Spinal Manipulation and Spinal Mobilization Effects in Participants With and Without Back Pain
- Conditions
- Back Pain
- Interventions
- Procedure: Spinal mobilizationProcedure: Spinal manipulation
- 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.
Recruitment & Eligibility
- Status
- TERMINATED
- Sex
- All
- Target Recruitment
- 26
- presenting or not a history of chronic nonspecific back pain
- 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
- Arm && Interventions
Group Intervention Description Spinal mobilization Spinal mobilization Twenty-six participants with chronic nonspecific back pain will participate in two experimental sessions. During the first session, each participant will received either a spinal manipulation of a spinal mobilization of their thoracic spine preceded and followed by the assessment of their thoracic spine stiffness. The second session (24 to 48h after) will be identical but with the other experimental condition (spinal manipulation or spinal mobilization). Spinal manipulation Spinal manipulation Twenty-six participants with chronic nonspecific back pain will participate in two experimental sessions. During the first session, each participant will received either a spinal manipulation of a spinal mobilization of their thoracic spine preceded and followed by the assessment of their thoracic spine stiffness. The second session (24 to 48h after) will be identical but with the other experimental condition (spinal manipulation or spinal mobilization).
- 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.
- Secondary Outcome Measures
Name Time Method
Trial Locations
- Locations (1)
Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières
🇨🇦Trois-Rivieres, Quebec, Canada