手工和器械脊柱操作对慢性非特异性颈部疼痛患者椎动脉和颈内动脉血流的影响:一项单盲随机研究

Burcu Kocabey , Dilber Karagözoğlu Coşkunsu PhD , Koray Güven , Mustafa H. Ağaoğlu DC , Selvi Yüce
{"title":"手工和器械脊柱操作对慢性非特异性颈部疼痛患者椎动脉和颈内动脉血流的影响:一项单盲随机研究","authors":"Burcu Kocabey ,&nbsp;Dilber Karagözoğlu Coşkunsu PhD ,&nbsp;Koray Güven ,&nbsp;Mustafa H. Ağaoğlu DC ,&nbsp;Selvi Yüce","doi":"10.1016/j.jcm.2022.05.006","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objective</h3><p><span>The aim of this study was to compare the hemodynamic effects of manual </span>spinal manipulation<span> (MSM) and instrumental spinal manipulation (ISM) on the vertebral artery<span> (VA) and internal carotid artery (ICA) in participants with chronic nonspecific neck pain (NNP).</span></span></p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>Thirty volunteers aged 20 to 40 years old with NNP over 3 months duration were included. Participants were randomly divided into the following 2 groups: (1) MSM group (n = 15) and (2) ISM group (n = 15). Ipsilateral (intervention side) and contralateral<span><span> (opposite side of intervention) VAs and ICAs were evaluated using spectral color Doppler ultrasound before and immediately after manipulation. Measurements were recorded by visualizing the ICA </span>carotid sinus<span> (C4 level) and the VA at the V3 segment (C1-C2 level). The blood flow parameters<span> of peak systolic velocity<span> (PSV), end-diastolic velocity, resistive index<span>, and volume flow (only for VA) were evaluated. The spinal segment, in which biomechanical aberrant movement was detected by palpation in the upper cervical spine, was manually manipulated in the MSM group. The same methodology was performed for the ISM group using an Activator V instrument (Activator Methods).</span></span></span></span></span></p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Intragroup analysis exhibited no statistically significant difference between the MSM and ISM groups in terms of PSV, end-diastolic velocity, resistive index of ipsilateral and contralateral ICA and VA, in addition to volume flow of both VAs preintervention and postintervention (<em>P</em> &gt; .05). Within the intergroup analysis, there was a significant difference in ipsilateral ICA PSV (<em>P</em> = .031) (preintervention vs postintervention difference was –7.9 ± 17.2 cm/s [95% confidence interval, –17.4 to 1.6] in the ISM group and 8.7 ± 22.5 cm/s [95% confidence interval, –3.6 to 21.2]) in the MSM group (<em>P</em> &lt; .05). Other parameters did not show any significant difference (<em>P</em> &gt; .05).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>Manual and instrumental spinal manipulations applied to the upper cervical spine in participants with chronic NNP did not appear to alter blood flow parameters of the VAs and ICAs.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":94328,"journal":{"name":"Journal of chiropractic medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9947994/pdf/main.pdf","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Effects of Manual Versus Instrumental Spinal Manipulation on Blood Flow of the Vertebral and Internal Carotid Arteries in Participants With Chronic Nonspecific Neck Pain: A Single-Blind, Randomized Study\",\"authors\":\"Burcu Kocabey ,&nbsp;Dilber Karagözoğlu Coşkunsu PhD ,&nbsp;Koray Güven ,&nbsp;Mustafa H. Ağaoğlu DC ,&nbsp;Selvi Yüce\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jcm.2022.05.006\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Objective</h3><p><span>The aim of this study was to compare the hemodynamic effects of manual </span>spinal manipulation<span> (MSM) and instrumental spinal manipulation (ISM) on the vertebral artery<span> (VA) and internal carotid artery (ICA) in participants with chronic nonspecific neck pain (NNP).</span></span></p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>Thirty volunteers aged 20 to 40 years old with NNP over 3 months duration were included. Participants were randomly divided into the following 2 groups: (1) MSM group (n = 15) and (2) ISM group (n = 15). Ipsilateral (intervention side) and contralateral<span><span> (opposite side of intervention) VAs and ICAs were evaluated using spectral color Doppler ultrasound before and immediately after manipulation. Measurements were recorded by visualizing the ICA </span>carotid sinus<span> (C4 level) and the VA at the V3 segment (C1-C2 level). The blood flow parameters<span> of peak systolic velocity<span> (PSV), end-diastolic velocity, resistive index<span>, and volume flow (only for VA) were evaluated. The spinal segment, in which biomechanical aberrant movement was detected by palpation in the upper cervical spine, was manually manipulated in the MSM group. The same methodology was performed for the ISM group using an Activator V instrument (Activator Methods).</span></span></span></span></span></p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Intragroup analysis exhibited no statistically significant difference between the MSM and ISM groups in terms of PSV, end-diastolic velocity, resistive index of ipsilateral and contralateral ICA and VA, in addition to volume flow of both VAs preintervention and postintervention (<em>P</em> &gt; .05). Within the intergroup analysis, there was a significant difference in ipsilateral ICA PSV (<em>P</em> = .031) (preintervention vs postintervention difference was –7.9 ± 17.2 cm/s [95% confidence interval, –17.4 to 1.6] in the ISM group and 8.7 ± 22.5 cm/s [95% confidence interval, –3.6 to 21.2]) in the MSM group (<em>P</em> &lt; .05). Other parameters did not show any significant difference (<em>P</em> &gt; .05).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>Manual and instrumental spinal manipulations applied to the upper cervical spine in participants with chronic NNP did not appear to alter blood flow parameters of the VAs and ICAs.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":94328,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of chiropractic medicine\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9947994/pdf/main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of chiropractic medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1556370722000876\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of chiropractic medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1556370722000876","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

