Manipulation of the Lumbar Spine

Introduction[edit | edit source]

Spinal manipulation (SM) techniques are widely used by health professionals such as chiropractors, osteopathic physicians and physiotherapists. As widely used and acceptable as these techniques may be, it is important to analyse and review their effectiveness on commonly affected joints such as the lumbar spine and the sacroiliac joint that are prone to causing low back pain (LBP). The mechanisms underlying the effectiveness of the procedures, their efficacy, safety and contraindications are also important to be explored.

What is Manipulation?[edit | edit source]

Manipulation is a manual therapy technique where a therapist applies a quick, controlled and directed thrust to a joint at the end of physiological range of movement, often causing an audible sound by the joint. [1] [2] This "high velocity - low amplitude of movement" technique differs from mobilisation where passive movement is carried out within available range of motion and then gradually increased to a larger range as the patient feels more comfortable. [1]

The Use of Manipulations[edit | edit source]

Low back pain is the most common musculoskeletal problem globally with a prevalence of 7.5% across all age groups in the world and in the United States, life-time prevalence may reportedly be as high as 84%. [3][4] Manipulation techniques as part of manual therapy to improve an individual’s movement potential are common within a physiotherapist's scope of practice. [5] In fact, the lumbar spine is the second most common site of manipulation by UK physiotherapists. [6] Manipulation techniques are often used for patients with chronic non-specific low back pain as they have been reported to be as equally effective as other interventions in its management. [7]

How to Use Lumbar Manipulation[edit | edit source]

You can learn more about how lumbar manipulation can be used and its contraindications in Spinal Manipulation.

Example of a Lumbar Manipulation[edit | edit source]

An example of a lumbar manipulation technique is found in the video below:

[8]

Mechanisms of Action[edit | edit source]

The exact mechanism by which spinal manipulation works has not been fully established, but an array of biomechanical, muscular reflexogenic and neurophysiological responses have been reported in the literature [9][10] to support effects such as pain relief [9] and reduction of spinal stiffness. [11]

Motor Neurone Excitability  [edit | edit source]

Hyper-excitability of the A motor neuron leads to increased muscle activity. Spinal manipulation has been thought to relax hyperactive muscles through modulating the A motor neuron activity. The influence on spinal stretch reflexes results in a brief muscle contraction possibly followed by a period of reduced muscle activity, bringing about pain relieving effects. [10]

Muscle Activity[edit | edit source]

Individuals with LBP experience greater amount of spinal muscle hyperactivity in static postures than healthy participants.

The pain-spasm cycle suggests that pain causes muscular hyperactivity (spasm) and this spasm can cause further pain.  

Pain -> Hyperactivity (spasm) -> Pain  

The mechanical stimulation of spinal manipulation is thought to cause the sensory receptors to inhibit muscle activity - disrupting the pain-spasm-model.

Activation of Descending Pain Modulation  [edit | edit source]

Spinal manipulation is thought to activate the modulation circuit of pain descending pathways , specifically, the serotonin and noradrenaline pathways. [12] [13]

Segmental Inhibition[edit | edit source]

This theory proposes that nociceptive (small-diameter) A-δ and C sensory fibers carry pain stimuli to the dorsal horn and “open” the substantia gelatinosa layer, whereas non-nociceptive (large-diameter) A-β fibers inhibit transmission of pain signals by blocking the entry of A-δ and C fibers. Because mechanical stimulus applied during spinal manipulation may alter peripheral sensory input from paraspinal tissues, it has been presumed that manipulation may influence the gate closing mechanism by stimulating the A-β fibers from muscle spindles and facet joint mechanoreceptors.

