Comparative Study
The effect of two manipulative therapy techniques and their outcome in patients with sacroiliac joint syndrome

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbmt.2011.02.002Get rights and content

Summary

Objectives

To compare the effect of sacroiliac joint (SIJ) manipulation with SIJ and lumbar manipulation for the treatment of SIJ syndrome.

Methods

Thirty-two women with SIJ syndrome were randomly divided into two groups of 16 subjects. One group received the high-velocity low-amplitude (HVLA) manipulation to the SIJ and the other group received both SIJ and lumbar HVLA manipulation to both the SIJ and lumbar spine in a single session. The outcomes were assessed using visual analogue scale (VAS) at baseline, immediately, 48 h and one month after the treatment for pain and also Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) questionnaire at baseline, 48 h and one month after the treatment.

Results

Analysis revealed a statistically significant improvement immediately, at 48 h and one month after treatment for pain and significant improvement at 48 h and one month after treatment for functional disability in the SIJ manipulated group. A significant improvement immediately, at 48 h and one month after treatment for pain and significant improvement at 48 h and one month after treatment for functional disability in the SIJ and lumbar manipulated group was also found. Furthermore, there were significant differences within groups in ODI and VAS when using Friedman test in both groups. By using Wilcoxon rank sum test no differences were observed in change scores between the two groups immediately, 48 h and one month after the treatment for VAS, or after 48h and one month after the treatment for the ODI.

Conclusion

A single session of SIJ and lumbar manipulation was more effective for improving functional disability than SIJ manipulation alone in patients with SIJ syndrome. Spinal HVLA manipulation may be a beneficial addition to treatment for patients with SIJ syndrome.

Introduction

Low back pain is a significant health problem having a major impact on the quality of life and on health care costs (van Tulder et al., 2002). At the beginning of the twentieth century, the sacroiliac joint (SIJ) was considered the most important source of low back pain (Weksler et al., 2007). SIJ syndrome may be the result of direct trauma, unidirectional pelvic shear, repetitive and torsional forces, inflammation or idiopathic onset (Hansen et al., 2007). Kirkaldy-Willis and Burton described the symptoms of SIJ syndrome, including pain over the posterior aspect of SIJ varying in severity, referred pain to the groin, greater trochanter, posterior thigh, knee, lateral or posterior calf to the ankle, foot and toes (Kirkaldy-Willis and Burton, 1992). Clinical findings include tenderness over the SIJ and aggravation by pain provocation test (Cibulka et al., 1988).

An array of SIJ examination maneuvers have been described in the medical, osteopathic, physical therapy and chiropractic literature designed to either provoke SIJ pain or detect aberrant motion (Gibbons et al., 2000, Isaacs et al., 2001, Greenman, 2003, Hertling and Kessler, 2005, Maitland et al., 2005, Edmond, 2006). However, the examination maneuvers for aberrant motion have been demonstrated to have poor inter- and intra-tester reliability (Hancock et al., 2007). The value of pain provocation tests in the diagnosis of sacroiliac is controversial. While Maigne and colleagues challenged the accuracy of the common pain provocation test, Broadhust and Bond showed a high sensitivity and specificity for the FABER, posterior shear and resisted abduction pain provocation tests (Weksler et al., 2007). A diagnosis based on three or more positive provocation tests of a group of 6 tests, including Yeoman’s test, Gaenslen’s sign, the FABER test (Patrick’s sign), the compression test, resisted hip abduction or a positive posterior pelvic pain provocation test (thigh thrust test), has been reported to have the highest sensitivity and specificity for the diagnosis of SIJ syndrome (Weksler et al., 2007).

Several treatments have been advocated by clinicians for SIJ syndrome, although research into their efficacy remains sparse or even nonexistent (Ferrante et al., 2001). Spinal manipulation is an intervention commonly used in the treatment of individuals with LBP and has been reported to be more effective than placebo (Rasmussen, 1979, Postacchini et al., 1988, Wreje et al., 1992, Conway et al., 1993) or other interventions (Koes et al., 1992, Delitto et al., 1993, Erhard et al., 1994, Triano et al., 1995).High-velocity low-amplitude (HVLA) thrust manipulation has been claimed to be one of the most frequently used forms of spinal manipulation (Flynn et al., 2006).