目的比较手工脊柱推拿(MSM)和器械脊柱推拿(ISM)对慢性非特异性颈痛(NNP)患者椎动脉(VA)和颈内动脉(ICA)血流动力学的影响。方法选取30例年龄在20 ~ 40岁,病程超过3个月的NNP患者。参与者随机分为两组:(1)MSM组(n = 15)和(2)ISM组(n = 15)。操作前后分别采用彩色多普勒超声对同侧(干预侧)和对侧(干预对侧)VAs和ICAs进行评价。通过观察颈动脉ICA窦(C4水平)和V3段VA (C1-C2水平)来记录测量结果。评估血流参数收缩期峰值速度(PSV)、舒张末期速度、阻力指数和容积流量(仅限VA)。在MSM组中,通过触诊在上颈椎检测到生物力学异常运动的脊柱节段被手动操作。ISM组使用Activator V仪器(Activator Methods)进行相同的方法。结果组间分析显示,MSM组与ISM组在PSV、舒张末速度、同侧和对侧ICA、VA阻力指数、干预前和干预后VAs容积流量方面差异均无统计学意义(P >. 05)。在组间分析中,同侧ICA PSV差异有统计学意义(P = 0.031) (ISM组干预前与干预后差异为-7.9±17.2 cm/s[95%可信区间,-17.4至1.6],MSM组8.7±22.5 cm/s[95%可信区间,-3.6至21.2])(P <. 05)。其他参数无显著差异(P >. 05)。结论:慢性NNP患者的上颈椎手工和器械脊柱操作并未改变VAs和ica的血流参数。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Effects of Manual Versus Instrumental Spinal Manipulation on Blood Flow of the Vertebral and Internal Carotid Arteries in Participants With Chronic Nonspecific Neck Pain: A Single-Blind, Randomized Study

Objective

The aim of this study was to compare the hemodynamic effects of manual spinal manipulation (MSM) and instrumental spinal manipulation (ISM) on the vertebral artery (VA) and internal carotid artery (ICA) in participants with chronic nonspecific neck pain (NNP).

Methods

Thirty volunteers aged 20 to 40 years old with NNP over 3 months duration were included. Participants were randomly divided into the following 2 groups: (1) MSM group (n = 15) and (2) ISM group (n = 15). Ipsilateral (intervention side) and contralateral (opposite side of intervention) VAs and ICAs were evaluated using spectral color Doppler ultrasound before and immediately after manipulation. Measurements were recorded by visualizing the ICA carotid sinus (C4 level) and the VA at the V3 segment (C1-C2 level). The blood flow parameters of peak systolic velocity (PSV), end-diastolic velocity, resistive index, and volume flow (only for VA) were evaluated. The spinal segment, in which biomechanical aberrant movement was detected by palpation in the upper cervical spine, was manually manipulated in the MSM group. The same methodology was performed for the ISM group using an Activator V instrument (Activator Methods).

Results

Intragroup analysis exhibited no statistically significant difference between the MSM and ISM groups in terms of PSV, end-diastolic velocity, resistive index of ipsilateral and contralateral ICA and VA, in addition to volume flow of both VAs preintervention and postintervention (P > .05). Within the intergroup analysis, there was a significant difference in ipsilateral ICA PSV (P = .031) (preintervention vs postintervention difference was –7.9 ± 17.2 cm/s [95% confidence interval, –17.4 to 1.6] in the ISM group and 8.7 ± 22.5 cm/s [95% confidence interval, –3.6 to 21.2]) in the MSM group (P < .05). Other parameters did not show any significant difference (P > .05).

Conclusion

Manual and instrumental spinal manipulations applied to the upper cervical spine in participants with chronic NNP did not appear to alter blood flow parameters of the VAs and ICAs.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信