Paraspinal Cutaneous Temperature Modification After Spinal Manipulation at L5

• Published in: Journal of manipulative and physiological therapeutics 2010-05, Vol.33 (4), p.308-314
• Main Authors: Roy, Richard A., DC, MSc, Boucher, Jean P., PhD, Comtois, Alain S., PhD
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Acute Disease; Adult; Analysis of Variance; Chiropractic; Confounding Factors (Epidemiology); Female; Humans; Low Back Pain - physiopathology; Low Back Pain - therapy; Lumbar Vertebrae; Male; Manipulation, Chiropractic; Manipulation, Spinal; Middle Aged; Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation; Research Design; Skin Temperature; Spine; Thermography
• ISSN: 0161-4754; 1532-6586
• DOI: 10.1016/j.jmpt.2010.03.001

Abstract Objective The purpose of this study was to investigate local paraspinal cutaneous temperature (CT) modifications after spinal manipulative therapy at L5. Methods Twenty subjects with acute low back symptoms were randomly assigned to either a treatment or a sham group (n = 10 per group). Subjects underwent an 8-minute acclimatizing period. Temperature was measured bilaterally with infrared cameras at the L5 level. In the treatment group, a traditional chiropractic manipulation (lumbar roll technique with a pisiform contact on the ipsilateral mamillary of L5) was delivered, whereas with the sham group, the same technique was used, but no thrust was applied. Cutaneous temperature control measurements were taken 2 minutes before ( t−2 ) and immediately after the intervention ( t0 ) and at 1, 3, 5, and 10 minutes postintervention ( t1 , t3 , t5 , and t10 , respectively). Results At t0 , CT in the treatment group on the treatment side (ipsilateral side) warmed up by 0.2°F, whereas in the sham group, there were no significant temperature modifications on either side. At t3 relative to t0 , CT in the treatment group on the treatment side warmed by approximately 0.6°F, whereas the contralateral side (nontreatment side) cooled. In the treatment group, significant differences were noted between sides (F = 13.36, P = .002, P = .932) and sides × times (F = 2.97, P = .016, P = .838). Conclusion The effects of a lumbar spine manipulation appear noticeable by changes in paraspinal CT measurements at the level of L5. However, the meaning and mechanisms of CT modifications at L5 are still being investigated.