Search PubMed⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “Manipulation, Spinal”

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed1996

Radiculomedullary complications of cervical spinal manipulation.

Spinal manipulation is commonly used by some therapists for the treatment of cervical pain. Flexion-extension of the cervical spine produces sliding movements of one vertebra over the one below it, which leads to physiological reduction in the antero-posterior diameter of the spinal canal. Spinal manipulation provokes movements that exceed the physiological limits of these articulations and thereby lead to a more significant reduction of the canal diameter. In patients with pre-existing stenosis of the canal or those with vertebral instability, these movements may cause (or aggravate) myelopathy. For this reason, a thorough neurological examination and cervical spine films should be considered mandatory in patients being considered for spinal manipulation. This report describes four patients with cervical myelopathy and/or radiculopathy caused or aggravated by spinal manipulation. In one patient, magnetic resonance scans before and after chiropractic treatment strongly suggests that the disc prolapse syndrome experienced by the patient was provoked by the spinal manipulation.

Aged↗
PubMed2001

Prospective investigations into the safety of spinal manipulation.

Spinal manipulation (SM) is a popular form of treatment of back and neck pain, as well as of other conditions. Uncertainty exists as to its safety. The aim of this systematic review was to summarize the data of all prospective investigations into the safety of SM. Five independent literature searches were carried out to identify all such studies. Data were extracted and validated according to pre-defined criteria. Five investigations met the inclusion criteria. The most valid studies suggest that about half of all patients will experience adverse events after chiropractic SM. These events are usually mild and transient. No reliable data exist about the incidence of serious adverse events. These data indicate that mild and transient adverse events seem to be frequent. Serious adverse events are probably rare but their incidence can only be estimated at present. Further prospective investigations are needed to define their incidence more closely.

Chiropractic↗
PubMed1999

A feasibility study of chiropractic spinal manipulation versus sham spinal manipulation for chronic otitis media with effusion in children.

BACKGROUND: Pediatric otitis media with effusion is a common and costly condition. Although chiropractors have anecdotally claimed success in treating otitis media, there is little research to support their claims. OBJECTIVE: A pilot study was undertaken for the purpose of assessing the feasibility of conducting a full-scale randomized clinical trial investigating the efficacy of chiropractic spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) for children with chronic otitis media with effusion. METHODS: This study was a prospective, parallel-group, observer-blinded, randomized feasibility study. Twenty-two patients, ages 6 months to 6 years, received either active chiropractic SMT or placebo chiropractic SMT. Otoscopy and tympanometry were used to create a middle ear status profile, and daily diaries were collected. RESULTS: Five newspaper advertisements over 6 months generated 105 responses. Twenty patients subsequently qualified and were randomized into the study. Collection of tympanometric and otoscopic data proved to be challenging. Compliance with the treatment and evaluation protocols and daily diaries was excellent. There were no reports of serious side effects as a result of either the active or placebo chiropractic treatments. CONCLUSION: Recruitment for a randomized controlled trial is feasible and could be enhanced by medical collaboration. Patients and parents are able and willing to participate in a study comparing active SMT and placebo SMT. Parents were extremely compliant with the daily diaries, suggesting that similar quality-of-life and functional status measures can be successfully used in a larger trial. We found the objective outcomes assessment involving tympanometry and otoscopy extremely challenging and should be performed by experienced examiners in future studies.

Child↗
PubMed1993

Forces exerted during spinal manipulative therapy.

Spinal manipulative therapy has been widely recognized in the medical fields as a conservative treatment modality for spinal dysfunction and pain. Spinal manipulative therapy consists of an application of a thrusting force on a specific part of the spine in a well-defined direction. The magnitude of this force has been associated with positive treatment effects, such as realigning vertebral bodies, mobilizing spinal joints, relaxing back musculature through reflex pathways, and producing a respiratory burst. However, direct force measurements during spinal manipulative therapy in a clinically relevant situation have not been performed to date. The purpose of this study was to measure the forces exerted onto patients during spinal manipulative therapy on various locations of the spinal column. Force measurements were obtained using a thin, flexible pressure mat. The results indicate that peak and preload forces are considerably smaller for spinal manipulative therapy performed on the cervical spine compared to corresponding values obtained on the thoracic spine and sacroiliac joint. Furthermore, for treatments on the thoracic spine and sacroiliac joint, a significant relation was found to exist between preload and peak forces.

