Differences in force-time parameters and electromyographic characteristics of two high-velocity, low-amplitude spinal manipulations following one another in quick succession.

Lindsay M Gorrell, Philip J Conway, Walter Herzog
Author Information
  1. Lindsay M Gorrell: Human Performance Laboratory, Faculty of Kinesiology, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. lindsay.gorrell@ucalgary.ca. ORCID
  2. Philip J Conway: Chiropractor, Private Practice, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
  3. Walter Herzog: Human Performance Laboratory, Faculty of Kinesiology, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Spinal manipulative therapy is an effective treatment for neck pain. However, the mechanisms underlying its clinical efficacy are not fully understood. Previous studies have not systematically compared force-time parameters and electromyographic responses associated with spinal manipulation. In this study, force-time parameters and electromyographic characteristics associated with multiple manual high-velocity, low-amplitude cervical and upper thoracic spinal manipulations were investigated. The purpose of this analysis was to compare the force-time parameters and electromyographic characteristics between two spinal manipulations delivered following one another in quick succession if the first thrust was not associated with an audible cavitation.
METHODS: Nine asymptomatic and eighteen symptomatic participants received six Diversified-style spinal manipulations to the cervical and upper thoracic spines during data collected February 2018 to September 2019. Peak force, rate of force application and thrust duration were measured using a pressure pad. Bipolar surface electrodes were used to measure the electromyographic responses and reflex delay times in sixteen neck, back and limb outlet muscles bilaterally. Differences in force-time parameters and electromyographic data were analyzed between the first and second thrust.
RESULTS: Fifty-two spinal manipulations were included in this analysis. Peak force was greater (p < 0.001) and rate of force application faster (p < 0.001) in the second thrust. Furthermore, peak electromyographic responses were higher following the second thrust in asymptomatic (p < 0.001) and symptomatic (p < 0.001) subjects. Also, electromyographic delays were shorter in the symptomatic compared to the asymptomatic participants for the second thrust (p = 0.039). There were no adverse patient events.
CONCLUSION: When a second manipulation was delivered because there was not audible cavitation during the first thrust, the second thrust was associated with greater treatment forces and faster thrust rates. Peak electromyographic responses were greater following the second thrust.