Temporal Summation[edit | edit source]

Temporal summation is an increased perception of pain caused by repetitive nociceptive stimuli – it's related to aspects of central sensitization. Lumbar spine manipulation has been suggested to reduce temporal summation of pain. [14]

Neuroendocrine Response  [edit | edit source]

Manipulations at the thoracolumbar segment of the spine may result in excitation of the preganglionic sympathetic cells and subsequent stimulation of mechanoreceptors. These inputs would then travel to several regions of the brain stem and lead to opioid-independent analgesia by influencing the hypothalamus and periaqueductal gray (PAG) in the midbrain. The hypothalamic release of corticotropin-releasing factor would then occur to modulate the SNS and HPA axis response. The neuroendocrine (SNS–HPA axis) system would then release its end products (catecholamines and glucocorticoids) to initiate anti-inflammatory and tissue-healing actions. [15]

Non-Specific Responses  [edit | edit source]

The relevance of non-specific variables, such as individual expectations or psychosocial factors on pain or psychological outcome measures is not well understood since there is a greater focus on the effect of SM on pain and spine related disability. Nevertheless, there is some evidence supporting that spinal manipulation may have a small effect on psychological outcomes. [16]

Efficacy of Lumbar Manipulations[edit | edit source]

Effectiveness as a sole treatment[edit | edit source]

Spinal manipulation can either be used alongside other forms of treatment or alone as an individual intervention. [17] Its effectiveness as a sole treatment approach is discussed below.

A 2016 systematic review and meta-analysis compared SM with sham manipulation for non-specific LBP and showed that a greater reduction in pain scores was present in SM in comparison to those receiving a placebo. [18]

A 2019 review concluded that SM results in similar benefit compared to other interventions for chronic LBP. [19] This review used traditional aggregate analyses, so an individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis followed in 2021 for a more precise estimate of the treatment effect. [17] In the IPD meta-analysis, sufficient evidence was found to suggest that SMT provides similar outcomes to recommended interventions, for pain relief and improvement of functional status. [17] No moderators that enable clinicians to know which patients are likely to benefit more from SMT compared to other treatments were identified. [20]

Another review was published in 2022 investigating the effects of manual therapy in placebo controlled trials. [21] Seven studies on LBP (acute or chronic) were included and analysed. Overall, manipulation did not demonstrate higher effectiveness when compared with placebo groups. [21]

A RCT compared the effectiveness of SM and a functional technique involving breathing on improving pain, disability, quality of life and fear of movement. Over a short-term period, SM only reduced disability in patients with chronic LBP and the other outcomes weren’t improved. The small sample size (n=62) may be a reason why improvements in disability weren’t clinically significant; it was concluded that SM didn’t result in clinically meaningful short-term benefits. [22]

A RCT comparing the effectiveness of region-specific and non-region-specific spinal manipulation for improving pain intensity within chronic LBP patients found that both groups experienced immediate decrease in pain intensity. [23]

The effect of spinal manipulation and spinal mobilization at reducing pain and disability compared with a placebo control group was studied in a cohort of young adults with chronic LBP. Participants received 6 treatment sessions over a 3-week period. However, neither spinal manipulation nor spinal mobilization were shown to be effective treatments for mild to moderate chronic LBP. [24]

Required treatment Sessions  [edit | edit source]

A comparative study on spinal manipulation treatment sessions found that 12 sessions over a 6-week period yielded the greatest improvement in pain and functional disability, both in the short-term (12 weeks) and long term (52 weeks). [25]

Effectiveness as an Adjunct to Exercise[edit | edit source]

The 2016 NICE guidelines state that for patients with LBP manual therapies including manipulation can be considered as a package of treatment including exercise with/ without psychological therapy. [26] Manipulations are commonly used alongside other therapies, and this has been shown to yield a statistically significantly better outcome in pain and function after 1 month of intervention. [27]

In a RCT, [28] the use of manual therapies followed by exercises for patients with chronic non-specific LBP was analysed. This study found that manual therapies (including manipulations) followed by exercises provided a statistically significant reduction in pain and disability compared with a sham therapy followed by exercises. This study was conducted on adults (20-65) with chronic non-specific LBP without co-morbidities so may not be generalisable to all populations. Another randomised trial on adolescent (12-18) patients with non-specific LBP showed that spinal manipulation alongside exercise is more effective than exercise alone for LBP. [29]

