Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
Filter by Categories
Case Report
Current Issue
Editorial
Letter to Editor
Original Article
Review Article
Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
Filter by Categories
Case Report
Current Issue
Editorial
Letter to Editor
Original Article
Review Article
View/Download PDF

Translate this page into:

Case Report
ARTICLE IN PRESS
doi:
10.25259/JMRI_24_2022

The clinical and subjective outcomes associated with spinal manipulation: A case study

The Strength Science Clinic, Auckland, New Zealand
Corresponding author: Brogan Samuel Williams, The Strength Science Clinic, Auckland, New Zealand. thestrengthscienceclinic@gmail.com
Licence
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-Share Alike 4.0 License, which allows others to remix, transform, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as the author is credited and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms.

How to cite this article: Williams BS. The clinical and subjective outcomes associated with spinal manipulation: A case study. J Med Res Innov, doi: 10.25259/JMRI_24_2022

Abstract

Spinal manipulation (SM) has been documented to have various physiological effects, of which the research literature has started to reflect over the past decade. This case study was designed with intent to further investigate these findings. A 31 year old woman with experience of lifting weights and working a very physical job presented with ipsilateral right-sided lower neck and shoulder pain (C7-T4, right trapezius, and right scapula area) and bilateral low back pain (L1-L5 and S.I joint area). Following the examination, a differential diagnosis list was decided on with the input of multiple doctors and therapists. The primary treatment was SM over a time span of 6 months. The patient displayed significant results. Objective testing through a follow-up range of motion (ROM) examination showed an increase in ROM and a spinal examination presented a reduction in local muscle tightness. In addition, subjectively, the patient reported a significant reduction in pain, an increase in movement confidence, and ability. The results of this case study suggest that SM in conjunction with patient education has a significant positive effect on the patient’s reduction of pain, local muscle tightness and increase in ROM, and patient movement ability and confidence. Further studies are required to isolate the specific effects of SM in a high-powered study and clinical setting.

Keywords

Spinal manipulation
Chiropractic adjustment
Spine
Pain
Range of motion
Muscle
Education

INTRODUCTION

Spinal manipulation (SM) has been documented to have various physiological effects, of which the research literature has started to reflect over the past decade.[1] Regardless of these efforts, there are still contrasting results being published and an absolute lack of evidence directly observing how SM impacts the performance of strength athletes. Williams (2022) performed a comprehensive literature review covering the clinical outcomes most evident from SM, and among these were (1) improved pain outcomes; (2) increased range of motion (ROM); (3) improved proprioception and balance/coordination; and (4) a decrease in local muscle tension and soft-tissue restrictions. This case study was designed with intent to further investigate these findings.[2-9]

CASE REPORT

A 31 year old woman with experience of lifting weights and working a very physical job presented with ipsilateral right-sided lower neck and shoulder pain (C7-T4, R trap, and R scap area). No rust’s sign, minor’s sign, or antalgic lean – postural assessment were mostly normal with a small elevation of the right shoulder and minor anterior head carriage. Weight and body mass index are WNL (within normal limits). Vitals such as temperature, heart rate, blood pressure, and respiratory rate were all within normal limits. She reported an achy/tight pain which gets worse throughout the day; 0/10 at best, 3/10 on average, and 7/10 at worst which often feels better with Panadol/rest and usually feels worst at the end of a long day at work – pain occurs 3–5 × per week and lasts for hours at a time until rest or medication is taken. Orthopedic tests were mostly normal apart from a positive O’Donoghue’s test Part 1 and incidental muscle pain on convex side of the maximum cervical compression test and on the ipsilateral side of a shoulder depression test. ROM was all WNL with slight restriction on the right lateral flexion. No radiculopathy down the arm or any other radiating or referred pain was presented. On examination of the spine, she presented with computed tomography junction restriction, decreased JP, MP with some heat, point tenderness, and local muscle tension. CNs, myotomes, dermatomes, and DTRs are all WNL. Job includes asymmetric loading in awkward positions and she claims to notice a correlation between this and the pain.

Furthermore, the patient complained of bilateral low back pain. Pain was described as a dull ache/tightness that at best was 0/10, on average was 3/10, and at worst 6/10. Pain came on throughout the day and was at its worst after a long day’s work or extended prolong activity, rest made it better or light stretches. All myotomes, dermatomes, and DTRs were WNL and all orthopedic tests were negative apart from some incidental hamstring tightness on the SLR. ROM was mostly normal with some flexion restriction and tightness, no radiculopathy, or referred pain, however. The spinal examination revealed reduced R ilium JP and MP with bilateral hypertonic QLs and erector spinae. No specific areas of PT (point tenderness) but some increased heat over and around the lumbar spine bilaterally. Hip ROM was WNL. The patient regularly bends over and asymmetrically loads in flexion often at work, pain is exacerbated by being on her feet for long periods and bending over constantly on long shifts. The patient has no other health conditions and consumed no anti-inflammatories or pain relief within this time – nor was any anti-inflammatory gel, or massage cream used that may have affected the results.

