46 research outputs found

    Neurophysiologic effects of spinal manipulation in patients with chronic low back pain

    Get PDF
    <p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>While there is growing evidence for the efficacy of SM to treat LBP, little is known on the mechanisms and physiologic effects of these treatments. Accordingly, the purpose of this study was to determine whether SM alters the amplitude of the motor evoked potential (MEP) or the short-latency stretch reflex of the erector spinae muscles, and whether these physiologic responses depend on whether SM causes an audible joint sound.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We used transcranial magnetic stimulation to elicit MEPs and electromechanical tapping to elicit short-latency stretch reflexes in 10 patients with chronic LBP and 10 asymptomatic controls. Neurophysiologic outcomes were measured before and after SM. Changes in MEP and stretch reflex amplitude were examined based on patient grouping (LBP vs. controls), and whether SM caused an audible joint sound.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>SM did not alter the erector spinae MEP amplitude in patients with LBP (0.80 ± 0.33 vs. 0.80 ± 0.30 μV) or in asymptomatic controls (0.56 ± 0.09 vs. 0.57 ± 0.06 μV). Similarly, SM did not alter the erector spinae stretch reflex amplitude in patients with LBP (0.66 ± 0.12 vs. 0.66 ± 0.15 μV) or in asymptomatic controls (0.60 ± 0.09 vs. 0.55 ± 0.08 μV). Interestingly, study participants exhibiting an audible response exhibited a 20% decrease in the stretch reflex (p < 0.05).</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>These findings suggest that a single SM treatment does not systematically alter corticospinal or stretch reflex excitability of the erector spinae muscles (when assessed ~ 10-minutes following SM); however, they do indicate that the stretch reflex is attenuated when SM causes an audible response. This finding provides insight into the mechanisms of SM, and suggests that SM that produces an audible response may mechanistically act to decrease the sensitivity of the muscle spindles and/or the various segmental sites of the Ia reflex pathway.</p

    Non-Host Volatile Blend Optimization for Forest Protection against the European Spruce Bark Beetle, Ips typographus

    Get PDF
    Conifer feeding bark beetles (Coleoptera, Curculionidae, Scolytinae) pose a serious economic threat to forest production. Volatiles released by non-host angiosperm plants (so called non-host volatiles, NHV) have been shown to reduce the risk of attack by many bark beetle species, including the European spruce bark beetle, Ips typographus. However, the most active blend for I. typographus, containing three green leaf volatiles (GLVs) in addition to the key compounds trans-conophthorin (tC) and verbenone, has been considered too expensive for use in large-scale management. To lower the cost and improve the applicability of NHV, we aim to simplify the blend without compromising its anti-attractant potency. Since the key compound tC is expensive in pure form, we also tested a crude version: technical grade trans-conophthorin (T-tC). In another attempt to find a more cost effective substitute for tC, we evaluated a more readily synthesized analog: dehydroconophthorin (DHC). Our results showed that 1-hexanol alone could replace the three-component GLV blend containing 1-hexanol, (3Z)-hexen-1-ol, and (2E)-hexen-1-ol. Furthermore, the release rate of tC could be reduced from 5 mg/day to 0.5 mg/day in a blend with 1-hexanol and (-)-verbenone without compromising the anti-attractant activity. We further show that T-tC was comparable with tC, whereas DHC was a less effective anti-attractant. DHC also elicited weaker physiological responses in the tC-responding olfactory receptor neuron class, providing a likely mechanistic explanation for its weaker anti-attractive effect. Our results suggest a blend consisting of (-)-verbenone, 1-hexanol and technical trans-conophthorin as a cost-efficient anti-attractant for forest protection against I. typographus
    corecore