In Vitro Biomechanical Evaluation of Single Impulse and Repetitive Mechanical Shockwave Devices Utilized for Spinal Manipulative Therapy
详细信息 查看全文
- 作者：Michael A. K. Liebschner (1) (2) (3)
Kwonsoo Chun (2) (4)
Namhoon Kim (2)
Bruce Ehni (1) (5) - 关键词：Mechanical shockwave therapy ; Activator methods ; Mechanical impulse ; Shockwave propagation ; Shockwave therapy ; Spine manipulative therapy ; Transmissibility
- 刊名：Annals of Biomedical Engineering
- 出版年：2014
- 出版时间：December 2014
- 年：2014
- 卷：42
- 期：12
- 页码：2524-2536
- 全文大小：1,574 KB
- 参考文献：1. Activator Methods International, Ltd., Phoenix, AZ, 2013.
2. Anderson, R., / et al. A meta-analysis of clinical trials of spinal manipulation. / J. Manipulative Physiol. Ther. 15(3):181-94, 1992.
3. Chow, D. H., / et al. Extracorporeal shockwave therapy for treatment of delayed tendon-bone insertion healing in a rabbit model: a dose-response study. / Am. J. Sports Med. 40(12):2862-871, 2012. CrossRef
4. Colloca, C. J., and T. S. Keller. Electromyographic reflex responses to mechanical force, manually assisted spinal manipulative therapy. / Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 26(10):1117-124, 2001. CrossRef
5. Colloca, C. J., and T. S. Keller. Stiffness and neuromuscular reflex response of the human spine to posteroanterior manipulative thrusts in patients with low back pain. / J. Manipulative Physiol. Ther. 24(8):489-00, 2001. CrossRef
6. Colloca, C. J., T. S. Keller, and R. Gunzburg. Neuromechanical characterization of in vivo lumbar spinal manipulation. Part II. Neurophysiological response. / J. Manipulative Physiol. Ther. 26(9):579-91, 2003. CrossRef
7. Colloca, C. J., / et al. Comparison of mechanical force of manually assisted chiropractic adjusting instruments. / J. Manipulative Physiol. Ther. 28(6):414-22, 2005. CrossRef
8. Colloca, C. J., / et al. Intervertebral disc degeneration reduces vertebral motion responses. / Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 32(19):E544–E550, 2007. CrossRef
9. Corbett, T. J., / et al. Engineering silicone rubbers for in vitro studies: creating AAA models and ILT analogues with physiological properties. / J. Biomech. Eng. 132(1):011008, 2010. CrossRef
10. Coronado, R. A., / et al. Changes in pain sensitivity following spinal manipulation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. / J. Electromyogr. Kinesiol. 22(5):752-67, 2012. CrossRef
11. Delius, M., / et al. Biological effects of shock waves: in vivo effect of high energy pulses on rabbit bone. / Ultrasound Med. Biol. 21(9):1219-225, 1995. CrossRef
12. Fuhr, A. W., and D. B. Smith. Accuracy of piezoelectric accelerometers measuring displacement of a spinal adjusting instrument. / J. Manipulative Physiol. Ther. 9(1):15-1, 1986.
13. Gruenwald, I., / et al. Shockwave treatment of erectile dysfunction. / Ther. Adv. Urol. 5(2):95-9, 2013. CrossRef
14. Gudavalli, M. R., / et al. Effect of sampling rates on the quantification of forces, durations, and rates of loading of simulated side posture high-velocity, low-amplitude lumbar spine manipulation. / J. Manipulative Physiol. Ther. 36(5):261-66, 2013. CrossRef
15. Guzik, D. C., / et al. A biomechanical model of the lumbar spine during upright isometric flexion, extension, and lateral bending. / Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 21(4):427-33, 1996. CrossRef
16. Haas, M., / et al. Muscle testing response to provocative vertebral challenge and spinal manipulation: a randomized controlled trial of construct validity. / J. Manipulative Physiol. Ther. 17(3):141-48, 1994.
17. Hatiboglu, G., / et al. Prognostic variables for shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) treatment success: no impact of body mass index (BMI) using a third generation lithotripter. / BJU Int. 108(7):1192-197, 2011. CrossRef
18. Hsu, R. W., / et al. Enhancing mechanical strength during early fracture healing via shockwave treatment: an animal study. / Clin. Biomech. (Bristol, Avon) 18(6):33 - 作者单位：Michael A. K. Liebschner (1) (2) (3)
Kwonsoo Chun (2) (4)
Namhoon Kim (2)
Bruce Ehni (1) (5)
1. Department of Neurosurgery, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA
2. Research Service Line, Michael E. DeBakey VA Medical Center, Houston, TX, USA
3. Exponent Failure Analysis, Houston, TX, USA
4. Department of Pediatrics-Cardiology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA
5. Neurosurgery Service Line, Michael E. DeBakey VA Medical Center, Houston, TX, USA - ISSN：1573-9686
文摘
Mechanical shockwave therapy devices have been in clinical use for almost 40?years. While most often used to treat back pain, our understanding of their biomechanical performance is very limited. From biomechanical studies we know that biological tissue is viscoelastic and preferably excited around its resonance frequency. Targeting these frequencies has been the focus in extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy, but these concepts are relatively new in orthopedic and rehabilitation therapies. The exact mechanism by which shockwave therapy acts is not known. Knowledge of the performance characteristics of these devices, correlated with clinical outcome studies, may lead to better patient selection, improvement of device functionality, and knowledge of the underlying working principals of therapy. The objectives of this study were to determine the ability of several commercial shockwave devices to achieve a desired thrust profile in a benchtop setting, determine the thrust profile in a clinical analog, and determine the influence of operator experience level on device performance. We conducted two different types of testing: (1) bench testing to evaluate the devices themselves, and (2) clinical equivalent testing to determine the influence of the operator. The results indicated a significant dependence of thrust output on the compliance of the test media. The Activator V-E device matched the ideal half-sine thrust profile to 94%, followed by the Impulse device (84%), the Activator IV/FS (74%), and the Activator II (48%). While most devices deviated from the ideal profile on the return path, the Impulse device exhibited a secondary peak. Moreover, the Activator V-E device provided evidence that the device performs consistently despite operator experience level. This has been a major concern in manual spinal manipulation. Based on our results, a hyper-flexible spine would receive a lower peak thrust force than a hypo-flexible spine at the same power setting. Furthermore, a hand-held operation further reduced the peak thrust force as it increased the system compliance. However, that influence was dissimilar for the different devices. Although controlled clinical trials are needed to determine the correlation between thrust profile and clinical outcome, already ongoing clinical studies indicate an improved patient satisfaction due to reduced treatment pain when devices are used with a thrust characteristic closer to an ideal sine wave.