Keywords

References

  1. PLoS One. 2015 Apr 15;10(4):e0119470 [PMID: 25875374]
  2. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2006 Jan;29(1):72-82 [PMID: 16396734]
  3. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2009 May;39(5):400-17 [PMID: 19521015]
  4. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2022 Jan;45(1):33-44 [PMID: 35753874]
  5. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2016 May;39(4):288-93 [PMID: 27059250]
  6. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2016 Oct;39(8):523-564.e27 [PMID: 27836071]
  7. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2014 Jan;37(1):42-63 [PMID: 24262386]
  8. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 1995 Jul-Aug;18(6):347-52 [PMID: 7595108]
  9. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2018 Nov - Dec;41(9):753-761 [PMID: 30871712]
  10. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2013 Jun;36(5):261-6 [PMID: 23790603]
  11. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2008 Feb 15;33(4 Suppl):S14-23 [PMID: 18204387]
  12. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 1995 May;18(4):233-6 [PMID: 7636413]
  13. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 1993 Oct;16(8):523-6 [PMID: 8263431]
  14. J Chiropr Med. 2005 Spring;4(2):53-60 [PMID: 19674647]
  15. J Man Manip Ther. 2008;16(1):39-48 [PMID: 19119383]
  16. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2001 Jan;24(1):2-11 [PMID: 11174689]
  17. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2014 Jun;37(5):287-93 [PMID: 24928637]
  18. Ann Rheum Dis. 1971 Jul;30(4):348-58 [PMID: 5557778]
  19. BMC Complement Altern Med. 2016 Jun 02;16:161 [PMID: 27249939]
  20. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2013 Jan 15;14:24 [PMID: 23320608]
  21. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2006 Jan;29(1):40-5 [PMID: 16396728]
  22. J Neurosci Methods. 1999 Jul 15;89(2):87-96 [PMID: 10491938]
  23. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2005 Nov-Dec;28(9):667-72 [PMID: 16326236]
  24. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2019 Jan 18;20(1):29 [PMID: 30658622]
  25. Phys Ther. 2007 Apr;87(4):431-40 [PMID: 17341509]
  26. Man Ther. 2015 Dec;20(6):797-804 [PMID: 25841562]
  27. J Can Chiropr Assoc. 2014 Jun;58(2):141-8 [PMID: 24932018]
  28. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 1995 Mar-Apr;18(3):155-64 [PMID: 7790795]
  29. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2018 Jun;41(5):413-424 [PMID: 30041737]
  30. J Bodyw Mov Ther. 2010 Jul;14(3):280-6 [PMID: 20538226]
  31. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2014 Feb;37(2):68-78 [PMID: 24387888]
  32. Spine J. 2007 Sep-Oct;7(5):583-95 [PMID: 17905321]
  33. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1993 Jul;18(9):1206-12 [PMID: 8362328]
  34. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 1992 Jan;15(1):71-5 [PMID: 1740656]
  35. Evid Based Complement Alternat Med. 2013;2013:492039 [PMID: 23401713]
  36. Man Ther. 2004 May;9(2):95-108 [PMID: 15040969]
  37. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 1991 Sep;14(7):409-15 [PMID: 1834753]
  38. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2000 Mar-Apr;23(3):155-9 [PMID: 10771499]
  39. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1999 Jan 15;24(2):146-52; discussion 153 [PMID: 9926385]
  40. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2008 Feb 15;33(4 Suppl):S123-52 [PMID: 18204386]
  41. Spine J. 2003 May-Jun;3(3):204-12 [PMID: 14589201]
  42. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2011 Jul 22;12:170 [PMID: 21781310]
  43. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2019 Oct;42(8):572-581 [PMID: 31864518]
  44. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2015 Jul-Aug;38(6):407-15 [PMID: 26198595]
  45. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 1993 Jul;8(4):210-4 [PMID: 23915971]
  46. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2013 Feb;36(2):68-77 [PMID: 23499141]
  47. Chiropr Osteopat. 2010 Feb 25;18:3 [PMID: 20184717]
  48. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2003 Jul-Aug;26(6):356-64 [PMID: 12902964]

MeSH Term

Adult
Biomechanical Phenomena
Cervical Vertebrae
Electromyography
Female
Humans
Male
Manipulation, Spinal
Middle Aged
Muscle, Skeletal
Neck Pain
Thoracic Vertebrae
Time Factors
Young Adult

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0thrustelectromyographicsecondspinalforce-timeparametersmanipulationsresponsesassociatedfollowingforcep < 0001characteristicsfirstasymptomaticsymptomaticPeakgreatertreatmentneckcomparedmanipulationhigh-velocitylow-amplitudecervicalupperthoracicanalysistwodeliveredoneanotherquicksuccessionaudiblecavitationparticipantsdatarateapplicationDifferencesfasterNECKMANIPULATIONBACKGROUND:SpinalmanipulativetherapyeffectivepainHowevermechanismsunderlyingclinicalefficacyfullyunderstoodPreviousstudiessystematicallystudymultiplemanualinvestigatedpurposecompareMETHODS:NineeighteenreceivedsixDiversified-stylespinescollectedFebruary2018September2019durationmeasuredusingpressurepadBipolarsurfaceelectrodesusedmeasurereflexdelaytimessixteenbacklimboutletmusclesbilaterallyanalyzedRESULTS:Fifty-twoincludedFurthermorepeakhighersubjectsAlsodelaysshorterp = 0039adversepatienteventsCONCLUSION:forcesratesELECTROMYOGRAPHYPAINSPINAL

Similar Articles

Cited By