| Literature DB >> 31867125 |
Slavko Rogan1,2,3, Jan Taeymans1,3, Peter Clarys3, Ron Clijsen3,4, Amir Tal-Akabi1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Physiotherapists often use thoracic spine mobilization (TSM) to reduce pain in patients with back disorders via a reduction of sympathetic activity. There is a "trade-off" in the activity of the sympathetic and parasympathetic nervous system activity. A sympathetic/parasympathetic balance (SPB) is needed to guarantee body homeostasis. However, body homeostasis is seldom considered as an aim of the treatment from the perspective of most physiotherapists. Strong empirical evidence for the effects of TSM on the SPB is still lacking.Some studies showed that spinal manipulation may yield beneficial effects on SPB. Therefore, it could be hypothesized that TSM is feasible and could influence SPB reactions. The primary aim was to describe the participants' adherence to the intervention and to the measurement protocol, to identify unexpected adverse events (UAE) after TSM, to evaluate the best method to measure SPB parameters (heart rate variability (HRV), blood pressure (BP), heart rate (HR), skin perfusion and erythema) and to estimate the investigation procedure. The secondary aim was to assess the effects of TSM on SPB parameters in a small sample of healthy participants.Entities:
Keywords: Autonomic nervous system; Heart rate variability; Musculoskeletal manipulations
Year: 2019 PMID: 31867125 PMCID: PMC6900844 DOI: 10.1186/s40945-019-0067-2
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Arch Physiother ISSN: 2057-0082
Fig. 1Flow Chart
Fig. 2Posterior-anterior mobilization
Fig. 3Anterior-posterior mobilization
Fig. 4PeriFlux 4001 Master
Fig. 5Chromameter
Demographic and anthropometric data in means and standard deviation (±)
| Sex | n | Age (years) mean (±) | Height (cm) mean (±) | Weight (kg) mean (±) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Men | 5 | 24.80 (± 3.96) | 185.20 (± 5.89) | 86.60 (± 10.97) |
| Women | 7 | 22.29 (± 1.25) | 169.86 (± 6.36) | 69.14 (± 8.28) |
Legend: N number of participants, cm centimeter, kg kilogram
Results of physiological intervention effects and periodic effects. Values are given in median and interquartile range, as p-value and effect sizes (r)
| Period 1 | Period 2 | Intervention effect | p / r | Period effect | p / r | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Group 1: HRV HF | 907 (422–1891) | 1567 (789–1893) | − 172 (− 1290–266) | 0.025* 0.65 | −172 (− 1290–266) | 0.109 0.46 |
| Group 2: HRV HF | 2627 (834–6801) | 950 (429–2699) | 1237 (237–3555) | 236 (1237–3556) | ||
| Group 1: HRV ratio LF/HF | 94 (75–273) | 88 (67–113) | 29 (− 12–155) | 0.016* 0.70 | 29 (−12–155) | 0.423 0.23 |
| Group 2: HRV ratio LF/HF | 52 (30–109) | 156 (36–209) | −86 (− 109 - -12) | −1237 (−3555 - -237) | ||
| Group 1: HR | 61.25 (58.00–70.21) | 59 (52.25–68.23) | 4.78 (3.32–8.15) | 0.006* 0.78 | 4.78 (3.32–8.15) | 0.423 0.23 |
| Group 2: HR | 53.50 (52.62–62.75) | 58.14 (54.11–63.89) | - 3.19 (−6.02–1.28) | 3.19 (−1.28–6.02) |
Legend: HRV- HF heart rate variability high frequency, HRV ratio LF/HF heart rate variability ratio low frequency/high frequency, HR heart rate frequency
* significant < 0.05