Manipulations as adjuncts to other treatments for LBP such as myofascial release and kinesio taping have been found to produce no significant benefit compared with manipulations alone. [30][31]

Chronic vs Acute  [edit | edit source]

Due to the different mechanisms of pain between acute and chronic pain, it is important to analyse the effectiveness of treatments between these two patient groups. [32] Manipulation for chronic LBP has been found to be effective in multiple studies. [7][25]

A RCT found that manipulations are significantly effective in reducing pain and improving range of motion for chronic and sub-acute LBP with radiculopathy. [33] However, all participants to the study were given pain killers (paracetamol and gabapentin) which may have had an effect in reducing pain.  

For patients with acute LBP, spinal manipulations may not be as effective for those who will recover quickly with or without intervention. [34] Furthermore, a RCT found that patients with acute LBP do not recover more quickly with the addition of manipulation to first line care. [34] A Cochrane review [35] found low to very low-quality evidence suggesting that spinal manipulation was no more effective than other recommended therapies for acute LBP.

Safety of Spinal Manipulations[edit | edit source]

Safety[edit | edit source]

Research around safety and adverse events in lumbar manipulation is limited by the amount of good quality research. Terms, definition and classification systems on adverse events following spinal manipulation vary greatly and there is an urgent need for consensus on the subject. [36]

A review [37] looking at spinal manipulation as a whole showed stroke (in an analogy of 1 in 20,000–2,000,000 manipulations) or Vertebrobasilar accident (1 in 228,050–1,000,000 manipulations) as the most common serious adverse event. However, these events are caused by cervical manipulations. In the sole study looking at lumbar manipulation, the adverse event caused was lumbar disc hernia which the risk was assessed at 1 in 3.8m. The review was inconclusive about the overall safety of spinal manipulation as 46% conclude it was safe, 13% unsafe and 42% unclear. Further research needs to be done, especially into lumbar manipulation safety as the anatomy would suggest it to be safer than cervical or thoracic, with most common adverse event being mild soreness.

Swait and Finch also conducted a review [38] in 2017 on the risks of manual techniques on the spine. 250 articles were included in the review, including observational studies, randomised studies and systematic reviews. Swait and Finch’s findings are in agreement with the findings of Neilson et al 2017. [37] Benign adverse advents are commonplace in both adolescence and adults:

• Benign adverse events are common, affecting 23–83% of adult patients.

• These are mostly mild-moderate, transient (usually resolve within 24 h) and commonly include musculoskeletal pain, stiff-ness and headache.

• Dizziness, tiredness, feeling faint/lightheaded or tingling in the arms might also be experienced following neck treatment.

Serious adverse events appear to be rare and, as a result, estimates of the level of risk are problematic.

• However, cases of serious adverse events, including serious spinal or neurological problems as well as strokes affecting arteries in the neck, have been reported.

• Serious adverse events could result from pre-existing pathologies, therefore assessment for signs or symptoms of these is important.

• Where a serious adverse event is thought to have occurred following manual spinal intervention, use of a patient safety incident reporting system enables dissemination of accurate case details.

Safety of Lumbar Manipulation in Different populations[edit | edit source]

Age under 18[edit | edit source]

A review done between 1990 to 2019 looked at the safety of spinal manipulation in children under 10 years old. [39]

Most adverse events found were mild (crying or soreness) but once case described a rib fracture to 3-week-old. The incidence of mild adverse events ranges from 0.3% (95% CI: 0.06, 1.82) to 22.22% (95% CI: 6.32, 54.74).

It was inconclusive as to whether spinal manipulative therapy was safe in under 10s. However, had poor study quality and quantity and may have had a conflicting interest as they were mandated by the College of Chiropractors of British Columbia to review the evidence which was the published in a chiropractic journal.

RCTs carried out [40] [41] looked at exercise and manual therapy in adolescents and both concluded there were no adverse reactions to the manipulations but also no benefit reported vs exercise alone.

