Chronic Low Back Pain in Adults: Evaluation and Management.

Chronic low back pain, defined as lumbar pain persisting for 12 weeks or more, occurs in about 13% of U.S. adults. Patients with chronic low back pain should have a history and physical examination to identify red flags that may indicate serious conditions that warrant immediate intervention or yellow flags (i.e., psychological, environmental, and social factors) that indicate risk of disability. The examination should include an evaluation for radicular symptoms. Routine imaging is not recommended but is indicated when red flags are present, there is a neuromuscular deficit, or if pain does not resolve with conservative therapy. Patients should avoid bed rest. Nonpharmacologic treatment is first-line management and may include therapies with varying evidence of support, such as counseling, exercise therapy, spinal manipulation, massage, heat, dry needling, acupuncture, transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation, and physical therapy. Pharmacologic interventions are second-line treatment. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs are the initial medication of choice; duloxetine may also be beneficial. Evidence is inconclusive to recommend the use of benzodiazepines, muscle relaxants, antidepressants, corticosteroids, insomnia agents, anticonvulsants, cannabis, acetaminophen, or long-term opioids. Epidural corticosteroid injections are not recommended except for short-term symptom relief in patients with radicular pain. Most patients with chronic low back pain will not require surgery; evaluation for surgery may be considered in those with persistent functional disabilities and pain from progressive spinal stenosis, worsening spondylolisthesis, or herniated disk. Physicians should consider prevention of chronic low back pain when patients present with acute back pain. Screening tools are available to predict the progression from acute to chronic low back pain, and targeted treatment strategies are beneficial for preventing progression.

Comparative effectiveness of cervical vs thoracic spinal-thrust manipulation for care of cervicogenic headache: A randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: There is ample evidence supporting the use of different manipulative therapy techniques for Cervicogenic Headache (CgH). However, no technique can be singled as the best available treatment for patients with CgH. Therefore, the objective of the study is to find and compare the clinical effects of cervical spine over thoracic spine manipulation and conventional physiotherapy in patients with CgH. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: It is a prospective, randomized controlled study conducted between July 2020 and January 2023 at the University hospital. N = 96 eligible patients with CgH were selected based on selection criteria and they were divided into cervical spine manipulation (CSM; n = 32), thoracic spine manipulation (TSM; n = 32) and conventional physiotherapy (CPT; n = 32) groups, and received the respective treatment for four weeks. Primary (CgH frequency) and secondary CgH pain intensity, CgH disability, neck pain frequency, neck pain intensity, neck pain threshold, cervical flexion rotation test (CFRT), neck disability index (NDI) and quality of life (QoL) scores were measured. The effects of treatment at various intervals were analyzed using a 3 × 4 linear mixed model analysis (LMM), with treatment group (cervical spine manipulation, thoracic spine manipulation, and conventional physiotherapy) and time intervals (baseline, 4 weeks, 8 weeks, and 6 months), and the statistical significance level was set at P < 0.05. RESULTS: The reports of the CSM, TSM and CPT groups were compared between the groups. Four weeks following treatment CSM group showed more significant changes in primary (CgH frequency) and secondary (CgH pain intensity, CgH disability, neck pain frequency, pain intensity, pain threshold, CFRT, NDI and QoL) than the TSM and CPT groups (p = 0.001). The same gradual improvement was seen in the CSM group when compared to TSM and CPT groups (p = 0.001) in the above variables at 8 weeks and 6 months follow-up. CONCLUSION: The reports of the current randomized clinical study found that CSM resulted in significantly better improvements in pain parameters (intensity, frequency and threshold) functional disability and quality of life in patients with CgH than thoracic spine manipulation and conventional physiotherapy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical trial registration: CTRI/2020/06/026092 trial was registered prospectively on 24/06/2020.

A new role for spinal manual therapy and for chiropractic? Part II: strengths and opportunities.

