Abstract
M.Tech.
OBJECTIVE: To determine and compare the effect of Spinal Manipulative Therapy
(SMT) to the cervico-thoracic junction on the activity of the ipsilateral latissimus
dorsi with regards to muscle activity measured by electromyography and activity of
the trigger points measured by the algometer.
STUDY DESIGN: Fourty subjects with lower cervical spine pain and dysfunction
underwent six spinal manipulative treatments on alternative days over a 3 week period
(excluding weekends) to test the changes in activity of the ipsi-lateral Latissimus
Dorsi muscle.
SETTING: Chiropractic Day Clinic at the University of Johannesburg, Johannesburg, South Africa.
SUBJECTS: Forty subjects with lower cervical spine pain participated in this study.
Each of the subjects was randomly assigned to one of two groups. Group A consisted
of 20 subjects receiving SMT to the cervico thoracic junction. Group B consisted of
20 subjects receiving de-tuned ultra-sound to the area of cervical spine pain.
METHODS: Latissimus Dorsi muscle activity and its trigger point activity were
tested before and after the first consultation using electromyography and the
algometer respectively. After consultations two, four and six readings were taken.
For the electromyography readings subjects were asked to lie down in a prone
position with their arms next to their sides. They were then instructed to lie as still as
possible for three minutes. The mean, peak and minimum values from the surface
electromyographic meter were recorded, analysed and compared for reference. For
the algometer readings, the researcher grasped the Latissimus Dorsi muscle along the
free border at the posterior axillary fold of the midscapular level. The algometer was
then pushed into this point and candidates had to indicate when they started to feel
pain. This measurement was then recorded.
RESULTS: Data was analysed using the T-test for independent samples to compare
the two individual groups. Repeated measures ANOVA was useful to investigate
changes over time. If one considers Group A as the superior group, no statistical
significant difference were noted between Group A and Group B regarding the
electromyographic readings. With regards to the algometer readings no statistically
significant differences were identified between the two groups except for the last
consultation (treatment 4) of Group A where the p-value = 0.035<0.05.
CONCLUSION: In light of these findings, it can be concluded that there were no
statistically significant differences between Group A and Group B, regarding the
electromyographic readings. Group A showed the most favourable treatment efficacy
in terms of the algometer readings. The trends shown in this study should be used and
tested in future similar research studies incorporating larger sample groups.