Manual treatment effects to the upper cervical apophysial joints before, during, and after endotracheal anesthesia: a...

In this preliminary, placebo-controlled clinical trial, two different manual treatments were compared, spinal manipulation and postisometric relaxation, for dysfunctional motion segments of the upper cervical spinal column. The influence of the muscular portion on the joint-play restriction of a motion segment can be ignored in anesthesia, and the manual evaluation of this joint-play restriction must be focused on nonmuscular structures. By retesting in anesthesia, it is possible to examine whether mobilization and manipulation affect exclusively the muscular structures or also affect the other parts of the motion segment. Conclusions can be drawn about the superiority of one or both treatments and about the structural basis of the restricted joint play and its palpation.

A total of 26 inpatients at the surgical or orthopedic department of the University of Rostock were examined manually at four testing times: before and after manual treatment, in anesthesia, and within 24 hrs of completing anesthesia. They were randomized into three groups: postisometric relaxation (mobilization), spinal manipulation (thrust technique), and placebo.

A highly significant effect for both treatments was found posttherapeutically (P < 0.01) but not for placebo. In anesthesia, the treatment effect of spinal manipulation was further significant (P < 0.01) when compared with placebo. For postisometric relaxation, however, it was not (P = 0.160). A significant difference between spinal manipulation and postisometric relaxation was not found in anesthesia (P = 0.137). The treatment effect postnarcotically was further significant when compared with placebo only for spinal manipulation (P = 0.011).

Both treatments are superior to placebo. Postisometric relaxation seems to affect mainly the muscular parts of the treated segments and less so the other parts, such as the joint capsule or the segmental affiliated ligaments and fascia. Spinal manipulation seems to influence all other segmental parts more effectively, and the treatment effect persists longer. A joint-play restriction cannot be an exclusively muscular tension phenomenon. Segmental motion dysfunctions show a high variability in their spontaneous course.