Skip to main content

Does inter-vertebral range of motion increase after spinal manipulation? A prospective cohort study.

Branney, J. and Breen, A. C., 2014. Does inter-vertebral range of motion increase after spinal manipulation? A prospective cohort study. Chiropractic & Manual Therapies, 22, 24 - .

Full text available as:

[img]
Preview
PDF (OPEN ACCESS ARTICLE)
Does intervertebral range of motion increase after spinal manipulation.pdf - Published Version
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution.

1MB

DOI: 10.1186/s12998-014-0024-9

Abstract

Background: Spinal manipulation for nonspecific neck pain is thought to work in part by improving inter-vertebral range of motion (IV-RoM), but it is difficult to measure this or determine whether it is related to clinical outcomes. Objectives: This study undertook to determine whether cervical spine flexion and extension IV-RoM increases after a course of spinal manipulation, to explore relationships between any IV-RoM increases and clinical outcomes and to compare palpation with objective measurement in the detection of hypo-mobile segments. Method: Thirty patients with nonspecific neck pain and 30 healthy controls matched for age and gender received quantitative fluoroscopy (QF) screenings to measure flexion and extension IV-RoM (C1-C6) at baseline and 4-week follow-up between September 2012-13. Patients received up to 12 neck manipulations and completed NRS, NDI and Euroqol 5D-5L at baseline, plus PGIC and satisfaction questionnaires at follow-up. IV-RoM accuracy, repeatability and hypo-mobility cut-offs were determined. Minimal detectable changes (MDC) over 4 weeks were calculated from controls. Patients and control IV-RoMs were compared at baseline as well as changes in patients over 4 weeks. Correlations between outcomes and the number of manipulations received and the agreement (Kappa) between palpated and QF-detected of hypo-mobile segments were calculated. Results: QF had high accuracy (worst RMS error 0.5o) and repeatability (highest SEM 1.1o, lowest ICC 0.90) for IV-RoM measurement. Hypo-mobility cut offs ranged from 0.8o to 3.5o. No outcome was significantly correlated with increased IV-RoM above MDC and there was no significant difference between the number of hypo-mobile segments in patients and controls at baseline or significant increases in IV-RoMs in patients. However, there was a modest and significant correlation between the number of manipulations received and the number of levels and directions whose IV-RoM increased beyond MDC (Rho=0.39, p=0.043). There was also no agreement between palpation and QF in identifying hypo-mobile segments (Kappa 0.04-0.06). Conclusions: This study found no differences in cervical sagittal IV-RoM between patients with non-specific neck pain and matched controls. There was a modest dose-response relationship between the number of manipulations given and number of levels increasing IV-RoM - providing evidence that neck manipulation has a mechanical effect at segmental levels. However, patient-reported outcomes were not related to this.

Item Type:Article
ISSN:2045-709X
Uncontrolled Keywords:Fluoroscopy ; Manipulation ; Neck pain ; Patient-reported outcomes ; Spine kinematics
Group:Faculty of Health & Social Sciences
ID Code:21676
Deposited By: Symplectic RT2
Deposited On:09 Feb 2015 11:41
Last Modified:14 Mar 2022 13:50

Downloads

Downloads per month over past year

More statistics for this item...
Repository Staff Only -