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

Abstract

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.     

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.     

Safety of thrust joint manipulation in the thoracic spine: a systematic review

Abstract

Background:

There appears to be very little in the research literature on the safety of thrust joint manipulation (TJM) when applied to the thoracic spine.     

Immediate effects of upper thoracic spine manipulation on hypertensive individuals

Purpose:

The aims of this study were to determine if there were any statistically significant immediate effects of upper thoracic spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) on cardiovascular physiology in hypertensive individuals.

Introduction:

Preliminary research suggests that SMT to various regions of the spine may be capable of lowering systolic and diastolic blood pressure in hypertensive individuals. Further studies are warranted to corroborate or refute these findings as well as measure how other attributes of cardiovascular physiology are impacted by SMT.

Methods:

Fifty hypertensive participants (age = 45.5±13.9 years, height = 1.69±0.10 m, body mass = 93.9±21.5 kg: mean±standard deviation (SD)) were equally randomized into a single-blind, controlled trial involving two study groups: supine diversified anterior upper thoracic SMT of T1–4, or a ‘no T-spine contact’ control. Outcome measures were electrocardiogram, bilateral pulse oximetry, and bilateral blood pressure measurement performed at baseline, post 1-minute intervention, and post 10-minute intervention. An independent samples t-test was used to compare between-group differences at baseline. A repeated measures ANOVA was used to compare within-group changes over time.

Results:

Within-group changes in PR interval and QRS duration demonstrated that the atria were transiently less active post-SMT and the ventricles were more active post-SMT, however the changes were clinically minimal.

Conclusion:

The results of this study, and the limited existing normotensive, thoracic-specific SMT research in this field, suggest that cardiovascular physiology, short-term, is not affected by upper thoracic spine SMT in hypertensive individuals to a clinically relevant level.     

Short-term effects of thrust versus nonthrust mobilization/manipulation directed at the thoracic spine in patients with neck pain: a randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Evidence supports the use of manual physical therapy interventions directed at the thoracic spine in patients with neck pain. The purpose of this study was to compare the effectiveness of thoracic spine thrust mobilization/manipulation with that of nonthrust mobilization/manipulation in patients with a primary complaint of mechanical neck pain. The authors also sought to compare the frequencies, durations, and types of side effects between the groups. SUBJECTS: The subjects in this study were 60 patients who were 18 to 60 years of age and had a primary complaint of neck pain. METHODS: For all subjects, a standardized history and a physical examination were obtained. Self-report outcome measures included the Neck Disability Index (NDI), a pain diagram, the Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NPRS), and the Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire. After the baseline evaluation, the subjects were randomly assigned to receive either thoracic spine thrust or nonthrust mobilization/manipulation. The subjects were reexamined 2 to 4 days after the initial examination, and they again completed the NDI and the NPRS, as well as the Global Rating of Change (GROC) Scale. The primary aim was examined with a 2-way repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA), with intervention group (thrust versus nonthrust mobilization/manipulation) as the between-subjects variable and time (baseline and 48 hours) as the within-subject variable. Separate ANOVAs were performed for each dependent variable: disability (NDI) and pain (NPRS). For each ANOVA, the hypothesis of interest was the 2-way group x time interaction. RESULTS: Sixty patients with a mean age of 43.3 years (SD=12.7) (55% female) satisfied the eligibility criteria and agreed to participate in the study. Subjects who received thrust mobilization/manipulation experienced greater reductions in disability, with a between-group difference of 10% (95% confidence interval [CI]=5.3-14.7), and in pain, with a between-group difference of 2.0 (95% CI=1.4-2.7). Subjects in the thrust mobilization/manipulation group exhibited significantly higher scores on the GROC Scale at the time of follow-up. No differences in the frequencies, durations, and types of side effects existed between the groups. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: The results suggest that thoracic spine thrust mobilization/manipulation results in significantly greater short-term reductions in pain and disability than does thoracic nonthrust mobilization/manipulation in people with neck pain.     