In a previous paper, we presented some important weaknesses of and threats to the chiropractic profession as we see them. We further argued that the chiropractic profession's relationship with its principal clinical tool (spinal manual therapy) is at the core of the ideological divide that fractures the profession and prevents professional development towards greater integration in the healthcare landscape. In this manuscript, we shall argue that the historical predilection for spinal manipulation also gifts the profession with some obvious strengths and opportunities, and that these are inextricably linked to the management of musculoskeletal disorders. The onus is now on the chiropractic profession itself to redefine its raison d'être in a way that plays to those strengths and delivers in terms of the needs of patients and the wider healthcare system/market. We suggest chiropractors embrace and cultivate a role as coordinators of long-term and broad-focused management of musculoskeletal disorders. We make specific recommendations about how the profession, from individual clinicians to political organizations, can promote such a development.

Effects of exercise combined with cervicothoracic spine self-mobilization on chronic non-specific neck pain.

To investigate the short-term effects and differences between exercise alone and exercise combined with self-mobilization training on chronic non-specific neck pain (CNSNP). Thirty subjects who met the criteria were recruited and randomly assigned to the exercise training group, the exercise combined with cervical self-mobilization training group (ECCM), and the exercise combined with cervicothoracic self-mobilization training group (ECCTM). The exercise training group received 6 weeks of deep neck flexor under biofeedback and scapular stability training, and the other two groups received 6 weeks of cervical self-mobilization and cervicothoracic self-mobilization, respectively, in addition to exercise training. Neck pain, cervical range of motion (ROM), neck disability, strength and endurance of deep neck flexor and quality of life were assessed before and after 6 weeks of training. The study results showed that all the three training programs for 6 weeks increased the strength and endurance of deep neck flexor, increased cervical ROM, reduced pain, and improved neck function (P < 0.05). The exercise combined with self-mobilization two groups compared with only the exercise training group had better improvement in ROM of extension, lateral flexion, rotation and quality of life (P < 0.05). Compared with exercise alone and exercise combined with cervical self-mobilization training, the exercise combined with cervicothoracic self-mobilization training was the best in improving ROM of right lateral flexion (exercise training group vs ECCTM: P < 0.01, d = 1.61, ECCM vs ECCTM: P < 0.05, d = 1.14) and pain (exercise training group vs ECCTM: P < 0.05, d = 1.34, ECCM vs ECCTM: P < 0.05, d = 1.23). Deep flexor muscle and shoulder stability training can improve the endurance and strength of the deep flexor muscles of the neck and coordinate the movement patterns of the shoulder and neck. Self-mobilization techniques can promote improvements in cervical lateral flexion and rotation range of motion, alleviate neck disability and further improve quality of life. A combination of exercise and cervicothoracic self-mobilization training appears beneficial for the management of neck pain.

Association between chiropractic spinal manipulation and cauda equina syndrome in adults with low back pain: Retrospective cohort study of US academic health centers.

BACKGROUND: Cauda equina syndrome (CES) is a lumbosacral surgical emergency that has been associated with chiropractic spinal manipulation (CSM) in case reports. However, identifying if there is a potential causal effect is complicated by the heightened incidence of CES among those with low back pain (LBP). The study hypothesis was that there would be no increase in the risk of CES in adults with LBP following CSM compared to a propensity-matched cohort following physical therapy (PT) evaluation without spinal manipulation over a three-month follow-up period. METHODS: A query of a United States network (TriNetX, Inc.) was conducted, searching health records of more than 107 million patients attending academic health centers, yielding data ranging from 20 years prior to the search date (July 30, 2023). Patients aged 18 or older with LBP were included, excluding those with pre-existing CES, incontinence, or serious pathology that may cause CES. Patients were divided into two cohorts: (1) LBP patients receiving CSM or (2) LBP patients receiving PT evaluation without spinal manipulation. Propensity score matching controlled for confounding variables associated with CES. RESULTS: 67,220 patients per cohort (mean age 51 years) remained after propensity matching. CES incidence was 0.07% (95% confidence intervals [CI]: 0.05-0.09%) in the CSM cohort compared to 0.11% (95% CI: 0.09-0.14%) in the PT evaluation cohort, yielding a risk ratio and 95% CI of 0.60 (0.42-0.86; p = .0052). Both cohorts showed a higher rate of CES during the first two weeks of follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that CSM is not a risk factor for CES. Considering prior epidemiologic evidence, patients with LBP may have an elevated risk of CES independent of treatment. These findings warrant further corroboration. In the meantime, clinicians should be vigilant to identify LBP patients with CES and promptly refer them for surgical evaluation.

