Araujo Francisco X, Scholl Schell Mauricio, Ferreira Giovanni E, Pessoa Mariana D V, Pinho Alexandre S, Plentz Rodrigo D M, Silva Marcelo F
Masters Program in Rehabilitation Sciences, Universidade Federal de Ciências da Saúde de Porto Alegre, Brazil.
Physical Therapy Department, Centro Universitário Ritter dos Reis/UniRitter, Porto Alegre, Brazil.
J Chiropr Med. 2019 Mar;18(1):33-41. doi: 10.1016/j.jcm.2018.10.002. Epub 2019 May 7.
The primary aim of this study was to determine the effects of different rates of thoracic spine passive accessory intervertebral mobilization (PAIVM) on pressure pain threshold (PPT) at T4. The secondary aim was to investigate the widespread effects of different rates of thoracic PAIVM.
Twenty asymptomatic participants were randomly assigned to 3 experimental conditions: posteroanterior rotatory thoracic PAIVM at 2 Hz, 0.5 Hz, and placebo. Each participant received all 3 experimental conditions in a random order with a washout period of at least 48 hours between each procedure. The PPT was measured in 3 different points: pre-treatment, immediately after, and 15 minutes after the treatment at C7 and T4 spinous process, first interossei dorsal on the right and left hands and tibial tuberosity bilaterally. A repeated-measures analysis of covariance adjusted by baseline values was used to assess between-group differences at each point. Pairwise comparisons were adjusted for multiple tests with a Bonferroni correction. A value < .05 was considered significant.
There was no between-group differences on PPT at T4 when comparing 0.5 Hz (mean difference -0.29; 95% CI -0.99 to 0.42; = .999) or 2 Hz (mean difference -0.37; 95% CI -1.1 to 0.33; = .528) to placebo.
None of the mobilization techniques in this study (0.5 Hz, 2 Hz, and placebo) showed a significant change of PPT both locally and at distant sites at any point in asymptomatic participants.
本研究的主要目的是确定不同速率的胸椎被动辅助椎间活动度调整(PAIVM)对T4节段压力疼痛阈值(PPT)的影响。次要目的是研究不同速率的胸椎PAIVM的广泛影响。
20名无症状参与者被随机分配到3种实验条件下:2Hz、0.5Hz的后前旋转胸椎PAIVM以及安慰剂组。每位参与者以随机顺序接受所有3种实验条件,每次操作之间至少有48小时的洗脱期。在3个不同点测量PPT:治疗前、治疗后立即以及治疗后15分钟,测量部位为C7和T4棘突、双侧左右手第一骨间背侧肌以及双侧胫骨结节。采用经基线值调整的重复测量协方差分析来评估各点的组间差异。采用Bonferroni校正对多重检验进行两两比较调整。P值<0.05被认为具有统计学意义。
将0.5Hz(平均差异-0.29;95%可信区间-0.99至0.42;P = 0.999)或2Hz(平均差异-0.37;95%可信区间-1.1至0.33;P = 0.528)与安慰剂组比较时,T4节段的PPT在组间无差异。
本研究中的任何一种活动度调整技术(0.5Hz、2Hz和安慰剂)在无症状参与者的任何时间点均未在局部和远处部位显示出PPT的显著变化。