The effect of shoulder movements on thoracic spine 3D motion

OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether there is any repeatable coupling pattern of upper thoracic movements, during right arm elevation in sagittal and scapular plane. METHODS: Upper thoracic movement patterns (T2-T7) were examined during right arm elevation, in the sagittal and scapular plane using an electromagnetic device. The participants were 25 asymptomatic woman aged between 45 and 64 years. RESULTS: The majority of the participants performed an ipsilateral coupling pattern between lateral flexion and rotation which was repeatable and comparable for both arm elevation planes. Ipsilateral coupling of right lateral flexion and rotation in association with extension occurred in 23 subjects during arm elevation in sagittal plane, and in 19 subjects during arm elevation in scapular plane. CONCLUSIONS: Analysis revealed that the participants demonstrated a repeatable upper thoracic movement pattern within and between subjects, during arm elevation in sagittal and scapular planes. RELEVANCE: The biomechanical relationship between the arm and the thoracic spine is important to clinical practice because of the contribution of spinal to shoulder movements and vice versa, in the recognition, prevention and restoration of musculoskeletal function.     

胸出口综合征的澳式手法治疗

目的:探讨胸出口综合征的保守治疗的效果。方法:对20例胸出口综合征的患者进行C3—7及T1的由后向前按压棘突和由后向前按压横突的手法治疗,配合按摩、超短波、激光或超声治疗,并指导其矫正姿势,肩胛带肌力训练以及在生活、工作中的行为改变,疗前疗后比较其疼痛、患手握力及日常生活活动能力的改善。结果:经过一或二个疗程的治疗,疼痛评分有显著性改善(P<0.05),手握力明显提高(P<0.05),临床症状消失或明显减轻,患者恢复工作。结论:对胸出口综合征患者进行以澳式手法治疗为主,结合理疗及健康教育指导的综合治疗,对缓解其临床症状有较好的效果。     

Physiotherapist survey: Increasing thoracic spine movement within the management of chronic subacromial impingement syndrome

AimsThis study's primary aim is to address two questions. Firstly; what evidence exists regarding the inclusion of increasing thoracic movement within the management of subacromial impingement syndrome SIS?; and secondly, what proportion of Society of Musculoskeletal Medicine (SOMM) physiotherapists use this form of treatment within SIS management?MethodsAn online survey was conducted using a questionnaire incorporating a vignette describing a patient with chronic SIS. The SOMM physiotherapy members were sampled using convenience sampling.FindingsThis study has identified some evidence supporting increasing movement of the thoracic spine in the management of patients with SIS. No study or guideline protocols have been identified that advocate the use of this form of treatment, nor research identified that investigates physiotherapists’ use of this form of treatment within SIS management. Of the 1340 physiotherapists surveyed, 52 responded of which 79% stated that they would use treatment aimed at increasing movement of the thoracic spine within SIS management. Chi Square analysis suggests no significant association between using this treatment and number of years experience (p value = 0.15) or courses attended (p = 0.62).ConclusionsEvidence suggests it is beneficial to include treatment to increase thoracic spine mobility within SIS management. This study highlights the need for the clinician to be aware of the role of the thoracic spine in relation to the biomechanics of the shoulder complex. Of the sample of SOMM physiotherapists obtained, the majority stated that they would use this form of treatment. Further research is recommended.     

3.0T MRI肩撞击综合征影像征象分析

目的 探讨3.0T MRI对肩关节撞击综合征的诊断价值,并分析其影像征象及损伤机制.方法 回顾性分析30例肩撞击综合征患者的MRI表现及临床症状.结果 ①直接征象:30例MRI均显示冈上肌肌腱信号和形态的改变,其中6例冈上肌肌腱完全撕裂;13例冈上肌肌腱的部分撕裂;11例表现冈上肌肌腱表面的信号异常、混杂;②间接征象:9例肩峰下滑囊增厚、肩峰下-三角肌下囊积液及15例关节囊积液;③继发征象:5例关节盂唇撕脱,于关节造影时显示较好,5例冈上肌萎缩、2例三角肌萎缩、4例Bankart病变;④病因征象:本组患者肩峰形态分别为平直型(4/30)、弧形(7/30)、钩型(19/30);肩峰下通道(AHI)7例<5 mm,23例为5～10 mm之间.结论 高场强3.0T MRI能够有效显示肩撞击综合征的影像特征,有助于临床诊治.     

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.     

肩部撞击综合征的发生机制和影像学表现

肩部撞击综合征是临床上常见的引起肩关节疼痛和活动障碍的一组疾病,以肩袖、肱二头肌肌腱等结构的炎症及损伤为主要病理改变.广义的肩部撞击综合征包括肩峰下撞击、喙突下撞击和内撞击三型,对其发生机制尚存在争议,本文就肩部撞击的发生机制和影像学表现进行综述.     