Effects of sustained natural apophyseal glides versus rocabado 6 × 6 program in subjects with cervicogenic headache.

BACKGROUND: Cervicogenic headache is designated as the most common type of secondary headache that results from conditions affecting the neck's bony components, muscles, and intervertebral discs rather than the head itself. OBJECTIVE: The purpose was to determine the effects of Sustained Natural Apophyseal Glides (SNAGs) versus the Rocabado 6 × 6 program in subjects with cervicogenic headaches. METHODS: This study was a randomized clinical trial. The sample size was 38, and participants aged 20-60 years (mean age 40.22 ± 9.66) suffering from cervicogenic headaches were randomly allocated using the lottery method into two groups with 19 participants in each group. Assessment of subjects was done before starting treatment and by the end of the 8th week for all the variables. Outcome measures were the Neck Disability Index (NDI), 6-item Headache Impact Test (HIT-6), Flexion-Rotation test (FRT) to assess the rotation range of motion at the level of C1-C2 (goniometer) and the Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NPRS) for the intensity of pain. Data analysis was done by SPSS (IBM) 25. To check the normality of the data the Shapiro-Wilk test was used. RESULTS: In the Shapiro-Wilk test p-value of all the testing variables i.e. NDI, HIT-6 score, FRT and NPRS was > 0.05, data was normally distributed and parametric tests were used. Group A showed a considerable improvement (p < 0.05) in all variables compared to Group B, while within-group analysis of both groups shows that all outcome measures show significant results (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: It was concluded that both SNAGs and Rocabado's 6 × 6 exercises were effective for the treatment of cervicogenic headache but the effects of headache SNAG were superior and produced more improvement in intensity of headache, disability, frequency of headache, duration of headache as compared to Rocabado 6 × 6 exercises. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT05865808 on date 19/05/2023.

The immediate effect of cervical rotation-traction manipulation on cervical paravertebral soft tissue: a study using soft tissue tension cloud chart technology.

BACKGROUND: To evaluate the reliability of the Soft Tissue Tension Cloud Chart (STTCC) technology, an original method combining multi-point Cervical Paravertebral Soft Tissue Test (CPSTT) with MATLAB software, we conducted a preliminary analysis on the immediate effects of Orthopaedic Manual Therapy (OMT) on cervical paravertebral soft tissue. METHODS: 30 patients with Cervical Spondylotic Radiculopathy (CSR) were included in this study. We analyzed the differences in CPSTT before and after treatment with Cervical Rotation-Traction Manipulation (CRTM), a representative OMT technique in Traditional Chinese Medicine, using the STTCC technology. RESULTS: The STTCC results demonstrated that post-treatment CPSTT levels in CSR patients were significantly lower than pre-treatment levels after application of CRTM, with a statistically significant difference (P < 0.001). Additionally, pre-treatment CPSTT levels on the symptomatic side (with radicular pain or numbness) were higher across the C5 to C7 vertebrae compared to the asymptomatic side (without symptoms) (P < 0.001). However, this difference disappeared after CRTM treatment (P = 0.231). CONCLUSIONS: The STTCC technology represents a reliable method for analyzing the immediate effects of OMT. CSR patients display uneven distribution of CPSTT characterized by higher tension on the symptomatic side. CRTM not only reduces overall cervical soft tissue tension in CSR patients, but can also balance the asymmetrical tension between the symptomatic and asymptomatic sides. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study was approved by the Chinese Clinical Trials Registry (Website: . https://www.chictr.org.cn .) on 20/04/2021 and the Registration Number is ChiCTR2100045648.

Enhancing the Development and Growth of Infant Cerebral Palsy Rats Using Selective Spinal Manipulations.

