The Acute Effects of Manual and Instrument-Assisted Cervical Spine Manipulation on Pressure Pain Threshold,Pressure Pain Perception,and Muscle-Related Variables in Asymptomatic Subjects: A Randomized Controlled Trial

ObjectiveThe purpose of this study was to compare the immediate effects in asymptomatic participants of manual and instrument-assisted cervical manipulation on pressure pain thresholds, pressure pain perception, and muscle mechanical properties (tone, stiffness, and elasticity) over muscles anatomically related and unrelated to the manipulated level.MethodsFifty-nine asymptomatic participants (34 women and 25 men; age [mean ± standard deviation] = 21.1 ± 1.6 years) were randomly assigned to 4 groups in a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial. Two groups received cervical (C3/C4) manipulation, 1 manual and the other instrument-assisted; the third group received a sham manipulation; and the fourth group served as the control. Bilateral pressure pain threshold, pressure pain perception, muscle tone, stiffness, and elasticity in the upper trapezius and biceps brachii were evaluated before and immediately after the interventions.ResultsAt baseline, there were no differences among the groups on any variable. After the interventions, a significant increase in pressure pain threshold was observed with both manual and instrument-assisted manipulation at local and distal sites (P < .05), whereas no changes were observed in either the control or the placebo group. The perception of pain pressure did not change significantly in any group. The interventions did not promote any statistically significant differences in muscle tone, elasticity, or stiffness at any site (local or distal).ConclusionCervical (C3/C4) manual and instrument-assisted manipulations produced an increase in pressure pain threshold bilaterally and over muscles related and unrelated to the vertebral segment, but had no effect on muscle tone, elasticity, or stiffness.     

Cervical lateral glide increases nociceptive flexion reflex threshold but not pressure or thermal pain thresholds in chronic whiplash associated disorders: A pilot randomised controlled trial

Sensory hypersensitivity indicative of augmented central pain processing is a feature of chronic whiplash associated disorders (WAD). This study investigated the immediate effects of a cervical spine manual therapy (SMT) technique on measures of central hyperexcitability. In a randomised, single blind, clinical trial, 39 participants with chronic WAD were randomly assigned to a cervical SMT (lateral glide) or manual contact intervention. The Neck Disability Index (NDI) and GHQ-28 were administered at baseline. Pressure pain thresholds (PPTs), thermal pain thresholds (TPTs) and Nociceptive Flexion Reflex (NFR) responses (threshold and VAS of pain) were measured pre and post intervention. There was a significantly greater increase in NFR threshold following SMT compared to the manual contact intervention (p = 0.04). PPTs at the cervical spine increased following both SMT (mean ± SE: 24.1 ± 7.3%) and manual contact (21 ± 8.4%) with no difference between interventions. There was no difference between interventions for pain ratings with the NFR test, PPTs at the Median Nerve or Tibialis Anterior, heat or cold TPT. SMT may be effective in reducing spinal hyperexcitability in chronic WAD.     

Spinal manipulation does not affect pressure pain thresholds in the absence of neuromodulators: a randomized controlled trial

Background: Measurement of pressure pain threshold (PPT) is a way to determine one of the many potential treatment effects of spinal manipulative therapy.

Objective: To determine how multiple spinal manipulations administered in a single-session affected PPTs at local and distal sites in asymptomatic individuals.

Methods: Participants were randomly assigned into one of three groups: Group one (n = 18) received a lumbar manipulation followed by a cervical manipulation. Group two (n = 17) received a cervical manipulation followed by a lumbar manipulation. The control group (n = 19) received two bouts of five minutes of rest. At baseline and after each intervention or rest period, each participant’s PPTs were obtained using a handheld algometer. The PPTs were tested bilaterally over the lateral epicondyles of the humerus and over the mid-bellies of the upper trapezius, lumbar paraspinal, and the tibialis anterior muscles. This study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, and its Identifier is NCT02828501.

Results: Repeated-measures ANOVAs and Kruskal–Wallis tests showed no significant within- or between-group differences in PPT. Within-group effect sizes in the changes of PPT ranged from ?.48 at the left paraspinal muscles to .24 at the left lateral humeral epicondyle. Statistical power to detect significant differences at α of 0.05 was calculated to be 0.94.

Conclusions: This study suggests that in young adults who do not have current or recent symptoms of spinal pain, multiple within-session treatments of cervical and lumbar spinal manipulation fail to influence PPTs. Changes in PPT that are observed in symptomatic individuals are likely to be primarily influenced by pain-related neuromodulators rather than by an isolated, mechanical effect of spinal manipulation.     

