Spinal Manipulation and Spinal Mobilization Effects in Participants With and Without Back Pain

Not Applicable

Terminated

• Conditions: Back Pain

• Registration Number: NCT02660801
• Lead Sponsor: Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières

Brief Summary

The objective of the present study is to compare the neuromechanical responses to spinal manipulation and spinal mobilization in participants with chronic nonspecific middle back pain.

Detailed Description

Although evidences suggest a similar effectiveness of spinal manipulation and spinal mobilization, there is no study that compares the neuromechanical effects of these manual therapies in a experimental context and with the standardization of both interventions. Therefore, the objective of the present study is to compare the neuromechanical responses to spinal manipulation (low-amplitude and high-velocity dynamic thrust) and spinal mobilization (repetitions of a low-amplitude and low-velocity nonthrust movement) in participants with and without chronic nonspecific back pain.

Study Timeline

• Study First Submitted: 2016-01-18
• Study First Submitted QC: 2016-01-18
• Study First Posted: 2016-01-21
• Study Start: 2016-03
• Primary Completion: 2017-04
• Study Completion: 2017-11
• Results First Submitted: 2017-11-23
• Results First Submitted QC: 2019-03-25
• Status Verified: 2019-06
• Last Update Submitted: 2019-06-20
• Results First Posted: 2019-06-21
• Last Update Posted: 2019-06-26

Recruitment & Eligibility

• Status: TERMINATED
• Sex: All
• Target Recruitment: 26

Inclusion Criteria

• presenting or not a history of chronic nonspecific back pain

Exclusion Criteria

• History of back trauma or surgery
• Severe osteoarthritis
• Inflammatory arthritis
• Vascular conditions
• Contraindication to the use of spinal manipulation or spinal mobilization
• Pregnancy
• Scoliosis

Study & Design

• Study Type: INTERVENTIONAL
• Study Design: CROSSOVER

Primary Outcome Measures

Name	Time	Method
Muscular Response, Inferior Level Ratio, Normalized RMS	During the spinal manipulation and mobilization	To assess the muscular response during therapeutic modalities, the resulting bipolar sEMG signals were first digitally band-pass filtered using a frequency bandwidth of 20-450 Hz (2nd order Butterworth filter). For SMa, the peak root mean square (RMS) value was computed for each electrode using a 250 ms window (125 ms before and 125 ms after the peak force). The RMS values obtained for each electrode were then normalized (nRMS) to the respective RMS value calculated during the sEMG normalization trial.
Terminal Spinal Stiffness	two-minutes before spinal mobilization delivery up to two-minutes after	Terminal stiffness was defined as the ratio of the variation of force and displacement between 10 and 45 N
Pressure Provoked Pain	immediately after the therapeutic modality application	Pressure provoked pain intensity was assessed immediately after each spinal stiffness assessment using a 0 to 100 visual analog pain scale minimum value=0, maximum value=100. 0 is no pain while 100 is the worse outcome
Global Spinal Stiffness	two-minutes before spinal manipulation delivery up to two-minutes after	Global stiffness was defined as the slope of the straight-line best fitting the force-displacement data between 10 and 45 N
Muscular Response, Superior Level Ratio	During the spinal manipulation and mobilization	To assess the muscular response during therapeutic modalities, the resulting bipolar sEMG signals were first digitally band-pass filtered using a frequency bandwidth of 20-450 Hz (2nd order Butterworth filter). For SMa, the peak root mean square (RMS) value was computed for each electrode using a 250 ms window (125 ms before and 125 ms after the peak force). The RMS values obtained for each electrode were then normalized (nRMS) to the respective RMS value calculated during the sEMG normalization trial.

Trial Locations

Locations (1)

Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières; 🇨🇦 Trois-Rivieres, Quebec, Canada