Spinal manipulation force and duration affect vertebral movement and neuromuscular responses

Colloca, Christopher J.; Keller, Tony S.; Harrison, Deed E.; Moore, Robert J.; Gunzburg, Robert; Harrison, Donald D.

doi:10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2005.10.006

Cited by 70 publications

(64 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We did not examine the influence of oscillatory load magnitude on DV stiffness in the harmonic, muscle stimulation analysis performed in the current study. However, single cycle, variable amplitude, uniform pulse duration (100 ms) mechanical excitation tests indicate that the DV load-displacement response of the ovine spine is linear between 20 and 80 N [5]. In addition, the loading magnitudes used in the current study were low enough to avoid substantial influence from the facet joints.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Muscular contributions to dynamic dorsoventral lumbar spine stiffness

Keller

Colloca

Harrison³

et al. 2006

Eur Spine J

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Spinal musculature plays a major role in spine stability, but its importance to spinal stiffness is poorly understood. We studied the effects of graded trunk muscle stimulation on the in vivo dynamic dorsoventral (DV) lumbar spine stiffness of 15 adolescent Merino sheep. Constant voltage supramaximal electrical stimulation was administered to the L3-L4 interspinous space of the multifidus muscles using four stimulation frequencies (2.5, 5, 10, and 20 Hz). Dynamic stiffness was quantified at rest and during muscle stimulation using a computer-controlled testing apparatus that applied variable frequency (0.46-19.7 Hz) oscillatory DV forces (13-N preload to 48-N peak) to the L3 spinous process of the prone-lying sheep. Five mechanical excitation trials were randomly performed, including four muscle stimulation trials and an unstimulated or resting trial. The secant stiffness (k y = DV force/L3 displacement, kN/m) and loss angle (phase angle, deg) were determined at 44 discrete mechanical excitation frequencies. Results indicated that the dynamic stiffness varied 3.7-fold over the range of mechanical excitation frequencies examined (minimum resting k y = 3.86 ± 0.38 N/mm at 4.0 Hz; maximum k y = 14.1 ± 9.95 N/mm at 19.7 Hz). Twenty hertz muscle stimulation resulted in a sustained supramaximal contraction that significantly (P < 0.05) increased k y up to twofold compared to rest (mechanical excitation at 3.6 Hz). Compared to rest, k y during the 20 Hz muscle stimulation was significantly increased for 34 of 44 mechanical excitation frequencies (mean increase = 55.1%, P < 0.05), but was most marked between 2.55 and 4.91 Hz (mean increase = 87.5%, P < 0.05). For lower frequency, sub-maximal muscle stimulation, there was a graded change in k y , which was significantly increased for 32/44 mechanical excitation frequencies (mean increase = 40.4%, 10 Hz stimulus), 23/44 mechanical excitation frequencies (mean increase = 10.5%, 5 Hz stimulus), and 11/44 mechanical excitation frequencies (mean increase = 4.16%, 2.5 Hz stimulus) when compared to rest. These results indicate that the dynamic mechanical behavior of the ovine spine is modulated by muscle stimulation, and suggests that muscle contraction plays an important role in stabilizing the lumbar spine.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Muscular contributions to dynamic dorsoventral lumbar spine stiffness

Keller

Colloca

Harrison³

et al. 2006

Eur Spine J

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Although not yet applied to SMT input kinematics, accelerometers have been used to objectively measure the resultant spinal kinematics, although most of these studies are based on animal models (Gal et al, 1995;Maigne & Guillon, 2000;Keller et al, 2003;Colloca et al, 2003;Colloca et al, 2006;Keller et al, 2006b;Colloca et al, 2007;Gal et al, 1997a).…”

Section: Hand Kinematicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…force) or the body's response to such an input (eg. vertebral displacement) Kirstukas & Backman, 1999;Keller et al, 2006b;Keller et al, 2006a;Colloca et al, 2006;Triano, 2001;Solinger, 2000;Keller & Colloca, 2002;Sung et al, 2005;Dishman et al, 2005;Pickar & Kang, 2006;Pickar et al, 2007;). …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Spinal manipulation is described as a high velocity/low amplitude thrust utilizing manual manipulative (Triano, 2001;Symons et al, 2002;Herzog et al, 2001;Kawchuk et al, 2006) and mechanically-assisted or instrument-assisted techniques (Keller & Colloca, 2002;Keller et al, 2003;Colloca et al, 2006;Keller et al, 2006b;Keller et al, 2006a;Colloca et al, 2007). Surprisingly, the parameters of high velocity and low amplitude have never been directly measured with respect to the manipulative input.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Acceleration of clinician hand movements during spinal manipulative therapy