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.     

Immediate Effects of a Single Session of Cervical Spine Manipulation on Cervical Movement Patterns in People With Nonspecific Neck Pain: A Randomized Controlled Trial

ObjectiveThe aim of the present study was to assess the immediate effects of a single session of cervical spine manipulation on cervical movement patterns, disability, and the patient's perceived improvement in people with nonspecific neck pain.MethodsA single-blinded, randomized, sham-controlled trial was carried out at a biomechanics institute. Fifty participants diagnosed with acute and chronic nonspecific neck pain (minimum duration of the symptoms being 1 month) were randomized to an experimental group (EG, n = 25) or a sham-control group (CG, n = 25, 23 of whom completed the study). EG received a single cervical spine manipulation session; CG received a single placebo intervention. Both groups received manipulation or sham from the same physiotherapist. Main outcome measures were neck kinematics (ie, range of motion and movement harmony) during cyclic movements, self-reported neck disability, and impression of change assessed before and 5 minutes after treatment.ResultsThe EG showed no significant improvements (P > .05) in any of the studied biomechanical variables, except for right-side bending and left rotation, in which we found a range of motion significant mean difference of 1.97° and 1.95°, respectively (P < .05). The CG showed enhanced harmonic motion during flexion (P < .05). Both groups showed a significant decrease in self-reported neck disability after treatment (P < .05), and EG participants perceived a significantly larger improvement after manipulation compared with the CG (P < .05).ConclusionsA single session of cervical manipulation provided by a physiotherapist had no impact on cervical motion during cyclic movements, but rather induced self-reported perceived improvement in neck disability and impression of change after treatment in people with nonspecific neck pain.     

Immediate effects of a high-velocity spine manipulation in paraspinal muscles activity of nonspecific chronic low-back pain subjects

High-velocity spinal manipulation is commonly adopted for treating chronic low-back pain (CLBP) and has been associated with changes in muscle activity, but the evidence is controversial. The aim of this study was to analyse the immediate effects of high-velocity spine manipulation on paraspinal activity during flexion–extension trunk movements. Forty nonspecific CLBP patients were randomised into two groups, manipulation (n = 20) and control (n = 20). While the manipulation group received high-velocity spine manipulation at the L4-L5 level, the control group remained lying in the same position. EMG-related variables, perceived pain intensity (100 mm VAS) and finger-floor distance were collected before and after spinal manipulation at the L4-L5 level. EMG surface signals from the right and left paraspinal muscles (L5-S1 level) were acquired during trunk flexion–extension cycles. EMG activity during the static relaxation phase was significantly reduced following intervention for the manipulation group but not for the control group. The extension-phase EMG activity was also reduced after manipulation, but the flexion-phase EMG levels remained unchanged. Accordingly, the percent changes in FRR and ERR were significantly larger for the manipulation group compared to the control. The results suggest that a high-velocity spinal manipulation is able to acutely reduce abnormal EMG activity during the full-flexion static phase and activation during the extension phase.     

颈脊柱推拿对减轻慢性颈痛患者肘屈肌抑制机制研究

目的:通过对16例慢性颈痛患者进行研究,测量颈痛患者行颈脊柱推拿前后功能量和主观疼痛改变情况。方法:颈脊柱推拿选定C5-7水平,用插入颤搐方法和肌电描记法评定肘屈肌在最大范围内随意收缩时二头肌激活作用。颈活动度和压痛阈用关节角度计和痛觉计进行测量。结果:治疗前,患者表现典型的二头肌抑制,颈部活动侧面受限,压痛敏感性增高。颈脊柱推拿后,二头肌抑制明显下降并伴随二头肌肌力增强,颈部活动度和压痛阈显著提高。结论:脊柱推拿术可以提高肌肉功能、颈部活动度和疼痛敏感性。     

Changes in Cervicocephalic Kinesthetic Sensibility,Widespread Pressure Pain Sensitivity,and Neck Pain After Cervical Thrust Manipulation in Patients With Chronic Mechanical Neck Pain: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Objective

The purpose of the current randomized clinical trial was to examine the effects of cervical thrust manipulation or sham manipulation on cervicocephalic kinaesthetic sense, pain, pain-related disability, and pressure pain sensitivity in patients with mechanical neck pain.

