Subject: Spinal Manipulation

Title: Spinal Manipulation Alters electromyographic Activity of Paraspinal Muscles: A descriptive Study.

Authors: James W. DeVocht, DC, PhD, Joel G. Pickar, DC, PhD, and David G. Wilder, PhD

ABSTRACT:

Objective: To examine the effect of spinal manipulation on electromyographic (EMG) activity in areas of localized tight muscle bundles of the low back.

Methods: Surface EMG activity was collected from 16 participants in 2 chiropractic offices during the 5 to 10 minutes of the treatment protocol. Electrodes were placed over the 2 sites of greatest paraspinal muscle tension as determined by manual palpation. Spinal manipulation was administered to 8 participants using Activator protocol; the other 8 were treated using Diversified protocol.

Results: Electromyographic activity decreased by at least 25 after treatment in 24 of the 31 sites that were monitored. There was less than 25 change at 3 sites and more than 25 increase at 4 sites. Multiple distinct increases and decreases were observed in many data plots.

Conclusion: The results of this study indicate that manipulation induces a virtually immediate change, usually a reduction, in resting EMG levels in at least some patients with low back pain and tight paraspinal muscle bundles. In some cases, EMG activity increased during the treatment protocol and then usually, but not always, decreased to a level lower than the pretreatment level. (J Manipulative Physiol Ther 2005;28:465-471)

Key Indexing Terms: Chiropractic; Electromyography; Manipulation; Spinal

REFERENCES:

1. Lantz CA. Inflammation hypothesis. In: Leach RA, editor. The chiropractic theories: a synopsis of scientific research. 4th ed. Baltimore (Md): Williams & Wilkins; 2004. p. 131-6.
2. FIenderson CNR. Three neurophysiologic theories on the chiropractic subluxation. In: Gattennan MI, editor. Foundations of chiropractic: subluxation. 2nd ed. St Louis (Mo): Mosby; 1995. p. 296-304.
3. Dishman JD, Ball KA, Burke J. Central motor excitability changes after spinal manipulation: a transcranial magnetic stimulation study. J Manipulative Physiol Ther 2002;25:1 -9.
4. Dishman JD, Bulbulian R. Spinal reflex attenuation associated with spinal manipulation. Spine 2000;25:2519-24.
5. Colloca CJ. Electromyographic reflex responses to mechanical force, manually assisted spinal manipulative therapy. Spine 2001;26:1117-24.
6. Herzog W, Scheele D, Conway PJ. Electromyographic responses of back and limb muscles associated with spinal manipulative therapy. Spine 1999;24:146-52.
7. Shambaugh P. Changes in electrical activity in muscles resulting from chiropractic adjustment: a pilot study. J Manipulative Physiol Ther 1987; 10:300-4.
8. Herzog J. Use of cervical spine manipulation under anesthesia for management of cervical disk hemiation, cervical radiculopathy, and associated cervicogenic headache syndrome. J Manipulative Physiol Ther 1999:22:166-70.
9. Fuhr A, Colloca CJ, Green J, Keller T. Activator methods chiropractic technique. 1st ed. St Louis (Mo): Mosby; 1997.
10. Peterson D, Bergmann T. Chiropractic technique: principles and procedures. 2nd ed. St Louis (Mo): Mosby; 2002.
11. Christensen M, Kerkhoff D, Kollasch MW, editors. Job analysis of chiropractic: a project report, survey analysis and summary of the practice of chiropractic within the United States Greeley (Colo): National Board of Chiropractic Examiners; 2000. p. 129.
12. Fuhr AW, Smith DB. Accuracy of piezoelectric accelerometers measuring displacement of a spinal adjusting instrument. J Manipulative Physiol Ther 1986;9:15-21.