Potential mechanisms for lumbar spinal stiffness change following spinal manipulative therapy: a scoping review.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Jun P
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7087370 | biostudies-literature | 2020
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundPatients who undergo lumbar discectomy may experience ongoing lumbosacral radiculopathy (LSR) and seek spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) to manage these symptoms. We hypothesized that adults receiving SMT for LSR at least one year following lumbar discectomy would be less likely to undergo lumbar spine reoperation compared to matched controls not receiving SMT, over two years' follow-up.MethodsWe searched a United States network of health records (TriNetX, Inc.) for adults aged ≥ 18 years with LSR and lumbar discectomy ≥ 1 year previous, without lumbar fusion or instrumentation, from 2003 to 2023. We divided patients into two cohorts: (1) chiropractic SMT, and (2) usual care without chiropractic SMT. We used propensity matching to adjust for confounding variables associated with lumbar spine reoperation (e.g., age, body mass index, nicotine dependence), calculated risk ratios (RR), with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and explored cumulative incidence of reoperation and the number of SMT follow-up visits.ResultsFollowing propensity matching there were 378 patients per cohort (mean age 61 years). Lumbar spine reoperation was less frequent in the SMT cohort compared to the usual care cohort (SMT: 7%; usual care: 13%), yielding an RR (95% CIs) of 0.55 (0.35-0.85; P = 0.0062). In the SMT cohort, 72% of patients had ≥ 1 follow-up SMT visit (median = 6).ConclusionsThis study found that adults experiencing LSR at least one year after lumbar discectomy who received SMT were less likely to undergo lumbar spine reoperation compared to matched controls not receiving SMT. While these findings hold promise for clinical implications, they should be corroborated by a prospective study including measures of pain, disability, and safety to confirm their relevance. We cannot exclude the possibility that our results stem from a generalized effect of engaging with a non-surgical clinician, a factor that may extend to related contexts such as physical therapy or acupuncture.RegistrationOpen Science Framework ( https://osf.io/vgrwz ).
| S-EPMC10777506 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Objectives: Spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) is widely used by manual therapists to manage spinal complaints. Notwithstanding the perceived relative safety of SMT, instances of severe thoracic adverse events (AE) have been documented. An evidence synthesis is required to understand the nature, severity and characteristics of thoracic AE following all SMT. The primary objective of this study was to report thoracic AE following SMT and secondly to report patient characteristics to inform further research for safe practice. Methods: A systematic review and data synthesis were conducted according to a registered protocol (PROSPERO CRD42019123140). A sensitive topic-based search strategy for key databases, gray literature and registers used study population terms and keywords, to search to 12/6/19. Two reviewers were involved at each stage. Using the Oxford Center for Evidence-based Medicine (CEBM) the level evidence was evaluated with grade presented for each AE. Results were reported in the context of overall quality. Results: From 1013 studies identified from searches, 19 studies (15 single case studies and 4 case series) reporting 21 unique thoracic AE involving the spinal cord tissues [nonvascular (n = 7), vascular (n = 6)], pneumothorax or hemothorax (n = 3), fracture (n = 3), esophageal rupture (n = 1), rupture of thoracic aorta (n = 1), partial pancreatic transection (n = 1). Reported outcomes included fully recovery (n = 8), permanent neurological deficit (n = 5), and death (n = 4). Conclusion: Although causality cannot be confirmed, serious thoracic AE to include permanent neurological deficit and death have been reported following SMT. Findings highlight the importance of clinical reasoning, including pre-thrust examination, as part of best and safe practice for SMT.