Spinal manipulation was used in the treatment of patients with low back pain and significant improvement in ODQ and NRS scores were obtained from thrust and nonthrust manipulative therapy techniques, but significant differences in the ODQ score was obtained in favor of the thrust manipulation group (Cleland et al., 2009). Several studies have reported various physiological or functional outcomes from SIJ manipulation such as reduction in muscle inhibition (Suter et al., 1999, Suter et al., 2000), electromyographic neuromuscular reflex response (Herzog et al., 1999, Colloca and Keller, 2001), decreased Hoffman reflex (Murphy et al., 1995), improved gait symmetry (Herzog et al., 1991), improved innominate bone tilt (Cibulka et al., 1988), and decreased pain and functional disability (Shearar et al., 2005). However, few clinical studies have evaluated the effectiveness of SIJ manipulation (Osterbauer et al., 1993).

SIJ is a part of lumbar–pelvic–hip complex comprising the fourth and fifth lumbar joints, the two hip joints and pubic symphysis (Hertling and Kessler, 2005). The SIJ movements are claimed to synchronize with the hip and L5–S1 junction (Slipman et al., 2001). The sacrum is mechanically associated with the spine and this complex should be considered as a mechanical unit. Involvement of any one structure affects the positioning and movement of the others (Hertling and Kessler, 2005). Authors have claimed that according to the type of SIJ involvement, the lumbar spine (mostly L5) is involved in the bilateral extension, bilateral flexion, flexion-side bending-rotation dysfunction or extension-side bending-rotation dysfunction. If there is lumbar spine involvement concomitant with sacroiliac involvement, then the treatment of lumbar segments is recommended to be performed before the SIJ (Gibbons et al., 2000, Isaacs et al., 2001, Greenman, 2003).

To the best of the author’s knowledge, no study has evaluated the effectiveness of two manual manipulative therapy techniques in the treatment of patients with SIJ syndrome. The aim of the present study was to investigate the relative effectiveness of two manipulative therapy techniques in patients with SIJ syndrome.

Section snippets

Methods

A single blind randomized clinical study was conducted in the clinic of Rehabilitation College of Shiraz University of Medical Sciences. 50 female patients attending physical therapy and already being treated for LBP were screened for eligibility criteria. Thirty-two patients aged between 20 and 30 years met the inclusion criteria. The inclusion criteria were female patients who had an acute unilateral or bilateral SIJ syndrome during the past 6 weeks; those in whom the level of pain over the

Analysis

The p-value of the Kolomogrov–Smirnov test of normality was performed and our data were not normally distributed. The change scores in relation to the baseline scores were calculated for each subject in each trial (i.e. Baseline-immediately after) and the Wilcoxon rank sum test was used for the analysis of between group differences at each trial. For within group differences, Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used between each pair of trials separately. P < 0.05 was considered as significant for

Participant characteristics

Of the 32 participating subjects, 16 were randomized to each group. There were no statistically significant differences in age, BMI (kg/m2) and duration of symptoms between the two groups. The baseline values before intervention was checked by Wilcoxon rank sum test and there were not significant differences between the two groups (Table 1).

Visual analogue pain scale

Analysis by using Wilcoxon signed-rank test revealed a statistically significant improvement immediately (Z = −3.423, p = 0.001), at 48 h (Z = −3.433, p

Comparison of outcomes

In the present study, by using Wilcoxon rank sum test, there were no significant differences in ODI and pain change scores between the two groups. SIJ is a part of lumbar–pelvic–hip complex (Hertling and Kessler, 2005). The sacrum is mechanically associated with the spine and this complex should be considered as a mechanical unit. Involvement of any one structure affects the positioning and movement of the others (Hertling and Kessler, 2005). According to claims of authors in the field of

Conclusion

It is concluded that both treatment techniques, e.g. SIJ manipulation and lumbar & SIJ manipulation, significantly improve pain and functional disability in patients diagnosed with SIJ syndrome. Neither SIJ manipulation nor lumbar and SIJ manipulation was found to be more effective than the other in reducing pain and functional disability in the treatment of this patient population. Therefore manual spinal thrust manipulation may be considered as an effective treatment option for patients with

Funding sources

Support was obtained from the Vice-Chancellery for Research Office, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences.

