Bilateral and multiple cavitation sounds during upper cervical thrust manipulation

Spinal manipulation and electrical dry needling as an adjunct to conventional physical therapy in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis: a multi-center randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Nonoperative management of lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) includes activity modification, medication, injections, and physical therapy. Conventional physical therapy includes a multimodal approach of exercise, manual therapy, and electro-thermal modalities. There is a paucity of evidence supporting the use of spinal manipulation and dry needling as an adjunct to conventional physical therapy in patients with LSS.

PURPOSE

This study aimed to determine the effects of adding thrust spinal manipulation and electrical dry needling to conventional physical therapy in patients with LSS.

STUDY DESIGN/SETTING

Randomized, single-blinded, multi-center, parallel-group clinical trial.

PATIENT SAMPLE

One hundred twenty-eight (n=128) patients with LSS from 12 outpatient clinics in 8 states were recruited over a 34-month period.

OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcomes included the Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NPRS) and the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). Secondary outcomes included the Roland Morris Disability Index (RMDI), Global Rating of Change (GROC), and medication intake. Follow-up assessments were taken at 2 weeks, 6 weeks, and 3 months.

METHODS

Patients were randomized to receive either spinal manipulation, electrical dry needling, and conventional physical therapy (MEDNCPT group, n=65) or conventional physical therapy alone (CPT group, n=63).

RESULTS

At 3 months, the MEDNCPT group experienced greater reductions in overall low back, buttock, and leg pain (NPRS: F=5.658; p=.002) and related-disability (ODI: F=9.921; p<.001; RMDI: F=7.263; p<.001) compared to the CPT group. Effect sizes were small at 2 and 6 weeks, and medium at 3 months for the NPRS, ODI, and RMDI. At 3 months, significantly (p=.003) more patients in the MEDNCPT group reported a successful outcome (GROC≥+5) than the CPT group.

CONCLUSION

Patients with LSS who received electrical dry needling and spinal manipulation in addition to impairment-based exercise, manual therapy and electro-thermal modalities experienced greater improvements in low back, buttock and leg pain and related-disability than those receiving exercise, manual therapy, and electro-thermal modalities alone at 3 months, but not at the 2 or 6 week follow-up.

Benefits and Harms of Spinal Manipulative Therapy for Treating Recent and Persistent Nonspecific Neck Pain: A Systematic Review With Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to estimate the benefits and harms of cervical spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) for treating neck pain. DESIGN: Intervention systematic review with meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). LITERATURE SEARCH: We searched the MEDLINE, Cochrane CENTRAL, Embase, CINAHL, PEDro, Chiropractic Literature Index bibliographic databases, and grey literature sources, up to June 6, 2022. STUDY SELECTION CRITERIA: RCTs evaluating SMT compared to guideline-recommended and nonrecommended interventions, sham SMT, and no intervention for adults with neck pain were eligible for our systematic review. Prespecified outcomes included pain, range of motion, disability, health-related quality of life. DATA SYNTHESIS: Random-effects meta-analysis for clinically homogenous RCTs at short-term and long-term outcomes. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 Tool. We used the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations approach to judge the certainty of evidence. RESULTS: We included 28 RCTs. There was very low to low certainty evidence that SMT was more effective than recommended interventions for improving pain at short term (standardized mean difference [SMD], 0.66; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.35, 0.97) and long term (SMD, 0.73; 95% CI: 0.31, 1.16), and for reducing disability at short-term (SMD, 0.95; 95% CI: 0.48, 1.42) and long term (SMD, 0.65; 95% CI: 0.23, 1.06). Transient side effects only were found (eg, muscle soreness). CONCLUSION: There was very low certainty evidence supporting cervical SMT as an intervention to reduce pain and improve disability in people with neck pain. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2023;53(9):510-528. Epub: 10 August 2023. doi:10.2519/jospt.2023.11708.

