Calvary Mater Hospital, and Discipline of Physiotherapy, School of Health Sciences, The University of Newcastle, Newcastle, NSW, Australia.
J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2010 Nov;40(11):685-93. doi: 10.2519/jospt.2010.3271.
Controlled laboratory study, with measurements taken before and after a standardized clinical intervention.
To determine if thoracic manipulation alters the posteroanterior (PA) spinal stiffness of the thoracic spine, and the factors associated with any potential changes in stiffness.
Spinal manipulation is commonly used to treat thoracic pain and dysfunction. Therapists use manual assessment of PA spinal stiffness to determine the appropriateness and effectiveness of treatment, with potential changes in spinal stiffness possibly contributing to symptomatic improvement following manipulation.
Thoracic PA spinal stiffness was measured at 5 vertebral levels (manipulated level and 2 levels above and below), in 24 asymptomatic subjects, before and after manipulation. Five cycles of standardized mechanical PA force were applied to the spinous process while recording resistance to movement and concurrent displacement, with stiffness defined as the slope of the linear portion of the force-displacement curve. A 2-way repeated-measures analysis of variance determined differences between premanipulation and postmanipulation among multiple spinal levels. Linear regression determined the relationship between stiffness magnitude and its change following manipulation. Generalized linear mixed models were used to determine if subject age, gender, spinal level, premanipulation stiffness, or manipulative thrust parameters were associated with postmanipulation stiffness.
Thoracic spine PA stiffness differed between spinal levels (F4,92=21.1, P<.001) but was not significantly different following manipulation. The mean change in spinal stiffness correlated with stiffness magnitude at the manipulated spinal level only but not other levels (Pearson r, –0.65; P<.001). Greater postmanipulation stiffness was associated with being male (regression coefficient, 1.16; 95% CI: 0.52, 1.79; P<.001) and with higher premanipulation stiffness (regression coefficient, 0.63; 95% CI: 0.49, 0.77; P<.001). Manipulation force parameters were not associated with postmanipulation stiffness.
In asymptomatic individuals, thoracic PA spinal stiffness is not significantly different when measured before and after thrust manipulation, but any potential mechanical effects appear associated with the manipulated spinal level rather than other levels.
对照实验室研究,在标准化临床干预前后进行测量。
确定胸椎推拿是否会改变胸椎的后前(PA)脊柱刚度,以及与刚度变化相关的因素。
脊柱推拿常用于治疗胸疼和功能障碍。治疗师使用 PA 脊柱刚度的手动评估来确定治疗的适当性和有效性,脊柱刚度的潜在变化可能有助于推拿后症状的改善。
在 24 名无症状受试者中,在推拿前和推拿后,测量 5 个椎体水平(推拿水平和上下 2 个水平)的 PA 脊柱刚度。对棘突施加 5 个循环的标准化机械 PA 力,同时记录运动阻力和并发位移,刚度定义为力-位移曲线线性部分的斜率。使用双向重复测量方差分析确定多个脊柱水平之间推拿前和推拿后的差异。线性回归确定了推拿后刚度大小与其变化之间的关系。使用广义线性混合模型确定受试者年龄、性别、脊柱水平、推拿前刚度或推拿推力参数是否与推拿后刚度相关。
PA 脊柱刚度在脊柱水平之间存在差异(F4,92=21.1,P<.001),但推拿后无显著差异。脊柱刚度的平均变化与受影响脊柱水平的刚度大小相关,但与其他水平无关(Pearson r,-0.65;P<.001)。更大的推拿后刚度与男性(回归系数,1.16;95%置信区间:0.52,1.79;P<.001)和更高的推拿前刚度(回归系数,0.63;95%置信区间:0.49,0.77;P<.001)相关。推拿力参数与推拿后刚度无关。
在无症状个体中,在进行推力推拿前后测量时,PA 脊柱的胸椎刚度没有显著差异,但任何潜在的力学效应似乎与受影响的脊柱水平相关,而不是其他水平。