Quantitative feedback versus standard training for cervical and thoracic manipulation

Triano, John J; Rogers, Carolyn M; Combs, Sarah; Potts, David; Sorrels, Kenneth

doi:10.1016/S0161-4754(02)54105-1

« Previous Next »Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics
Volume 26, Issue 3 , Pages 131-138, March 2003

Quantitative feedback versus standard training for cervical and thoracic manipulation

John J Triano, DC, PhD
- Submit requests for reprints to: Dr. John Triano, Texas Back Institute, 6300 W Parker Rd, Plano, TX 75093, USA
- University of Texas, Southwestern and Arlington and Joint Biomedical Engineering Program and Texas Back Institute, Plano, Tex, USA
Carolyn M Rogers
- University of Texas, Southwestern and Arlington and Joint Biomedical Engineering Program and Texas Black Institute, Plano, Tex, USA
Sarah Combs, DC
- Faculty, Research Department, Texas Chiropractic College, and private practice of chiropractic, Plano, Tex, USAUSA
David Potts, DC
- Faculty, Principles and Technique Department, Texas Chiropractic College, Plano, Tex, USA
Kenneth Sorrels, DC
- Department Head, Principles and Technique Department, Texas Chiropractic College, Plano, Tex, USA

Received 12 February 2002; received in revised form 21 March 2002

Abstract

Objective

To quantify elements of spinal manipulation therapy performance and to test the strategy of combined rehearsal and quantitative feedback as a means of enhancing student skill development for cervical and thoracic manipulative procedures.

Design

Randomized, controlled study.

Setting

Chiropractic college.

Subjects

Thirty-nine chiropractic student volunteers entering the manipulation technique training course.

Methods

Student performance of cervical and thoracic spinal manipulation therapies were quantified at the beginning, middle, and end of a trimester using a Leader 900 Z series manipulation table (Leader International, Port Orchard, Wash) embedded with an AMTI force plate. Passive loads acting through the targeted (C2 or T7) functional spinal units were estimated using inverse dynamics. Participating students rehearsed the index transverse (C2) and single pisiform-transverse (T7) procedures following either the standard curriculum alone or a modified curriculum adding the Dynadjust Instrument training aid (Labarge, Inc.), as assigned on a randomized basis. Student t and chi-square tests were used to explore and describe biomechanical parameter changes over time as the semester progressed.

Results

Significant changes in performance between the standard curriculum and modified curriculum (with the Dynadjust) were observed for several, but different, biomechanical parameters of cervical and thoracic procedures.

Conclusion

This project used a rehearsal program that provided quantitative feedback on an empirically defined schedule that was self-administered by the student. Results demonstrated significant changes in performance of spinal manipulation by students using the Dynadjust Instrument versus those who did not. Using quantitative feedback provided from training aids and biomechanical measurement systems, future training programs may be optimized and tested.

Keywords: Chiropractic Manipulation, Training, Skill, Biomechanics