Impact of audible pops associated with spinal manipulation on perceived pain: a systematic review

OBJECTIVES

An audible pop is the sound that can derive from an adjustment in spinal manipulative therapy and is often seen as an indicator of a successful treatment. A review conducted in 1998 concluded that there was little scientific evidence to support any therapeutic benefit derived from the audible pop. Since then, research methods have evolved considerably creating opportunities for new evidence to emerge. It was therefore timely to review the evidence.

METHODS

The following electronic databases were searched for relevant studies pertaining to the impact of audible pops in spinal manipulative therapy: PubMed, Index to Chiropractic Literature (ICL), Cumulative Index to Nursing & Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) and Web-of-Science. The main outcome was pain. Two reviewers independently selected studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias and quality of the evidence using the Downs and Black checklist. Results of the included literature were synthesized into a systematic review.

RESULTS

Five original research articles were included in the review, of which four were prospective cohort studies and one a randomized controlled trial. All studies reported similar results: regardless of the area of the spine manipulated or follow-up time, there was no evidence of improved pain outcomes associated with an audible pop. One study even reported a hypoalgesic effect to external pain stimuli after spinal manipulation, regardless of an audible pop.

CONCLUSIONS

Whilst there is still no consensus among chiropractors on the association of an audible pop and pain outcomes in spinal manipulative therapy, knowledge about the audible pop has advanced. This review suggests that the presence or absence of an audible pop may not be important regarding pain outcomes with spinal manipulation.

Knowledge, beliefs, and attitudes of spinal manipulation: a cross-sectional survey of Italian physiotherapists

Background and Objective

High-velocity low-amplitude thrust spinal manipulation (SM) is a recommended and commonly used manual therapy intervention in physiotherapy. Beliefs surrounding the safety and effectiveness of SM have challenged its use, and even advocated for its abandonment. Our study aimed to investigate the knowledge and beliefs surrounding SM by Italian physiotherapists compared with similar practitioners in other countries.

Methods

An online survey with 41 questions was adapted from previous surveys and was distributed via a mailing list of the Italian Physiotherapists Association (March 22–26, 2020). The questionnaire was divided into 4 sections to capture information on participant demographics, utilization, potential barriers, and knowledge about SM. Questions were differentiated between spinal regions. Attitudes towards different spinal regions, attributes associated with beliefs, and the influence of previous educational background were each evaluated.

Results

Of the 7398 registered physiotherapists, 575 (7.8%) completed the survey and were included for analysis. The majority of respondents perceived SM as safe and effective when applied to the thoracic (74.1%) and lumbar (72.2%) spines; whereas, a smaller proportion viewed SM to the upper cervical spine (56.8%) as safe and effective. Respondents reported they were less likely to provide and feel comfortable with upper cervical SM (respectively, 27.5% and 48.5%) compared to the thoracic (respectively, 52.2% and 74.8%) and lumbar spines (respectively, 46.3% and 74.3%). Most physiotherapists (70.4%) agreed they would perform additional screening prior to upper cervical SM compared to other spinal regions. Respondents who were aware of clinical prediction rules were more likely to report being comfortable with SM (OR 2.38–3.69) and to perceive it as safe (OR 1.75–3.12). Finally, physiotherapists without musculoskeletal specialization, especially those with a traditional manual therapy background, were more likely to perform additional screening prior to SM, use SM less frequently, report being less comfortable performing SM, and report upper cervical SM as less safe (p < 0.001).

Discussion

The beliefs and attitudes of physiotherapists surrounding the use of SM are significantly different when comparing the upper cervical spine to other spinal regions. An educational background in traditional manual therapy significantly influences beliefs and attitudes. We propose an updated framework on evidence-based SM.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12998-022-00449-x.

Dry needling and upper cervical spinal manipulation in patients with temporomandibular disorder: A multi-center randomized clinical trial

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effects of dry needling and upper cervical spinal manipulation with interocclusal splint therapy, diclofenac, and temporomandibular joint (TMJ) mobilization in patients with temporomandibular disorder (TMD).