| S-EPMC7733904 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundIn a prior randomized trial, we demonstrated that participants receiving spinal manipulative therapy at a pain-sensitive segment instead of a stiff segment experienced increased mechanical pressure pain thresholds. We hypothesized that the targeted segment mediated this increase through a segment-dependent neurophysiological reflective pathway. Presently, it is not known if this decrease in pain sensitivity is associated with clinical improvement. Therefore, we performed an explorative analysis to examine if changes in experimental pain sensitivity (mechanical and thermal) and lumbar stiffness were further dependent on clinical improvement in disability and patient-reported low back pain.MethodsThis study is a secondary explorative analysis of data from the randomized trial that compared 132 participants with chronic low back pain who received lumbar spinal manipulative therapy applied at either i) the stiffest segment or ii) the segment having the lowest pain threshold (i.e., the most pain-sensitive segment). We collected data at baseline, after the fourth session of spinal manipulation, and at 14-days follow-up. Participants were dichotomized into responders/non-responders using different clinical variables (disability and patient-reported low back pain) with varying threshold values (0, 30, and 50% improvement). Mixed models were used to assess changes in experimental outcomes (stiffness and pain sensitivity). The fixed interaction terms were time, segment allocation, and responder status.ResultsWe observed a significant increase in mechanical pressure pain thresholds for the group, which received spinal manipulative therapy at the most pain-sensitive segment independent of whether they improved clinically or not. Those who received spinal manipulation at the stiffest segment also demonstrated increased mechanical pain sensitivity, but only in the subgroup with clinical improvement. We did not observe any changes in lumbar stiffness.ConclusionOur results suggest the existence of two different mechanistic pathways associated with the spinal manipulation target. i) A decrease of mechanical pain sensitivity independent of clinical outcome (neurophysiological) and ii) a decrease as a reflection of the clinical outcome. Together, these observations may provide a novel framework that improves our understanding of why some respond to spinal manipulative therapy while others do not.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04086667 registered retrospectively September 11th 2019.
| S-EPMC7786943 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveThe objective of this study was to evaluate the relationship between three distinct spinal manipulative therapy dose groups and escalated spine care by analyzing insurance claims from a cohort of patients with low back pain.MethodsWe compared three distinct spinal manipulative therapy dose groups (low = 1 SMT visits, moderate = 2-12 SMT visits, high = 13+ SMT visits), to a control group (no spinal manipulative therapy) regarding the outcome of escalated spine care. Escalated spine care procedures include imaging studies, injection procedures, emergency department visits, surgery, and opioid medication use. Propensity score matching was performed to address treatment selection bias. Modified Poisson regression modeling was used to estimate the relative risk of spine care escalation among three spinal manipulative therapy doses, adjusting for age, sex, retrospective risk score and claim count.Results83,025 claims were categorized into 11,114 unique low back pain episodes; 8,137 claims had 0 spinal manipulative therapy visits, with the remaining episodes classified as low dose (n = 404), moderate dose (n = 1,763) or high dose (n = 810). After propensity score matching, 5,348 episodes remained; 2,454 had 0 spinal manipulative therapy visits with the remaining episodes classified as low dose (n = 404), moderate dose (n = 1,761), or high dose (n = 729). The estimated relative risk (vs no spinal manipulative therapy) for any escalated spine care was 0.45 (95% confidence interval 0.38, 0.55, p <0.001), 0.58 (95% confidence interval 0.53, 0.63, p <0.001), and 1.03 (95% confidence interval 0.95, 1.13, p = 0.461) for low, moderate, and high dose spinal manipulative therapy groups, respectively.ConclusionsFor claims associated with initial episodes of low back pain, low and moderate dose spinal manipulative therapy groups were associated with a 55% and 42% reduction, respectively, in the relative risk of any escalated spine care.
| S-EPMC10769084 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeLumbar disc herniation (LDH) is one of the leading causes of low-back pain and results in a series of clinical symptoms, including pain, reflex loss, and muscle weakness. Spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) can relieve pain and promote internal and external stabilization of the lumbar spine. In this study, we investigated whether the brain alterations of LDH patients with SMT were frequency-dependent based on the calculation of Amplitude of Low-Frequency Fluctuations (ALFF) and fractional ALFF (fALFF). Further, we established a cohort of LDH patients to evaluate the contribution of SMT treatments to brain functional reorganization.MethodsA total of 55 participants, including 27 LDH patients and 28 health controls (HCs), were collected. All LDH patients underwent two fMRI scans (before SMT and after the sixth SMT session). To represent LDH-related brain oscillatory activities, we calculated the ALFF and fALFF in the conventional band (0.01-0.08 Hz), the slow-4 band (0.027-0.073 Hz), and the slow-5 band (0.01-0.027 Hz). Moreover, we extracted ALFF and fALFF values in clusters with significant differences to evaluate the SMT effect.ResultsCompared with HCs, the LDH patients before SMT (LDH-pre) exhibited increased fALFF in right lingual gyri in the conventional band, and showed increased fALFF in left Cerebelum_Crus1 in the slow-4 band. We further examined the abnormal brain activities changes before and after the SMT intervention. The ALFF and fALFF values of LDH-pre group were higher than those of the HCs and LDH-pos groups. After SMT, the increased ALFF and fALFF values were suppressed for patients in conventional band and slow-4 band.ConclusionThe present study characterized the altered regional patterns in spontaneous neural activity in patients with LDH. Meanwhile, SMT is an effective treatment of LDH, and we supposed that it might have been involved in modulating dysfunctional brain regions which are important for the processing of pain. The findings of the current study may provide new insights to understand pathological mechanism of LDH.