Experimental cervical interspinous ligament pain altered cervical joint motion during dynamic extension movement

BackgroundAlthough the cervical interspinous ligament is a potential source of neck pain, the effects on cervical joint motion and pressure pain sensitivity has never been investigated. The understanding of the relationship will broaden our understanding of cervical biomechanics and improve diagnosis and treatment of neck pain.MethodsFluoroscopy videos of cervical flexion and extension movements and pressure pain thresholds over bilateral C2/C3 and C5/C6 facet joints were collected in fifteen healthy subjects before and after injections of hypertonic and isotonic saline in C4/C5 ISL. The videos were divided into 10 even epochs and the motion of individual joints during each epoch was extracted. Joint motion parameters including anti-directional motion, pro-directional motion, total joint motion and joint motion variability were extracted across epochs. Joint motion parameters and PPTs were compared before and after injection of hypertonic and isotonic saline separately.FindingsCompared with baselines: hypertonic saline injection 1) decreased anti-directional motion and joint motion variability at C4/C5 (P < 0.05) and increased at C2/C3 (P < 0.05) during extension; 2) increased total joint motion of C0/C1 during first half range (P < 0.05) and decreased during second half range of extension, and total joint motion of C2/C3 increased during second half range of extension (P < 0.05) and; 3) increased pressure pain thresholds over left C2/C3 facet joint (P < 0.01).InterpretationThe cervical interspinous ligament pain redistributed anti-directional motion between C4/C5 and C2/C3 during dynamic extension and decreased pressure pain sensitivity over the left C2/C3 facet joint.     

Recurrent neck pain patients exhibit altered joint motion pattern during cervical flexion and extension movements

BackgroundImpaired sensorimotor ability has been demonstrated in recurrent neck pain patients. It is however not clear if cervical joint motion and pressure pain sensitivity in recurrent neck pain patients are different from asymptomatic controls.MethodsCervical flexion and extension motions were examined by video-fluoroscopy and pressure pain thresholds were assessed bilaterally over C2/C3, C5/C6 facet joints and right tibialis anterior in eighteen recurrent neck pain patients and eighteen healthy subjects. Individual joint motion was analyzed by dividing fluoroscopic videos into 10 epochs. The motion opposite to the primary direction (anti-directional motion) and motion along with the primary direction (pro-directional motion) of each joint were extracted across epochs. Total joint motion was the sum of anti-directional and pro-directional motions. Joint motion variability was represented by the variance of joint motions across epochs.FindingsCompared to controls, recurrent neck pain patients showed: 1) decreased anti-directional motion at C2/C3 and C3/C4 (P < 0.05) and increased anti-directional motion at C5/C6 and C6/C7 (P < 0.05) during extension motion. 2) Increased overall anti-direction motion during flexion motion (P < 0.05). 3) Lower joint motion variability at C3/C4 during extension motion (P < 0.05).InterpretationRecurrent neck pain patients showed a redistribution of anti-directional motion between the middle cervical spine and the lower cervical spine during cervical extension and increased overall anti-directional motion during cervical flexion compared with healthy controls. The anti-directional motion was more sensitive to neck pain compared to other cervical joint motion parameters in the present study.     

Association of Spinal Manipulative Therapy With Changes in Cervical Motion Segment Interactions in Patients With Neck Pain: An Observational Study With Matched Asymptomatic Controls

ObjectiveThe objectives of this study were to determine (1) if maximal intervertebral range of motion (IV-RoMmax) and laxity interactions exist in the cervical spine during flexion, (2) if there are differences in IV-RoMmax or laxity parameters between baseline and follow-up in both patients with neck pain and asymptomatic controls, and (3) if there is an effect on IV-RoMmax/laxity relationships in patients with neck pain after spinal manipulative therapy.MethodsTwenty-nine patients with subacute or chronic neck pain and 33 asymptomatic controls were imaged during flexion and extension, pre and post a course of cervical chiropractic manipulation (patient group only), using a standardized quantitative fluoroscopy acquisition protocol.ResultsSignificant correlations between IV-RoMs were found in both neck pain and neck pain–free populations at baseline and follow-up. Positive relationships were found between C2-C3 and C3-C4 and C4-C5 and C5-C6 IV-RoM in both populations. A negative correlation was found in the patient group at baseline between C1-C2 and C5-C6, but not at follow-up. Significant relationships were also found for segmental laxity, with a negative correlation found at C1-C2 and C5-C6 in the patient group only and at baseline only.ConclusionDistinct relationships were found between both intraregional IV-RoM and laxity, many of which were present in both groups at baseline and follow-up, suggestive of normal kinematic behaviors. Changes in correlations unique to the patient group may be indicative of a change in regional kinematics resulting from the manipulation intervention. Spinal manipulative therapy may have a therapeutic effect by influencing cervical kinematics at the regional level.     

