Investigation of the factors influencing spinal manipulative therapy force transmission through the thorax: a cadaveric study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Background Spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) clinical effects are believed to be linked to its force–time profile characteristics. Previous studies have revealed that the force measured at the patient-table interface is most commonly greater than the one applied at the clinician-patient interface. The factors explaining this force amplification remains unclear. Objective To determine the difference between the force applied to a cadaveric specimen’s thoracic spine and the resulting force measured by a force-sensing table, as well as to evaluate the relationship between this difference and both the SMT force–time characteristics and the specimens’ characteristics. Methods Twenty-five SMTs with different force–time profiles were delivered by an apparatus at the T7 vertebra of nine human cadaveric specimens lying prone on a treatment table equipped with a force plate. The difference between the force applied by the apparatus and the resulting force measured by the force plate was calculated in absolute force (F diff ) and as the percentage of the applied force (F diff% ). Kinematics markers were inserted into T6 to T8 spinous and transverse processes to evaluate vertebral displacements during the SMT thrusts. Mixed-effects linear models were run to evaluate the variance in F diff and F diff% explained by SMT characteristics (peak force, thrust duration and force application rate), T6 to T8 relative and total displacements, and specimens’ characteristics (BMI, height, weight, kyphosis angle, thoracic thickness). Results Sixty percent of the trials showed lower force measured at the force plate than the one applied at T7. F diff ¸ was significantly predicted (R 2 marginal = 0.54) by peak force, thrust duration, thoracic thickness and T6–T7 relative displacement in the z-axis (postero-anterior). F diff% was significantly predicted (R 2 marginal = 0.56) by force application rate, thoracic thickness and total T6 displacements. For both dependant variables, thoracic thickness showed the highest R 2 marginal out of all predictors. Conclusion Difference in force between the clinician-patient and the patient-table interfaces is influenced by SMT force–time characteristics and by thoracic thickness. How these differences in force are associated with vertebral displacements remains unclear. Although further studies are needed, clinicians should consider thorax thickness as a possible modulator of forces being transmitted through it during prone SMT procedures.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».