Biomechanical Phenomena↗
PubMed1986

Spinal manipulation and beta-endorphin: a controlled study of the effect of a spinal manipulation on plasma beta-endorphin levels in normal males.

The role of spinal manipulation in the relief of pain is becoming clearer and more demonstrable as time passes. One approach to this study is the effect of manipulation on the neurochemical mechanisms of antinociception. Chief among these is beta-endorphin, which has been found to produce a wide range of beneficial effects, especially analgesia. The intent of our study was to demonstrate the effect of spinal manipulation on plasma beta-endorphin levels. Three groups of male subjects were randomly created: the experimental, sham and control groups. All three groups were screened for symptomatology, present use of medications and the present use of innocuous stimulants, such as nicotine and caffeine. A standard protocol involving a 20-min pretest resting period, an intervention and a 40-min test period ensued. The experimental group received a manipulation in the region of the cervical spine; the placebo group received a sham maneuver with no dynamic thrust; the control group received no intervention. Samples were taken by venipuncture at -20, -5, +5, +10 and +30 min. The data were analyzed by repeated measures analysis of variance and by Scheffe's post-hoc multiple comparison tests. Plasma beta-endorphin levels were assessed by radioimmune assay technique (according to the method described by Harber and Sutton in 1984). The results of our study demonstrated a small, but statistically significant, increase in serum beta-endorphin levels in the experimental group at the 5-min postintervention point. The levels in the placebo and control groups demonstrated a steady decrease that was distinct from the response in the experimental group.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Adult↗
PubMed1990

Pressure pain threshold evaluation of the effect of spinal manipulation in the treatment of chronic neck pain: a pilot study.

Nine subjects with chronic mechanical neck pain syndromes were evaluated for pressure pain threshold (PPT) over standardized tender points in the paraspinal area surrounding a manipulable spinal lesion. The subjects were then allocated randomly to an intervention consisting of either an oscillatory mobilization of the cervical spine (n = 4), which was designated as the control procedure, or a rotational manipulation of the cervical spine (n = 5). An assessor-blinded re-evaluation of the pressure pain threshold levels was conducted after 5 min. In the group receiving a manipulation the mean increases in pressure pain threshold ranged from 40-56% with an average of 45%. In the control group no change in any of the pressure pain thresholds was found. These results were analyzed using ANOVA and were found to be statistically significant (p less than 0.0001). This study confirms that manipulation can increase local paraspinal pain threshold levels. The use of the pressure pain threshold meter allows for the determination of such a beneficial effect in the deeper tissues.

Adult↗
PubMed1983

Spinal manipulative therapy.

Spinal manipulative therapy is growing in popularity and acceptance, as judged by the increasing number of practitioners in physical therapy and medicine and by the results of clinical trials. Manipulation is the skilled, gentle, passive movement of a joint (or spinal segment) either within or beyond its active range of motion. This definition is broad enough to encompass a great variety of techniques, ranging from the more traditional thrust to oscillation and distraction. Manipulation is rendered effective by a combination of mechanical, neurophysiologic, and biomechanical mechanisms.

Back Pain↗
PubMed2000

Neurophysiologic response to intraoperative lumbosacral spinal manipulation.