Study of the mechanisms of action of the hypoalgesic effect of pressure under shock waves application: A randomised controlled trial

ObjectiveTo determine if the perceived pain intensity during the application of shock waves (SWs) is a determinant mechanism in producing hypoalgesic changes in pressure pain thresholds (PPTs) in asymptomatic individuals.DesignA randomised, single-blind controlled trial [NCT03455933].SettingUniversity.ParticipantsSixty-three asymptomatic individuals.InterventionsParticipants were randomised into three groups: 1-SWs causing mild pain (SW-DP); 2-SWs generating moderate pain (SW-MP); and 3-cold pressor test (CPT).Main outcome measurementsBefore and after the intervention, the PPT was evaluated bilaterally at the following points: lateral epicondyle, median nerve in the flexure of the elbow, and tibia.ResultsThe results showed differences between various groups over time for all PPTs assessments, due to the existence of statistically significant differences in the interaction group x times (dominant arm lateral epicondyle [P < 0.001; η²p = 0.255]; dominant arm median nerve [P = 0.001; η²p = 0.212]; nondominant arm lateral epicondyle [P < 0.001; η²p = 0.275]; nondominant arm median nerve [P < 0.001; η²p = 0.268]; tibia [P = 0.012, η²p = 0.138]). The SW-MP group obtained a significant increase in all the PPT evaluations compared with the SW-DP group (d > 0.80). The CPT group only showed significantly higher results, and of high magnitude (d > 0.80), regarding the SW-DP group for the PPT evaluation in the dominant member. The SW-MP group showed differences compared with the CPT only for the PPT obtained in the nondominant arm.ConclusionsThe findings show that SW treatment generates a hypoalgesic effect on the application point, with moderate pain. Further studies are necessary in order to link these hypoalgesic changes to the activation of the descending inhibitory systems.     

The initial effects of different rates of lumbar mobilisations on pressure pain thresholds in asymptomatic subjects

Lumbar mobilisations are commonly used in clinical practice to reduce pain and increase function. Mobilisations to the cervical spine have been shown to reduce pain using pressure pain thresholds (PPTs). Yet there is no evidence to confirm that this happens in the lumbar spine. Furthermore little is known about the effects of different treatment doses on the amount of hypoalgesia produced. It is unknown if changing the rate of application of mobilisations has an effect on hypoalgesia. The aim of this study was to investigate the immediate effects of lumbar posteroanterior mobilisations performed at different rates on PPT and the extent of the hypoalgesia.A repeated measures, single blind, randomised-trial was conducted on 30 asymptomatic subjects. PPTs were measured at 4 sites in the upper and lower quadrants, before and after the application of lumbar posteroanterior mobilisations performed at 2 Hz, 1 Hz and quasi-static. The results demonstrated an immediate and significant improvement in PPT measures (P = 0.000) irrespective of the rate or site tested. The effects were both local and widespread. There was no significant difference in PPT between the rates of mobilisations.This study provides new experimental evidence that lumbar posteroanterior mobilisations produce an immediate and significant widespread hypoalgesic effect, regardless of the rates of mobilisation in asymptomatic subjects.     

Gabapentin Alleviates Facet-Mediated Pain in the Rat Through Reduced Neuronal Hyperexcitability and Astrocytic Activation in the Spinal Cord

Although joint pain is common, its mechanisms remain undefined, with little known about the spinal neuronal responses that contribute to this type of pain. Afferent activity and sustained spinal neuronal hyperexcitability correlate to facet joint loading and the extent of behavioral sensitivity induced after painful facet injury, suggesting that spinal neuronal plasticity is induced in association with facet-mediated pain. This study used a rat model of painful C6-C7 facet joint stretch, together with intrathecal administration of gabapentin, to investigate the effects of one aspect of spinal neuronal function on joint pain. Gabapentin or saline vehicle was given via lumbar puncture prior to and at 1 day after painful joint distraction. Mechanical hyperalgesia was measured in the forepaw for 7 days. Extracellular recordings of neuronal activity and astrocytic and microglial activation in the cervical spinal cord were evaluated at day 7. Gabapentin significantly (P = .0001) attenuated mechanical hyperalgesia, and the frequency of evoked neuronal firing also significantly decreased (P < .047) with gabapentin treatment. Gabapentin also decreased (P < .04) spinal glial fibrillary acidic protein expression. Although spinal Iba1 expression was doubled over sham, gabapentin did not reduce it. Facet joint–mediated pain appears to be sustained through spinal neuronal modifications that are also associated with astrocytic activation.     

