How big is the effect of spinal manipulation on the pressure pain threshold and for how long does it last? - secondary analysis of data from a systematic review

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).

Waste not, want not: call to action for spinal manipulative therapy researchers

BACKGROUND

Research waste is defined as research outcomes with no or minimal societal benefits. It is a widespread problem in the healthcare field. Four primary sources of research waste have been defined: (1) irrelevant or low priority research questions, (2) poor design or methodology, (3) lack of publication, and (4) biased or inadequate reporting. This commentary, which was developed by a multidisciplinary group of researchers with spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) research expertise, discusses waste in SMT research and provides suggestions to improve future research.

MAIN TEXT

This commentary examines common sources of waste in SMT research, focusing on design and methodological issues, by drawing on prior research and examples from clinical and mechanistic SMT studies. Clinical research is dominated by small studies and studies with a high risk of bias. This problem is compounded by systematic reviews that pool heterogenous data from varying populations, settings, and application of SMT. Research focusing on the mechanisms of SMT often fails to address the clinical relevance of mechanisms, relies on very short follow-up periods, and has inadequate control for contextual factors.

CONCLUSIONS

This call to action is directed to researchers in the field of SMT. It is critical that the SMT research community act to improve the way research is designed, conducted, and disseminated. We present specific key action points and resources, which should enhance the quality and usefulness of future SMT research.

Association between myofascial trigger point therapy and conditioned pain modulation

INTRODUCTION

Myofascial trigger point therapy (MTrP) is a widely used therapeutic approach, although the underlying mechanisms remain unclear. Mechanisms discussed include peripheral involvement of muscles as well as central pain modulating processes such as the conditioned pain modulation (CPM). The aim of this study was to investigate whether the analgesic response of MTrP and the analgesic response of CPM correlate in asymptomatic participants in order to identify shared underlying mechanisms of MTrP and CPM.

METHOD

Both, CPM and MTrP protocols consisted of heat-based test stimuli (heat pain thresholds before and after the intervention) and pressure-based (conditioning) stimuli. Asymptomatic participants (n = 94) were randomly assigned to receive either mild, intense or no pressure stimuli (between-group design) to both the fingernail and the MTrP of the infraspinatus muscle (within-group design). Pressure stimuli at both locations (fingernail, MTrP) were applied with a pressure algometer for 120 s and continuously adjusted to maintain a constant pain intensity of mild or intense pain. All thermal stimuli were applied on the lower leg with a thermal stimulator.

RESULTS

A significant correlation was shown between the analgesic effect of CPM and MTrP therapy for mild (r = 0.53, p = 0.002) and intensive stimuli (r = 0.73, p < 0.001). 17.3% of the variance of the MTrP effect were explained by CPM after mild stimulation, and 47.1% after intense stimulation. Pain-related characteristics did not explain the variance within the analgesic response using a regression analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

Between the analgesic responses following MTrP and CPM paradigms, a moderate to strong correlation was observed, suggesting shared underlying mechanisms.

Pressure pain thresholds in a real-world chiropractic setting: topography, changes after treatment, and clinical relevance?

BACKGROUND

Changes in pain sensitivity are a commonly suggested mechanism for the clinical effect of spinal manipulative therapy (SMT). Most research has examined pressure pain thresholds (PPT) and has primarily been conducted in controlled experimental setups and on asymptomatic populations. Many important factors are likely to differ between research and clinical settings, which may affect PPT changes following SMT. Therefore, we planned to investigate PPT before and after clinical chiropractic care and investigate relationships with various potentially clinically-relevant factors.

METHODS

We recruited participants from four Danish chiropractic clinics between May and August 2021. A total of 129 participants (72% of the invited) were included. We measured PPT at eight pre-determined test sites (six spinal and two extra-spinal) immediately before (pre-session) and immediately after (post-session) the chiropractic consultation. We used regression analyses to investigate PPT changes, including the following factors: (i) vertebral distance to the nearest SMT site, (ii) rapid clinical response, (iii) baseline PPT, (iv) number of SMTs performed, (v) at the region of clinical pain compared to other regions, and (vi) if other non-SMT treatment was provided. We also performed topographic mapping of pre-session PPTs.