METHODS

One hundred-twenty patients with TMD were randomized to receive six treatment sessions of dry needling plus upper cervical spinal manipulation (n = 62) or interocclusal splint therapy, diclofenac, and joint mobilization to the TMJ (n = 58).

RESULTS

Patients receiving dry needling and upper cervical spinal manipulation experienced significantly greater reductions in jaw pain intensity over the last 7 days (VAS: F = 23.696; p < 0.001) and active pain-free mouth opening (F = 29.902; p < 0.001) than those receiving interocclusal splint therapy, diclofenac, and TMJ mobilization at the 3-month follow-up.

CONCLUSION

Dry needling and upper cervical spinal manipulation was more effective than interocclusal splint therapy, diclofenac, and TMJ mobilization in patients with TMD.

The importance of selecting the correct site to apply spinal manipulation when treating spinal pain: Myth or reality? A systematic review

The concept that spinal manipulation therapy (SMT) outcomes are optimized when the treatment is aimed at a clinically relevant joint is commonly assumed and central to teaching and clinical use (candidate sites). This systematic review investigated whether clinical effects are superior when this is the case compared to SMT applied elsewhere (non-candidate sites). Eligible study designs were randomized controlled trials that investigated the effect of spinal manipulation applied to candidate versus non-candidate sites for spinal pain. We obtained data from four different databases. Risk of bias was assessed using an adjusted Cochrane risk of bias tool, adding four items for study quality. We extracted between-group differences for any reported outcome or, when not reported, calculated effect sizes from the within-group changes. We compared outcomes for SMT applied at a 'relevant' site to SMT applied elsewhere. We prioritized methodologically robust studies when interpreting results. Ten studies, all of acceptable quality, were included that reported 33 between-group differences-five compared treatments within the same spinal region and five at different spinal regions. None of the nine studies with low or moderate risk of bias reported statistically significant between-group differences for any outcome. The tenth study reported a small effect on pain (1.2/10, 95%CI - 1.9 to - 0.5) but had a high risk of bias. None of the nine articles of low or moderate risk of bias and acceptable quality reported that "clinically-relevant" SMT has a superior outcome on any outcome compared to "not clinically-relevant" SMT. This finding contrasts with ideas held in educational programs and clinical practice that emphasize the importance of joint-specific application of SMT.

Sham treatment effects in manual therapy trials on back pain patients: a systematic review and pairwise meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To assess the effects and reliability of sham procedures in manual therapy (MT) trials in the treatment of back pain (BP) in order to provide methodological guidance for clinical trial development.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Different databases were screened up to 20 August 2020. Randomised controlled trials involving adults affected by BP (cervical and lumbar), acute or chronic, were included.Hand contact sham treatment (ST) was compared with different MT (physiotherapy, chiropractic, osteopathy, massage, kinesiology and reflexology) and to no treatment. Primary outcomes were BP improvement, success of blinding and adverse effect (AE). Secondary outcomes were number of drop-outs. Dichotomous outcomes were analysed using risk ratio (RR), continuous using mean difference (MD), 95% CIs. The minimal clinically important difference was 30 mm changes in pain score.

RESULTS

24 trials were included involving 2019 participants. Very low evidence quality suggests clinically insignificant pain improvement in favour of MT compared with ST (MD 3.86, 95% CI 3.29 to 4.43) and no differences between ST and no treatment (MD -5.84, 95% CI -20.46 to 8.78).ST reliability shows a high percentage of correct detection by participants (ranged from 46.7% to 83.5%), spinal manipulation being the most recognised technique.Low quality of evidence suggests that AE and drop-out rates were similar between ST and MT (RR AE=0.84, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.28, RR drop-outs=0.98, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.25). A similar drop-out rate was reported for no treatment (RR=0.82, 95% 0.43 to 1.55).