Mid-thoracic tenderness: a comparison of pressure pain threshold between spinal regions, in asymptomatic subjects

Palpation for tenderness forms an important part of the manual therapy assessment for musculoskeletal dysfunction. In conjunction with other testing procedures it assists in establishing the clinical diagnosis. Tenderness in the thoracic spine has been reported in the literature as a clinical feature in musculoskeletal conditions where pain and dysfunction are located primarily in the upper quadrant. This study aimed to establish whether pressure pain thresholds (PPTs) of the mid-thoracic region of asymptomatic subjects were naturally lower than those of the cervical and lumbar areas. A within-subject study design was used to examine PPT at four spinal levels C6, T4, T6, and L4 in 50 asymptomatic volunteers. Results showed significant (P<0.001) regional differences. PPT values increased in a caudal direction. The cervical region had the lowest PPT scores, that is was the most tender. Values increased in the thoracic region and were highest in the lumbar region. This study contributes to the normative data on spinal PPT values and demonstrates that mid-thoracic tenderness relative to the cervical spine is not a normal finding in asymptomatic subjects.     

The effect of increasing sets (within one treatment session) and different set durations (between treatment sessions) of lumbar spine posteroanterior mobilisations on pressure pain thresholds

Spinal mobilisations are a common form of treatment intervention applied by physiotherapists in clinical practice to manage musculoskeletal pain and/or dysfunction. Previous research has demonstrated that mobilisations cause a hypoalgesic effect. However, there is very little research investigating the optimal treatment dose inducing this effect.AimTo investigate the effect of the number of sets (up to 5) and different durations (30 vs. 60 s) on pressure pain thresholds (PPTs) at different sites.MethodsThis single-blinded, randomised, same subject repeated measures crossover design included 19 asymptomatic healthy volunteers. The participants received 5 sets of either 30 or 60 s of postero-anterior mobilisations to L4 on different days. PPTs were measured immediately before, between and after the intervention at 4 different standardised sites.ResultsA 4-way ANOVA analysis revealed that there was no statistically significant difference between 30 versus 60 s of mobilisations. However, there was a tendency for PPT values to be higher for the 60 s intervention. All PPT measurements after the interventions were significantly higher than the baseline. Only the measurement after the 4th set of mobilisations was significantly higher than the measurement after the 1st set (p = 0.035).ConclusionsThe results suggest that in order to induce the greatest local hypoalgesia, at least 4 sets of mobilisations are required. The different durations of 30 versus 60 s of mobilisation may not change the extent of the hypoalgesic effect.     

Hypoalgesic effects of specific vs non-specific cervical manipulation in healthy subjects: a randomized crossover trial

BackgroundJoint manipulation is generally used to reduce musculoskeletal pain; however, evidence has emerged challenging the effects associated with the specificity of the manipulated vertebral segment. The aim of this study was to verify immediate hypoalgesic effects between specific and non-specific cervical manipulations in healthy subjects.MethodTwenty-one healthy subjects (18–30 years old; 11 males, 10 females) were selected to receive specific cervical manipulation at the C6-7 segment (SCM) and non-specific cervical manipulation (NSCM) in aleatory order. A 48h interval between manipulations was considered. Pressure pain threshold (PPT) was measured pre- and post-manipulation with a digital algometer on the dominant forearm.ResultsThe SCM produced a significant increase in the PPT (P < 0.001) however no difference was observed in the PPT after the NCSM (P = 0.476). The difference between the two manipulation techniques was 37.26 kPa (95% CI: 14.69 to 59.83, p = 0.002) in favor of the SCM groupConclusionSpecific cervical manipulation at the C6-7 segment appears to increase PPT on the forearm compared to non-specific cervical manipulation in healthy subjects.     