Cerebral palsy (CP) is a refractory pediatric disease with a high prevalence, high disability rate, and difficult treatment. A variety of treatments are currently used for CP. The treatment involves drug and non-drug therapy. Traditional Chinese medicine external therapy is a very distinctive treatment method in non-drug therapy. As one of the external therapies of traditional Chinese medicine, massage is used in treating cerebral palsy and has good efficacy, small side effects, and strong operability. As a part of TCM external therapy, selective spinal manipulation can effectively promote the growth and development of infant rats with cerebral palsy.The operation was mainly divided into four steps: first, the rubbing method was applied to the spine and both sides of the spine for 1 min. The pressing and kneading method was applied to the spine for 5 min, and the muscles on both sides of the spine for 5 min. Second, pressing and kneading the sensitive local acupoints in the spine for 2 min were performed. Thirdly, the affected limb was treated by twisting method for 1 min. Fourth, the rubbing method was applied to a midline from the forehead to the back of the brain for 1 min. This study aimed to use selective spinal manipulation to treat infant rats with cerebral palsy. The weight, Rotarod test, Foot-fault score, and growth hormone of infant rats with cerebral palsy were detected to understand the effect of selective spinal manipulation on the growth and development of infant rats with cerebral palsy. The results showed that it can promote weight gain, improve balance ability and motor function, promote growth and development of infant cerebral palsy rats, promote growth hormone secretion, and increase the temperature of sensitive parts of the back.

Physical treatment of migraine.

Physical modalities, including acupuncture, massage therapy, physical therapy, and spinal manipulation, are commonly sought for migraine headache management. Acupuncture has been helpful in management of migraine, particularly as an adjunct to standard therapy. Some studies support acupuncture in combination with electroacupuncture and a traditional Chinese medicine form of massage called tuina as beneficial. An estimated 15% of patients with migraine seek spinal manipulation with osteopathic physicians or chiropractors, though evidence of benefit is lacking and potential for adverse effects is low but present. Studies of massage therapy in migraine have been heterogeneous and of low quality, often combined with other manual therapies to show effect. While manual therapies appear to reduce pain and improve quality of life, further study is needed to determine which specific types of manual therapy are most effective. While exercise is good for all patients, specific migraine management with physical therapy and regular exercise is not supported by evidence. Nevertheless, these modalities should be considered in certain situations when performed by trained and licensed professionals.

A randomized controlled trial comparing different sites of high-velocity low amplitude thrust on sensorimotor integration parameters.

Increasing evidence suggests that a high-velocity, low-amplitude (HVLA) thrust directed at a dysfunctional vertebral segment in people with subclinical spinal pain alters various neurophysiological measures, including somatosensory evoked potentials (SEPs). We hypothesized that an HVLA thrust applied to a clinician chosen vertebral segment based on clinical indicators of vertebral dysfunction, in short, segment considered as "relevant" would significantly reduce the N30 amplitude compared to an HVLA thrust applied to a predetermined vertebral segment not based on clinical indicators of vertebral dysfunction or segment considered as "non-relevant". In this double-blinded, active-controlled, parallel-design study, 96 adults with recurrent mild neck pain, ache, or stiffness were randomly allocated to receiving a single thrust directed at either a segment considered as "relevant" or a segment considered as "non-relevant" in their upper cervical spine. SEPs of median nerve stimulation were recorded before and immediately after a single HVLA application delivered using an adjusting instrument (Activator). A linear mixed model was used to assess changes in the N30 amplitude. A significant interaction between the site of thrust delivery and session was found (F1,840 = 9.89, p < 0.002). Pairwise comparisons showed a significant immediate decrease in the N30 complex amplitude after the application of HVLA thrust to a segment considered "relevant" (- 16.76 ± 28.32%, p = 0.005). In contrast, no significant change was observed in the group that received HVLA thrust over a segment considered "non-relevant" (p = 0.757). Cervical HVLA thrust applied to the segment considered as "relevant" altered sensorimotor parameters, while cervical HVLA thrust over the segment considered as "non-relevant" did not. This finding supports the hypothesis that spinal site targeting of HVLA interventions is important when measuring neurophysiological responses. Further studies are needed to explore the potential clinical relevance of these findings.