BACKGROUND: Although the mechanisms of spinal manipulation are poorly understood, the clinical effects are thought to be related to mechanical, neurophysiologic, and reflexogenic processes. Animal studies have identified mechanosensitive afferents in animals, and clinical studies in human beings have measured neuromuscular responses to spinal manipulation. Few, if any, studies have identified the basic neurophysiologic mechanisms of spinal manipulation in human beings or animals. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this clinical investigation was to determine the feasibility of obtaining intraoperative neurophysiologic recordings and to quantify mixed-nerve root action potentials in response to lumbosacral spinal manipulation in a human subject undergoing lumbar spinal surgery. METHODS: An L4-L5 laminectomy was performed in a 62-year-old man. Short-duration (<0.1 ms) mechanical force, manually assisted spinal manipulative thrusts (150 N) were delivered to the lumbosacral spine with an Activator II Adjusting Instrument. With the spine exposed, spinal manipulative thrusts were delivered internally to the L5 mammillary process, L5-S1 joint, and the sacral base with various force vectors. This protocol was repeated by contacting the skin overlying respective anatomic landmarks. Mixed-nerve root recordings were obtained from gas-sterilized platinum bipolar hooked electrodes attached to the S1 nerve root at the level of the dorsal root ganglion during the spinal manipulative thrusts and during a 30-second baseline period during which no spinal manipulative thrusts were applied. RESULTS: During the active trials, mixed-nerve root action potentials were observed in response to both internal and external spinal manipulative thrusts. Differences in the amplitude and discharge frequency were noted in response to varying segmental contact points and force vectors, and similarities were noted for internally and externally applied spinal manipulative thrusts. Amplitudes of mixed-nerve root action potentials ranged from 200 to 2600 mV for internal thrusts and 800 to 3500 mV for external thrusts. CONCLUSIONS: Monitoring mixed-nerve root discharges in response to spinal manipulative thrusts in vivo in human subjects undergoing lumbar surgery is feasible. Neurophysiologic responses appeared sensitive to the contact point and applied force vector of the spinal manipulative thrust. Further study of the neurophysiologic mechanisms of spinal manipulation in humans and animals is needed to more precisely identify the mechanisms and neural pathways involved.

Action Potentials↗
PubMed1999

Thoracic epidural hematoma after spinal manipulation therapy.

Posttraumatic spinal epidural hematoma is an unusual pathology. The authors report the case of a 64-year-old woman who experienced thoracic epidural hematoma during a session of spinal manipulation therapy (SMT). In the literature, such an event has been reported previously only twice. This case represents the first spinal epidural hematoma occurring after a chiropractic manipulation in the lumbar region. Surgical evacuation of the spinal hematoma resulted in complete recovery in the patient. Complications of SMT are reviewed, and the etiology and features of spinal epidural hematoma are discussed.

Female↗
PubMed2000

Spinal reflex attenuation associated with spinal manipulation.

STUDY DESIGN: This study evaluated the effect of lumbosacral spinal manipulation with thrust and spinal mobilization without thrust on the excitability of the alpha motoneuronal pool in human subjects without low back pain. OBJECTIVES: To investigate the effect of high velocity, low amplitude thrust, or mobilization without thrust on the excitability of the alpha motoneuron pool, and to elucidate potential mechanisms in which manual procedures may affect back muscle activity. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The physiologic mechanisms of spinal manipulation are largely unknown. It has been proposed that spinal manipulation may reduce back muscle electromyographic activity in patients with low back pain. Although positive outcomes of spinal manipulation intervention for low back pain have been reported in clinical trials, the mechanisms involved in the amelioration of symptoms are unknown. METHODS: In this study, 17 nonpatient human subjects were used to investigate the effect of spinal manipulation and mobilization on the amplitude of the tibial nerve Hoffmann reflex recorded from the gastrocnemius muscle. Reflexes were recorded before and after manual spinal procedures. RESULTS: Both spinal manipulation with thrust and mobilization without thrust significantly attenuated alpha motoneuronal activity, as measured by the amplitude of the gastrocnemius Hoffmann reflex. This suppression of motoneuronal activity was significant (P < 0.05) but transient, with a return to baseline values exhibited 30 seconds after intervention. CONCLUSIONS: Both spinal manipulation with thrust and mobilization without thrust procedures produce a profound but transient attenuation of alpha motoneuronal excitability. These findings substantiate the theory that manual spinal therapy procedures may lead to short-term inhibitory effects on the human motor system.

Adult↗
PubMed1993

Post-traumatic myelopathy following flopping high jump: a pilot case of spinal manipulation.

