Comparison of mechanical force of manually assisted chiropractic adjusting instruments

被引:39
作者
Colloca, CJ
Keller, TS
Black, P
Normand, MC
Harrison, DE
Harrison, DD
机构
[1] Neuromech Innovat LLC, State Art Chiropract Ctr, Phoenix, AZ 85044 USA
[2] Arizona State Univ, Dept Kinesiol, Exercise & Sport Sci Res Inst, Biomech Lab, Tempe, AZ 85287 USA
[3] Univ Vermont, Dept Mech Engn, Burlington, VT USA
[4] Univ Vermont, Dept Orthopaed & Rehabil, Burlington, VT USA
[5] Univ Quebec, Dept Sci Phys Activ, Biomech Lab, Trois Rivieres, PQ GA9 5H7, Canada
[6] Univ Quebec, Dept Sci & Phys Activ, Biomech Lab, Trois Rivieres, PQ GA9 5H7, Canada
[7] Ruby Mt Chiropract Ctr, Elko, NV USA
关键词
biomechanics; chiropractic; spine;
D O I
10.1016/j.jmpt.2005.06.004
中图分类号
R19 [保健组织与事业(卫生事业管理)];
学科分类号
摘要
Objective: To quantify the force-time and force-delivery characteristics of six commonly used handheld chiropractic adjusting devices. Methods: Four spring-loaded instruments, the Activator Adjusting Instrument-, Activator 11 Adjusting Instrument, Activator III Adjusting Instrument, and Activator IV Adjusting Instrument, and two electromechanical devices, the Harrison Handheld Adjusting Instrument and Neuromechanical Impulse Adjusting Instrument, were applied to a dynamic load cell. A total of 10 force-time histories were obtained at each of three force excursion settings (minimum to maximum) for each of the six adjusting instruments at preload of approximately 20 N. Results: The minimuin-to-maximum force excursion settings for the spring-loaded mechanical adjusting instruments produced similar minimum-to-maximum peak forces that were not appreciably different for most excursion settings. The electromechanical adjusting instruments produced short duration (similar to 2-4 ms), with more linear minimum-to-maximum peak forces. The force-time profile of the electromechanical devices resulted in a more uniform and greater energy dynamic frequency response in comparison to the spring-loaded mechanical adjusting instruments. Conclusions: The handheld, electromechanical instruments produced substantially larger peak forces and ranges of forces in comparison to the handheld, spring-loaded mechanical devices. The electromechanical instruments produced greater dynamic frequency area ratios than their mechanical counterparts. Knowledge of the force-time history and force-frequency response characteristics of spinal manipulative instruments may provide basic benchmarks and may assist in understanding mechanical responses in the clinical setting.
引用
收藏
页码:414 / 422
页数:9
相关论文
共 40 条
[1]  
[Anonymous], 2000, Clinical Biomechanics of Spinal Manipulation
[2]  
[Anonymous], 2000, Job analysis of chiropractic: A Project report, survey analysis, and summary of the practice of chiropractic within the United States
[3]  
BOLINE PD, 1995, J MANIP PHYSIOL THER, V18, P148
[4]   Stiffness and neuromuscular reflex response of the human spine to posteroanterior manipulative thrusts in patients with low back pain [J].
Colloca, CJ ;
Keller, TS .
JOURNAL OF MANIPULATIVE AND PHYSIOLOGICAL THERAPEUTICS, 2001, 24 (08) :489-500
[5]   Biomechanical and neurophysiological responses to spinal manipulation in patients with lumbar radiculopathy [J].
Colloca, CJ ;
Keller, TS ;
Gunzburg, R .
JOURNAL OF MANIPULATIVE AND PHYSIOLOGICAL THERAPEUTICS, 2004, 27 (01) :1-15
[6]  
Colloca CJ, 1998, J MANIP PHYSIOL THER, V21, P128
[7]   Electromyographic reflex responses to mechanical force, manually assisted spinal manipulative therapy [J].
Colloca, CJ ;
Keller, TS .
SPINE, 2001, 26 (10) :1117-1124
[8]  
COLLOCA CJ, 2000, P 12 C EUR SOC BIOM, P171
[9]   Chiropractic technique procedures for specific low back conditions: Characterizing the literature [J].
Cooperstein, R ;
Perle, SM ;
Gatterman, MI ;
Lantz, C ;
Schneider, MJ .
JOURNAL OF MANIPULATIVE AND PHYSIOLOGICAL THERAPEUTICS, 2001, 24 (06) :407-424
[10]  
Fuhr AW, 2002, TOP CLIN CHIROPR, V9, P30