Dosing of lumbar spinal manipulative therapy and its association with escalated spine care: A cohort study of insurance claims.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to evaluate the relationship between three distinct spinal manipulative therapy dose groups and escalated spine care by analyzing insurance claims from a cohort of patients with low back pain. METHODS: We compared three distinct spinal manipulative therapy dose groups (low = 1 SMT visits, moderate = 2-12 SMT visits, high = 13+ SMT visits), to a control group (no spinal manipulative therapy) regarding the outcome of escalated spine care. Escalated spine care procedures include imaging studies, injection procedures, emergency department visits, surgery, and opioid medication use. Propensity score matching was performed to address treatment selection bias. Modified Poisson regression modeling was used to estimate the relative risk of spine care escalation among three spinal manipulative therapy doses, adjusting for age, sex, retrospective risk score and claim count. RESULTS: 83,025 claims were categorized into 11,114 unique low back pain episodes; 8,137 claims had 0 spinal manipulative therapy visits, with the remaining episodes classified as low dose (n = 404), moderate dose (n = 1,763) or high dose (n = 810). After propensity score matching, 5,348 episodes remained; 2,454 had 0 spinal manipulative therapy visits with the remaining episodes classified as low dose (n = 404), moderate dose (n = 1,761), or high dose (n = 729). The estimated relative risk (vs no spinal manipulative therapy) for any escalated spine care was 0.45 (95% confidence interval 0.38, 0.55, p <0.001), 0.58 (95% confidence interval 0.53, 0.63, p <0.001), and 1.03 (95% confidence interval 0.95, 1.13, p = 0.461) for low, moderate, and high dose spinal manipulative therapy groups, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: For claims associated with initial episodes of low back pain, low and moderate dose spinal manipulative therapy groups were associated with a 55% and 42% reduction, respectively, in the relative risk of any escalated spine care.

Association between spinal manipulative therapy and lumbar spine reoperation after discectomy: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Patients who undergo lumbar discectomy may experience ongoing lumbosacral radiculopathy (LSR) and seek spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) to manage these symptoms. We hypothesized that adults receiving SMT for LSR at least one year following lumbar discectomy would be less likely to undergo lumbar spine reoperation compared to matched controls not receiving SMT, over two years' follow-up. METHODS: We searched a United States network of health records (TriNetX, Inc.) for adults aged ≥ 18 years with LSR and lumbar discectomy ≥ 1 year previous, without lumbar fusion or instrumentation, from 2003 to 2023. We divided patients into two cohorts: (1) chiropractic SMT, and (2) usual care without chiropractic SMT. We used propensity matching to adjust for confounding variables associated with lumbar spine reoperation (e.g., age, body mass index, nicotine dependence), calculated risk ratios (RR), with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and explored cumulative incidence of reoperation and the number of SMT follow-up visits. RESULTS: Following propensity matching there were 378 patients per cohort (mean age 61 years). Lumbar spine reoperation was less frequent in the SMT cohort compared to the usual care cohort (SMT: 7%; usual care: 13%), yielding an RR (95% CIs) of 0.55 (0.35-0.85; P = 0.0062). In the SMT cohort, 72% of patients had ≥ 1 follow-up SMT visit (median = 6). CONCLUSIONS: This study found that adults experiencing LSR at least one year after lumbar discectomy who received SMT were less likely to undergo lumbar spine reoperation compared to matched controls not receiving SMT. While these findings hold promise for clinical implications, they should be corroborated by a prospective study including measures of pain, disability, and safety to confirm their relevance. We cannot exclude the possibility that our results stem from a generalized effect of engaging with a non-surgical clinician, a factor that may extend to related contexts such as physical therapy or acupuncture. REGISTRATION: Open Science Framework ( https://osf.io/vgrwz ).

