Elsevier

Medical Hypotheses

Volume 85, Issue 6, December 2015, Pages 819-824
Medical Hypotheses

Measureable changes in the neuro-endocrinal mechanism following spinal manipulation

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mehy.2015.10.003Get rights and content

Abstract

The autonomic nervous system and the hypothalamic–pituitary–adrenal axis have been shown to be dysfunctional in a number of chronic pain disorders. Spinal manipulation is a therapeutic technique used by manual therapists, which may have widespread neuro-physiological effects. The autonomic nervous system has been implicated to modulate these effects. A theory is proposed that spinal manipulation has the potential to be used as a tool in restoring the autonomic nervous system balance. Further, it is also hypothesised that through its anatomical and physiological connections, the autonomic nervous system activity following a thoracic spinal manipulation may have an effect on the hypothalamic–pituitary–adrenal axis and therefore pain and healing via modulation of endocrine and physiological processes. To substantiate our hypothesis we provide evidence from manual therapy studies, basic science and animal studies. According to the proposed theory, there will be measurable changes in the neuro-endocrinal mechanisms following a thoracic spinal manipulation. This has far-reaching implications for manual therapy practice and research and in the integration of spinal manipulation in the treatment of a wide array of disorders.

Introduction

Spinal manipulation (SM) is a specific ‘hands-on’ clinical approach used by a variety of health practitioners such as the physiotherapists, chiropractors and osteopaths to treat musculo-skeletal pain [1]. Initial theories to explain the physiological effects of SM centred on the biomechanical paradigm [2] together with the gate control theory [3]. However an increasing number of studies show that the effects of SM are beyond biomechanical changes only [4]. This has led to the proposal of various neurophysiological theories to explain the effects of SM [5], [6], [7]. According to the neurophysiological theory, SM has the potential to initiate a cascade of neurophysiological responses in the peripheral and central nervous system [5].

Inflammation is a normal response to disturbed homeostasis caused by infection, injury or trauma and is associated with the production of numerous pro-inflammatory and immune-regulatory cytokines and neurotransmitters [8]. The production of such mediators has been shown to increase in patients with lower back pain [9]. Pain in turn triggers the activation of various protective body reactions, mediated by the central nervous system (CNS). The control of inflammation and thereby the immune system by the CNS implies that the CNS can assist tissue healing or trigger the opposite [10].

There is a functional cross-talk or reciprocal communication between the CNS and the immune system [11]. The afferent communication occurs via primary afferent nociceptive neurons and by cytokines secreted by immune cells in the inflamed tissues. The efferent communication occurs via the peripheral ANS (mainly sympathetic nervous system (SNS)) and neuroendocrine system (example: hypothalamic–pituitary–adrenal (HPA) axis) [11]. Adrenal glucocorticoids, the end product of the HPA axis have long been known for their anti-inflammatory and immunosuppressive effects [12]. Evidence also indicates that catecholamine’s, the end products of the SNS, modulate several immune parameters [11], [12]. In summary, both acute and chronic inflammation is modulated by the SNS and the HPA axis.

The modulatory effect of inflammation by the SNS may be of special interest for manual therapists. This is because at least part of the effects observed following SM may be due to change in the activity of the SNS. Pioneering works of Irvin M Korr have not only demonstrated the role of SNS as a mediator between somatic and supportive process, but also how sustained sympathetic tone plays a significant role in disease. Through various experiments, Korr further showed changes in cutaneous patterns of sympathetic activity in clinical abnormalities of the musculoskeletal system [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18]. Therefore SNS changes following SM may have important implications. However, depending on the segment manipulated these effects could vary. Specifically, cervical manipulation elicits a parasympathetic response and a thoracic/lumbar SM elicits a sympathetic response [19].

SM may also have an effect on the HPA axis [20]. Early works of Andrew Taylor Still (founder of osteopathic medicine) and Daniel Palmer (founder of chiropractic) have debated the potential role of SM on endocrinal mechanisms and thereby various immune disorders [21], [22]. Although the influence of SM on the transmission and transduction of pain stimulus has been well understood [5], [23]; the mechanism through which SM influences tissue healing through reduction of inflammatory response is still unclear. Therefore a hypothesis is proposed that takes into account the autonomic effects following SM and the sequential effect it may have on tissue healing via co-activation of endocrine systems.

Section snippets

The hypothesis

Null hypothesis: A thoracic SM will not result in measureable changes in the neuro-endocrinal system response.

Alternate hypothesis: A thoracic SM will result in measureable changes in the neuro-endocrinal system response.

