Spinal Manipulation and Spinal Mobilization Effects in Participants With and Without Back Pain

NCT02660801 | Terminated Results

• 1 other identifier: UQTR-2016-STIF
• Study Type: interventional
• Target: 26
• Locations: 1 country
• Sites: 1

Brief Summary

The objective of the present study is to compare the neuromechanical responses to spinal manipulation and spinal mobilization in participants with chronic nonspecific middle back pain.

Conditions

Back Pain

Keywords

spinal manipulation; spinal mobilization; spinal stiffness

Outcome Measures

Primary Outcomes (5)

• Global Spinal Stiffness

  Global stiffness was defined as the slope of the straight-line best fitting the force-displacement data between 10 and 45 N

  two-minutes before spinal manipulation delivery up to two-minutes after

• Terminal Spinal Stiffness

  Terminal stiffness was defined as the ratio of the variation of force and displacement between 10 and 45 N

  two-minutes before spinal mobilization delivery up to two-minutes after

• Pressure Provoked Pain

  Pressure provoked pain intensity was assessed immediately after each spinal stiffness assessment using a 0 to 100 visual analog pain scale minimum value=0, maximum value=100. 0 is no pain while 100 is the worse outcome

  immediately after the therapeutic modality application

• Muscular Response, Superior Level Ratio

  To assess the muscular response during therapeutic modalities, the resulting bipolar sEMG signals were first digitally band-pass filtered using a frequency bandwidth of 20-450 Hz (2nd order Butterworth filter). For SMa, the peak root mean square (RMS) value was computed for each electrode using a 250 ms window (125 ms before and 125 ms after the peak force). The RMS values obtained for each electrode were then normalized (nRMS) to the respective RMS value calculated during the sEMG normalization trial.

  During the spinal manipulation and mobilization

• Muscular Response, Inferior Level Ratio, Normalized RMS

  To assess the muscular response during therapeutic modalities, the resulting bipolar sEMG signals were first digitally band-pass filtered using a frequency bandwidth of 20-450 Hz (2nd order Butterworth filter). For SMa, the peak root mean square (RMS) value was computed for each electrode using a 250 ms window (125 ms before and 125 ms after the peak force). The RMS values obtained for each electrode were then normalized (nRMS) to the respective RMS value calculated during the sEMG normalization trial.

  During the spinal manipulation and mobilization

Study Arms (2)

Spinal manipulation

EXPERIMENTAL

Twenty-six participants with chronic nonspecific back pain will participate in two experimental sessions. During the first session, each participant will received either a spinal manipulation of a spinal mobilization of their thoracic spine preceded and followed by the assessment of their thoracic spine stiffness. The second session (24 to 48h after) will be identical but with the other experimental condition (spinal manipulation or spinal mobilization).

Procedure: Spinal manipulation

Spinal mobilization

EXPERIMENTAL

Twenty-six participants with chronic nonspecific back pain will participate in two experimental sessions. During the first session, each participant will received either a spinal manipulation of a spinal mobilization of their thoracic spine preceded and followed by the assessment of their thoracic spine stiffness. The second session (24 to 48h after) will be identical but with the other experimental condition (spinal manipulation or spinal mobilization).

Procedure: Spinal mobilization

Interventions

Spinal manipulation PROCEDURE

A high-velocity and low-amplitude thrust delivered posteroanteriorly to a thoracic vertebra

Also known as: SMa

Spinal manipulation

Spinal mobilization PROCEDURE

Three repetitions of a low-velocity and low-amplitude nonthrust movement delivered posteroanteriorly to a thoracic vertebra

Also known as: SMo

Spinal mobilization

Eligibility Criteria

• Age: 18 Years - 60 Years
• Sex: all
• Healthy Volunteers: Yes
• Age Groups: Adult (18-64)

You may qualify if:

• presenting or not a history of chronic nonspecific back pain

You may not qualify if:

• History of back trauma or surgery
• Severe osteoarthritis
• Inflammatory arthritis
• Vascular conditions
• Contraindication to the use of spinal manipulation or spinal mobilization
• Pregnancy
• Scoliosis

Sponsors & Collaborators

• Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières: lead
• Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR): collaborator
• Fonds de la Recherche en Santé du Québec: collaborator
• Unité de recherche en santé musculosqulettique: collaborator

Study Sites (1)

Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières

Trois-Rivières, Quebec, G9A 5H7, Canada

Location

MeSH Terms

Conditions

Back Pain

Interventions

Manipulation, Spinal

Condition Hierarchy (Ancestors)

Pain; Neurologic Manifestations; Signs and Symptoms; Pathological Conditions, Signs and Symptoms

Intervention Hierarchy (Ancestors)

Musculoskeletal Manipulations; Physical Therapy Modalities; Therapeutics; Rehabilitation

Results Point of Contact

• Title: Pr Martin Descarreaux
• Organization: UQTR

martin.descarreaux@uqtr.ca

819-376-5011

Study Officials

• Martin Descarreaux, DC, PhD

  Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières

  PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR

Publication Agreements

• PI is Sponsor Employee: No
• Restrictive Agreement: No

Study Design

• Study Type: interventional
• Phase: not applicable
• Allocation: NON RANDOMIZED
• Masking: NONE
• Purpose: BASIC SCIENCE
• Intervention Model: CROSSOVER
• Sponsor Type: OTHER
• Responsible Party: PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR
• PI Title: Dr Martin Descarreaux DC, PhD

Study Record Dates

• First Submitted: January 18, 2016
• First Posted: January 21, 2016
• Study Start: March 1, 2016
• Primary Completion: April 1, 2017
• Study Completion: November 1, 2017
• Last Updated: June 26, 2019
• Results First Posted: June 21, 2019

Record last verified: 2019-06

Data Sharing

• IPD Sharing: Will not share

Locations

CA (1)