Effectiveness of spinal manipulation in influencing the autonomic nervous system - a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Spinal manipulation (SM) has been hypothesized to influence the autonomic nervous system (ANS). Further, it has been proposed that the effects may vary depending on the segment manipulated. The aim of this systematic review was to synthesize the current level of evidence for SM in influencing the ANS in healthy and/or symptomatic population. METHODS: Various databases (n = 8) were searched (inception till May 2023) and 14 trials (n = 618 participants) were included in the review. Two authors independently screened, extracted and assessed the risk of bias in included studies. The data were synthesized using standard mean differences and meta-analysis for the primary outcome measures. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) was used for assessing the quality of the body of evidence for each outcome of interest. RESULTS: Overall, there was low quality evidence that SM did not influence any measure of ANS including heart rate variability (HRV), oxy-hemoglobin, blood pressure, epinephrine and nor-epinephrine. However, there was low quality evidence that cervical spine manipulation may influence high frequency parameter of HRV, indicating its influence on the parasympathetic nervous system. CONCLUSION: When compared with control or sham interventions, SM did not alter the ANS. Due to invalid methodologies and the low quality of included studies, findings must be interpreted with great caution. Future studies are needed which employ rigorous data collection processes to verify the true physiological implications of SM on ANS.

Changes in biochemical markers following a spinal manipulation - a systematic review update.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this systematic review was to update the current level of evidence for spinal manipulation in influencing various biochemical markers in healthy and/or symptomatic population. METHODS: This is a systematic review update. Various databases were searched (inception till May 2023) and fifteen trials (737 participants) that met the inclusion criteria were included in the review. Two authors independently screened, extracted and assessed the risk of bias in included studies. Outcome measure data were synthesized using standard mean differences and meta-analysis for the primary outcome (biochemical markers). The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) was used for assessing the quality of the body of evidence for each outcome of interest. RESULTS: There was low-quality evidence that spinal manipulation influenced various biochemical markers (not pooled). There was low-quality evidence of significant difference that spinal manipulation is better (SMD -0.42, 95% CI - 0.74 to -0.1) than control in eliciting changes in cortisol levels immediately after intervention. Low-quality evidence further indicated (not pooled) that spinal manipulation can influence inflammatory markers such as interleukins levels post-intervention. There was also very low-quality evidence that spinal manipulation does not influence substance-P, neurotensin, oxytocin, orexin-A, testosterone and epinephrine/nor-epinephrine. CONCLUSION: Spinal manipulation may influence inflammatory and cortisol post-intervention. However, the wider prediction intervals in most outcome measures point to the need for future research to clarify and establish the clinical relevance of these changes.

Effectiveness of mid thoracic spine mobilization on postural balance and gait ability in subacute stroke patients: A randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Although mulligan sustained natural apophyseal glides (SNAG) and maitland mobilization (MM) are common interventions for musculoskeletal disease, no study has directly compared the effectiveness of mid-thoracic spine mobilization in subacute stroke patients. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effects of mid-thoracic spine mobilization (SNAG vs. MM) on postural balance and gait ability in subacute stroke patients. METHODS: Fifty subacute stroke patients were randomly allocated to the SNAG (n= 17), MM (n= 16), and control (n= 17) groups, each receiving a neuro-developmental therapy program for four successive weeks. The SNAG and MM groups additionally received mid-thoracic spine mobilization (T4∼8). The primary outcome measure was postural sway, and secondary outcome measures included the five times sit-to-stand test (FTSST), functional reach test (FRT), 10-m walk test (10MWT), 6-minute walk test (6MWT) and global rating of change (GRC). RESULTS: Participants reported no adverse events, and there was no loss to follow-up. The SNAG and MM group patients demonstrated significant improvements (p< 0.05) in postural sway, FTSST, FRT, 10MWT, and 6MWT compared with those in the control group, with no between-group differences. CONCLUSIONS: Mid-thoracic spine mobilization allows significant improvements in postural balance and gait ability in subacute stroke patients, with no differences between the SNAG and MM techniques.