Age 18-65[edit | edit source]

The review by Rubinstein et al. [27] of patients aged 35-60, with one study powered enough to examine risk (n=183), found no increased risk of an adverse event (relative risk 1.24, 95% confidence interval 0.85 to 1.81) or duration of the event (1.13, 0.59 to 2.18) compared with sham SMT.

Age over 65[edit | edit source]

In a systematic review [42] which looked at effectiveness and safety of manipulations in the elderly, they found no conclusive result due the lack of studies investigating the area and the quality of those studies as well as a need for a standardised adverse event reporting system. They also found no difference in the number of adverse events in the ‘sham’ manipulation group vs the intervention group.

References  [edit | edit source]

  1. 1.0 1.1 Rubinstein SM, van Middelkoop M, Assendelft WJ, de Boer MR, van Tulder MW. Spinal manipulative therapy for chronic low‐back pain. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2011(2).
  2. Walser RF, Meserve BB, Boucher TR. The effectiveness of thoracic spine manipulation for the management of musculoskeletal conditions: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. J Man Manip Ther. 2009;17(4):237-46.
  3. Wu A, March L, Zheng X, Huang J, Wang X, Zhao J, Blyth FM, Smith E, Buchbinder R, Hoy D. Global low back pain prevalence and years lived with disability from 1990 to 2017: estimates from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017. Ann Transl Med. 2020 Mar;8(6):299.
  4. Balagué F, Mannion AF, Pellisé F, Cedraschi C. Non-specific low back pain. Lancet. 2012 Feb 4;379(9814):482-91.
  5. Chartered Society of Physiotherapy (CSP). CSP Accreditation of Qualifying Programmes in Physiotherapy Quality Assurance Processes. Available from: https://www.csp.org.uk/documents/csp-accreditation-qualifying-programmes-physiotherapyqualityassuranceprocesses [Accessed 11 April 2023].
  6. Adams G, Sim J. A survey of UK manual therapists' practice of and attitudes towards manipulation and its complications. Physiother Res Int. 1998;3(3):206-27.
  7. 7.0 7.1 Coulter ID, Crawford C, Hurwitz EL, Vernon H, Khorsan R, Booth MS, Herman PM. Manipulation and mobilization for treating chronic low back pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Spine Journal. 2018 May 1;18(5):866-79.
  8. John Gibbons. Spinal Manipulation (HVT or grade 5) of the Lumbar Spine (L4/5). Available from: http://www.youtu.be/ 5EwC55PuU90 [Accessed 11 April 2023]
  9. 9.0 9.1 Gyer G, Michael J, Inklebarger J, Tedla JS. Spinal manipulation therapy: Is it all about the brain? A current review of the neurophysiological effects of manipulation. J Integr Med. 2019 Sep;17(5):328-37.
  10. 10.0 10.1 Potter L, McCarthy C, Oldham J. Physiological effects of spinal manipulation: a review of proposed theories. Physical Therapy Reviews. 2005 Sep 1;10(3):163-70.
  11. Jun P, Pagé I, Vette A, Kawchuk G. Potential mechanisms for lumbar spinal stiffness change following spinal manipulative therapy: a scoping review. Chiropractic & Manual Therapies. 2020 Dec;28(1):1-3.
  12. Skyba DA, Radhakrishnan R, Rohlwing JJ, Wright A, Slukaa KA. Joint manipulation reduces hyperalgesia by activation of monoamine receptors but not opioid or GABA receptors in the spinal cord. Pain 2003 Nov; 106(1-2): 159–168.
  13. Vigotsky AD, Bruhns RP. The Role of Descending Modulation in Manual Therapy and Its Analgesic Implications: A Narrative Review. Pain Res Treat. 2015; 2015: 292805.
  14. Bialosky J, Bishop M, Robinson M, Zeppieri G, Jr, George S Spinal Manipulative Therapy Has an Immediate Effect on Thermal Pain Sensitivity in People With Low Back Pain: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Phys Ther. 2009 Dec; 89(12): 1292–1303.