RESULTS

After the consultation, there was a non-significant mean increase in PPT of 0.14 kg (95% CIs = - 0.01 to 0.29 kg). No significant associations were found with the distance between the PPT test site and nearest SMT site, the clinical response of participants to treatment, the pre-session PPT, the total number of SMTs performed, or the region/s of clinical pain. A small increase was observed if myofascial treatment was also provided. Topographic mapping found greater pre-session PPTs in a caudal direction, not affected by the region/s of clinical pain.

CONCLUSIONS

This study of real-world chiropractic patients failed to demonstrate a substantial local or generalized increase in PPT following a clinical encounter that included SMT. This runs counter to prior laboratory research and questions the generalizability of highly experimental setups investigating the effect of SMT on PPT to clinical practice.

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.

Effect of Transversus abdominis muscle training on pressure-pain threshold in patients with chronic low Back pain

Background

Therapeutic training is the most commonly used treatment methods for chronic low back pain (CLBP), and the use of a pressure biofeedback unit for transversus abdominis muscle (TrA) training is one of the core muscle training methods. The study aim of this research is to explore the effects of different intensities (sham training, low-intensity and high-intensity) of TrA muscle training on people with CLBP in pressure-pain threshold (PPT).

Methods

A total of 45 patients with CLBP were recruited, of whom 44 were included in the analysis. Fifteen, 14, and 15 were included in the sham training group, the low-intensity group, and the high-intensity group, respectively. A pressure biofeedback unit was used in performing a one-time TrA training intervention involving 30 times of 180 mmHg TrA contraction training at high intensity for 10 min and 15 times of 100 mmHg TrA contraction training at low intensity for 5 min. The sham training group completed comfort exercises and did not undergo training. The evaluation indicators were as follows: PPT, short-form McGill pain questionnaire, and body surface pain radiation.

Results

High-intensity training could activate more waist core muscles than low-intensity training. Significant changes on PPT (units: kgf) were observed in the following four muscles immediately after high-intensity training: iliopsoas [0.69 (0.13–1.25) 95% CI, p = 0.020]; quadratus lumborum [0.84 (0.23–1.45) 95% CI, p = 0.012]; erector spinae [0.66 (0.18–1.15) 95% CI, p = 0.011]; transversus abdominis [0.70 (0.26–1.14) 95% CI, p = 0.004], and in three muscles after low-intensity training: quadratus lumborum [0.61 (0.17–1.05) 95% CI, p = 0.009]; transversus abdominis [0.14 (from − 0.15 to 0.43) 95% CI, p = 0.022]; piriformis [0.55 (0.13–0.98) 95% CI, p = 0.014]. The change in body surface pain radiation immediately after exercise was [− 10.87 (from − 17.51 to − 4.22) 95% CI, p = 0.003] for high-intensity training and [− 5.21 (from − 9.40 to − 1.03) 95% CI, p = 0.019] for low-intensity training.

Conclusions

TrA training could increase the PPT of the waist core muscles and reduce the radiation range of waist pain. The benefits of high-intensity training are higher than those of low-intensity training.

Trial registration

ChiCTR-TRC-13003701. Registered 18 October 2013.

Code of ethical approval: 2018069.

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.

What is the effect of spinal manipulation on the pressure pain threshold in young, asymptomatic subjects? A randomized placebo-controlled trial, with a cross-over design

BACKGROUND

Spinal manipulation (SM) has been shown to have an effect on the pressure pain threshold (PPT) in asymptomatic subjects, but SM has never been compared in studies on this topic to a validated sham procedure. We investigated the effect of SM on the PPT when measured i) in the area of intervention and ii) in an area remote from the intervention. In addition, we measured the size and duration of the effect.

METHOD

In a randomized cross-over trial, 50 asymptomatic chiropractic students had their PPT measured at baseline, immediately after and every 12 min after intervention, over a period of 45 min, comparing values after SM and a previously validated sham. The trial was conducted during two sessions, separated by 48 h. PPT was measured both regionally and remotely from the 'treated' thoracic segment. Blinding of study subjects was tested with a post-intervention questionnaire. We used mixed linear regression with the baseline value and time as co-variates. If a significant difference were found between groups, then an effect size would be calculated using Cohen's d or Hedge's h coefficient. Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05.

RESULTS

Study subjects had been successfully blinded. No statistically significant differences were found between SM and sham estimates, at any time or anatomical location.

CONCLUSION

When compared to a valid sham procedure and with successfully blinded subjects, there is no regional or remote effect of spinal manipulation of the thoracic spine on the pressure pain threshold in a young pain-free population.