Spinal manipulation and electrical dry needling as an adjunct to conventional physical therapy in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis: a multi-center randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Nonoperative management of lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) includes activity modification, medication, injections, and physical therapy. Conventional physical therapy includes a multimodal approach of exercise, manual therapy, and electro-thermal modalities. There is a paucity of evidence supporting the use of spinal manipulation and dry needling as an adjunct to conventional physical therapy in patients with LSS. PURPOSE: This study aimed to determine the effects of adding thrust spinal manipulation and electrical dry needling to conventional physical therapy in patients with LSS. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Randomized, single-blinded, multi-center, parallel-group clinical trial. PATIENT SAMPLE: One hundred twenty-eight (n=128) patients with LSS from 12 outpatient clinics in 8 states were recruited over a 34-month period. OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcomes included the Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NPRS) and the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). Secondary outcomes included the Roland Morris Disability Index (RMDI), Global Rating of Change (GROC), and medication intake. Follow-up assessments were taken at 2 weeks, 6 weeks, and 3 months. METHODS: Patients were randomized to receive either spinal manipulation, electrical dry needling, and conventional physical therapy (MEDNCPT group, n=65) or conventional physical therapy alone (CPT group, n=63). RESULTS: At 3 months, the MEDNCPT group experienced greater reductions in overall low back, buttock, and leg pain (NPRS: F=5.658; p=.002) and related-disability (ODI: F=9.921; p<.001; RMDI: F=7.263; p<.001) compared to the CPT group. Effect sizes were small at 2 and 6 weeks, and medium at 3 months for the NPRS, ODI, and RMDI. At 3 months, significantly (p=.003) more patients in the MEDNCPT group reported a successful outcome (GROC≥+5) than the CPT group. CONCLUSION: Patients with LSS who received electrical dry needling and spinal manipulation in addition to impairment-based exercise, manual therapy and electro-thermal modalities experienced greater improvements in low back, buttock and leg pain and related-disability than those receiving exercise, manual therapy, and electro-thermal modalities alone at 3 months, but not at the 2 or 6 week follow-up.

Chiropractic spinal manipulative therapy for acute neck pain: A 4-arm clinical placebo randomized controlled trial. A prospective study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Neck pain poses enormous individual and societal costs worldwide. Spinal manipulative therapy and Non-Steroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drug treatment are frequently used despite a lack of compelling efficacy data. This protocol describes a multicentre 4-arm, clinical placebo randomized controlled trial (RCT), investigating the efficacy of chiropractic spinal manipulative therapy (CSMT) versus sham CSMT, ibuprofen, and placebo medicine for acute neck pain. This superiority study will employ parallel groups, featuring a 1:1:1:1 allocation ratio. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We will randomize 320 participants equally into four groups: CSMT, sham CSMT, ibuprofen, or placebo medicine. CSMT groups are single-blinded, while the medicine groups are double-blinded. Data will be collected at baseline (Day 0), during treatment and post-treatment. The primary endpoint will assess the difference in mean pain intensity from Day 0 to Day 14 on a numeric rating scale 0-10; the CSMT group is compared to sham CSMT, ibuprofen, and placebo medicine groups, respectively. Secondary endpoints will assess mean pain intensity and mean duration at different time points, and adverse events, blinding success, and treatment satisfaction, including comparison between ibuprofen and placebo medicine. Power calculation is based on a mean neck pain rating of 5 at Day 0, with standard deviation of 1 in all groups. Mean pain reduction at Day 14 is expected to be 60% in the CSMT group, 40% in sham CSMT and ibuprofen groups, and 20% in the placebo medicine group. A linear mixed model will compare the mean values for groups with corresponding 95% confidence intervals. P values below 0.017 will be considered statistically significant. All analyses will be conducted blinded from group allocation. DISCUSSION: This RCT aims towards the highest research standards possible for manual-therapy RCTs owing to its two placebo arms. If CSMT and/or ibuprofen proves to be effective, it will provide evidence-based support for CSMT and/or ibuprofen for acute neck pain. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT05374057. EU Clinical Trials Register: EudraCT number: 2021-005483-21.

Socioeconomic differences in the utilization of diagnostic imaging and non-pharmaceutical conservative therapies for spinal diseases.