| S-EPMC9490403 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Low back pain (LBP) is an extremely common cause of pain and disability. While many treatments for acute LBP exist, one of the most widely used, but also most controversial, is spinal manipulative therapy (SMT). This therapy includes both high-velocity manipulative techniques and low-velocity mobilization techniques. The literature regarding the use of SMT is often conflicting, which explains the difference in recommendations regarding SMT in international LBP guidelines. The lack of a clear tissue diagnosis in the majority of patients with LBP combined with the unknown mechanism of action of SMT adds to the difficulty for clinicians in providing SMT in a logical and effective manner. Despite these limitations, the existing literature does provide some assistance to clinicians on when to provide SMT and how to provide it in an optimal way. This review aims to summarize the key research literature investigating SMT in LBP in order to help clinicians make informed decisions about the use of SMT for their patients with acute LBP.
| S-EPMC2716151 | biostudies-other
Project description:The objective of this study was to determine the response of the lumbar spinal motor control in different gravitational conditions. This was accomplished by measuring indicators of lumbar motor control, specifically lumbar spinal stiffness, activity of lumbar extensor and flexor muscles and lumbar curvature, in hypergravity and microgravity during parabolic flights. Three female and five male subjects participated in this study. The mean age was 35.5 years (standard deviation: 8.5 years). Spinal stiffness of the L3 vertebra was measured using impulse response; activity of the erector spinae, multifidi, transversus abdominis, and psoas muscles was recorded using surface electromyography; and lumbar curvature was measured using distance sensors mounted on the back-plate of a full-body harness. An effect of gravity condition on spinal stiffness, activity of all muscles assessed and lumbar curvature (p's < 0.007) was observed (Friedman tests). Post hoc analysis showed a significant reduction in stiffness during hypergravity (p < 0.001) and an increase in stiffness during microgravity (p < 0.001). Activity in all muscles significantly increased during hypergravity (p's < 0.001). During microgravity, the multifidi (p < 0.002) and transversus abdominis (p < 0.001) increased significantly in muscle activity while no significant difference was found for the psoas (p = 0.850) and erector spinae muscles (p = 0.813). Lumbar curvature flattened in hypergravity as well as microgravity, albeit in different ways: during hypergravity, the distance to the skin decreased for the upper (p = 0.016) and the lower sensor (p = 0.036). During microgravity, the upper sensor showed a significant increase (p = 0.016), and the lower showed a decrease (p = 0.005) in distance. This study emphasizes the role of spinal motor control adaptations in changing gravity conditions. Both hypergravity and microgravity lead to changes in spinal motor control. The decrease in spinal stiffness during hypergravity is interpreted as a shift of the axial load from the spine to the pelvis and thoracic cage. In microgravity, activity of the multifidi and of the psoas muscles seems to ensure the integrity of the spine. Swiss (BASEC-NR: 2018-00051)/French "EST-III" (Nr-ID-RCB: 2018-A011294-51/Nr-CPP: 18.06.09).
