Effect of lumbar spinal manipulation on local and remote pressure pain threshold and pinprick sensitivity in asymptomatic individuals: a randomised trial

One spinal manipulation session reduces local pain sensitivity but does not affect postural stability in individuals with chronic low back pain: a randomised, placebo-controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Clinical practice guidelines recommend spinal manipulation for patients with low back pain. However, the effects of spinal manipulation have contradictory findings compared to placebo intervention. Therefore, this study investigated the immediate effects of lumbar spinal manipulation on pressure pain threshold (PPT) and postural stability in people with chronic low back pain (cLBP). Second, we investigated the immediate effect of lumbar spinal manipulation on pain intensity and the interference of the participant beliefs about which treatment was received in the PPT, postural stability, and pain intensity.

METHODS

A two-arm, randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial was performed. Eighty participants with nonspecific cLPB and a minimum score of 3 on the Numeric Pain Rating Scale received one session of lumbar spinal manipulation (n = 40) or simulated lumbar spinal manipulation (n = 40). Primary outcomes were local and remote PPTs and postural stability. Secondary outcomes were pain intensity and participant's perceived treatment allocation. Between-group mean differences and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) estimated the treatment effect. One-way analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was performed to assess whether beliefs about which treatment was received influenced the outcomes.

RESULTS

Participants had a mean (SD) age of 34.9 (10.5) years, and 50 (62.5%) were women. Right L5 [between-group mean difference = 0.55 (95%CI 0.19 to 0.90)], left L5 [between-group mean difference = 0.45 (95%CI 0.13 to 0.76)], right L1 [between-group mean difference = 0.41 (95%CI 0.05 to 0.78)], left L1 [between-group mean difference = 0.57 (95%CI 0.15 to 0.99)], left DT [between-group mean difference = 0.35 (95%CI 0.04 to 0.65)], and right LE [between-group mean difference = 0.34 (95%CI 0.08 to 0.60)] showed superior treatment effect in the spinal manipulation group than sham. Neither intervention altered postural stability. Self-reported pain intensity showed clinically significant decreases in both groups after the intervention. A higher proportion of participants in the spinal manipulation group achieved more than two points of pain relief (spinal manipulation = 90%; sham = 60%). The participants' perceived treatment allocation did not affect the outcomes.

CONCLUSION

One spinal manipulation session reduces lumbar pain sensitivity but does not affect postural stability compared to a sham session in individuals with cLPB. Self-reported pain intensity lowered in both groups and a higher proportion of participants in the spinal manipulation group reached clinically significant pain relief. The participant's belief in receiving the manipulation did not appear to have influenced the outcomes since the adjusted model revealed similar findings.

Exploring the immediate and short-term effect of lumbar spinal manipulation on pressure pain threshold: a randomized controlled trial of healthy participants

BACKGROUND

Lumbar spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) is a common intervention used to treat low back pain (LBP); however, the exact neurophysiological mechanisms of SMT reducing pain measured through pain pressure threshold (PPT) have not been fully explored beyond an immediate timeframe (e.g., immediately or five-minutes following) referencing a control group. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to investigate the neurophysiological effects of lumbar SMT compared to deactivated ultrasound using PPT immediately following and 30-minutes following SMT.

METHODS

A longitudinal, randomized controlled trial design was conducted between September to October 2023. Fifty-five participants were randomized into a control group of deactivated ultrasound (n = 29) or treatment group of right sidelying lumbar SMT (n = 26). PPT, recorded at the right posterior superior iliac spine (PSIS), was documented for each participant in each group prior to intervention, immediately, and 30-minutes after. A repeated measures ANOVA, with a post-hoc Bonferroni adjustment, was used to assess within-group and between-group differences in PPT. The significance level was set at a < 0.05 a priori.

RESULTS

Statistically significant differences were found between the deactivated ultrasound and lumbar SMT groups immediately (p = .05) and 30-minutes (p = .02) following intervention. A significant difference in the lumbar SMT group was identified from baseline to immediately following (p < .001) and 30-minutes following (p < .001), but no differences between immediately following and 30-minutes following intervention (p = .10). The deactivated ultrasound group demonstrated a difference between baseline and immediately after intervention with a reduced PPT (p = .003), but no significant difference was found from baseline to 30-minutes (p = .11) or immediately after intervention to 30-minutes (p = 1.0).