BACKGROUND: A different utilization of health care services due to socioeconomic status on the same health plan contradicts the principle of equal treatment. We investigated the presence and magnitude of socioeconomic differences in utilization of diagnostic imaging and non-pharmaceutical conservative therapies for patients with spinal diseases. METHODS: The cohort study based on routine healthcare data from Germany with 11.7 million patient-years between 2012 and 2016 for patients with physician-confirmed spinal diseases (ICD-10: M40-M54), occupation and age 20 to 64 years. A Poisson model estimated the effects of the socioeconomic status (school education, professional education and occupational position) for the risk ratio of receiving diagnostic imaging (radiography, computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging) and non-pharmaceutical conservative therapies (physical therapy including exercise therapy, manual therapy and massage, spinal manipulative therapy, acupuncture). RESULTS: Patients received diagnostic imaging in 26%, physical therapy in 32%, spinal manipulative therapy in 25%, and acupuncture in 4% of all patient-years. Similar to previous survey-based studies higher rates of utilization were associated with higher socioeconomic status. These differences were most pronounced for manual therapy, exercise therapy, and magnetic resonance imaging. CONCLUSIONS: The observed differences in health care utilization were highly related to socioeconomic status. Socioeconomic differences were higher for more expensive health services. Further research is necessary to identify barriers to equitable access to health services and to take appropriate action to decrease existing social disparities.

Effectiveness of different percutaneous electrolysis protocols in the endogenous modulation of pain: A Double-Blinded Randomized Clinical Trial.

OBJECTIVE: This randomized clinical trial investigated if the application of percutaneous electrolysis (PE) enhances endogenous pain mechanisms (EPM) when compared with a simple needle application (acting as sham). METHODS: Forty-six asymptomatic subjects, aged 18-40 years, were randomized into three groups receiving a single ultrasound-guided PE intervention consisting of a needle insertion on the lateral epicondyle: sham (without electrical current), low-intensity (0.3 mA, 90s), or high-intensity (three pulses of 3 mA, 3s) PE. Widespread pressure pain thresholds (PPT), conditioned pain modulation (CPM), and temporal summation (TS) were bilaterally assessed in the lateral epicondyle, bicipital groove, transverse process of C5 and tibialis anterior muscle. Outcomes were obtained by an assessor blinded to the treatment allocation of the subjects. RESULTS: No significant changes in CPM were observed in either group (omnibus ANOVA all, P > .05). A significant bilateral increase in PPT in the lateral epicondyle in the high intensity group as compared with the sham group was observed (P < .01). A significant decrease of TS in both low (P = .002) and high (P = .049) intensity groups on the right, but not on the left, tibialis anterior was also observed when compared with the sham group. CONCLUSIONS: One session of PE is able to slightly stimulate modulatory pathways related to nociceptive gain, particularly pressure pain sensitivity and temporal summation but not conditioning pain modulation, when compared with a sham needle intervention, with changes even contralaterally. No significant differences were found between low- and high-intensity doses of percutaneous electrolysis.

Additional effect of pain neuroscience education to spinal manipulative therapy on pain and disability for patients with chronic low back pain: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) demonstrates small effects on pain intensity in low back pain. Combining SMT with a psychosocial intervention like pain neuroscience education (PNE) could promote additional effect. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the additional effect of PNE when combined to SMT on pain intensity and low back pain-related disability in patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP). METHOD: One hundred and four patients with CLBP of both sexes aged between 18 and 55 years were treated with PNE + SMT compared to SMT alone. The primary outcome measures were pain intensity and disability post-treatment (4 weeks). Secondary outcomes were fear-avoidance beliefs, global perceived effect of improvement, and pain self-efficacy. Results were obtained immediately post-treatment and at three follow-ups (30-days, 90-days, and 180-days). RESULTS: No significant between-group difference was observed for pain intensity and disability post-treatment. In contrast, our results showed a significantly longer additional effect for the group treated with SMT + PNE for the following outcomes: pain intensity (change baseline to 90 day follow-up = -0.90 [95% CI= -1.76, -0.4] and change baseline to 180 day follow-up = -1.19 [95% CI= -2.06, -0.32]) and low back pain-related disability, global perceived effect of improvement and pain self-efficacy (180th day follow-up). CONCLUSION: The results of this trial suggest the addition of PNE to SMT did not bring any additional effect on pain intensity and disability in the short term, but SMT + PNE can result in longer-lasting effects in patients with CLBP and that such an effect could be related to a possible mediator effect of pain self-efficacy.