OBJECTIVE: To present the first case of spinal cord injury from high jump and the first pilot case of spinal manipulation for post-traumatic myelopathy. CLINICAL FEATURES: An 11-yr-old tetraplegic boy was admitted to the hospital, where he had a thorough neurological examination, including myelogram, EEG and skull and spinal X rays, with normal findings. The author revealed subtle subluxations on plain X-ray films. Triceps hyperreflexia was detected bilaterally. Bilateral patella and ankle clonus with hyperreflexia, basic and excess spasticity, and bilateral extensor plantar responses were noted in the lower limbs. A clinical diagnosis of early post-traumatic incomplete spastic tetraplegia below C7 was made. INTERVENTION AND OUTCOME: He did not respond to 3 months of orthodox conservative hospital management, including steroid therapy. Spinal manipulation of the lower cervical and upper thoracic spine was performed in a private chiropractic clinic for 2 wk. He apparently recovered after 3 months of spinal manipulation. On recent examination, he has virtually completely recovered. He still suffers from hand muscle atrophy, hyperreflexia of the triceps and ankle reflex and bilateral positive Babinski reflex; ankle and patellar clonus are almost absent. CONCLUSIONS: The early response and long-term (9-yr follow-up) benefits of spinal manipulation to the early delayed traumatic myelopathy of this patient suggest spinal cord ischemia as its pathophysiology. Mechanisms of post-traumatic myelopathy are postulated. Biomechanical mechanisms of spinal manipulation for neurological recovery of post-traumatic myelopathy and/or radiculopathy are advanced. Further pilot spinal manipulation by experienced chiropractors after adequate anti-edematous (steroid) therapy is recommended for selected patients with post-traumatic myelopathy and/or radiculopathy, especially in a multidisciplinary spinal injury unit.

Athletic Injuries↗
PubMed1999

Electromyographic responses of back and limb muscles associated with spinal manipulative therapy.

STUDY DESIGN: Ten young, asymptomatic male subjects underwent 11 clinically relevant spinal manipulative treatments along the length of the spine to test the magnitude and extent of reflex responses associated with the treatments. OBJECTIVES: To determine the magnitude and extent of reflex responses elicited by spinal manipulative treatments. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Spinal manipulative treatments have been associated with a reflexogenic relief of pain and a loss of hypertonicity in muscles within the treatment area. However, there is no study in which results show the probability of occurrence or the extent of reflex responses during spinal manipulative treatments. METHODS: Asymptomatic subjects received spinal manipulative treatments on the cervical, thoracic, and lumbar levels and on the sacroiliac joint. Reflex activities were measured using 16 pairs of bipolar surface electrodes placed on the back and proximal limb musculature. The percentage of occurrence and the extent of reflex responses in the back and proximal limb musculature were determined. RESULTS: Each treatment produced consistent reflex responses in a target-specific area. The reflex responses occurred within 50-200 msec after the onset of the treatment thrust and lasted for approximately 100-400 msec. The responses were probably of multireceptor origin and were elicited asynchronously. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study in which results show a consistent reflex response associated with spinal manipulative treatments. Because reflex pathways are evoked systematically during spinal manipulative treatment, there is a distinct possibility that these responses may cause some of the clinically observed beneficial effects, such as a reduction in pain and a decrease in hypertonicity of muscles.

Adult↗
PubMed2000

Adverse effects of spinal manipulation.

Guidelines on acute back pain recommend spinal manipulation, but some commentators express concern that the adverse effects are under-reported. Eleven chiropractors distributed questionnaires to 108 consecutive new patients aged > 18 years, enquiring about adverse effects one hour, one day and two days after spinal manipulation. The forms were to be completed anonymously. 80 questionnaires (74%) were returned, 68 suitable for analysis. 28 patients reported adverse effects at one hour after treatment, the most common of which were extra pain (14) and radiating pain (9). 8 had reactions beginning the morning after. No serious adverse effects were reported. The adverse reactions, recorded in 53% of respondents, are those to be expected from a treatment that entails initial discomfort. They need to be set against the long-term benefits of spinal manipulation.

Acute Disease↗
PubMed1992

Spinal manipulation for low-back pain.