CONCLUSIONS

MT does not seem to have clinically relevant effect compared with ST. Similar effects were found with no treatment. The heterogeneousness of sham MT studies and the very low quality of evidence render uncertain these review findings.Future trials should develop reliable kinds of ST, similar to active treatment, to ensure participant blinding and to guarantee a proper sample size for the reliable detection of clinically meaningful treatment effects.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42020198301.

Differences in force-time parameters and electromyographic characteristics of two high-velocity, low-amplitude spinal manipulations following one another in quick succession

BACKGROUND

Spinal manipulative therapy is an effective treatment for neck pain. However, the mechanisms underlying its clinical efficacy are not fully understood. Previous studies have not systematically compared force-time parameters and electromyographic responses associated with spinal manipulation. In this study, force-time parameters and electromyographic characteristics associated with multiple manual high-velocity, low-amplitude cervical and upper thoracic spinal manipulations were investigated. The purpose of this analysis was to compare the force-time parameters and electromyographic characteristics between two spinal manipulations delivered following one another in quick succession if the first thrust was not associated with an audible cavitation.

METHODS

Nine asymptomatic and eighteen symptomatic participants received six Diversified-style spinal manipulations to the cervical and upper thoracic spines during data collected February 2018 to September 2019. Peak force, rate of force application and thrust duration were measured using a pressure pad. Bipolar surface electrodes were used to measure the electromyographic responses and reflex delay times in sixteen neck, back and limb outlet muscles bilaterally. Differences in force-time parameters and electromyographic data were analyzed between the first and second thrust.

RESULTS

Fifty-two spinal manipulations were included in this analysis. Peak force was greater (p < 0.001) and rate of force application faster (p < 0.001) in the second thrust. Furthermore, peak electromyographic responses were higher following the second thrust in asymptomatic (p < 0.001) and symptomatic (p < 0.001) subjects. Also, electromyographic delays were shorter in the symptomatic compared to the asymptomatic participants for the second thrust (p = 0.039). There were no adverse patient events.

CONCLUSION

When a second manipulation was delivered because there was not audible cavitation during the first thrust, the second thrust was associated with greater treatment forces and faster thrust rates. Peak electromyographic responses were greater following the second thrust.

Immediate and Short-Term Effects of Upper Cervical High-Velocity, Low-Amplitude Manipulation on Standing Postural Control and Cervical Mobility in Chronic Nonspecific Neck Pain: A Randomized Controlled Trial

This study aimed to determine the immediate and short-term effects of a single upper cervical high-velocity, low-amplitude (HVLA) manipulation on standing postural control and cervical mobility in chronic nonspecific neck pain (CNSNP). A double-blinded, randomized placebo-controlled trial was performed. Forty-four patients with CNSNP were allocated to the experimental group (n = 22) or control group (n = 22). All participants were assessed before and immediately after the intervention, with a follow-up on the 7th and 15th days. In each evaluation, we assessed global and specific stabilometric parameters to analyze standing postural balance and performed the cervical flexion-rotation test (CFRT) to analyze upper cervical mobility. We obtained statistically significant differences, with a large effect size, in the limited cervical rotation and global stabilometric parameters. Upper cervical HVLA manipulation produced an improvement in the global stabilometric parameters, significantly decreasing the mean values of velocity, surface, path length, and pressure in all assessments (p < 0.001; ƞ 2 p = 0.323–0.856), as well as significantly decreasing the surface length ratio (L/S) on the 7th (−0.219 1/mm; p = 0.008; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.042–0.395) and 15th days (−0.447 1/mm; p < 0.001; 95% CI: 0.265–0.629). Limited cervical rotation values increased significantly immediately after manipulation (7.409°; p < 0.001; 95% CI: 6.131–8.687) and were maintained during follow-up (p < 0.001). These results show that a single upper cervical HVLA manipulation produces an improvement in standing postural control and increases the rotational range of motion (ROM) in the upper cervical spine in patients with CNSNP.

