Mellado RVJ, Reyes PMC, Berral RCJ, Kuschnaroff CME, Berral RFJ

Language: Español
References: 26
Page: 21-25
PDF size: 108.40 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Background: Chronic mechanical low back pain has a prevalence of 70-80 in developed countries. Methods: Experimental study prospective longitudinal double-blind, systematic sampling among patients diagnosed. The assessment was carried out using Visual Analog Scale and test of quality of life of patients with pain (Espiditest). For treatment of the control group (12 patients) a protocol muscle-energy techniques was used  for both psoas, and stretching for both pyramidal as same as for the study group (16 patients) that have also been carried 1 to 3 after spinal manipulation on levels and hypomobile hypersensitive, with a total of four sessions in 2 weeks. Results: The comparison between the two groups for the visual analog scale before treatment has no difference (P = 0.39), a difference that we found after applying the treatment (Mann-Whitney, P = 0.046). We found similar data to compare the difference of the data before and after treatment for the control group (P = 0.30) and for the study group (P = 0.02). Conclusion: Spinal manipulations are effective in the treatment of chronic mechanical low back pain.

References

1. Reimundez G. La lumbalgia: más que un problema de salud. Rev Esp Econ Salud 2004: 3(2).

2. Triano J. Studies on the biomechanical effect of a spinal adjustment. J Manipulative Physiol Ther 1992; 15: 71-5.

3. Maigne JY, Vautravers P. Mechanism of action of spinal manipulative therapy. Joint Bone Spine 2003; 70: 336-41.

4. Maigne JY, Guillon JF. Highlighting of intervertebral movements and variations of intradiscal pressure during lumbar spinal manipulation. A feasibility study. J Manipulative Physiol Ther 2000; 23: 531-5.

5. Eccles JC, Fatt P, Landgren S. Central pathway for direct inhibitory action of impulses in largest afferent nerve fibres to muscle. J Neurophysiol 1956; 19: 75-98.

6. Murphy BA, Dawson NJ, Slack JR. Sacroiliac joint manipulation decreases the H-reflex. Electromyogr Clin Seurophysiol 1995; 35: 87-94.

7. Herzog W, Scheele D, Conway PJ. Electromyographic responses of back and limb muscles associated with spinal manipulative therapy. Spine 1999; 24(2): 146-53.

8. Avela J, Kirolainem H, Komi PV. Altered reflex sensitivity after repeated and prolonged passive muscle stretching. J Appl Physiol 1999; 86: 1283-91.

9. Bogduk N, Jull G. The theoretical pathology of acute locked back: a basis for manipulative therapy. Manual Med 1985; 1: 78-82.

10. Colloca CJ, Keller TS. Electromyographic reflex responses to mechanical force, manual assisted spinal manipulative therapy. Spine 2001; 26(10): 1117-24.

11. Shambaugh P. Changes in electrical activity in muscles resulting from chiropractic adjustment: a pilot study. J Manipulative Physiol Ther 1987; 10: 300-3.

12. Vicenzino B, Collins D, Wright A. The initial effects of a cervical spine manipulative physiotherapy treatment on the pain and dysfunction of lateral epicondylalgia. Pain 1996; 68: 69-74.

13. Vicenzino B, Collins D, Benson H, Wright A. An investigation of the interrelationship between manipulative therapy-induced hypoalgesia and simpathoexcitation. J Manipulative Physiol Ther 1998; 21: 448-53.

14. Willer JC, Roby A, Le Bars D. Psychological and electrophysiological approaches to the pain relieving effects of heterotopic nociceptive stimuli. Brian 1984; 107: 1095-112.

15. Vautravers P, Lecoq J. Pièges redoutables en rapport avec les manipulations vertébrales. In: Hérisson C, Vautravers P, editors. Les manipulations vertébrales. Paris: Masson. 1994: 296-304.

16. Assendelft WJ, Koes BW, Geert JMG, van der Heijden, Bouter LM. The effectiveness of chiropractic for low back pain: an update and attempt at statistical pooling. J Manipulative Physiol Ther 1996; 19(8): 499-507.

17. Mohseni-Bandpei MA, Stephenson R, Richardson B. Spinal manipulation in the treatment of low back pain: a review of the literature with particular emphasis of randomized controlled clinical trial. Physical Therapy Reviews 1998; 3(4): 185-94.

18. Ernest E. Does spinal manipulation have specific treatment effects? Fam Pract 2000; 17(6): 554-6.

19. Rey MT, López-Pardo E, Martínez F, Mejuto T. Manipulaciones vertebrales: Efectividad y seguridad en el dolor lumbar y cervical de etiología mecánica y en las cefaleas. Consideraciones sobre la formación necesaria para su aplicación. Santiago de Compostela-España, 2001 Nov. Axencia de Avaliación de Tecnoloxias Sanitarias de Galicia (SERGAS). INF 2001/09.

20. Ottembacher K, Di Fabio RP. Efficacy of spinal manipulation/mobilization therapy. A meta-analysis. Spine 1985; 10(9): 833-7.

21. Van der Weiden WE, Verbeek JH, van Tulder MW. Vocational outcome of intervention for low back pain. Scand J Work Environ Health 1997: 165-78.

22. Harms MC, Bader DL. Variability of forces applied by experienced therapists during spinal mobilization. Clin Biomech 1997; 12: 393-9.

23. Koes BW, Assendelft WJ, van der Heijden GJ, Bouter LM. Spinal manipulation for low back pain: an update systematic reviews of randomized clinical trials. Spine 1996; 21(24): 2860-71.

24. Cherkin DC, Deyo RA, Battie M, Street J, Barlow W. A comparison of physical therapy, chiropractic manipulation, and provision of an educational booklet for the treatment of patients with lower back pain. New Engl J Med 1998; 339: 1021-9.

25. Rey MT, López- Pardo E, Martínez F, Mejuto T. Manipulaciones vertebrales: Efectividad y seguridad en el dolor lumbar y cervical de etiología mecánica y en las cefaleas. Consideraciones sobre la formación necesaria para su aplicación. Santiago de Compostela-España; 2001 Nov. Axencia de Avaliación de Tecnoloxias Sanitarias de Galicia (SERGAS). INF 2001/09.

26. Assendelft WJ, Morton SC, Yu EI, Suttorp MJ, Shekelle PG. Spinal manipulative therapy for low back pain. A meta-analysis of effectiveness relative to other therapies. Ann Intern Med 2003; 138(11): 871-81.