CONCLUSION

A right sidelying lumbar manipulation increased PPT at the right PSIS immediately after that lasted to 30-minutes when compared to a deactivated ultrasound control group. Future studies should further explore beyond the immediate and short-term neurophysiological effects of lumbar SMT to validate these findings.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This study was retrospectively registered on 4 December 2023 in ClinicalTrials (database registration number NCT06156605).

Immediate effects of spinal manipulation on painful sensitivity and postural stability in patients with chronic nonspecific low back pain: study protocol for a controlled randomised clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Low back pain is one of the main public health concerns. Chronic low back pain (cLBP) reduces functional capacity and affects postural stability. Although health professionals widely use spinal manipulation, its immediate effect on painful sensitivity and postural stability is lacking. This study aims to verify the immediate effects of lumbar spinal manipulation on the pressure pain threshold and postural stability in individuals with cLBP.

METHODS

A two-arm, placebo-controlled clinical trial with parallel groups and examiner-blinded will be conducted with 80 participants with cLBP from an outpatient physical therapy department, randomly allocated at a 1:1 distribution. The experimental group will receive a lumbar spinal manipulation technique, and the placebo group will receive a simulated lumbar spinal manipulation. Both groups will receive one session of treatment and will be evaluated before and immediately after the intervention. The primary outcomes will be the pressure pain threshold and postural stability. Pain intensity and patient's expectation will be assessed as a secondary outcome. The pressure pain threshold will be assessed using a pressure algometer in 6 different anatomical regions. The evaluation of postural stability will be performed in a baropodometry exam by displacing the centre of pressure. The pain intensity will be measured using the Numeric Pain Rating Scale. A Likert scale will be used for the patient's expectation about the treatment. A two-way analysis of variance will compare the effect of the interventions between groups.

DISCUSSION

This study will provide insights regarding the immediate effects of spinal manipulation in patients with cLBP against a simulated spinal manipulation using objective outcomes and considering patients' expectations regarding the treatment.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Brazilian Registry of Clinical Trials RBR-3ksq2c . Registered on 13 July 2020.

Neurophysiological mechanisms of chiropractic spinal manipulation for spine pain

Together, neck pain and back pain are the first cause of disability worldwide, accounting for more than 10% of the total years lived with disability. In this context, chiropractic care provides a safe and effective option for the management of a large proportion of these patients. Chiropractic is a healthcare profession mainly focused on the spine and the treatment of spinal disorders, including spine pain. Basic studies have examined the influence of chiropractic spinal manipulation (SM) on a variety of peripheral, spinal and supraspinal mechanisms involved in spine pain. While spinal cord mechanisms of pain inhibition contribute at least partly to the pain-relieving effects of chiropractic treatments, the evidence is weaker regarding peripheral and supraspinal mechanisms, which are important components of acute and chronic pain. This narrative review highlights the most relevant mechanisms of pain relief by SM and provides a perspective for future research on SM and spine pain, including the validation of placebo interventions that control for placebo effects and other non-specific effects that may be induced by SM. SIGNIFICANCE: Spinal manipulation inhibits back and neck pain partly through spinal segmental mechanisms and potentially through peripheral mechanisms regulating inflammatory responses. Other mechanisms remain to be clarified. Controls and placebo interventions need to be improved in order to clarify the contribution of specific and non-specific effects to pain relief by spinal manipulative therapy.

The effect of lumbar spine manipulation on pain and disability in Achilles tendinopathy. A case report

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE

Cervical and thoracic spine manipulation has been found to reduce tendon pain and disability in lateral epicondylalgia and rotator cuff tendinopathy. Based on these findings, the application of lumbar spine manipulation may also provide similar improvements in Achilles tendinopathy (AT). Therefore, the purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of lumbar spine manipulation on pain and disability in a patient experiencing AT.