Reaction Force Magnitude and Orientation During Supine Thoracic Spine Thrust Manipulation: An Exploratory Analysis and Reliability of Preload and Impulse Phase

OBJECTIVE

The main purpose of this study was to explore specific kinetic parameters during supine thoracic thrust manipulation and to analyze task reliability and differences between various practitioners METHODS: Kinetic parameters were assessed by examining ground reaction force magnitude and orientation (on the basis of the zenithal angle) using force platforms. The manipulative procedure (consisting of the application of 3 preloads followed by 1 single thrust adjustment) was performed by different practitioners at 3 sessions. Application of thrust was allowed for trained practitioners only. Preload force, peak force, and vector force orientation were compared between sessions and practitioners.

RESULTS

Reliability analysis showed that practitioners achieved similar preload and peak force independent of the session, with comparable force orientation data. Differences between practitioners were observed for preload and peak force but not regarding the zenithal angle during the thrust phase.

CONCLUSION

This study is the first that explores kinetic parameters for supine thoracic thrust manipulation. Task repeatability was confirmed and several differences were observed between practitioners. Certainly, there is a need for further investigation examining both dynamic parameters (ie, velocity and accelerations) and the potential neurologic effect of such manipulative technique.

Cervicothoracic Manipulation Techniques Reviewed Utilizing Three-Dimensional Spine Model

Currently, there is a paucity of studies that describe prone cervicothoracic joint high-velocity low-amplitude (HVLA) thrust techniques using an anatomically accurate, biomimetic three-dimensional (3D) spine model for educational demonstration. The purpose of this technical report was to present a learning model for two prone cervicothoracic HVLA thrust techniques using a 3D model, review intersegmental mobility observed on a 3D spine model with application of the techniques, and lastly discuss potential applications of this learning model.

Manipulation-induced hypoalgesia in musculoskeletal pain populations: a systematic critical review and meta-analysis

Background

Manipulation-induced hypoalgesia (MIH) represents reduced pain sensitivity following joint manipulation, and has been documented in various populations. It is unknown, however, whether MIH following high-velocity low-amplitude spinal manipulative therapy is a specific and clinically relevant treatment effect.

Methods

This systematic critical review with meta-analysis investigated changes in quantitative sensory testing measures following high-velocity low-amplitude spinal manipulative therapy in musculoskeletal pain populations, in randomised controlled trials. Our objectives were to compare changes in quantitative sensory testing outcomes after spinal manipulative therapy vs. sham, control and active interventions, to estimate the magnitude of change over time, and to determine whether changes are systemic or not.

Results

Fifteen studies were included. Thirteen measured pressure pain threshold, and four of these were sham-controlled. Change in pressure pain threshold after spinal manipulative therapy compared to sham revealed no significant difference. Pressure pain threshold increased significantly over time after spinal manipulative therapy (0.32 kg/cm², CI 0.22–0.42), which occurred systemically. There were too few studies comparing to other interventions or for other types of quantitative sensory testing to make robust conclusions about these.

Conclusions

We found that systemic MIH (for pressure pain threshold) does occur in musculoskeletal pain populations, though there was low quality evidence of no significant difference compared to sham manipulation. Future research should focus on the clinical relevance of MIH, and different types of quantitative sensory tests.

Trial registration

Prospectively registered with PROSPERO (registration CRD42016041963).

Effects of cervical manipulation on pain, grip force control, and upper extremity muscle activity: a randomized controlled trial

Objectives

Individuals with neck pain experience disrupted grip force control when performing manipulative tasks. Manipulative physical therapy might decrease pain and change the activity of surrounding muscles; however, its effect on upper limb motor control remains undetermined. This study aims to analyze the effects of cervical manipulation on pressure pain threshold (PPT), upper extremity muscle activity along with grip force control in individuals with neck pain.

Methods

Thirty subjects with neck pain were instructed to grasp and lift an object before and after cervical (n = 15) or sham (n = 15) manipulation. The patients' PPT, electromyographic (EMG) activity of the upper extremity/scapular muscles, and grip force control were analyzed before and after one session of manipulation.

