The immediate effect of osteopathic cervical spine mobilization on median nerve mechanosensitivity

Authors: Gary Whelan, M.Ost (Osteopath), Ross Johnston, M.Sc. B.Sc. (Hons) Ost Med, DO (Senior Lecturer), Charles Millward, ND DO (Lecturer), Darren J. Edwards, B.Sc. M.Sc. Ph.D. (Lecturer)

Published in: J Bodyw Mov Ther. 2018 Apr;22:252-260. doi: 10.1016/j.jbmt.2017.05.009. Epub 2017 May 18.

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

Neurodynamics is a clinical medium for testing the mechanical sensitivity of peripheral nerves which innervate the tissues of both the upper and lower limb. Currently, there is paucity in the literature of neurodynamic testing in osteopathic research, and where there is research, these are often methodologically flawed, without the appropriate comparators, blinding and reliability testing.

AIMS:

This study aimed to assess the physiological effects (measured through Range of Motion; ROM), of a commonly utilized cervicalmobilization treatment during a neurodynamic test, with the appropriate methodology, i.e., compared against a control and sham. Specifically, this was to test whether cervical mobilization could reduce upper limb neural mechanical sensitivity.

METHODOLOGY:

Thirty asymptomatic participants were assessed and randomly allocated to either a control, sham or mobilization group, where they were all given a neurodynamic test and ROM was assessed.

RESULTS:

The results showed that the mobilization group had the greatest and most significant increase in ROM with Change-Left p < 0.05 and Change-Right p < 0.05 compared against the control group, and Change-Left p < 0.01 and Change-Right p < 0.05 compared against the sham group.

CONCLUSIONS:

This study has highlighted that, as expected, cervical mobilization has an effect at reducing upper limb neural mechanical sensitivity. However, there may be other factors interacting with neural mechanosensitivity outside of somatic influences such as psychological expectation bias. Further research could utilize the methodology employed here, but with other treatment areas to help develop neural tissue research. In addition to this, further exploration of psychological factors should be made such as utilizing complex top-down cognitive processing theories such as the neuromatrix or categorization theories to help further understand cognitive biases such as the placebo effect, which is commonly ignored in osteopathic research, as well as other areas of science, and which would further complete a holistic perspective.

Impact of Spinal Manipulation on Migraine Pain and Disability: A Systematic Review & Meta-Analysis

Authors: Pamela M. Rist ScD, Audrey Hernandez MS, Carolyn Bernstein MD, Matthew Kowalski DC, Kamila Osypiuk MS, Robert Vining DC, Cynthia R. Long PhD, Christine Goertz DC, PhD, Rhayun Song RN, PhD, Peter M. Wayne PhD

Published in: Headache. 2019 Apr;59 :532-542. doi: 10.1111/head.13501. Epub 2019 Mar 14.

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

Several small studies have suggested that spinal manipulation may be an effective treatment for reducing migraine pain and disability. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of published randomized clinical trials (RCTs) to evaluate the evidence regarding spinal manipulation as an alternative or integrative therapy in reducing migraine pain and disability.

METHODS:

PubMed and the Cochrane Library databases were searched for clinical trials that evaluated spinal manipulation and migraine-related outcomes through April 2017. Search terms included: migraine, spinal manipulation, manual therapy, chiropractic, and osteopathic. Meta-analytic methods were employed to estimate the effect sizes (Hedges' g) and heterogeneity (I2 ) for migraine days, pain, and disability. The methodological quality of retrieved studies was examined following the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool.

RESULTS:

Our search identified 6 RCTs (pooled n = 677; range of n = 42-218) eligible for meta-analysis. Intervention duration ranged from 2 to 6 months; outcomes included measures of migraine days (primary outcome), migraine pain/intensity, and migraine disability. Methodological quality varied across the studies. For example, some studies received high or unclear bias scores for methodological features such as compliance, blinding, and completeness of outcome data. Due to high levels of heterogeneity when all 6 studies were included in the meta-analysis, the 1 RCT performed only among chronic migraineurs was excluded. Heterogeneity across the remaining studies was low. We observed that spinal manipulation reduced migraine days with an overall small effect size (Hedges' g = -0.35, 95% CI: -0.53, -0.16, P < .001) as well as migraine pain/intensity.

CONCLUSIONS:

Spinal manipulation may be an effective therapeutic technique to reduce migraine days and pain/intensity. However, given the limitations to studies included in this meta-analysis, we consider these results to be preliminary. Methodologically rigorous, large-scale RCTs are warranted to better inform the evidence base for spinal manipulation as a treatment for migraine.

Impact of Spinal Manipulation on Cortical Drive to Upper and Lower Limb Muscles.

Authors: Haavik H, Niazi IK, Jochumsen M, Sherwin D, Flavel S, Türker KS.

Published in: Brain Sci. 2016 Dec 23;7(1). pii: E2. doi: 10.3390/brainsci7010002.

