Murdoch University Research Repository

Welcome to the Murdoch University Research Repository

The Murdoch University Research Repository is an open access digital collection of research
created by Murdoch University staff, researchers and postgraduate students.

Learn more

No difference in pressure pain threshold and temporal summation after lumbar spinal manipulation compared to sham: A randomised controlled trial in adults with low back pain

Aspinall, S.L., Jacques, A., Leboeuf-Yde, C., Etherington, S.J.ORCID: 0000-0002-6589-8793 and Walker, B.F.ORCID: 0000-0002-8506-6740 (2019) No difference in pressure pain threshold and temporal summation after lumbar spinal manipulation compared to sham: A randomised controlled trial in adults with low back pain. Musculoskeletal Science and Practice, 43 . pp. 18-25.

Link to Published Version: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msksp.2019.05.011
*Subscription may be required

Abstract

Background
Changes in quantitative sensory tests have been observed after spinal manipulative therapy (SMT), particularly in pressure pain thresholds (PPT) and temporal summation (TS). However, a recent systematic review comparing SMT to sham found no significant difference in PPT in patients with musculoskeletal pain. The sham-controlled studies were generally low quality, and conclusions about other quantitative sensory tests could not be made.

Objectives
We aimed to perform a sham-controlled study with the specific objective of investigating changes in PPT and TS short-term after lumbar SMT compared to sham manipulation in people with low back pain.

Methods
This was a double-blind randomised controlled trial comparing high-velocity low-amplitude lumbar SMT against sham manipulation in participants with low back pain. Primary outcome measures were PPT at the calf, lumbar spine and shoulder, and TS at the hands and feet. These were measured at baseline, then immediately, 15 min and 30 min post-intervention.

Results
Eighty participants (42 females) were included in the analyses (mean age 37 years), with 40 participants allocated to each intervention group. Significant between-group differences were only observed for calf PPT, which could be explained by a decrease in PPT (increased sensitivity) after SMT and an increase after sham. Feet TS decreased significantly over time after both SMT and sham, and any other changes over time were inconsistent.

Conclusions
Our results suggest that lumbar SMT does not have a short-term hypoalgesic effect, as measured with PPT and TS, when compared to sham manipulation in people with low back pain.

Item Type: Journal Article
Murdoch Affiliation: College of Science, Health, Engineering and Education
Publisher: Elsevier
Copyright: © 2019 Elsevier Ltd.
URI: http://researchrepository.murdoch.edu.au/id/eprint/46335
Item Control Page Item Control Page