Conflicts of interest

There were no identified conflicts of interest.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Dr.Shokrpour for her assistance with manuscript editing and the clinic of Rehabilitation College of Shiraz University of Medical Sciences for their assistancein data collection.

References (52)

  • E. Suter et al.

    Decrease in quadriceps inhibition after sacroiliac joint manipulation in patients with anterior knee pain

    J. Manipulative Physiol. Ther.

    (1999)
  • E. Suter et al.

    Conservative lower back treatment reduces inhibition in knee-extensor muscles: a randomized controlled trial

    J. Manipulative Physiol. Ther.

    (2000)
  • M. van Tulder et al.

    Low back pain

    Best Pract. Res. Clin. Rheumatol.

    (2002)
  • H. Vernon

    Qualitative review of studies of manipulation-induced hypoalgesia

    J. Manipulative Physiol. Ther.

    (2000)
  • W. Whittingham et al.

    Active range of motion in the cervical spine increases after spinal manipulation (toggle recoil)

    J. Manipulative Physiol. Ther.

    (2001)
  • J.D. Cassidy et al.

    The immediate effect of manipulation vs. mobilization on pain and range of motion in the cervical spine: a randomized controlled trial

    J. Manipulative Physiol. Ther.

    (1993)
  • J. Childs et al.

    Responsiveness of the numeric pain rating scale in patients with low back pain

    Spine

    (2005)
  • M.T. Cibulka et al.

    Changes in innominate tilt after manipulation of the sacroiliac joint in patients with low back pain. An experimental study

    Phys. Ther.

    (1988)
  • J. Cleland et al.

    Comparison of the effectiveness of three manual physical therapy techniques in a subgroup of patients with low back pain who satisfy a clinical prediction rule: a randomized clinical trial

    Spine

    (2009)
  • J.A. Cleland et al.

    Comparison of the effectiveness of three manual physical therapy techniques in a subgroup of patients with low back pain who satisfy a clinical prediction rule: study protocol of a randomized clinical trial [NCT00257998]

    BMC Musculoskelet. Disord.

    (2006)
  • C.J. Colloca et al.

    Electromyographic reflex responses to mechanical force, manually assisted spinal manipulative therapy

    Spine (Phila Pa 1976)

    (2001)
  • A. Delitto et al.

    Evidence for use of an extension-mobilization category in acute low back syndrome: a prescriptive validation pilot study

    Phys. Ther.

    (1993)
  • J.D. Dishman et al.

    Comparison of effects of spinal manipulation and massage on motoneuron excitability

    Electromyogr. Clin. Neurophysiol.

    (2001)
  • S.L. Edmond

    Joint Mobilization/Manipulation: Extremity and Spinal Techniques

    (2006)
  • R.E. Erhard et al.

    Relative effectiveness of an extension program and a combined program of manipulation and flexion and extension exercises in patients with acute low back syndrome

    Phys. Ther.

    (1994)
  • J.C. Fairbank et al.

    The Oswestry low back pain disability questionnaire

    Physiotherapy

    (1980)
  • Cited by (55)

    • Manipulative therapy of sacral torsion versus myofascial release in patients clinically diagnosed posterior pelvic pain: a consort compliant randomized controlled trial

      2021, Spine Journal
      Citation Excerpt :

      Several studies have reported results in muscle inhibition, improved functional disability, gait symmetry, and decrease pain from SIJ manipulation techniques [12–15]. Recently, a single session of SIJ and lumbar manipulation was more effective for improving functional disability than SIJ manipulation alone in patients with SIJ syndrome [13]. In spite of this, there are currently no definitive interventional, conservative, or surgical management options for managing SIJ pain [16–19].

    • The sacroiliac joint – Victim or culprit

      2019, Best Practice and Research: Clinical Rheumatology
      Citation Excerpt :

      Clinical opinion on the usefulness of manual therapy in the treatment of SIJP varies greatly. There are relatively few trials to elucidate the matter, and those that exist are uncontrolled or poorly controlled [60–63]. Wreje et al. [60] used clinical motion, position and pain testing to identify sacroiliac dysfunction and compared a treatment of SIJ mobilisation and muscle energy technique with a ‘control’, group who received massage.

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text