Results

No significant differences were found in the grip force control, PPT and EMG activity variables between groups.

Discussion

These results suggest that a single session of cervical manipulation may not modify upper limb motor control, more specifically grip force control and EMG activity, in patients with cervical pain. Future studies should investigate potential changes in grip force control in patients with different features of neck pain and/or by applying long-term treatment.

Level of Evidence

1b.

CAVITATION SOUNDS DURING CERVICOTHORACIC SPINAL MANIPULATION

BACKGROUND

No study has previously investigated the side, duration or number of audible cavitation sounds during high-velocity low-amplitude (HVLA) thrust manipulation to the cervicothoracic spine.

PURPOSE

The primary purpose was to determine which side of the spine cavitates during cervicothoracic junction (CTJ) HVLA thrust manipulation. Secondary aims were to calculate the average number of cavitations, the duration of cervicothoracic thrust manipulation, and the duration of a single cavitation.

STUDY DESIGN

Quasi-experimental study.

METHODS

Thirty-two patients with upper trapezius myalgia received two cervicothoracic HVLA thrust manipulations targeting the right and left T1-2 articulation, respectively. Two high sampling rate accelerometers were secured bilaterally 25 mm lateral to midline of the T1-2 interspace. For each manipulation, two audio signals were extracted using Short-Time Fourier Transformation (STFT) and singularly processed via spectrogram calculation in order to evaluate the frequency content and number of instantaneous energy bursts of both signals over time for each side of the CTJ.

RESULT

Unilateral cavitation sounds were detected in 53 (91.4%) of 58 cervicothoracic HVLA thrust manipulations and bilateral cavitation sounds were detected in just five (8.6%) of the 58 thrust manipulations; that is, cavitation was significantly (p<0.001) more likely to occur unilaterally than bilaterally. In addition, cavitation was significantly (p<0.0001) more likely to occur on the side contralateral to the clinician's short-lever applicator. The mean number of audible cavitations per manipulation was 4.35 (95% CI 2.88, 5.76). The mean duration of a single manipulation was 60.77 ms (95% CI 28.25, 97.42) and the mean duration of a single audible cavitation was 4.13 ms (95% CI 0.82, 7.46). In addition to single-peak and multi-peak energy bursts, spectrogram analysis also demonstrated high frequency sounds, low frequency sounds, and sounds of multiple frequencies for all 58 manipulations.

DISCUSSION

Cavitation was significantly more likely to occur unilaterally, and on the side contralateral to the short-lever applicator contact, during cervicothoracic HVLA thrust manipulation. Clinicians should expect multiple cavitation sounds when performing HVLA thrust manipulation to the CTJ. Due to the presence of multi-peak energy bursts and sounds of multiple frequencies, the cavitation hypothesis (i.e. intra-articular gas bubble collapse) alone appears unable to explain all of the audible sounds during HVLA thrust manipulation, and the possibility remains that several phenomena may be occurring simultaneously.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

2b.

Beliefs in the population about cracking sounds produced during spinal manipulation

OBJECTIVES

To examine beliefs about cracking sounds heard during high-velocity low-amplitude (HVLA) thrust spinal manipulation in individuals with and without personal experience of this technique.

METHODS

We included 100 individuals. Among them, 60 had no history of spinal manipulation, including 40 who were asymptomatic with or without a past history of spinal pain and 20 who had nonspecific spinal pain. The remaining 40 patients had a history of spinal manipulation; among them, 20 were asymptomatic and 20 had spinal pain. Participants attended a one-on-one interview during which they completed a questionnaire about their history of spinal manipulation and their beliefs regarding sounds heard during spinal manipulation.