CASE DESCRIPTION

A 44 years old male ex-football player presented with a 20-year history of persistent Achilles tendon pain (ATP) consistent with AT diagnosis. The patient attended 12 treatment sessions receiving a high-velocity, low amplitude lumbar spine manipulation. Outcome measures were collected at baseline, 2 weeks, 4 weeks, 3 months and 6 months and included pain in visual analogue scale, the American Orthopedic Foot and Ankle Score, the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey and the Victorian Institute of Sport Assessment-Achilles questionnaire. Pressure pain threshold was also assessed using an electronic pressure algometer.

OUTCOMES

Improvement in all outcome measures was noted 6-months post intervention. Outcome measures indicated substantial improvements in both the patient's pain and disability. The patient was able to perform activities of daily living without difficulties, suggesting higher level of function and quality of life at 6-months post initial evaluation.

CONCLUSION

These findings have demonstrated the positive effects of lumbar spine manipulation on ATP and disability. Further studies, specifically clinical trials investigating the effect of lumbar spine manipulation or combining this technique with exercises and functional activities are suggested.

Immediate effects of a lumbar spine manipulation on pain sensitivity and postural control in individuals with nonspecific low back pain: a randomized controlled trial

Background

According to the American Physical Therapy Association, there is strong evidence to show that vertebral mobilization and manipulation procedures can be used to improve spinal and hip mobility and reduce pain and incapacity in low back pain patients that fit the clinical prediction rule. Objectives: To evaluate the immediate effects of high-velocity low-amplitude (HVLA) manipulation on pain and postural control parameters in individuals with nonspecific low back pain.

Methods

This study used a participant-blinded and assessor-blinded randomized controlled clinical trial involving a single session, in which 24 participants were randomly distributed into control (simulated manipulation) and intervention (HVLA lumbar manipulation) groups. The primary (pain: subjective pain intensity and pressure pain threshold) and secondary outcomes (postural control: ellipse area, center of pressure [COP] excursion, COP RMS velocity, and differences between the COP and center of projected gravity) were evaluated before and after the session using a numerical pain scale, algometer, and a force platform. For all outcomes, multiple mixed 2 (group) × 2 (time) ANOVAs were performed.

Results

For the subjective pain intensity, only time was significant as a main effect, where pre-intervention presented a greater value then post-intervention (F [1.44] = 4.377; p = 0.042; r = 0.30). For the pressure pain threshold no significant effect was found. For the postural control parameters, as a main effect, only the ellipse area was significantly greater in the control group (F [1.44] = 6.760; p = 0.013; effect size = 0.36).

Conclusions

There was a reduction in subjective pain intensity, evaluated using a numerical scale, in both the intervention and control groups immediately after the intervention, suggesting that the spinal manipulation had a similar effect to the placebo procedure. No effect of HVLA lumbar manipulation was identified for postural control variables in either the intervention or control groups.

Trial registration

The study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov under the number NCT02312778, registered at 14 September 2014.

No difference in pressure pain threshold and temporal summation after lumbar spinal manipulation compared to sham: A randomised controlled trial in adults with low back pain

BACKGROUND

Changes in quantitative sensory tests have been observed after spinal manipulative therapy (SMT), particularly in pressure pain thresholds (PPT) and temporal summation (TS). However, a recent systematic review comparing SMT to sham found no significant difference in PPT in patients with musculoskeletal pain. The sham-controlled studies were generally low quality, and conclusions about other quantitative sensory tests could not be made.

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to perform a sham-controlled study with the specific objective of investigating changes in PPT and TS short-term after lumbar SMT compared to sham manipulation in people with low back pain.

METHODS

This was a double-blind randomised controlled trial comparing high-velocity low-amplitude lumbar SMT against sham manipulation in participants with low back pain. Primary outcome measures were PPT at the calf, lumbar spine and shoulder, and TS at the hands and feet. These were measured at baseline, then immediately, 15 min and 30 min post-intervention.