Immediate effects of a thoracic spine thrust manipulation on the autonomic nervous system: a randomized clinical trial

Thoracic spine manipulation has been shown to be effective for the management of neck pain. The purpose of this study was to investigate the immediate effect of a T3–T4 spinal thrust manipulation on autonomic nervous system activity in subjects with chronic cervical pain. An additional aim was to determine if the manipulation resulted in an immediate pain relief in patients with chronic neck pain when compared to a placebo intervention. One hundred subjects with chronic neck pain were randomly assigned to receive either a thoracic thrust manipulation or a placebo intervention. The Friedman’s test was used to evaluate the change in pupil diameter within both groups. The Wilcoxen signed-ranks test was used to explore pupil changes over time and to make paired comparisons of the pupil change between the groups. The Mann–Whitney U test was used to compare the change in pain perception for the chronic cervical pain group subjects receiving either the thrust manipulation or the placebo intervention. The results demonstrated that manipulation did not result in a change in sympathetic activity. Additionally, there was no significant difference in the subject’s pain perception (P = 0.961) when comparing the effects of the thrust manipulation to the placebo intervention within this group of subjects with chronic neck pain. The clinical impression of this study is that manipulation of the thoracic spine may not be effective in immediately reducing pain in patients with chronic neck pain.     

Neuromechanical Responses to Spinal Manipulation and Mobilization: A Crossover Randomized Clinical Trial

ObjectiveThe purpose of this study was to compare the immediate effect of spinal manipulation (SMa) and spinal mobilization (SMo) on muscular responses, spinal stiffness, and segmental spinal pressure evoked pain in a population of participants with chronic middle back pain (MBP).MethodsIn a crossover randomized trial, 2 experienced chiropractors assessed whether volunteers were eligible for the protocol according to a list of specific inclusion and exclusion criteria. Individuals with MBP participated in 2 experimental sessions within 72 hours. During the first session, participants randomly received a SMa or SMo delivered by an apparatus using a servolinear motor. During the second session, the other modality was delivered. Spinal stiffness and pressure-provoked pain intensity outcomes were assessed before and after each therapy, and muscular responses were recorded during the treatment using surface electromyographic sensors. Signed-rank Wilcoxon tests for muscular responses and generalized model for repeated measure for spinal stiffness and pressure-provoked pain were used for statistical analyses.ResultsAmong the 32 potential participants, 26 (mean age 29.9 [±9.14], 15 women) completed both sessions. Between-group differences were observed for the muscular response amplitude (P < .001), and indeed the normalized RMS muscular response was found to be higher during SMa than SMo. Similar results were observed for pressure-provoked pain intensity at the level of therapeutic modality application (P = .002) as a higher decrease in pain was found after SMa (47.9 [±22.8] to 36.6 [±23.7]) compared with SMo (47.2 [±23.2] to 45.5 [±24.3]). No between-group differences were found for spinal stiffness change, nor for terminal (P = .08) and global spinal stiffness (P = .06).ConclusionIn a controlled environment, spinal manipulation and mobilization generated different muscle responses and had different immediate effects on pressure-provoked pain intensity for participants with MBP.     

Examination of motor and hypoalgesic effects of cervical vs thoracic spine manipulation in patients with lateral epicondylalgia: a clinical trial

Objectives

The purpose of this study was to compare the effects of a cervical vs thoracic spine manipulation on pressure pain threshold (PPT) and pain-free grip strength in patients with lateral epicondylalgia (LE).

Methods

A single-blind randomized clinical trial was completed with 18 participants with LE. Each subject attended 1 experimental session. Participants were randomized to receive either a cervical or thoracic spine manipulation. Pressure pain threshold over the lateral epicondyle of both elbows pain-free grip strength on the affected arm and maximum grip force on the unaffected side were assessed preintervention and 5 minutes postintervention by an examiner blind to group assignment. A 3-way analysis of variance with time and side as within-subject variable and intervention as between-subject variable was used to evaluate changes in PPT and pain-free grip.

Results

The analysis of variance detected a significant interaction between group and time (F = 31.7, P < .000) for PPT levels. Post hoc testing revealed that the cervical spine manipulation produced a greater increase of PPT in both sides compared with thoracic spine manipulation (P < .001). For pain-free grip strength, no interaction between group and time (F = .66, P = .42) existed.

Conclusions

Cervical spine manipulation produced greater changes in PPT than thoracic spine manipulation in patients with LE. No differences between groups were identified for pain-free grip. Future studies with larger sample sizes are required to further examine the effects of manipulation on mechanisms of pain and motor control in upper extremity conditions.