Index to Chiropractic Literature
Index to Chiropractic Literature
My ICL     Sign In
Thursday, July 18, 2019
Index to Chiropractic LiteratureIndex to Chiropractic LiteratureIndex to Chiropractic Literature
Share:

ICL Home


For best results switch to Advanced Search.
Article Detail
Return to Search Results
ID 24262
Title Effects of lumbosacral manipulation on isokinetic strength of the knee extensors and flexors in healthy subjects: A randomized, controlled, single-blind crossover trial
URL http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4688558/
Journal J Chiropr Med. 2015 Dec;14(4):240-248
Author(s)
Subject(s)
Peer Review Yes
Publication Type Randomized Controlled Trial
Abstract/Notes

Objective: The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of manual manipulations targeting the lumbar spine and/or sacroiliac joint on concentric knee extension and flexion forces. Torque production was measured during isometric and isokinetic contractions.

Methods: This was a randomized, controlled, single-blind crossover design with 21 asymptomatic, college-aged subjects who had never received spinal manipulation. During 2 separate sessions, subjects’ peak torques were recorded while performing maximal voluntary contractions on an isokinetic dynamometer. Isometric knee extension and flexion were recorded at 60° of knee flexion, in addition to isokinetic measurements obtained at 60°/s and 180°/s. Baseline measurements were acquired before either treatment form of lumbosacral manipulation or sham manipulation, followed by identical peak torque measurements within 5 and 20 minutes posttreatment. Data were analyzed with a repeated measures analysis of variance.

Results: A statistically significant difference did not occur between the effects of lumbosacral manipulation or the sham manipulation in the percentage changes of knee extension and flexion peak torques at 5 and 20 minutes posttreatment. Similar, nonsignificant results were observed in the overall percentage changes of isometric contractions (spinal manipulation 4.0 ± 9.5 vs sham 1.2 ± 6.3, P = .067), isokinetic contractions at 60°/s (spinal manipulation − 4.0 ± 14.2 vs sham − 0.3 ± 8.2, P = .34), and isokinetic contractions at 180°/s (spinal manipulation − 1.4 ± 13.9 vs sham − 5.5 ± 20.0, P = .18).

Conclusion: The results of the current study suggest that spinal manipulation does not yield an immediate strength-enhancing effect about the knee in healthy, college-aged subjects when measured with isokinetic dynamometry.

This abstract is reproduced with the permission of the publisher; click on the above link for free full text.


 

      Text (Citation) Tagged (Export) Excel
 
Email To
Subject
 Message
Format
HTML Text     Excel



Search Tips
  • Enclose phrases in "quotation marks".  Examples: "low back pain", "evidence-based"
  • Retrieve all forms of a word with an asterisk*, also called a wildcard or truncation.  Example: chiropract* retrieves chiropractic, chiropractor, chiropractors
  • Register an account in My ICL to save search histories (My Searches) and collections of records (My Collections)
Advanced Search Tips