RESULTS

Eighty participants (42 females) were included in the analyses (mean age 37 years), with 40 participants allocated to each intervention group. Significant between-group differences were only observed for calf PPT, which could be explained by a decrease in PPT (increased sensitivity) after SMT and an increase after sham. Feet TS decreased significantly over time after both SMT and sham, and any other changes over time were inconsistent.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest that lumbar SMT does not have a short-term hypoalgesic effect, as measured with PPT and TS, when compared to sham manipulation in people with low back pain.

Benefits and harms of spinal manipulative therapy for the treatment of chronic low back pain: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

OBJECTIVE

To assess the benefits and harms of spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) for the treatment of chronic low back pain.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

DATA SOURCES

Medline, PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), CINAHL, Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro), Index to Chiropractic Literature, and trial registries up to 4 May 2018, including reference lists of eligible trials and related reviews.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES

Randomised controlled trials examining the effect of spinal manipulation or mobilisation in adults (≥18 years) with chronic low back pain with or without referred pain. Studies that exclusively examined sciatica were excluded, as was grey literature. No restrictions were applied to language or setting.

REVIEW METHODS

Two reviewers independently selected studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias and quality of the evidence. The effect of SMT was compared with recommended therapies, non-recommended therapies, sham (placebo) SMT, and SMT as an adjuvant therapy. Main outcomes were pain and back specific functional status, examined as mean differences and standardised mean differences (SMD), respectively. Outcomes were examined at 1, 6, and 12 months. Quality of evidence was assessed using GRADE. A random effects model was used and statistical heterogeneity explored.

RESULTS

47 randomised controlled trials including a total of 9211 participants were identified, who were on average middle aged (35-60 years). Most trials compared SMT with recommended therapies. Moderate quality evidence suggested that SMT has similar effects to other recommended therapies for short term pain relief (mean difference -3.17, 95% confidence interval -7.85 to 1.51) and a small, clinically better improvement in function (SMD -0.25, 95% confidence interval -0.41 to -0.09). High quality evidence suggested that compared with non-recommended therapies SMT results in small, not clinically better effects for short term pain relief (mean difference -7.48, -11.50 to -3.47) and small to moderate clinically better improvement in function (SMD -0.41, -0.67 to -0.15). In general, these results were similar for the intermediate and long term outcomes as were the effects of SMT as an adjuvant therapy. Evidence for sham SMT was low to very low quality; therefore these effects should be considered uncertain. Statistical heterogeneity could not be explained. About half of the studies examined adverse and serious adverse events, but in most of these it was unclear how and whether these events were registered systematically. Most of the observed adverse events were musculoskeletal related, transient in nature, and of mild to moderate severity. One study with a low risk of selection bias and powered to examine risk (n=183) found no increased risk of an adverse event (relative risk 1.24, 95% confidence interval 0.85 to 1.81) or duration of the event (1.13, 0.59 to 2.18) compared with sham SMT. In one study, the Data Safety Monitoring Board judged one serious adverse event to be possibly related to SMT.

CONCLUSION

SMT produces similar effects to recommended therapies for chronic low back pain, whereas SMT seems to be better than non-recommended interventions for improvement in function in the short term. Clinicians should inform their patients of the potential risks of adverse events associated with SMT.

Effect of spinal manipulative therapy on mechanical pain sensitivity in patients with chronic nonspecific low back pain: a pilot randomized, controlled trial

Objectives: The long-term goal of our study is to improve the understanding of the biological mechanisms associated with spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) in low back pain.Methods: This project involved a pilot randomized, blinded clinical trial (ClinicalTrials.gov registration number NCT03078114) of 3-week SMT in chronic nonspecific low back pain (CNSLBP) patients. We recruited 29 participants and randomly assigned them into either a SMT (n = 14) or sham SMT (n = 15) group. Pre- and postintervention, we quantified the effect of SMT on clinical outcomes (Numeric Pain Rating Scale and Oswestry Disability Index) and pressure pain threshold (PPT) at local (lumbar spine), regional (lower extremity), and remote (upper extremity) anatomical sites.Results: We observed a significant main effect for time signifying reduced hypersensitivity (increased PPT) at local (p = .015) and regional (p = .014) locations at 3 weeks. Furthermore, we found significant main effects of time indicating improvements in pain (p < .001) and disability (p = .02) from baseline among all participants regardless of intervention. However, no between-group differences were observed in PPT, clinical pain, or disability between the SMT and sham SMT groups over 3 weeks.Conclusions: After 3 weeks of SMT or sham SMT in CNSLBP patients, we found hypoalgesia at local and remote sites along with improved pain and low back-related disability.Level of Evidence: 1b.