The effect of direction specific thoracic spine manipulation on the cervical spine: a randomized controlled trial

Objectives: To determine the difference on neck outcomes with directional manipulation to the thoracic spine. There is evidence that thoracic spine manipulation is effective in treating patients with neck pain. However, there is no research that determines if the assessment of directional hypomobility and the selection of thrust direction offer improved outcomes.

Methods: A total of 69 patients with cervical spine pain were randomly assigned to receive either a manipulation that was consistent with their thoracic spine motion loss (matched) or opposite their motion loss (unmatched). The patient was given care consistent with the orthopedic section guidelines for neck pain and the physical therapist’s clinical reasoning. Baseline outcome measures (NPRS, NDI, GROC) were taken and reassessed two days and two weeks after treatment.

Results: Both groups had positive results when pain, neck disability index, and global rating of change were assessed. There was no difference between the matched and unmatched groups.

Discussion: Directional manipulation of hypomobile thoracic spine segments may not be required to improved outcomes in patients with neck pain. Future studies should assess a variety of factors when determining the best available treatment, including manual therapy procedures, exercise, and patient selection.

Level of Evidence: 1b.     

The effectiveness of low-level laser therapy on shoulder function in subacromial impingement syndrome

Purpose. To investigate the effectiveness of low-level laser therapy (LLLT) in addition to exercise programme on shoulder function in subacromial impingement syndrome (SAIS).

Method. Sixty-seven patients with SAIS were randomly assigned to either a group that received laser (n = 34) or a group that received placebo Laser (n = 26). Pain, functional assessment, disability and muscle strength of shoulder were assessed before and after a 3-week rehabilitation programme. Besides Laser or placebo Laser, superficial cold and progressive exercise programme were administered to both groups, 5 days a week, for 3 weeks. A progressive exercise programme that was done daily twice under supervision in clinic and at home was given to the patients.

Results. After the treatment, all outcome measurements had shown significant improvement except muscle strength in both the groups. When the parameters of the improvement were compared, there were no significant differences between the two groups after treatment.

Conclusion. We concluded that there is no fundamental difference between LLLT and placebo LLLT when they are supplementing an exercise programme for rehabilitation of patients with shoulder impingement syndrome.     

Inclusion of thoracic spine thrust manipulation into an electro-therapy/thermal program for the management of patients with acute mechanical neck pain: a randomized clinical trial

Our aim was to examine the effects of a seated thoracic spine distraction thrust manipulation included in an electrotherapy/thermal program on pain, disability, and cervical range of motion in patients with acute neck pain. This randomized controlled trial included 45 patients (20 males, 25 females) between 23 and 44 years of age presenting with acute neck pain. Patients were randomly divided into 2 groups: an experimental group which received a thoracic manipulation, and a control group which did not receive the manipulative procedure. Both groups received an electrotherapy program consisting of 6 sessions of TENS (frequency 100Hz; 20min), superficial thermo-therapy (15min) and soft tissue massage. The experimental group also received a thoracic manipulation once a week for 3 consecutive weeks. Outcome measures included neck pain (numerical pain rate scale; NPRS), level of disability (Northwick Park Neck Pain Questionnaire; NPQ) and neck mobility. These outcomes were assessed at baseline and 1 week after discharge. A 2-way repeated-measures ANOVA with group as between-subject variable and time as within-subject variable was used. Patients receiving thoracic manipulation experienced greater reductions in both neck pain, with between-group difference of 2.3 (95% CI 2-2.7) points on a 11-NPRS, and perceived disability with between-group differences 8.5 (95% CI 7.2-9.8) points. Further, patients receiving thoracic manipulation experienced greater increases in all cervical motions with between-group differences of 10.6 degrees (95% CI 8.8-12.5 degrees) for flexion; 9.9 degrees (95% CI 8.1-11.7 degrees) for extension; 9.5 degrees (95% CI 7.6-11.4 degrees) for right lateral-flexion; 8 degrees (95% CI 6.2-9.8 degrees) for left lateral-flexion; 9.6 degrees (95% CI 7.7-11.6 degrees) for right rotation; and 8.4 degrees (95% CI 6.5-10.3 degrees) for left rotation. We found that the inclusion of a thoracic manipulation into an electrotherapy/thermal program was effective in reducing neck pain and disability, and in increasing active cervical mobility in patients with acute neck pain.