RESULTS

Mean age was 43.5±15.4years. The sounds were ascribed to vertebral repositioning by 49% of participants and to friction between two vertebras by 23% of participants; only 9% of participants correctly ascribed the sound to the formation of a gas bubble in the joint. The sound was mistakenly considered to indicate successful spinal manipulation by 40% of participants. No differences in beliefs were found between the groups with and without a history of spinal manipulation.

CONCLUSIONS

Certain beliefs have documented adverse effects. This study showed a high prevalence of unfounded beliefs regarding spinal manipulation. These beliefs deserve greater attention from healthcare providers, particularly those who practice spinal manipulation.

Assessment of in vivo 3D kinematics of cervical spine manipulation: Influence of practitioner experience and occurrence of cavitation noise

BACKGROUND

Investigations on 3D kinematics during spinal manipulation are widely reported for assessing motion data, task reliability and clinical effects. However the link between cavitation occurrence and specific kinematics remains questionable.

OBJECTIVES

This paper investigates the 3D head-trunk kinematics during high velocity low amplitude (HVLA) manipulation for different practitioners with respect to the occurrence of cavitation.

METHODS

Head-trunk 3D motions were sampled during HVLA manipulation in twenty asymptomatic volunteers manipulated by four practitioners with different seniority (years of experience). Four target levels were selected, C3 and C5 on each side, and were randomly allocated to the different practitioners. The data was recorded before, during and after each set of trial in each anatomical plane. The number of trials with cavitation occurrence was collected for each practitioner.

RESULTS

The manipulation task was performed using extension, ipsilateral side bending and contra-lateral axial rotation independent of side or target level. The displayed angular motion magnitudes did not exceed normal active ROM. Regardless cavitation occurrence, wide variations were observed between practitioners, especially in terms of velocity and acceleration. Cavitation occurrence was related to several kinematics features (i.e. frontal ROM and velocity, sagittal acceleration) and practitioner experience. In addition, multilevel cavitation was observed regularly.

CONCLUSIONS

Kinematics of cervical manipulation is dependent on practitioner and years of experience. Cavitation occurrence could be related to particular kinematics features. These aspects should be further investigated in order to improve teaching and learning of cervical manipulation technique.

Upper cervical and upper thoracic manipulation versus mobilization and exercise in patients with cervicogenic headache: a multi-center randomized clinical trial

Background

Although commonly utilized interventions, no studies have directly compared the effectiveness of cervical and thoracic manipulation to mobilization and exercise in individuals with cervicogenic headache (CH). The purpose of this study was to compare the effects of manipulation to mobilization and exercise in individuals with CH.

Methods

One hundred and ten participants (n = 110) with CH were randomized to receive both cervical and thoracic manipulation (n = 58) or mobilization and exercise (n = 52). The primary outcome was headache intensity as measured by the Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NPRS). Secondary outcomes included headache frequency, headache duration, disability as measured by the Neck Disability Index (NDI), medication intake, and the Global Rating of Change (GRC). The treatment period was 4 weeks with follow-up assessment at 1 week, 4 weeks, and 3 months after initial treatment session. The primary aim was examined with a 2-way mixed-model analysis of variance (ANOVA), with treatment group (manipulation versus mobilization and exercise) as the between subjects variable and time (baseline, 1 week, 4 weeks and 3 months) as the within subjects variable.

Results

The 2X4 ANOVA demonstrated that individuals with CH who received both cervical and thoracic manipulation experienced significantly greater reductions in headache intensity (p < 0.001) and disability (p < 0.001) than those who received mobilization and exercise at a 3-month follow-up. Individuals in the upper cervical and upper thoracic manipulation group also experienced less frequent headaches and shorter duration of headaches at each follow-up period (p < 0.001 for all). Additionally, patient perceived improvement was significantly greater at 1 and 4-week follow-up periods in favor of the manipulation group (p < 0.001).

Conclusions

Six to eight sessions of upper cervical and upper thoracic manipulation were shown to be more effective than mobilization and exercise in patients with CH, and the effects were maintained at 3 months.

Trial registration

NCT01580280 April 16, 2012.