首页> 外文期刊>Spine >Electromyographic reflex responses to mechanical force, manually assisted spinal manipulative therapy.
【24h】

Electromyographic reflex responses to mechanical force, manually assisted spinal manipulative therapy.

机译:肌电反射对机械力的反应,手动辅助脊柱操纵治疗。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

STUDY DESIGN: Surface electromyographic reflex responses associated with mechanical force, manually assisted (MFMA) spinal manipulative therapy were analyzed in this prospective clinical investigation of 20 consecutive patients with low back pain. OBJECTIVES: To characterize and determine the magnitude of electromyographic reflex responses in human paraspinal muscles during high loading rate mechanical force, manually assisted spinal manipulative therapy of the thoracolumbar spine and sacroiliac joints. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Spinal manipulative therapy has been investigated for its effectiveness in the treatment of patients with low back pain, but its physiologic mechanisms are not well understood. Noteworthy is the fact that spinal manipulative therapy has been demonstrated to produce consistent reflex responses in the back musculature; however, no study has examined the extent of reflex responses in patients with low back pain. METHODS: Twenty patients (10 male and 10 female, mean age 43.0 years) underwent standard physical examination on presentation to an outpatient chiropractic clinic. After repeated isometric trunk extension strength tests, short duration (<5 msec), localized posteroanterior manipulative thrusts were delivered to the sacroiliac joints, and L5, L4, L2, T12, and T8 spinous processes and transverse processes. Surface, linear-enveloped electromyographic (sEMG) recordings were obtained from electrodes located bilaterally over the L5 and L3 erector spinae musculature. Force-time and sEMG time histories were recorded simultaneously to quantify the association between spinal manipulative therapy mechanical and electromyographic response. A total of 1600 sEMG recordings were analyzed from 20 spinal manipulative therapy treatments, and comparisons were made between segmental level, segmental contact point (spinous vs. transverse processes), and magnitude of the reflex response (peak-peak [p-p] ratio and relative mean sEMG). Positive sEMG responses were defined as >2.5 p-p baseline sEMG output (>3.5% relative mean sEMG output). SEMG threshold was further assessed for correlation of patient self-reported pain and disability. RESULTS: Consistent, but relatively localized, reflex responses occurred in response to the localized, brief duration MFMA thrusts delivered to the thoracolumbar spine and SI joints. The time to peak tension (sEMG magnitude) ranged from 50 to 200 msec, and the reflex response times ranged from 2 to 4 msec, the latter consistent with intraspinal conduction times. Overall, the 20 treatments produced systematic and significantly different L5 and L3 sEMG responses, particularly for thrusts delivered to the lumbosacral spine. Thrusts applied over the transverse processes produced more positive sEMG responses (25.4%) in comparison with thrusts applied over the spinous processes (20.6%). Left side thrusts and right side thrusts over the transverse processes elicited positive contralateral L5 and L3 sEMG responses. When the data were examined across both treatment level and electrode site (L5 or L3, L or R), 95% of patients showed positive sEMG response to MFMA thrusts. Patients with frequent to constant low back pain symptoms tended to have a more marked sEMG response in comparison with patients with occasional to intermittent low back pain. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study demonstrating neuromuscular reflex responses associated with MFMA spinal manipulative therapy in patients with low back pain. Noteworthy was the finding that such mechanical stimulation of both the paraspinal musculature (transverse processes) and spinous processes produced consistent, generally localized sEMG responses. Identification of neuromuscular characteristics, together with a comprehensive assessment of patient clinical status, may provide for clarification of the significance of spinal manipulative therapy in eliciting putative conservative therapeutic benefits in patients with pain of musculoskeletal origin.
机译:研究设计:在这项前瞻性临床研究中,对连续20位腰背痛患者进行了前瞻性临床研究,分析了与机械力相关的表面肌电图反射反应,手动辅助(MFMA)脊柱手法治疗。目的:为表征和确定高负荷率机械力作用下人脊柱旁肌的肌电图反射反应的幅度,采用人工辅助的胸腰椎和sa关节脊柱手法治疗。背景技术概述:已经研究了脊椎手法治疗腰痛患者的有效性,但是其生理机制尚不十分清楚。值得注意的事实是,脊椎手法治疗已被证明在背部肌肉组织中产生一致的反射反应。但是,没有研究检查下腰痛患者的反射反应程度。方法:二十名患者(男10例,女10例,平均年龄43.0岁)在就诊时接受了标准的身体检查。经过反复等距的躯干伸展力量测试,持续时间短(<5毫秒),局部local后操纵推力传递到to关节以及L5,L4,L2,T12和T8棘突和横突。表面线性包膜肌电图(sEMG)记录是从位于L5和L3竖立脊柱肌肉组织两侧的电极获得的。同时记录作用力时间和sEMG时间历史,以量化脊椎手法治疗机械反应和肌电图反应之间的关联。分析了来自20种脊椎手法治疗方法的1600 sEMG记录,并比较了节段水平,节段接触点(棘突与横突)以及反射反应的大小(峰-峰[pp]比率和相对值)平均sEMG)。 sEMG阳性反应定义为基线sEMG输出> 2.5 p-p(相对平均sEMG输出> 3.5%)。进一步评估了SEMG阈值,以了解患者自我报告的疼痛和残疾的相关性。结果:一致,但相对局部的反射反应是由于局部,短暂的MFMA推力传递到胸腰椎和SI关节而发生的。达到峰值张力的时间(sEMG大小)为50到200毫秒,反射反应时间为2到4毫秒,后者与椎管内传导时间一致。总体而言,这20种治疗产生了系统性且显着不同的L5和L3 sEMG反应,特别是对于传递至腰s椎的推力。与施加在棘突上的推力(20.6%)相比,施加在横突上的推力产生更积极的sEMG响应(25.4%)。横向过程的左侧推力和右侧推力引起对侧L5和L3 sEMG阳性反应。在治疗水平和电极部位(L5或L3,L或R)上检查数据时,有95%的患者对MFMA推力显示出sEMG阳性。与偶发至间歇性下背痛的患者相比,频发至持续的下背痛症状的患者倾向于具有更明显的sEMG反应。结论:这是第一项研究证明腰背痛患者与MFMA脊柱手法治疗相关的神经肌肉反射反应。值得注意的发现是,这样的机械刺激对椎旁肌(横突)和棘突产生了一致的,通常是局部的sEMG反应。神经肌肉特征的鉴定,以及对患者临床状况的全面评估,可能有助于阐明脊柱手法治疗在引起骨骼肌源性疼痛的患者中获得公认的保守治疗益处的重要性。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号