Advertisement

The audible pop is not necessary for successful spinal high-velocity thrust manipulation in individuals with low back pain1

      Abstract

      Flynn TW, Fritz JM, Wainner RS, Whitman JM. The audible pop is not necessary for successful spinal high-velocity thrust manipulation in individuals with low back pain. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2003;84:1057-60.

      Objective

      To determine the relationship between an audible pop and symptomatic improvement with spinal manipulation in patients with low back pain (LBP).

      Design:

      A prospective cohort study.

      Setting:

      Two outpatient physical therapy clinics located in military medical centers.

      Participants:

      A cohort of 71 patients with nonradicular LBP referred to physical therapy.

      Interventions:

      Participants underwent a standardized examination and standardized spinal manipulation treatment program. All patients were treated with a sacroiliac (SI) region manipulative technique and the presence or absence of an audible pop was noted.

      Main Outcome Measures:

      Subjects were reassessed 48 hours after the manipulation for changes in range of motion (ROM), numeric pain rating scale (PRS) scores, and modified Oswestry Disability Questionnaire (ODQ) scores.

      Results:

      An audible pop occurred in 50 of the 71 subjects during the manipulative procedure. Both groups—those who had an audible pop and those who did not—improved over time in flexion ROM, PRS scores, and modified ODQ scores; however, there were no differences between groups (P>.05). Nineteen of the 71 (27%) patients improved dramatically (mean drop in modified ODQ, 67.6%). In 14 of the 19 dramatic responders, an audible pop occurred. However, the odds ratio (1.2; 95% confidence interval, 0.38–4.04) suggested that the occurrence of a manipulative pop would not improve the odds of achieving a dramatic reduction in symptoms after the manipulation.

      Conclusion:

      There is no relationship between an audible pop during SI region manipulation and improvement in ROM, pain, or disability in individuals with nonradicular LBP. Additionally, the occurrence of a pop did not improve the odds of a dramatic improvement with manipulation treatment.

      Keywords

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Postacchini F.
        • Facchini M.
        • Palieri P.
        Efficacy of various forms of conservative treatments in low back pain.
        Neuro Orthop. 1988; 6: 28-35
        • Rasmussen G.
        Manipulation in treatment of low-back pain.
        Manual Med. 1979; 1: 8-10
        • Wreje U.
        • Nordgren B.
        • Aberg H.
        Treatment of pelvic joint dysfunction in primary care.
        Scand J Prim Care. 1992; 10: 310-315
        • Delitto A.
        • Cibulka M.T.
        • Erhard R.E.
        • Bowling R.W.
        • Tenhula J.A.
        Evidence for an extension/mobilization category in acute low back syndrome [see comments].
        Phys Ther. 1993; 73: 216-228
        • Erhard R.
        • Delitto A.
        • Cibulka M.
        Relative effectiveness of an extension program and a combined program of manipulation and flexion and extension exercises in patients with acute low back syndrome.
        Phys Ther. 1994; 74: 1093-1100
        • Koes B.W.
        • Bouter L.M.
        • van Mameren H.
        • et al.
        The effectiveness of manual therapy, physiotherapy, and treatment by the general practitioner for nonspecific back and neck complaints. A randomized clinical trial.
        Spine. 1992; 17 (Comment in: Spine 1993;18:169–70): 28-35
        • Triano J.
        • McGregor M.
        • Hondras M.
        • Brennan P.
        Manipulative therapy versus education programs in chronic low back pain.
        Spine. 1995; 20: 948-955
        • DonTigny R.L.
        Dysfunction of the sacroiliac joint and its treatment.
        J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 1979; 1: 23-35
        • Greenman P.E.
        Principles of manual medicine. Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia1996
        • Herzog W.
        • Zhang Y.
        • Conway P.
        • Kawchuk G.
        Cavitation sounds during spinal manipulative treatments.
        J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 1993; 16: 523-526
        • Reggars J.W.
        The therapeutic benefit of the audible release associated with spinal manipulative therapy. A critical review of the literature.
        Aust Chiropract Osteopath. 1998; 7: 80-85
        • Brodeur R.
        The audible release associated with joint manipulation.
        J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 1995; 18: 155-163
        • Roston J.
        • Haines R.
        Cracking in the metacarpophalangeal joint.
        J Anat. 1947; 81: 165-173
        • Mierau D.
        • Cassidy J.
        • Bowen V.
        • Dupuis P.
        • Noftall F.
        Manipulation and mobilization of the third metacarpophalangeal joint. A quantitative radiographic and range of motion study.
        Manual Med. 1988; 3: 135-140
        • Unsworth A.
        • Dowson D.
        • Wright V.
        ‘Cracking joints’. A bioengineering study of cavitation in the metacarpophalangeal joint.
        Ann Rheumat Dis. 1971; 30: 348-358
        • Conway P.
        • Herzog W.
        • Zhang Y.
        • Hasler E.
        Forces required to cause cavitation during spinal manipulation of the thoracic spine.
        Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 1993; 8: 210-214
        • Jensen M.P.
        • Turner J.A.
        • Romano J.M.
        What is the maximum number of levels needed in pain intensity measurement?.
        Pain. 1994; 58: 387-392
        • Fritz J.
        • Irrgang J.
        A comparison of a modified Oswestry Disability Questionnaire and the Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale.
        Phys Ther. 2001; 81: 776-788
        • McKenzie R.
        The lumbar spine. Spinal Publications, Waikanae (N Z)1989
        • Waddell G.
        • Somerville D.
        • Henderson I.
        • Newton M.
        Objective clinical evaluation of physical impairment in chronic low back pain.
        Spine. 1992; 17: 617-628
        • Flynn T.
        • Fritz J.
        • Whitman J.
        • et al.
        A clinical prediction rule for classifying patients who demonstrate short-term improvement with spinal manipulation.
        Spine. 2002; 27: 2835-2843
        • Farrat J.
        • Young J.
        • LaMoreaux L.
        • Werth J.
        • Poole R.
        Clinical importance of changes in chronic pain intensity measured on an 11-point numerical pain rating scale.
        Pain. 2002; 94: 149-158
        • McFadden K.
        • Taylor J.
        Axial rotation in the lumbar spine and gapping of the zygapophyseal joints.
        Spine. 1990; 15: 295-299
        • Isaacs E.
        • Bookhout M.
        Bourdillon’s spinal manipulation. Butterworth-Heinemann, Boston2002: 115