Abstract

This study investigates whether spinal manipulation leads to changes in motor control by measuring the recruitment pattern of motor units in both an upper and lower limb muscle and to see whether such changes may at least in part occur at the cortical level by recording movement related cortical potential (MRCP) amplitudes. In experiment one, transcranial magnetic stimulation input-output (TMS I/O) curves for an upper limb muscle (abductor pollicus brevis; APB) were recorded, along with F waves before and after either spinal manipulation or a control intervention for the same subjects on two different days. During two separate days, lower limb TMS I/O curves and MRCPs were recorded from tibialis anterior muscle (TA) pre and post spinal manipulation. Dependent measures were compared with repeated measures analysis of variance, with p set at 0.05. Spinal manipulation resulted in a 54.5% ± 93.1% increase in maximum motor evoked potential (MEPmax) for APB and a 44.6% ± 69.6% increase in MEPmax for TA. For the MRCP data following spinal manipulation there were significant difference for amplitude of early bereitschafts-potential (EBP), late bereitschafts potential (LBP) and also for peak negativity (PN). The results of this study show that spinal manipulation leads to changes in cortical excitability, as measured by significantly larger MEPmax for TMS induced input-output curves for both an upper and lower limb muscle, and with larger amplitudes of MRCP component post manipulation. No changes in spinal measures (i.e., F wave amplitudes or persistence) were observed, and no changes were shown following the control condition.

These results are consistent with previous findings that have suggested increases in strength following spinal manipulation were due to descending cortical drive and could not be explained by changes at the level of the spinal cord. Spinal manipulation may therefore be indicated for the patients who have lost tonus of their muscle and/or are recovering from muscle degrading dysfunctions such as stroke or orthopaedic operations and/or may also be of interest to sports performers. These findings should be followed up in the relevant populations.

Does cervical lordosis change after spinal manipulation for non-specific neck pain?

Authors: Michael Shilton, Jonathan Branney, Bas Penning de Vries, and Alan C. Breen

Published in: Chiropr Man Therap. 2015; 23: 33. Published online 2015 Dec 7. doi: 10.1186/s12998-015-0078-3

Abstract

Background

The association between cervical lordosis (sagittal alignment) and neck pain is controversial. Further, it is unclear whether spinal manipulative therapy can change cervical lordosis. This study aimed to determine whether cervical lordosis changes after a course of spinal manipulation for non-specific neck pain.

Methods

Posterior tangents of C2 and C6 were drawn on the lateral cervical fluoroscopic images of 29 patients with subacute/chronic non-specific neck pain and 30 healthy volunteers matched for age and gender, recruited August 2011 to April 2013. The resultant angle was measured using ‘Image J’ digital geometric software. The intra-observer repeatability (measurement error and reliability) and intra-subject repeatability (minimum detectable change (MDC) over 4 weeks) were determined in healthy volunteers. A comparison of cervical lordosis was made between patients and healthy volunteers at baseline. Change in lordosis between baseline and 4-week follow-up was determined in patients receiving spinal manipulation.

Results

Intra-observer measurement error for cervical lordosis was acceptable (SEM 3.6°) and reliability was substantial ICC 0.98, 95 % CI 0.962–0991). The intra-subject MDC however, was large (13.5°). There was no significant difference between lordotic angles in patients and healthy volunteers (p = 0.16). The mean cervical lordotic increase over 4 weeks in patients was 2.1° (9.2) which was not significant (p = 0.12).

Conclusions

This study found no difference in cervical lordosis (sagittal alignment) between patients with mild non-specific neck pain and matched healthy volunteers. Furthermore, there was no significant change in cervical lordosis in patients after 4 weeks of cervical spinal manipulation.

Effect of Toggle Recoil of Upper Cervical Vertebrae on Blood Pressure: Pilot Sham-Controlled Trial.

Authors: Goertz CM, Salsbury SA, Vining RD, Long CR, Pohlman KA, Weeks WB, Lamas GA.

Published in: J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2016 Jun;39(5):369-80. doi: 10.1016/j.jmpt.2016.04.002. Epub 2016 May 9.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE:

The purpose of this pilot sham-controlled clinical trial was to estimate the treatment effect and safety of toggle recoil spinal manipulation for blood pressure management.

METHODS:

Fifty-one participants with prehypertension or stage 1 hypertension (systolic blood pressure ranging from 135 to 159 mm Hg or diastolic blood pressure ranging from 85 to 99 mm Hg) were allocated by an adaptive design to 2 treatments: toggle recoil spinal manipulation or a sham procedure. Participants were seen by a doctor of chiropractic twice weekly for 6 weeks and remained on their antihypertensive medications, as prescribed, throughout the trial. Blood pressure was assessed at baseline and after study visits 1, 6 (week 3), and 12 (week 6), with the primary end point at week 6. Analysis of covariance was used to compare mean blood pressure changes from baseline between groups at each end point, controlling for sex, age, body mass index, and baseline blood pressure.

