Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics
Volume 32, Issue 5 , Pages 330-343, June 2009

A Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing 2 Types of Spinal Manipulation and Minimal Conservative Medical Care for Adults 55 Years and Older With Subacute or Chronic Low Back Pain

  • Maria A. Hondras, DC, MPH

      Affiliations

    • Associate Professor, Palmer Center for Chiropractic Research, Davenport, Iowa 52803
    • Corresponding Author InformationSubmit requests for reprints to: Maria A. Hondras, DC, MPH, Associate Professor, Palmer Center for Chiropractic Research, 741 Brady Street, Davenport, IA 52803.
    • ,
  • Cynthia R. Long, PhD

      Affiliations

    • Professor, Palmer Center for Chiropractic Research, Davenport, Iowa 52803
    • ,
  • Ying Cao, MS

      Affiliations

    • Biostatistician, Palmer Center for Chiropractic Research, Davenport, Iowa 52803
    • ,
  • Robert M. Rowell, DC, MS

      Affiliations

    • Assistant Professor, Palmer College of Chiropractic, Davenport, Iowa 52803
    • ,
  • William C. Meeker, DC, MPH

      Affiliations

    • President, Palmer College of Chiropractic West, San Jose, Calif 95134

Received 4 February 2009; received in revised form 25 March 2009; accepted 25 March 2009.

Abstract 

Objective

Chiropractic care is used by many older patients for low back pain (LBP), but there are no published results of randomized trials examining spinal manipulation (SM) for older adults. The purpose of this study was to compare the effects of 2 biomechanically distinct forms of SM and minimal conservative medical care (MCMC) for participants at least 55 years old with subacute or chronic nonradicular LBP.

Methods

Randomized controlled trial. The primary outcome variable was low back-related disability assessed with the 24-item Roland Morris Disability questionnaire at 3, 6, 12, and 24 weeks. Participants were randomly allocated to 6 weeks of care including 12 visits of either high-velocity, low-amplitude (HVLA)-SM, low-velocity, variable-amplitude (LVVA)-SM, or 3 visits of MCMC.

Results

Two hundred forty participants (105 women and 135 men) ages 63.1 ± 6.7 years without significant comorbidities. Adjusted mean Roland Morris Disability change scores (95% confidence intervals) from baseline to the end of active care were 2.9 (2.2, 3.6) and 2.7 (2.0, 3.3) in the LVVA-SM and HVLA-SM groups, respectively, and 1.6 (0.5, 2.8) in the MCMC group. There were no significant differences between LVVA-SM and HVLA-SM at any of the end points. The LVVA-SM group had significant improvements in mean functional status ranging from 1.3 to 2.2 points over the MCMC group. There were no serious adverse events associated with any of the interventions.

Conclusions

Biomechanically distinct forms of SM did not lead to different outcomes in older LBP patients and both SM procedures were associated with small yet clinically important changes in functional status by the end of treatment for this relatively healthy older population. Participants who received either form of SM had improvements on average in functional status ranging from 1 to 2.2 over those who received MCMC. From an evidence-based care perspective, patient preference and clinical experience should drive how clinicians and patients make the SM procedure decision for this patient population.

Key Indexing Terms: Aged, Low Back Pain, Manipulation, Chiropractic, Randomized Controlled Trial

To access this article, please choose from the options below

Login to an existing account or Register a new account.

  • Purchase this article for 15.00 USD (You must login/register to purchase this article)

    Online access for 24 hours. The PDF version can be downloaded as your permanent record.

  • Subscribe to this title

    Get unlimited online access to this article and all other articles in this title 24/7 for one year.

  • Claim access now

    For current subscribers with Society Membership or Account Number.

  • Visit SciVerse ScienceDirect to see if you have access via your institution.
 

 This work was supported in part by grants from the Bureau of Health Professions Health Resources and Services Administration, Rockville, MD (Grant No. 6 R18 HP01423-01), and the work was conducted in a facility constructed with support from Research Facilities Improvement Program Grant Number C06 RR15433-01 from the National Center for Research Resources, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland. Its contents are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of the funding agencies. None of the authors have declared any personal, professional, financial, or any other conflict of interest.

 ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00602901.

PII: S0161-4754(09)00116-X

doi:10.1016/j.jmpt.2009.04.012

Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics
Volume 32, Issue 5 , Pages 330-343, June 2009

Article Tools

* Image Usage & Resolution