WoS İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu
Permanent URI for this collectionhttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14627/6
Browse
2 results
Search Results
Article Citation - WoS: 3Citation - Scopus: 4Effects of Manual Versus Instrumental Spinal Manipulation on Blood Flow of the Vertebral and Internal Carotid Arteries in Participants With Chronic Nonspecific Neck Pain: a Single-Blind, Randomized Study(Elsevier inc, 2023) Kocabey, Burcu; Coskunsu, Dilber Karagozoglu; Guven, Koray; Agaoglu, Mustafa H.; Yuce, Selvi; Karagözoğlu Coşkunsu, DilberObjective: The aim of this study was to compare the hemodynamic effects of manual spinal manipulation (MSM) and instrumental spinal manipulation (ISM) on the vertebral artery (VA) and internal carotid artery (ICA) in participants with chronic nonspecific neck pain (NNP). Methods: Thirty volunteers aged 20 to 40 years old with NNP over 3 months duration were included. Participants were randomly divided into the following 2 groups: (1) MSM group (n = 15) and (2) ISM group (n = 15). Ipsilateral (intervention side) and contralateral (opposite side of intervention) VAs and ICAs were evaluated using spectral color Doppler ultrasound before and immediately after manipulation. Measurements were recorded by visualizing the ICA carotid sinus (C4 level) and the VA at the V3 segment (C1-C2 level). The blood flow parameters of peak systolic velocity (PSV), end-diastolic velocity, resistive index, and volume flow (only for VA) were evaluated. The spinal segment, in which biomechanical aberrant movement was detected by palpation in the upper cervical spine, was manually manipulated in the MSM group. The same methodology was performed for the ISM group using an Activator V instrument (Activator Methods). Results: Intragroup analysis exhibited no statistically significant difference between the MSM and ISM groups in terms of PSV, end-diastolic velocity, resistive index of ipsilateral and contralateral ICA and VA, in addition to volume flow of both VAs preintervention and postintervention (P > .05). Within the intergroup analysis, there was a significant difference in ipsilateral ICA PSV (P = .031) (preintervention vs postintervention difference was -7.9 & PLUSMN; 17.2 cm/s [95% confidence interval, -17.4 to 1.6] in the ISM group and 8.7 & PLUSMN; 22.5 cm/s [95% confidence interval, -3.6 to 21.2]) in the MSM group (P < .05). Other parameters did not show any significant difference (P > .05). Conclusion: Manual and instrumental spinal manipulations applied to the upper cervical spine in participants with chronic NNP did not appear to alter blood flow parameters of the VAs and ICAs.Article Evaluation of Immediate Effect of Sacroiliac Joint Manipulation on Balance and Muscle Strength(Edizioni Minerva Medica, 2021) Toprak, Mehmet; Karagozoglu Coskunsu, Dilber; Alptekin, Hasan K.; Inal, Habibe S.; Coşkunsu, Dilber KaragözoǧluBACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to investigate the immediate effect of chiropractic high velocity low amplitude (HVLA) sacroiliac manipulation on muscle strength and balance in healthy individuals with asymptomatic dysfunction of the sacroiliac joint. METHODS: Quadriceps and hamstring muscle strength and balance were measured before and after the application in healthy individuals, using the Biodex Balance System and MicroFet 2 Hand Dynamometer (Biodex Medical Systems, Inc., Shirley, NY, USA). Balance was measured when the patients stood on their feet eyes open, and eyes closed. In total, 60 individuals were included in the study. They were divided into two groups and the experimental group had 40 individuals in total. No application was made to the control group. One-time chiropractic HVLA sacroiliac manipulation was applied to the experimental group. RESULTS: In the control group, the quadriceps muscle strength of the right leg was 58.51 kg in the first measurement and 52.95 kg in the second measurement. The left leg yielded 57.62 kg in the first measurement and 51.06 kg in the second measurement. The Hamstring Muscle Strength of the right leg in the control group was 41.77 kg in the first measurement and 38.28 kg in the second measurement. In the left leg, it was 41.96 kg in the first measurement and 39.36 kg in the second measurement. For balance measurement, there was a significant improvement in balance in the second measurement in both eyes-closed and eyes-open positions. In the experimental group, the Quadriceps Muscle Strength of the right leg was 58.05 kg in the first measurement and 67.43 kg in the second measurement. In the left leg, it was 56.23 kg in the first measurement and 64.97 kg in the second measurement. Hamstring muscle strength increased significantly in both right and left legs after chiropractic HVLA manipulation (P<0.05). In the experimental group, the hamstring muscle strength of the right leg was 34.68 kg in the first measurement and 43.29 kg in the second measurement. In the left leg, it was 35.96 kg in the first measurement and 43.64 kg in the second measurement. CONCLUSIONS: There was no significant improvement in balance of both legs in eyes-closed and eyes-open position after chiropractic HVLA manipulation.