  15. Sampath KK, Botnmark E, Mani R, Cotter JD, Katare R, Munasinghe PE, Tumilty S. Neuroendocrine Response Following a Thoracic Spinal Manipulation in Healthy Men. JOSPT 2017 August 31; 47(9): 617-27.
  16. Williams NH, Hendry M, Lewis R, Russell I, Westmoreland A, Wilkinson C. Psychological response in spinal manipulation (PRISM): a systematic review of psychological outcomes in randomised controlled trials. Complement Ther Med. 2007 Dec;15(4):271-83.
  17. 17.0 17.1 17.2 de Zoete A, Rubinstein S, de Boer MR, Ostelo R, Underwood M, Hayden J, Buffart L, van Tulder MW, on behalf of the International IPD-SMT group, et al. The effect of spinal manipulative therapy on pain relief and function in patients with chronic low back pain: an individual participant data meta-analysis. Physiotherapy 2021; Sep;112:121-134.
  18. Ruddock JK, Sallis H, Ness A, Perry RE. Spinal manipulation vs sham manipulation for nonspecific low back pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Chiropractic Medicine. 2016 Sep 1;15(3):165-83.
  19. Rubinstein SM, de Zoete A, van Middelkoop M, Assendelft WJJ, de Boer MR, van Tulder MW. Benefits and harms of spinal manipulative therapy for the treatment of chronic low back pain: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. BMJ. 2019 Mar 13;364:l689.
  20. de Zoete A, de Boer MR, Rubinstein SM, van Tulder MW, Underwood M, Hayden JA, Buffart LM, Ostelo R; International IPD-SMT group. Moderators of the Effect of Spinal Manipulative Therapy on Pain Relief and Function in Patients with Chronic Low Back Pain: An Individual Participant Data Meta-analysis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2021 Apr 15;46(8):E505-E517.
  21. 21.0 21.1 Molina-Álvarez M, Arribas-Romano A, Rodríguez-Rivera C, García MM, Fernández-Carnero J, Armijo-Olivo S, Goicoechea Garcia C. Manual Therapy Effect in Placebo-Controlled Trials: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022 Oct 28;19(21):14021.
  22. Castro-Sánchez AM, Lara-Palomo IC, Matarán-Peñarrocha GA, Fernández-De-Las-Peñas C, Saavedra-Hernández M, Cleland J, Aguilar-Ferrándiz ME. Short-term effectiveness of spinal manipulative therapy versus functional technique in patients with chronic nonspecific low back pain: a pragmatic randomized controlled trial. Spine J. 2016 Mar 1;16(3):302-12.
  23. de Oliveira RF, Liebano RE, Costa LD, Rissato LL, Costa LO. Immediate effects of region-specific and non–region-specific spinal manipulative therapy in patients with chronic low back pain: a randomized controlled trial. Phys Ther. 2013 Jun 1;93(6):748-56.
  24. Thomas JS, Clark BC, Russ DW, France CR, Ploutz-Snyder R, Corcos DM, for the RELIEF Study Investigators. Effect of Spinal Manipulative and Mobilization Therapies in Young Adults With Mild to Moderate Chronic Low Back Pain. A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3(8):e2012589.
  25. 25.0 25.1 Haas M, Vavrek D, Peterson D, Polissar N, Neradilek MB. Dose-response and efficacy of spinal manipulation for care of chronic low back pain: a randomized controlled trial. Spine J. 2014 Jul 1;14(7):1106-16.
  26. National GC. Low Back Pain and Sciatica in Over 16s: Assessment and Management. Available from:https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/NG59/chapter/Recommendations#non-invasive-treatments-for-low-back-pain-and-sciatica/www.nice.org.uk/guidance/NG59/chapter/Recommendations#non-invasive-treatments-for-low-back-pain-and-sciatica
