Evaluating the Relationship Among Cavitation, Zygapophyseal Joint Gapping, and Spinal Manipulation: An Exploratory Case Series

详细信息    查看全文

• 作者：Gregory D. Cramer DC ; PhD^a ; ^{gcramer@nuhs.edu} ; Kim Ross DC ; PhD^b ; Judith Pocius MS^c ; Joe A. Cantu DC^d ; Evelyn Laptook DC^e ; Michael Fergus DC^e ; Doug Gregerson DC^f ; Scott Selby DC^g ; P.K. Raju PhD^h
• 关键词：Manipulation ; Spinal ; Zygapophyseal Joints ; Chiropractic
• 刊名：Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics
• 出版年：2011
• 出版时间：January 2011
• 年：2011
• 卷：34
• 期：1
• 页码：2-14
• 全文大小：1586 K

文摘

Objective

This project determined the feasibility of conducting larger studies assessing the relationship between cavitation and zygapophyseal (Z) joint gapping following spinal manipulative therapy (SMT).

Methods

Five healthy volunteers (average age, 25.4 years) were screened and examined against inclusion and exclusion criteria. High-signal magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) markers were fixed to T12, L3, and S1 spinous processes. Scout images were taken to verify the location of the markers. Axial images of the L4/L5 and L5/S1 levels were obtained in the neutral supine position. Following the first MRI, accelerometers were placed over the same spinous processes; and recordings were made from them during side-posture positioning and SMT. The accelerometers were removed, and each subject was scanned in side-posture. The greatest central anterior to posterior Z joint spaces (gap) were measured from the first and second MRI scans. Values obtained from the first scan were subtracted from those of the second, with a positive result indicating an increase in gapping following SMT (positive gapping difference). Gapping difference was compared between the up-side (SMT) joints vs the down-side (non-SMT) joints and between up-side cavitation vs up-side noncavitation joints.

Results

Greater gapping was found in Z joints that received SMT (0.5 ± 0.6 mm) vs non-SMT joints (−0.2 ± 0.6 mm), and vertebral segments that cavitated gapped more than those that did not cavitate (0.8 ± 0.7 vs 0.4 ± 0.5 mm).

Conclusions

A future clinical study is quite feasible. Forty subjects (30 in an SMT group and 10 in a control group) would be needed for appropriate power (0.90).