Electromyographic Responses of Neck, Back, and Limb Outlet Muscles Associated With High-Velocity, Low-Amplitude Manual Cervical and Upper Thoracic Spinal Manipulation of Individuals With Mild Neck Disability: A Descriptive Observational Investigation

Gorrell, Lindsay M.; Conway, Philip J; Onasch, Franziska; Herzog, Walter

doi:10.1016/j.jmpt.2022.03.018

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 47 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These muscles performed different functions and behaved differently in the presence of LBP, underscoring the importance of delineating the effects of SM on these different muscle layers. The neuromuscular response to SM appears to depend on the distance of the muscle from the manipulation site [19,20]. Neuromuscular responses to SM have been found to exist in muscle locations anatomically distant from the manipulation site, but not uniformly across participants [13].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Treatment and Response Factors in Muscle Activation during Spinal Manipulation

Currie,

Myers,

Enebo

et al. 2023

JCM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The forces applied during a spinal manipulation produce a neuromuscular response in the paraspinal muscles. A systematic evaluation of the factors involved in producing this muscle activity provides a clinical insight. The purpose of this study is to quantify the effect of treatment factors (manipulation sequence and manipulation site) and response factors (muscle layer, muscle location, and muscle side) on the neuromuscular response to spinal manipulation. The surface and indwelling electromyographies of 8 muscle sites were recorded during lumbar side-lying manipulations in 20 asymptomatic participants. The effects of the factors on the number of muscle responses and the muscle activity onset delays were compared using mixed-model linear regressions, effect sizes, and equivalence testing. The treatment factors did not reveal statistical differences between the manipulation sequences (first or second) or manipulation sites (L3 or SI) in the number of muscle responses (p = 0.11, p = 0.28, respectively), or in muscle activity onset delays (p = 0.35 p = 0.35, respectively). There were significantly shorter muscle activity onset delays in the multifidi compared to the superficial muscles (p = 0.02). A small effect size of side (d = 0.44) was observed with significantly greater number of responses (p = 0.02) and shorter muscle activity onset delays (p < 0.001) in the muscles on the left side compared to the right. The location, layer, and side of the neuromuscular responses revealed trends of decreasing muscle response rates and increasing muscle activity onset delays as the distance from the manipulation site increased. These results build on the body of work suggesting that the specificity of manipulation site may not play a role in the neuromuscular response to spinal manipulation—at least within the lumbar spine. In addition, these results demonstrate that multiple manipulations performed in similar areas (L3 and S1) do not change the response significantly, as well as contribute to the clinical understanding that the muscle response rate is higher and with a shorter delay, the closer it is to the manipulation.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%