Healthy Subjects
Conditions
Brief summary
This study had the goal of analyse the neurophysiologic effects of both mechanical and manual cervical manipulation, in asymptomatic individuals.
Detailed description
In this study, the investigators compared the effects of manual manipulation and instrument assisted manipulation of C3/C4 on muscle tone, elasticity and stiffness and on pressure pain threshold , and pressure pain perception. The muscles evaluated were upper trapezius and biceps brachialis, bilaterally. The study also had a placebo and a control group. All individuals were asymptomatic.
Interventions
OTHERCervical spine manual manipulation
In the Manual manipulation group, the thrust was applied in the right side of C3/C4 with neutral flexion/extension, ipsilateral side bending and contralateral rotation. Then, a low amplitude, high velocity thrust in rotation was delivered.
OTHERCervical spine mechanical manipulation
In the Mechanical manipulation group, the Activator instrument was applied on the right transverse apophyses of C3.
OTHERPlacebo intervention
The subjects were positioned in the same pre-manipulative position as the manual manipulation group, but the thrust didn't occur. Instead, the position was hold for 3 seconds and then the subject's head returned passively to neutral position.
Sponsors
Escola Superior de Tecnologia da Saúde do Porto
Study design
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
TRIPLE (Subject, Caregiver, Outcomes Assessor)
Eligibility
Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to No maximum
Healthy volunteers
Yes
Inclusion criteria
* Healthy subjects. * Minimum of 18 years old.
Exclusion criteria
* Pain in cervical region, shoulders or arms. * History of trauma or disease in the cervical region or upper limb. * Use of medication that could affect the outcomes (painkillers, NSAID, or anti depressives) during the last week.
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Pressure pain thresholds | Immediately after the intervention | To measure the pressure pain threshold, it was used an electronic pressure dynamometer FORCE ONE™ FDIX (Wagner Instruments - Greenwich, USA), with 1cm2 of surface. The values were expressed in Kg/cm2. The pressure was increased at a rate of 1 kg/cm2/s until the subject inform that the sense of pressure has become a sense of pain. |
| Pressure pain perception | Immediately after the intervention | To evaluate the pressure pain perception, it was used a Visual Analogue Scale (VAS). The pressure increased until 2,5 kg/cm2 and was hold for 5 seconds, and the subject used the VAS scale to record the pressure pain perception he felt. |
Secondary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Muscle tone | Immediately after the intervention | To measure muscle tone it was used the MyotonPro device. It was used to evaluate those parameters both on the biceps and on the upper trapezius, bilaterally. The device was located perpendicular to the middle point of each muscle and it were recorded 6 impulses in each one of them. The non-neural tone was recorded as frequency. |
| Muscle stiffness | Immediately after the intervention | To measure muscle stiffness it was used the MyotonPro device. It was used to evaluate this parameter both on the biceps and on the upper trapezius, bilaterally. The device was located perpendicular to the middle point of each muscle and it were recorded 6 impulses in each one of them. The muscle stiffness was recorded as N/m. |
| Muscle elasticity | Immediately after the intervention | To measure muscle elasticity it was used the MyotonPro device. It was used to evaluate those parameters both on the biceps and on the upper trapezius, bilaterally. The device was located perpendicular to the middle point of each muscle and it were recorded 6 impulses in each one of them. The elasticity was indicated by logarithmic decrement. |
Outcome results
None listed