PURPOSE: To review the use, complications, and efficacy of spinal manipulation as a treatment for low-back pain. DATA IDENTIFICATION: Articles were identified through a MEDLINE search, review of articles' bibliographies, and advice from expert orthopedists and chiropractors. STUDY SELECTION: All studies reporting use and complications of spinal manipulation and all controlled trials of the efficacy of spinal manipulation were analyzed. Fifty-eight articles, including 25 controlled trials, were retrieved. DATA ANALYSIS: Data on the use and complications of spinal manipulation were summarized. Controlled trials of efficacy were critically appraised for study quality. Data from nine studies were combined using the confidence profile method of meta-analysis to estimate the effect of spinal manipulation on patients' pain and functional outcomes. RESULTS OF DATA SYNTHESIS: Chiropractors provide most of the manipulative therapy used in the United States for patients with low-back pain. Serious complications of lumbar manipulation, including paraplegia and death, have been reported. Although the occurrence rate of these complications is unknown, it is probably low. For patients with uncomplicated, acute low-back pain, the difference in probability of recovery at 3 weeks favoring treatment with spinal manipulation is 0.17 (for example, increase in recovery from 50% to 67%; 95% probability limits of estimate, 0.07 to 0.28). For patients with low-back pain and sciatic nerve irritation, the difference in probabilities of recovery at 4 weeks is 0.098 (probability limits, -0.016 to 0.209). CONCLUSIONS: Spinal manipulation is of short-term benefit in some patients, particularly those with uncomplicated, acute low-back pain. Data are insufficient concerning the efficacy of spinal manipulation for chronic low-back pain.

Back Pain↗
PubMed2001

A randomized clinical trial of exercise and spinal manipulation for patients with chronic neck pain.

STUDY DESIGN: A randomized, parallel-group, single-blinded clinical trial was performed. After a 1-week baseline period, patients were randomized to 11 weeks of therapy, with posttreatment follow-up assessment 3, 6, and 12 months later. OBJECTIVES: To compare the relative efficacy of rehabilitative neck exercise and spinal manipulation for the management of patients with chronic neck pain. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Mechanical neck pain is a common condition associated with substantial morbidity and cost. Relatively little is known about the efficacy of spinal manipulation and exercise for chronic neck pain. Also, the combination of both therapies has yet to be explored. METHODS: Altogether, 191 patients with chronic mechanical neck pain were randomized to receive 20 sessions of spinal manipulation combined with rehabilitative neck exercise (spinal manipulation with exercise), MedX rehabilitative neck exercise, or spinal manipulation alone. The main outcome measures were patient-rated neck pain, neck disability, functional health status (as measured by Short Form-36 [SF-36]), global improvement, satisfaction with care, and medication use. Range of motion, muscle strength, and muscle endurance were assessed by examiners blinded to patients' treatment assignment. RESULTS: Clinical and demographic characteristics were similar among groups at baseline. A total of 93% of the patients completed the intervention phase. The response rate for the 12-month follow-up period was 84%. Except for patient satisfaction, where spinal manipulative therapy and exercise were superior to spinal manipulation with (P = 0.03), the group differences in patient-rated outcomes after 11 weeks of treatment were not statistically significant (P = 0.13). However, the spinal manipulative therapy and exercise group showed greater gains in all measures of strength, endurance, and range of motion than the spinal manipulation group (P < 0.05). The spinal manipulation with exercise group also demonstrated more improvement in flexion endurance and in flexion and rotation strength than the MedX group (P < 0.03). The MedX exercise group had larger gains in extension strength and flexion-extension range of motion than the spinal manipulation group (P < 0.05). During the follow-up year, a greater improvement in patient-rated outcomes were observed for spinal manipulation with exercise and for MedX exercise than for spinal manipulation alone (P = 0.01). Both exercise groups showed very similar levels of improvement in patient-rated outcomes, although the spinal manipulation and exercise group reported greater satisfaction with care (P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: For chronic neck pain, the use of strengthening exercise, whether in combination with spinal manipulation or in the form of a high-technology MedX program, appears to be more beneficial to patients with chronic neck pain than the use of spinal manipulation alone. The effect of low-technology exercise or spinal manipulative therapy alone, as compared with no treatment or placebo, and the optimal dose and relative cost effectiveness of these therapies, need to be evaluated in future studies.

Adult↗