Differential diagnosis

Following the examination, an investigation was conducted by the lead researcher and a DDX list was decided on with the input of multiple doctor/therapists. The investigation involved the lead researcher narrowing down five key musculoskeletal conditions based on the participant’s history, presentation, signs, and symptoms. This list was, then, discussed in depth alongside the case information with multiple other doctors and therapist. Based on the input received, the lead researcher reached a top three list of differential diagnoses.

The top DDX’s are as follows

  1. Muscular strain

  2. Joint restriction (and/or vertebral subluxation)

  3. Postural stress.

Treatment

The primary treatment was SM over a time span of 6 months. The upper back, T1-T4 was manipulated in various ways, including P-A, I-S, and distraction vectors. Education was provided on posture and shoulder positioning when lifting. Side posture manipulations were performed adjusting L1-L5 and the S.I joint, P-A drop table thrusts were also included in this treatment. Education was provided on how to hip hinge, which included proper movement through the hips, ways to bend over, and strategies on how to lift without pain.

Outcomes

The patient displayed encouraging results. Objective testing through a follow-up ROM examination showed an increase in ROM and a spinal examination presented a reduction in local muscle tightness. In addition, subjectively, the patient reported a rather large reduction in pain, an increase in movement confidence and ability [Figure 2].

Figure 1:: Spinal manipulation clinical outcomes (Williams, 2022a).
Figure 2:: Reported outcomes (Williams, 2022a).

DISCUSSION

The mechanisms discussed in Williams (2022) literature review provide a framework of which these results can be understood and replicated.[2] It is important to understand that education around movement remains paramount and that is likely contributing to the success of this case study also.[10] Nonetheless, it is evident that SM has a strong effect on the musculoskeletal system which is likely achieved through mechanical, biochemical, and neurological modulated processes.[1] Although the results of this case study were encouraging, it is important to note that more high-quality research is required to reach a stronger conclusion. Furthermore, it should be investigated whether the effects of SM are long term, which would require testing SM in isolation. This would most appropriately be done through a crossover, control group randomized clinical trial. The very nature of a randomized control trial provides more consistency with less room for biased outcomes. This case study provides a platform for more research to be done, which may benefit the overall medical system by providing more awareness and understanding around SM and the benefits it can provide at such a low cost and risk.

CONCLUSION

The results of this case study suggest that SM in conjunction with patient education may have a positive effect on the patient’s reduction of pain, local muscle tightness, and increase in ROM and patient movement ability and confidence. Further studies are required to isolate the specific effects of SM in a high-powered study and clinical setting.

Acknowledgment

I would like to thank Dr. Salvatore Fava PhD for his guidance and supervision and Dr. Stephen Redmon DC for his support and assistance. Thank you to all that were involved to make this happen.

Declaration of patient consent

The authors certify that they have obtained all appropriate patient consent.

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. , , , . Spinal manipulation therapy: Is it all about the brain? A current review of the neurophysiological effects of manipulation. J Integr Med. 2019;17:328-37.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. . An Investigation Into the Impact Spinal Manipulation May Have on the Performance of Strength Athletes. Thesis. 20-46.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. , , , . Thoracic spine thrust manipulation improves pain, range of motion, and self-reported function in patients with mechanical neck pain: A systematic review. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2011;41:633-42.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. . Spinal Manipulation: What You Need to Know Maryland: NCCIH, National Institutes of Health; .
    [Google Scholar]
  5. , . Active range of motion in the cervical spine increases after spinal manipulation (toggle recoil) J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2001;24:552-5.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. , , . Changes in proprioception and pain in patients with neck pain after upper thoracic manipulation. J Phys Ther Sci. 2015;27:795-8.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. , . Subclinical neck pain and the effects of cervical manipulation on elbow joint position sense. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2011;34:88-97.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. , , . Spinal manipulation alters electromyographic activity of paraspinal muscles: A descriptive study. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2005;28:465-71.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. , , . Effects of a mechanical pain stimulus on erector spinae activity before and after a spinal manipulation in patients with back pain: A preliminary investigation. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2001;24:402-6.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. , , , , . Exploring effect of pain education on chronic pain patients' expectation of recovery and pain intensity. Scand J Pain. 2018;18:211-9.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Show Sections