RESULTS:

Adjusted mean change from baseline to week 6 was greater in the sham group (systolic, -4.2 mm Hg; diastolic, -1.6 mm Hg) than in the spinal manipulation group (systolic, 0.6 mm Hg; diastolic, 0.7 mm Hg), but the difference was not statistically significant. No serious and few adverse events were noted.

CONCLUSIONS:

Six weeks of toggle recoil spinal manipulation did not lower systolic or diastolic blood pressure when compared with a sham procedure. No serious adverse events from either treatment were reported. Our results do not support a larger clinical trial. Further research to understand the potential mechanisms of action involving upper cervical manipulation on blood pressure is warranted before additional clinical investigations are conducted.

Effect of CSvsTS manipulation on peripheral neural features and grip strength : RCT

Author: Bautista-Aguirre F, Oliva-Pascual-Vaca Á, Heredia-Rizo AM, Boscá-Gandía JJ, Ricard, Rodriguez-Blanco

Published in: Eur J Phys Rehabil Med. 2017 Jun;53(3):333-341.

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

Cervical and thoracic spinal manipulative therapy has shown positive impact for relief of pain and improve function in non-speci

fic mechanical neck pain. Several attempts have been made to compare their effectiveness although previous studies lacked a control group, assessed acute neck pain or combined thrust and non-thrust techniques.

AIM:

To compare the immediate effects of cervical and thoracic spinal thrust manipulations on mechanosensitivity of upper limb nerve trunks and grip strength in patients with chronic non-specific mechanical neck pain.

DESIGN:

Randomized, single-blinded, controlled clinical trial.

SETTING:

Private physiotherapy clinical consultancy.

POPULATION:

Eighty-eight subjects (32.09±6.05 years; 72.7% females) suffering neck pain (grades I or II) of at least 12 weeks of duration.

METHODS:

Participants were distributed into three groups: 1) cervical group (N.=28); 2) thoracic group (N.=30); and 3) control group (N.=30). One treatment session consisting of applying a high-velocity low-amplitude spinal thrust technique over the lower cervical spine (C7) or the upper thoracic spine (T3) was performed, while the control group received a sham-manual contact. Measurements were taken at baseline and after intervention of the pressure pain threshold over the median, ulnar and radial nerves. Secondary measures included assessing free-pain grip strength with a hydraulic dynamometer.

RESULTS:

No statistically significant differences were observed when comparing between-groups in any of the outcome measures (P>0.05). Those who received thrust techniques, regardless of the manipulated area, reported an immediate increase in mechanosensitivity over the radial (both sides) and left ulnar nerve trunks (P<0.05), and grip strength (P<0.001). For those in the control group, right hand grip strength and pain perception over the radial nerve also improved (P≤0.025).

CONCLUSIONS:

Low-cervical and upper-thoracic thrust manipulation is no more effective than placebo to induce immediate changes on mechanosensitivity of upper limb nerve trunks and grip strength in patients with chronic non-specific mechanical neck pain.

CLINICAL REHABILITATION IMPACT:

A single treatment session using cervical or thoracic thrust techniques is not enough to achieve clinically relevant changes on neural mechanosensitivity and grip strength in chronic non-specific mechanical neck pain.

Effects of Cervical HVLA on ROM, Strength Performance, and Cardiovascular Outcomes: A Review.

Authors: Galindez-Ibarbengoetxea X1, Setuain I2,3, Andersen LL4,5, Ramírez-Velez R6, González-Izal M2, Jauregi A1,7, Izquierdo M2.

Published in: J Altern Complement Med. 2017 Sep;23(9):667-675. doi: 10.1089/acm.2017.0002. Epub 2017 Jul 21.

BACKGROUND:

Cervical high-velocity low-amplitude (HVLA) manipulation technique is among the oldest and most frequently used chiropractic manual therapy, but the physiologic and biomechanics effects were not completely clear.

OBJECTIVE:

This review aims to describe the effects of cervical HVLA manipulation techniques on range of motion, strength, and cardiovascular performance.

METHODS/DESIGN:

A systematic search was conducted of the electronic databases from January 2000 to August 2016: PubMed (n = 131), ScienceDirect (n = 101), Scopus (n = 991), PEDro (n = 33), CINAHL (n = 884), and SciELO (n = 5). Two independent reviewers conducted the screening process to determine article eligibility. The intervention that included randomized controlled trials was thrust, or HVLA, manipulative therapy directed to the cervical spine. Methodological quality was assessed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. The initial search rendered 2145 articles. After screening titles and abstracts, 11 articles remained for full-text review.

RESULTS:

The review shows that cervical HVLA manipulation treatment results in a large effect size (d > 0.80) on increasing cervical range of motion and mouth opening. In patients with lateral epicondylalgia, cervical HVLA manipulation resulted in increased pain-free handgrip strength, with large effect sizes (1.44 and 0.78, respectively). Finally, in subjects with hypertension the blood pressure seemed to decrease after cervical HVLA manipulation. Higher quality studies are needed to develop a stronger evidence-based foundation for HVLA manipulation techniques as a treatment for cervical conditions.