G N Kawchuk1, W Herzog. 1. University of Calgary, Faculty of Physical Education, Alberta, Canada.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the biomechanical characteristics of five clinically common methods of cervical spine manipulation. DESIGN: Descriptive study. SETTING: Human Performance Lab, University of Calgary. PARTICIPANTS: Five volunteer practitioners treating symptomatic patients from their own clinical populations. INTERVENTION: Five commonly used methods of cervical spine manipulation: lateral break (LAT), Gonstead (GON), Activator (ACT), toggle (TOG), rotation (ROT). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Mean thrust duration (msec), normalized mean peak force (N), slope (N/msec), force profile (graphic representation of the above values. RESULTS: Outcome measures for each manipulative technique were as follows: LAT = normalized mean peak force of 102.2 N at 86.7 msec, GON = 109.8 N at 91.9 msec, ACT = 40.9 N at 31.8 msec, TOG = 117.6 N at 47.5 msec, ROT = 40.5 N at 79.1 msec. CONCLUSION: The observed differences and similarities in force profiles between the five techniques studied here may partly be the manifestation of how a particular technique delivers force to the cervical spine. The clinical significance of force profile characterization is not yet known.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the biomechanical characteristics of five clinically common methods of cervical spine manipulation. DESIGN: Descriptive study. SETTING:Human Performance Lab, University of Calgary. PARTICIPANTS: Five volunteer practitioners treating symptomatic patients from their own clinical populations. INTERVENTION: Five commonly used methods of cervical spine manipulation: lateral break (LAT), Gonstead (GON), Activator (ACT), toggle (TOG), rotation (ROT). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Mean thrust duration (msec), normalized mean peak force (N), slope (N/msec), force profile (graphic representation of the above values. RESULTS: Outcome measures for each manipulative technique were as follows: LAT = normalized mean peak force of 102.2 N at 86.7 msec, GON = 109.8 N at 91.9 msec, ACT = 40.9 N at 31.8 msec, TOG = 117.6 N at 47.5 msec, ROT = 40.5 N at 79.1 msec. CONCLUSION: The observed differences and similarities in force profiles between the five techniques studied here may partly be the manifestation of how a particular technique delivers force to the cervical spine. The clinical significance of force profile characterization is not yet known.
Authors: Edward F Owens; Ronald S Hosek; Stephanie G B Sullivan; Brent S Russell; Linda E Mullin; Lydia L Dever Journal: J Chiropr Educ Date: 2015-11-24
Authors: William R Reed; Joel G Pickar; Randall S Sozio; Michael A K Liebschner; Joshua W Little; Maruti R Gudavalli Journal: J Manipulative Physiol Ther Date: 2017-06-17 Impact factor: 1.437
Authors: Shane H Taylor; Nicole D Arnold; Lesley Biggs; Christopher J Colloca; Dale R Mierau; Bruce P Symons; John J Triano Journal: J Can Chiropr Assoc Date: 2004-06
Authors: Gregory N Kawchuk; Gian S Jhangri; Eric L Hurwitz; Shari Wynd; S Haldeman; Michael D Hill Journal: J Neurol Date: 2008-01-15 Impact factor: 4.849
Authors: James Dunning; Firas Mourad; Andrea Zingoni; Raffaele Iorio; Thomas Perreault; Noah Zacharko; César Fernández de Las Peñas; Raymond Butts; Joshua A Cleland Journal: Int J Sports Phys Ther Date: 2017-08