipulation group exhibiting increased areas of activation (postmanipulation) in the insular and somatosensory cortices and individuals in the sham group exhibiting greater areas of activation in the precentral gyrus, supplementary motor area, and cingulate cortices (P < .05). However, between-group differences on the numeric pain rating scale for mechanical stimuli and for self-reported neck pain were not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides preliminary level 2b evidence suggesting cortical responses in patients with nontraumatic neck pain may vary between thoracic TM and a sham comparator.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to examine whether cerebral activation in response to noxious mechanical stimuli varies with thrust manipulation (TM) when compared with sham manipulation (SM) as measured by blood oxygenation level-dependent functional magnetic resonance imaging. METHODS: Twenty-four volunteers (67% female) with complaints of acute or subacute mechanical (nontraumatic) neck pain satisfied eligibility requirements and agreed to participate. Participants were randomized to receive TM to the thoracic spine or SM, and then underwent functional magnetic resonance scanning while receiving noxious stimuli before and after TM or SM. An 11-point numeric pain rating scale was administered pre- and postmanipulation for neck pain and to determine perceptions of pain intensity with respect to neck pain and mechanical stimuli. Blood oxygenation level-dependent functional magnetic resonance imaging recorded the cerebral hemodynamic response to the mechanical stimuli. RESULTS: Imaging revealed significant group differences, with those individuals in the manipulation group exhibiting increased areas of activation (postmanipulation) in the insular and somatosensory cortices and individuals in the sham group exhibiting greater areas of activation in the precentral gyrus, supplementary motor area, and cingulate cortices (P < .05). However, between-group differences on the numeric pain rating scale for mechanical stimuli and for self-reported neck pain were not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides preliminary level 2b evidence suggesting cortical responses in patients with nontraumatic neck pain may vary between thoracic TM and a sham comparator.
Authors: Marisa DiMarzio; Tanweer Rashid; Ileana Hancu; Eric Fiveland; Julia Prusik; Michael Gillogly; Radhika Madhavan; Suresh Joel; Jennifer Durphy; Eric Molho; Era Hanspal; Damian Shin; Julie G Pilitsis Journal: Neurosurgery Date: 2019-12-01 Impact factor: 4.654
Authors: Francesco Cerritelli; Marco Chiera; Marco Abbro; Valentino Megale; Jorge Esteves; Alberto Gallace; Andrea Manzotti Journal: Front Neurol Date: 2021-06-30 Impact factor: 4.003
Authors: Kenneth A Weber Ii; Tor D Wager; Sean Mackey; James M Elliott; Wen-Ching Liu; Cheryl L Sparks Journal: Neuroimage Clin Date: 2019-10-18 Impact factor: 4.881