Abstract

This study investigates whether spinal manipulation leads to changes in motor control by measuring the recruitment pattern of motor units in both an upper and lower limb muscle and to see whether such changes may at least in part occur at the cortical level by recording movement related cortical potential (MRCP) amplitudes. In experiment one, transcranial magnetic stimulation input–output (TMS I/O) curves for an upper limb muscle (abductor pollicus brevis; APB) were recorded, along with F waves before and after either spinal manipulation or a control intervention for the same subjects on two different days. During two separate days, lower limb TMS I/O curves and MRCPs were recorded from tibialis anterior muscle (TA) pre and post spinal manipulation. Dependent measures were compared with repeated measures analysis of variance, with p set at 0.05. Spinal manipulation resulted in a 54.5% ± 93.1% increase in maximum motor evoked potential (MEPmax) for APB and a 44.6% ± 69.6% increase in MEPmax for TA. For the MRCP data following spinal manipulation there were significant difference for amplitude of early bereitschafts-potential (EBP), late bereitschafts potential (LBP) and also for peak negativity (PN). The results of this study show that spinal manipulation leads to changes in cortical excitability, as measured by significantly larger MEPmax for TMS induced input–output curves for both an upper and lower limb muscle, and with larger amplitudes of MRCP component post manipulation. No changes in spinal measures (i.e., F wave amplitudes or persistence) were observed, and no changes were shown following the control condition. These results are consistent with previous findings that have suggested increases in strength following spinal manipulation were due to descending cortical drive and could not be explained by changes at the level of the spinal cord. Spinal manipulation may therefore be indicated for the patients who have lost tonus of their muscle and/or are recovering from muscle degrading dysfunctions such as stroke or orthopaedic operations and/or may also be of interest to sports performers. These findings should be followed up in the relevant populations.

Highlights

  • Over the past 15 years there has been a growing number of human experiments conducted that have demonstrated there are central neural plastic effects from manual spinal manipulation [1].Spinal manipulation is a conservative, low cost treatment option currently utilized for low back pain, Brain Sci. 2017, 7, 2; doi:10.3390/brainsci7010002 www.mdpi.com/journal/brainsciBrain Sci. 2017, 7, 2 neck pain and headaches

  • The abductor pollicis brevis (APB) motor evoked potential (MEP) was elicited at five intensities of transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), ranging from 90% to 130% of resting threshold (RTh)

  • MEPmax was increased by 54.51% ± 93.13% and 11.24% ± 69.95% of pre measures of MEP in cervical manipulation and passive head movement (PHM) sessions respectively

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Over the past 15 years there has been a growing number of human experiments conducted that have demonstrated there are central neural plastic effects from manual spinal manipulation [1].Spinal manipulation is a conservative, low cost treatment option currently utilized for low back pain, Brain Sci. 2017, 7, 2; doi:10.3390/brainsci7010002 www.mdpi.com/journal/brainsciBrain Sci. 2017, 7, 2 neck pain and headaches. Over the past 15 years there has been a growing number of human experiments conducted that have demonstrated there are central neural plastic effects from manual spinal manipulation [1]. Spinal manipulation is a conservative, low cost treatment option currently utilized for low back pain, Brain Sci. 2017, 7, 2; doi:10.3390/brainsci7010002 www.mdpi.com/journal/brainsci. Brain Sci. 2017, 7, 2 neck pain and headaches. Clinical trials and systematic reviews have shown its usefulness for these conditions [2,3,4,5]. The mechanism that underpins the functional recovery and amelioration of painful conditions remains poorly understood. Scientists use to believe spinal manipulation was a biomechanical treatment option for spinal pain conditions. The growing basic science evidence suggests there may be more of a neurophysiological effect following spinal manipulation than previously realized

Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call