Gelley¹,

Passmore

MacNeil

2015

Manual Therapy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The primary objective of this study was to determine the acceleration characteristics of spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) and whether patient anthropometric parameters correlated with the SMT kinematic parameters. For this, a wireless tri-axial accelerometer was taped to the dorsum of a clinician's hand to record the accelerations generated during clinical treatment of 95 symptomatic patients. Peak acceleration magnitudes differed significantly between spinal levels (p<0.0001; lumbar > cervical > thoracic = sacroiliac). The latencies of these peaks were also significantly different (p<0.0001; lumbar < cervical = thoracic < sacroiliac). Within a given spinal level, acceleration amplitudes varied over a wide range with temporal parameters remaining relatively constant. Overall, anthropometric parameters were poorly correlated with SMT parameters. In summary, distinct acceleration amplitudes were observed across spinal levels with relatively constant temporal factors. Thus, clinicians appear to vary the magnitude rather than the duration of the SMT thrust.ii Acknowledgements

show abstract

“…(11) Thus, this study aims to evaluate the effect of spinal manipulation, therapeutic modality that aims to reduce the frequency range of the system discharge, responsible for chronic intrafusal contraction in order to restore joint mobility, spasticity of the upper limb patients after stroke. (15)(16)(17) Muscle spasticity is responsible for increased tone and resistance to stretching of the muscle. Thus, the application of spinal manipulation, which is combines techniques for high speed causes the stretching of joint capsules (Ruffini corpuscles) and mono-articular muscles (Golgi tendon organs) cause a reflex response in the spinal cord, inhibiting alpha and gamma motoneurons.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of the effect of spinal manipulation in upper limb spasticity post a stroke.

Valente¹,

Lupino²,

Ramirez³

et al. 2014

mtprehabjournal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Evaluation of the effect of spinal manipulation in upper limb spasticity post stroke.Avaliação do efeito da manipulação da coluna vertebral nas espasticidade dos membros superiores após um acidente vascular cerebral. Flavia Mariana Valente(1) , Rafaela Arroyo Lupino (2) , Clarissa Ramirez (3) , Cristiane Bonvicine (4) . Faculdade de Medicina de São José do Rio Preto (FAMERP), São José do Rio Preto (SP), Brasil.Abstract Introduction: Cerebral Vascular Accident is the third leading cause of death and the leading cause of neurological disability in adults with hemiplegic and spasticity is the most prevalent motor dysfunction, with consequent impairment of muscle strength and joint range of motion. Objective: To evaluate the immediate effect techniques of spinal manipulation in upper limb spasticity after cerebral vascular accident. Method: Participants were six patients included in both groups: group A, submitted to the application of the techniques of spinal manipulation and group B, control. The order of participation of patients was randomized and performed on alternate weeks. In both groups, participants were evaluated for spasticity by Modified Ashworth Scale, immediately before and after a given intervention. Results: The results did not permit an inference about the acute effects of spinal manipulation on spasticity , however, can be observed in the study group was reduced in 50% of cases with increased tone, while in the control group, 30 % cases had increased tone reduction , and if increased. There was increased tone in two cases which were previously normal. Conclusion:The immediate evaluation of the effect of spinal manipulation in patients with spasticity got reduced muscle tone, however, on the number of participants and changes in reducing and also from increased tone in the control group , it is not possible assignment of the obtained effects only the techniques applied , thus being further studies with larger samples and other methods of assessment needed . Key-words: Muscle spasticity, Cerebrovascular accident, Spinal Manipulation. ResumoIntrodução: O Acidente Vascular Cerebral constitui a terceira causa de morte e a principal causa de incapacidade neurológica em adultos, sendo a espasticidade hemiplégica a disfunção motora mais prevalente, com consequente comprometimento da força muscular e da amplitude de movimento articular. Objetivo: Avaliar o efeito imediato de técni-cas de manipulação vertebral na espasticidade de membro superior pós acidente vascular encefálico. Método: Participaram da pesquisa 6 pacientes, incluídos em ambos os grupos: grupo A, submetido à aplicação das técnicas de manipulação vertebral, e grupo B, controle. A ordem de participação dos pacientes foi randomizada e realizada em semanas alternadas. Em ambos os grupos os participantes foram avaliados quanto à espasticidade pela Escala Modificada de Ashworth, imediatamente antes e após a intervenção determinada. Resultados: Os resultados não permitiram uma inferência acerca do efeito agudo da manipulação vertebral sobre a espas...

show abstract

Spinal manipulation force and duration affect vertebral movement and neuromuscular responses

Cited by 70 publications

References 25 publications

Muscular contributions to dynamic dorsoventral lumbar spine stiffness

Muscular contributions to dynamic dorsoventral lumbar spine stiffness

Acceleration of clinician hand movements during spinal manipulative therapy

Evaluation of the effect of spinal manipulation in upper limb spasticity post a stroke.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About