The immediate effects of cervical spine manipulation on pain and biochemical markers in females with acute non-specific mechanical neck pain: a randomized clinical trial

Study Design: Randomized clinical trial with pre-test, post-test control group design.

Objectives: To examine the immediate effects of cervical spinal manipulation (CSM) on serum concentration of biochemical markers (oxytocin, neurotensin, orexin A, and cortisol).

Background: Several studies have found an association between spinal manipulation (SM) and pain perception. However, the mechanism by which SM modulates pain remains undefined.

Methods: Twenty-eight female subjects with non-specific mechanical neck pain were randomly assigned to one of two interventions (CSM versus sham CSM). Blood samples were drawn before and immediately after the respective interventions. Oxytocin, neurotensin, orexin A, and cortisol were measured from the blood and serum using the Milliplex Map Magnetic Bead Panel Immunoassay on the Luminex 200 Platform.

Results: In the CSM group, there were significant increases in pre- versus post-manipulation mean oxytocin (154.5 ± 60.1 vs. 185.1 ± 75.6, p = .012); neurotensin (116.0 ± 26.5 vs.136.4 ± 34.1, p < . 001); orexin A (52.2 ± 31.1 vs. 73.8 ± 38.8, p < .01) serum concentration; but no significant differences in mean cortisol (p = .052) serum concentration. In the sham group, there were no significant differences in any of the biomarkers (p > .05).

Conclusion: The results of the current study suggest that the mechanical stimuli provided through a CSM may modify neuropeptide expression by immediately increasing the serum concentration of nociception-related biomarkers (oxytocin, neurotensin, orexin A, but not cortisol) in the blood of female subjects with non-specific mechanical neck pain.

The regional effect of spinal manipulation on the pressure pain threshold in asymptomatic subjects: a systematic literature review

Background

Spinal manipulation (SM) has been shown to have an effect on pain perception. More knowledge is needed on this phenomenon and it would be relevant to study its effect in asymptomatic subjects.

Objectives

To compare regional effect of SM on pressure pain threshold (PPT) vs. sham, inactive control, mobilisation, another SM, and some type of physical therapy. In addition, we reported the results for the three different spinal regions.

Method

A systematic search of literature was done using PubMed, Embase and Cochrane. Search terms were ((spinal manipulation) AND (experimental pain)); ((spinal manipulative therapy OR spinal manipulation) AND ((experimental pain OR quantitative sensory testing OR pressure pain threshold OR pain threshold)) (Final search: June 13th 2017). The inclusion criteria were SM performed anywhere in the spine; the use of PPT, PPT tested in an asymptomatic region and on the same day as the SM. Studies had to be experimental with at least one external or internal control group. Studies on only spinal motion or tenderness, other reviews, case reports, and less than 15 invited participants in each group were excluded. Evidence tables were constructed with information relevant to each research question and by spinal region. Results were reported in relation to statistical significance and were interpreted taking into account their quality.

Results

Only 12 articles of 946 were accepted. The quality of studies was generally good. In 8 sham controlled studies, a psychologically and physiologically “credible” sham was found in only 2 studies. A significant difference was noted between SM vs. Sham, and between SM and an inactive control. No significant difference in PPT was found between SM and another SM, mobilisation or some type of physical therapy. The cervical region more often obtained significant findings as compared to studies in the thoracic or lumbar regions.

Conclusion

SM has an effect regionally on pressure pain threshold in asymptomatic subjects. The clinical significance of this must be quantified. More knowledge is needed in relation to the comparison of different spinal regions and different types of interventions.