| S-EPMC7492749 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background:In children, spinal pain is transitory for most, but up to 20% experience recurrent and bothersome complaints. It is generally acknowledged that interventions may be more effective for subgroups of those affected with low back pain. In this secondary analysis of data from a randomized clinical trial, we tested whether five indicators of a potential increased need for treatment might act as effect modifiers for manipulative therapy in the treatment of spinal pain in children. We hypothesized that the most severely affected children would benefit more from manipulative therapy. Method:This study was a secondary analysis of data from a randomised controlled trial comparing advice, exercises and soft tissue treatment with and without the addition of manipulative therapy in 238 Danish school children aged 9-15 years complaining of spinal pain. A text message system (SMS) and clinical examinations were used for data collection (February 2012 to April 2014).Five pre-specified potential effect modifiers were explored: Number of weeks with spinal pain 6 months prior to inclusion, number of weeks with co-occurring musculoskeletal pain 6 months prior to inclusion, expectations of the clinical course, pain intensity, and quality of life.Outcomes were number of recurrences of spinal pain, number of weeks with pain, length of episodes, global perceived effect, and change in pain intensity. To explore potential effect modification, various types of regression models were used depending on the type of outcome, including interaction tests. Results:We found that children with long duration of spinal pain or co-occurring musculoskeletal pain prior to inclusion as well as low quality of life at baseline tended to benefit from manipulative therapy over non-manipulative therapy, whereas the opposite was seen for children reporting high intensity of pain. However, most results were statistically insignificant. Conclusions:This secondary analysis indicates that children more effected by certain baseline characteristics, but not pain intensity, have a greater chance to benefit from treatment that include manipulative therapy. However, these analyses were both secondary and underpowered, and therefore merely exploratory. The results underline the need for a careful choice of inclusion criteria in future investigations of manipulative therapy in children. Trial registration:NCT01504698; results.
| S-EPMC6902507 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundSurgery for spinal stenosis is widely performed, but its effectiveness as compared with nonsurgical treatment has not been shown in controlled trials.MethodsSurgical candidates with a history of at least 12 weeks of symptoms and spinal stenosis without spondylolisthesis (as confirmed on imaging) were enrolled in either a randomized cohort or an observational cohort at 13 U.S. spine clinics. Treatment was decompressive surgery or usual nonsurgical care. The primary outcomes were measures of bodily pain and physical function on the Medical Outcomes Study 36-item Short-Form General Health Survey (SF-36) and the modified Oswestry Disability Index at 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, and 1 and 2 years.ResultsA total of 289 patients were enrolled in the randomized cohort, and 365 patients were enrolled in the observational cohort. At 2 years, 67% of patients who were randomly assigned to surgery had undergone surgery, whereas 43% of those who were randomly assigned to receive nonsurgical care had also undergone surgery. Despite the high level of nonadherence, the intention-to-treat analysis of the randomized cohort showed a significant treatment effect favoring surgery on the SF-36 scale for bodily pain, with a mean difference in change from baseline of 7.8 (95% confidence interval, 1.5 to 14.1); however, there was no significant difference in scores on physical function or on the Oswestry Disability Index. The as-treated analysis, which combined both cohorts and was adjusted for potential confounders, showed a significant advantage for surgery by 3 months for all primary outcomes; these changes remained significant at 2 years.ConclusionsIn the combined as-treated analysis, patients who underwent surgery showed significantly more improvement in all primary outcomes than did patients who were treated nonsurgically. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00000411 [ClinicalTrials.gov].).
| S-EPMC2576513 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundLow back pain is a common and costly condition. Spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) is a treatment supported in some guidelines, although most clinical trials examining SMT report small effect sizes. Enhancing the effects of SMT requires an understanding of underlying mechanisms and a systematic approach to leverage understanding of mechanisms to create more effective treatment protocols that are scalable in clinical practice. Prior work has identified effects on spinal stiffness and lumbar multifidus activation as possible mechanisms. This project represents a refinement phase study within the context of a multi-phase optimization strategy (MOST) framework. Our goal is to identify an optimized SMT treatment protocol by examining the impact of using co-intervention exercise strategies that are proposed to accentuate SMT mechanisms. The optimized protocol can then be evaluated in confirmation phase clinical trials and implementation studies.MethodsA phased, factorial randomized trial design will be used to evaluate the effects of three intervention components provided in eight combinations on mechanistic (spinal stiffness and multifidus muscle activation) and patient-reported outcomes (pain and disability). All participants will receive two sessions then will be randomly assigned to receive six additional sessions (or no additional treatment) over the next three weeks with factorial combinations of additional SMT and exercise co-interventions (spine mobilizing and multifidus activating). Outcome assessments occur at baseline, and one week, four weeks, and three months after enrollment. Pre-specified analyses will evaluate main effects for treatment components as well as interaction effects.DiscussionBuilding on preliminary findings identifying possible mechanisms of effects for SMT, this trial represents the next phase in a multiphase strategy towards the ultimate goal of developing an optimized protocol for providing SMT to patients with LBP. If successful, the results of this trial can be tested in future clinical trials in an effort to produce larger treatment benefits and improve patient-centered outcomes for individuals with LBP.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02868034 . Registered on 16 August 2016.
| S-EPMC5987587 | biostudies-literature