  27. 27.0 27.1 Rubinstein SM, De Zoete A, Van Middelkoop M, Assendelft WJ, De Boer MR, Van Tulder MW. Benefits and harms of spinal manipulative therapy for the treatment of chronic low back pain: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. BMJ. 2019 Mar 13;364.
  28. Balthazard P, de Goumoens P, Rivier G, Demeulenaere P, Ballabeni P, Dériaz O. Manual therapy followed by specific active exercises versus a placebo followed by specific active exercises on the improvement of functional disability in patients with chronic non specific low back pain: a randomized controlled trial. BMC musculoskeletal disorders. 2012 Dec;13(1):1-1.
  29. Evans R, Haas M, Schulz C, Leininger B, Hanson L, Bronfort G. Spinal manipulation and exercise for low back pain in adolescents: a randomized trial. Pain. 2018 Jul;159(7):1297.
  30. Kamali F, Sinaei E, Taherkhani E. Comparing spinal manipulation with and without Kinesio Taping® in the treatment of chronic low back pain. Journal of Bodywork and Movement Therapies. 2018 Apr 1;22(2):540-5.
  31. Boff TA, Pasinato F, Ben ÂJ, Bosmans JE, van Tulder M, Carregaro RL. Effectiveness of spinal manipulation and myofascial release compared with spinal manipulation alone on health-related outcomes in individuals with non-specific low back pain: randomized controlled trial. Physiotherapy. 2020 Jun 1;107:71-80.
  32. Crofford LJ. Chronic pain: where the body meets the brain. Transactions of the American Clinical and Climatological Association. 2015;126:167.
  33. Ghasabmahaleh SH, Rezasoltani Z, Dadarkhah A, Hamidipanah S, Mofrad RK, Najafi S. Spinal Manipulation for Subacute and Chronic Lumbar Radiculopathy: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Am J Med. 2021 Jan 1;134(1):135-41.
  34. 34.0 34.1 Hancock MJ, Maher CG, Latimer J, McLachlan AJ, Cooper CW, Day RO, Spindler MF, McAuley JH. Assessment of diclofenac or spinal manipulative therapy, or both, in addition to recommended first-line treatment for acute low back pain: a randomised controlled trial. The Lancet. 2007 Nov 10;370(9599):1638-43.
  35. Rubinstein SM, Terwee CB, Assendelft WJ, de Boer MR, van Tulder MW. Spinal manipulative therapy for acute low-back pain. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012 Sep 12;2012(9):CD008880.
  36. Funabashi M, Gorrell L, Pohlman K, Bergna A, Heneghan N. Definition and classification for adverse events following spinal and peripheral joint manipulation and mobilization: A scoping review. PLOS One 2022 Jul 15; 17(7): e0270671.
  37. 37.0 37.1 Nielsen SM, Tarp S, Christensen R, Bliddal H, Klokker L, Henriksen M. The risk associated with spinal manipulation: an overview of reviews. Systematic Reviews. 2017 Dec;6(1):1-9.
  38. Swait G, Finch R. What are the risks of manual treatment of the spine? A scoping review for clinicians. Chiropractic & Manual therapies. 2017 Dec;25(1):1-5.
  39. Corso M, Cancelliere C, Mior S, Taylor-Vaisey A, Côté P. The safety of spinal manipulative therapy in children under 10 years: a rapid review. Chiropractic & Manual Therapies. 2020 Dec;28(1):1-8.
  40. Selhorst M, Selhorst B. Lumbar manipulation and exercise for the treatment of acute low back pain in adolescents: a randomized controlled trial. Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy. 2015 Sep 1;23(4):226-33.
  41. Walston Z, Yake D. Lumbar thrust manipulation and exercise for the treatment of mechanical low back pain in adolescents: a case series. JOSPT. 2016 May;46(5):391-8.
  42. de Luca KE, Fang SH, Ong J, Shin KS, Woods S, Tuchin PJ. The effectiveness and safety of manual therapy on pain and disability in older persons with chronic low Back pain: a systematic review. Journal of manipulative and physiological therapeutics. 2017 Sep 1;40(7):527-34.