Changes in spinal stiffness with chronic thoracic pain: Correlation with pain and muscle activity

A modern way to teach and practice manual therapy

BACKGROUND

Musculoskeletal conditions are the leading contributor to global disability and health burden. Manual therapy (MT) interventions are commonly recommended in clinical guidelines and used in the management of musculoskeletal conditions. Traditional systems of manual therapy (TMT), including physiotherapy, osteopathy, chiropractic, and soft tissue therapy have been built on principles such as clinician-centred assessment, patho-anatomical reasoning, and technique specificity. These historical principles are not supported by current evidence. However, data from clinical trials support the clinical and cost effectiveness of manual therapy as an intervention for musculoskeletal conditions, when used as part of a package of care.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this paper is to propose a modern evidence-guided framework for the teaching and practice of MT which avoids reference to and reliance on the outdated principles of TMT. This framework is based on three fundamental humanistic dimensions common in all aspects of healthcare: safety, comfort, and efficiency. These practical elements are contextualised by positive communication, a collaborative context, and person-centred care. The framework facilitates best-practice, reasoning, and communication and is exemplified here with two case studies.

METHODS

A literature review stimulated by a new method of teaching manual therapy, reflecting contemporary evidence, being trialled at a United Kingdom education institute. A group of experienced, internationally-based academics, clinicians, and researchers from across the spectrum of manual therapy was convened. Perspectives were elicited through reviews of contemporary literature and discussions in an iterative process. Public presentations were made to multidisciplinary groups and feedback was incorporated. Consensus was achieved through repeated discussion of relevant elements.

CONCLUSIONS

Manual therapy interventions should include both passive and active, person-empowering interventions such as exercise, education, and lifestyle adaptations. These should be delivered in a contextualised healing environment with a well-developed person-practitioner therapeutic alliance. Teaching manual therapy should follow this model.

Investigation of the factors influencing spinal manipulative therapy force transmission through the thorax: a cadaveric study

BACKGROUND

Spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) clinical effects are believed to be linked to its force-time profile characteristics. Previous studies have revealed that the force measured at the patient-table interface is most commonly greater than the one applied at the clinician-patient interface. The factors explaining this force amplification remains unclear.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the difference between the force applied to a cadaveric specimen's thoracic spine and the resulting force measured by a force-sensing table, as well as to evaluate the relationship between this difference and both the SMT force-time characteristics and the specimens' characteristics.

METHODS

Twenty-five SMTs with different force-time profiles were delivered by an apparatus at the T7 vertebra of nine human cadaveric specimens lying prone on a treatment table equipped with a force plate. The difference between the force applied by the apparatus and the resulting force measured by the force plate was calculated in absolute force (Fdiff) and as the percentage of the applied force (Fdiff%). Kinematics markers were inserted into T6 to T8 spinous and transverse processes to evaluate vertebral displacements during the SMT thrusts. Mixed-effects linear models were run to evaluate the variance in Fdiff and Fdiff% explained by SMT characteristics (peak force, thrust duration and force application rate), T6 to T8 relative and total displacements, and specimens' characteristics (BMI, height, weight, kyphosis angle, thoracic thickness).

RESULTS

Sixty percent of the trials showed lower force measured at the force plate than the one applied at T7. Fdiff¸ was significantly predicted (R2marginal = 0.54) by peak force, thrust duration, thoracic thickness and T6-T7 relative displacement in the z-axis (postero-anterior). Fdiff% was significantly predicted (R2marginal = 0.56) by force application rate, thoracic thickness and total T6 displacements. For both dependant variables, thoracic thickness showed the highest R2marginal out of all predictors.

CONCLUSION

Difference in force between the clinician-patient and the patient-table interfaces is influenced by SMT force-time characteristics and by thoracic thickness. How these differences in force are associated with vertebral displacements remains unclear. Although further studies are needed, clinicians should consider thorax thickness as a possible modulator of forces being transmitted through it during prone SMT procedures.

Neuromechanical Responses to Spinal Manipulation and Mobilization: A Crossover Randomized Clinical Trial

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to compare the immediate effect of spinal manipulation (SMa) and spinal mobilization (SMo) on muscular responses, spinal stiffness, and segmental spinal pressure evoked pain in a population of participants with chronic middle back pain (MBP).

METHODS

In a crossover randomized trial, 2 experienced chiropractors assessed whether volunteers were eligible for the protocol according to a list of specific inclusion and exclusion criteria. Individuals with MBP participated in 2 experimental sessions within 72 hours. During the first session, participants randomly received a SMa or SMo delivered by an apparatus using a servolinear motor. During the second session, the other modality was delivered. Spinal stiffness and pressure-provoked pain intensity outcomes were assessed before and after each therapy, and muscular responses were recorded during the treatment using surface electromyographic sensors. Signed-rank Wilcoxon tests for muscular responses and generalized model for repeated measure for spinal stiffness and pressure-provoked pain were used for statistical analyses.

RESULTS

Among the 32 potential participants, 26 (mean age 29.9 [±9.14], 15 women) completed both sessions. Between-group differences were observed for the muscular response amplitude (P < .001), and indeed the normalized RMS muscular response was found to be higher during SMa than SMo. Similar results were observed for pressure-provoked pain intensity at the level of therapeutic modality application (P = .002) as a higher decrease in pain was found after SMa (47.9 [±22.8] to 36.6 [±23.7]) compared with SMo (47.2 [±23.2] to 45.5 [±24.3]). No between-group differences were found for spinal stiffness change, nor for terminal (P = .08) and global spinal stiffness (P = .06).

CONCLUSION

In a controlled environment, spinal manipulation and mobilization generated different muscle responses and had different immediate effects on pressure-provoked pain intensity for subjects with MBP.

Mechanical properties of a thoracic spine mannequin with variable stiffness control

OBJECTIVE

To test the posterior-to-anterior stiffness (PAS) of a new thoracic spine training simulator under different conditions of "fixation."

METHODS

We constructed a thoracic spine model using plastic bones and ribs mounted in a wooden box, with skin and soft tissue simulated by layers of silicone and foam. The spine segment could be stiffened with tension applied to cords running through the vertebrae and ribs. We tested PAS at 2 tension levels using a custom-built device to apply repetitive loads at the T6 spinous process (SP) and over adjacent soft tissue (TP) while measuring load and displacement. Stiffness was the slope of the force-displacement curve from 55 to 75 N.

RESULTS

Stiffness in the unconstrained (zero tension) condition over the SP averaged 11.98 N/mm and 6.72 N/mm over the TP. With tension applied, SP stiffness increased to 14.56 N/mm, and TP decreased to 6.15 N/mm.

CONCLUSION

Thoracic model compliance was similar to that reported for humans. The tension control system increased stiffness by 21.3% only over the SP. Stiffness over the TP was dominated by the lower stiffness of the thicker foam layer and did not change. The mannequin with these properties may be suitable for use in manual training of adjusting or PAS testing skills.

Effects of spinal manipulative therapy biomechanical parameters on clinical and biomechanical outcomes of participants with chronic thoracic pain: a randomized controlled experimental trial

BACKGROUND

Spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) includes biomechanical parameters that vary between clinicians, but for which the influence on the therapy clinical effects is unknown. This parallel-randomized controlled trial aimed to investigate the effect of SMT biomechanical parameters on the outcomes of participants with chronic thoracic pain (CTP) following three treatment sessions (follow-up at one week).

METHODS

Adults reporting CTP (pain within the evaluated region [T6 to T8] for ≥3 months) were asked to participate in a four-session trial. At the first session, participants were randomly assigned to one of three experimental groups (different SMT doses) or the control group (no SMT). During the first three sessions, one SMT was executed at T7 for the experimental groups, while a 5-min rest was provided to the control group. SMT were delivered through an apparatus using a servo-controlled linear actuator motor and doses consisted of peak forces, impulse durations, and rates of force application set at 135 N, 125 ms and 920 N/s (group 1), at 250 N, 125 ms and 1840 N/s (group 2), and at 250 N, 250 ms, 920 N/s (group 3). Disability and pain intensity were evaluated at each session (primary outcomes). Spinal stiffness was assessed before-and-after each SMT/rest and at follow-up. Tenderness and muscle activity were evaluated during each spinal stiffness trial. Improvement was evaluated at follow-up. Differences in outcomes between groups and sessions were evaluated as well as factors associated with clinical improvement.

RESULTS

Eighty-one participants were recruited and 17, 20, 20 participants of the three experimental groups and 18 of the control group completed the protocol. In exception of higher pain intensity at baseline in the control group, no between-group differences were found for any of the outcomes. A decrease in pain intensity, disability, spinal stiffness, and tenderness during spinal stiffness were observed (p-values< 0.05). At follow-up, 24% of participants were classified as 'improved'. Predictors of improvement were a greater decrease in pain intensity and in tenderness (p-values< 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

In an experimental setting, the delivery of a SMT does not lead to significantly different outcomes in participants with CTP than a control condition (spinal stiffness assessment). Studies are still required to explore the mechanisms underlying SMT effects.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03063177 , registered 24 February 2017).