Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-42gr6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T11:38:39.527Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effects of manipulative therapy on the longissimus dorsi in the equine back

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

James M Wakeling ,
Kate Barnett ,
Sarah Price  and
Kathryn Nankervis
James M Wakeling*
Affiliation:
Structure and Motion Laboratory, The Royal Veterinary College, Hawkshead Lane, North Mymms, Hatfield, Hertfordshire AL9 7TA, UK
Kate Barnett
Affiliation:
Structure and Motion Laboratory, The Royal Veterinary College, Hawkshead Lane, North Mymms, Hatfield, Hertfordshire AL9 7TA, UK
Sarah Price
Affiliation:
Structure and Motion Laboratory, The Royal Veterinary College, Hawkshead Lane, North Mymms, Hatfield, Hertfordshire AL9 7TA, UK
Kathryn Nankervis
Affiliation:
Hartpury College, Hartpury Equine Veterinary and Therapy Centre, Hartpury, Gloucestershire GL19 3BE, UK
*
*Corresponding author: jwakeling@rvc.ac.uk
Get access

Abstract

Pain, atrophy and dysfunction of the longissimus dorsi in the equine back can lead to poor performance and altered biomechanics. Back problems are often treated by manipulative therapy to this muscle. The purpose of this study was to identify if manipulative therapy resulted in changes to muscle tone or electromyographic (EMG) activity immediately after treatment. We measured the muscle tone during standing using a mechanical tissue indenter and the EMG activity (both at the T16 level in the longissimus dorsi) during walking around a figure-of-eight course in 26 horses. The horses were randomly assigned into three groups that received: (a) spinal (McTimoney) manipulations, (b) reflex inhibition therapy or (c) a control group that was not manipulated. The muscle tone and activity were measured immediately after treatment. Both the McTimoney and the reflex inhibition groups showed significant decreases in muscle tone (c. 12%) and walking EMG activity (c. 19%). The control group showed no significant change in tone or EMG activity. These results document how the longissimus dorsi muscle responds immediately after manipulative therapy. Further studies would be needed to identify how long such changes persist or if such changes caused a reduction in pain or an increase in performance.

Keywords

equinespinal manipulationreflex inhibitionemgmuscle tone
Type
Research Article
Information
Equine and Comparative Exercise Physiology , Volume 3 , Issue 3 , August 2006 , pp. 153 - 160
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2006

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1Ridgeway, K and Harman, J (1999). Equine back rehabilitation. Veterinary Clinics of North America: Equine Practice 15: 263–280.Google Scholar
2Valberg, SJ (1999). Spinal muscle pathology. Veterinary Clinics of North America: Equine Practice 15: 87–96.Google ScholarPubMed
3Wennerstrand, J, Johnston, C, Roethlisberger-Holm, K, Erichsen, C, Eksell, P and Drevemo, S (2004). Kinematic evaluation of the back in the sport horse with back pain. Equine Veterinary Journal 36: 707–711.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4Jeffcott, LB, Dalin, G, Drevemo, S, Fredricson, I, Björne, K and Bergquist, A (1982). Effect of induced back pain on gait and performance of trotting horses. Equine Veterinary Journal 14: 129–133.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5Jeffcott, LB, Rossdale, PD, Freestone, J, Frank, CJ and Towers-Clark, PF (1982). An assessment of wastage in Thoroughbred racing from conception to 4 years of age. Equine Veterinary Journal 14: 185–198.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6Jeffcott, LB (1979). Back problems in the horse – A look at past, present and future progress. Equine Veterinary Journal 11: 129–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7Jeffcott, LB and Dalin, G (1980). Natural rigidity of the horse's backbone. Equine Veterinary Journal 12: 101–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8Faber, MJ, Van Weeren, PR, Schepers, M and Barneveld, A (2003). Long-term follow-up of manipulative treatment in a horse with back problems. Journal of Veterinary Medicine. A, Physiology, Pathology, Clinical Medicine 50: 241–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9Haussler, KK (1999). Back problems. Chiropractic evaluation and management. Veterinary Clinics of North America: Equine Practice 15: 195–209.Google ScholarPubMed
10Herrod-Taylor, EE (1967). A technique for manipulation of the spine in horses. Veterinary Record 81: 437–439.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11Fryer, G, Morris, T and Gibbons, P (2004). Paraspinal muscles and intervertebral dysfunction: Part one. Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics 27: 267–274.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12Herzog, W, Scheele, D and Conway, PJ (1999). Electromyographic responses of back and limb muscles associated with spinal manipulative therapy. Spine 24: 146–153.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13Colloca, CJ and Keller, TS (2001). Electromyographic reflex responses to mechanical force, manually assisted spinal manipulative therapy. Spine 26: 1117–1124.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14Dishman, JD and Bulbulian, R (2001). Comparison of effects of spinal manipulation and massage on motorneuron excitability. Electromyography and Clinical Neurophysiology 41: 97–106.Google Scholar
15Dishman, JD and Burke, J (2003). Spinal reflex excitability changes after cervical and lumbar manipulation: A comparative study. Spine 3: 204–212.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16Crawford, JP (1999). Chiropractic intervention in the treatment of joint and soft tissue disorders. Canadian Journal of Applied Physiology 24: 279–289.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
17Colborne, GR, McDonald, C, Barrett, A, Targett, S, Fuller, CJ, Targett, S and Fuller, CJ (2004). Effect of reflex inhibition technique for muscular back pain. Equine and Comparative Exercise Physiology 1(2): A8.Google Scholar
18Drake, JDM and Callaghan, JP (2006). Elimination of electrocardiogram contamination from electromyogram signals: An evaluation of currently used removal techniques. Journal of Electromyography and Kinesiology 16: 175–187.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
19von Tscharner, V (2000). Intensity analysis in time-frequency space of surface myoelectric signals by wavelets of specified resolution. Journal of Electromyography and Kinesiology 10: 433–445.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
20Wakeling, JM, Kaya, M, Temple, GK and Johnston, IA (2002). Determining patterns of motor recruitment during locomotion. Journal of Experimental Biology 205: 359–369.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
21Ashina, M, Bendsten, L, Jensen, R, Sakai, F and Olesen, J (1998). Measurement of muscle hardness: A methodological study. Cephalalgia 18: 106–111.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
22Kawchuk, G and Herzog, W (1996). A new technique of tissue stiffness (compliance) assessment: Its reliability, accuracy and comparison with an existing method. Journal of Manipulative Therapy 19: 13–18.Google ScholarPubMed
23Licka, TF, Peham, C and Frey, A (2004). Electromyographic activity of the longissimus dorsi muscles in horses during trotting on a treadmill. American Journal of Veterinary Research 65: 155–158.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
24Peham, C, Frey, C, Licka, A and Scheidl, M (2001). Evaluation of the EMG activity of the long back muscle during induced back movements at stance. Equine Veterinary Journal Suppliment 33: 165–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
25Peham, C, Licka, TF and Scheidl, M (2001). Evaluation of a signal-adapted filter for processing of periodic electromyography signals in horses walking on a treadmill. American Journal of Veterinary Research 62: 1687–1689.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed