Duration of the effects of spinal manipulation on pain intensity and electromyographic activity of paravertebral parts of individuals with chronic mechanical low back pain
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1590/1809-2950/14600023022016Abstract
The objective of this research was to evaluate the effects of a manipulative intervention on the electromyographic activity of paraverterbral muscles and low back pain intensity, both immediately and 30 minutes after their application in individuals with chronic low back pain. Thirty-eight individuals were evaluated, being randomly divided into two groups: the one who received global vertebral manipulation technique (n=20), and control (n=18), which remained in lateral decubitus for 10 seconds on each side of the body. The electromyographic signal of paravertebral parts at L4-L5 level both right and left was collected during three cycles of flexion-relaxation-extension of the torso. In the intervals between cycles, participants reported the intensity of pain through the Visual Analog Scale (VAS, 100 mm). A significant reduction in pain intensity in the group that received the manipulation was observed, opposed to the control group, in which the score increased in VAS. The dimension of the effect on pain intensity was 1.0 and 0.9 right after the manipulation and 30 minutes later. The flexion/relaxation ratio (FRR) increased in the group that was subjected to manipulation, but remained unchanged in the control group. The FRR displayed effects between the groups that were 0.6 and 0.5 in both assessments. We were able to see effects of the manipulation in these two variables, and its continuation in the range observed, concluding that they linger at least during that time.Downloads
References
Schneider MJ, Brach J, Irrgang JJ, Abbott KV, Wisniewski SR,
Delitto A. Mechanical vs manual manipulation for low back
pain: an observational cohort study. J Manipulative Physiol
Ther. 2010;33(3):193-200. doi: 10.1016/j.jmpt.2010.01.010.
Maigne J, Vautravers P. Mode dáction dês manipulations
vertébrales. Rev Rhum. 2003;70:713-9. doi:10.1016/
S1169-8330(03)00158-3
Ernest E. A systematic review of systematic reviews of spinal
manipulation. J R Soc Med. 2006;99(4):192-6. doi: 10.1258/
jrsm.99.4.192
Pickar JG. Neurophysiological effects of spinal manipulation.
Spine J. 2002;2:357-71. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
S1529-9430(02)00400-X
Bicalho E, Setti JAP, Macagnan J, Cano JLR, Manffra EF.
Immediate effects of a high-velocity spine manipulation in
paraspinal muscles activity of nonspecific chronic low-back
pain subjects. Manual Ther. 2010;15(5):469-75. doi: 10.1016/j.
math.2010.03.012.
Ferreira ML, Ferreira PH, Hodges PW. Changes in postural
activity of the trunk muscles following spinal manipulative
therapy. Manual Ther. 2007;12:240-8. doi:10.1016/j.
math.2006.06.015.
Lalanne K, Lafond D, Descarreaux M. Modulation of
the flexion-relaxation response by spinal manipulative
therapy: a control group study. J Manipulative Physiol Ther.
;32(3):203-9. doi: 10.1016/j.jmpt.2009.02.010.
Neblett R, Mayer TG, Gatchel RJ, Keeley J, Proctor T, Anagnostis
C. Quantifying the lumbar flexionrelaxation phenomenon:
theory, normative data and clinical applications. Spine. 2003;
(13):1435-46. doi: 10.1016/j.jmpt.2014.07.003.
Colloca CJ, Hinrichs RN. The biomechanical and clinical
significance of the lumbar erector spinae flexion_relaxation
phenomenon: a review of literature. J Manipulative Physiol
Ther. 2005;28(8):623-31. doi:10.1016/j.jmpt.2005.08.005
Demoulin C, Crielaard J, Vanderthommen M. Spinal muscle
evaluation in healthy individuals and low-back-pain
patients: a literature review. Joint Bone Spine. 2007;74:9-13.
doi:10.1016/j.jbspin.2006.02.013
Fisioter Pesqui 2016;23(2):155-62
Walker BF, Williamson OD. Mechanical or inflammatory low
back pain. What are the potential signs and symptoms. Manual
Ther. 2009;14(3)314-20. doi: 10.1016/j.math.2008.04.003.
Koes BW, Tulder MWV, Thomas S. Diagnosis and treatment
of low back pain. BMJ. 2006;332:1430-4. doi:10.1136/
bmj.332.7555.1430.
Nusbaum L, Natour J, Ferraz MB, Goldenberg J. Translation,
adaptation and validation of the Roland-Morris questionnaire −
Brazil Roland-Morris. Braz J Med Biol Res. 2001;34(2):203-10.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S0100-879X2001000200007.
Lehman GJ, McGill SM. Spinal manipulation causes variable
spine kinematic and trunk muscles electromyographic
responses. Clin Biomech. 2001;16(4):293-9. doi: http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/S0268-0033(00)00085-1
Ritvanen T, Zaproudina N, Nissen M, Leinoven V, Hannine O.
Dynamic surface electromyographic responses in chronic
low back pain treated by traditional bone setting and
conventional physical therapy. J Manipulative Physiol Ther.
;30(1):31-7. doi:10.1016/j.jmpt.2006.11.010.
Ricard F. Tratamiento osteopatico de las lumbalgias y
ciaticas. Madrid: Panamericana, 1998.
Marshal P, Murphy B. Changes in the flexion relaxation response
following an exercise intervention. Spine. 2006a;31(23):877-
doi: 10.1097/01.brs.0000244557.56735.05
Biering-Sorenson. Physical measurements as risk indicators
for low back trouble over a one-year period. Spine.
;9(2):106-119, 1984.
Watson PJ, Phil CKBM, Main CJ, Chen ACN. Surface
electromyography in the identification of chronic low back
pain patients: the development of the flexion relaxation ratio.
Clin Biomech. 1997;12(3):165-71. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
S0268-0033(97)00065-X
Ambroz C, Scott A, Ambroz A, Talbott EO. Chronic low back
pain assessment using surface electromyography. J Occup
Env Med. 2000;42(6):660-9.
Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences.
ed. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1988.
Devotch JW, Pickar JG, Wilder DG. Spinal manipulation
alters electromyographic activity of paraspinal muscles:
a descriptive study. J Manipulative Physiol Ther.
;28(7):465-571. doi:10.1016/j.jmpt.2005.07.002.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2016 Fisioterapia e Pesquisa
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