Evaluation of the hypothesis

The hypothesis is proposed based on the following. Anatomically the ganglion of the sympathetic nervous system lies just anterior to the costovertebral joint of the thoracic spine. Thoracic SM may therefore result in direct or indirect excitation of preganglionic sympathetic cells in the thoracolumbar spine. Further, the transduction of mechanical input (SM) excites various mechanoreceptors. The volley of innocuous stimuli then travels up from the dorsal horn to several regions of the brain

Discussion

We proposed that a SM of the thoracic spine in humans will be associated with a neuro-endocrinal response. Substantial evidence has demonstrated the neurophysiological effects of SM [7], [34], [55], [56], with a prominent role given to the SNS [5], [28]. Recent systematic reviews further confirm the short-term sympatheto-excitatory effects associated with SM [29], [57]. These SNS changes following SM may also be associated with changes in supraspinal mechanisms that control pain. Supraspinal

Future implications and conclusion

The ANS and the HPA axis are commonly involved in various chronic pain syndromes. These clinical disorders include chronic fatigue syndrome [61], fibromyalgia, auto-immune diseases [62]; diabetes [63], gastro-intestinal disorders [64]; cardiovascular problems [65]; and asthma [66]. An important strategy in managing these syndromes is to identify effective treatments that target multiple key mechanisms involved in pain [67]. Therefore the neuro-endocrinal mechanisms could be such targets of

Conflict of interest

None.

References (68)

  • P.S. Bolton et al.

    Visceral responses to spinal manipulation

    J Electromyogr Kinesiol

    (2012)
  • H.V. Huikuri et al.

    Measurement of heart rate variability: a clinical tool or a research toy?

    J Am Coll Cardiol

    (1999)
  • J. Zhang et al.

    Effect of chiropractic care on heart rate variability and pain in a multisite clinical study

    J Manipulative Physiol Ther

    (2006)
  • B. Sacchetti et al.

    Cerebellum and emotional behavior

    Neurosci J

    (2009)
  • V. Legrain et al.

    The pain matrix reloaded: a salience detection system for the body

    Prog Neurobiol

    (2011)
  • A. Wright

    Hypoalgesia post-manipulative therapy: a review of a potential neurophysiological mechanism

    Man Ther

    (1995)
  • A.S. Jansen et al.

    Local connections between the columns of the periaqueductal gray matter: a case for intrinsic neuromodulation

    Brain Res

    (1998)
  • J. Arlt et al.

    Modulation of sympathetic activity by corticotropin-releasing hormone and atrial natriuretic peptide

    Neuropeptides

    (2003)
  • B. Budgell et al.

    Responses of adrenal function to stimulation of lumbar and thoracic interspinous tissues in the rat

    Neurosci Res

    (1997)
  • T.L. Whelan et al.

    The effect of chiropractic manipulation on salivary cortisol levels

    J Manipulative Physiol Ther

    (2002)
  • R. Bulbulian et al.

    Spinal reflex excitability changes after lumbar spine passive flexion mobilization

    J Manipulative Physiol Ther

    (2002)
  • L. Kingston et al.

    The effects of spinal mobilizations on the sympathetic nervous system: a systematic review

    Man Ther

    (2014)
  • P.S. Bolton et al.

    Spinal manipulation and spinal mobilization influence different axial sensory beds

    Med Hypotheses

    (2006)
  • G.P. Chrousos

    Stress, chronic inflammation, and emotional and physical well-being: concurrent effects and chronic sequelae

    J Allergy Clin Immunol

    (2000)
  • A. Dutour et al.

    Hormonal response to stress in brittle diabetes

    Psychoneuroendocrinology

    (1996)
  • D. Mason

    Genetic variation in the stress response: susceptibility to experimental allergic encephalomyelitis and implications for human inflammatory disease

    Immunol Today

    (1991)
  • M. Brown et al.

    Musculoskeletal pain and treatment choice: an exploration of illness perceptions and choices of conventional or complementary therapies

    Disabil Rehabil

    (2010)
  • R. Melzack et al.

    Pain mechanisms: a new theory

    Surv Anesthesiol

    (1967)
  • D.G. Sueki et al.

    The effect of thoracic manipulation on shoulder pain: a regional interdependence model

    Phys Ther Rev

    (2011)
  • M.U. Goebel et al.

    Interleukin-6 and tumor necrosis factor-α production after acute psychological stress, exercise, and infused isoproterenol: differential effects and pathways

    Psychosom Med

    (2000)
  • J. Burke et al.

    Intervertebral discs which cause low back pain secrete high levels of proinflammatory mediators

    J Bone Joint Surg Br

    (2002)
  • I.J. Elenkov et al.

    The sympathetic nerve—an integrative interface between two supersystems: the brain and the immune system

    Pharmacol Rev

    (2000)
  • G.P. Chrousos

    Stress and disorders of the stress system

    Nat Rev Endocrinol

    (2009)
  • I.M. Korr

    The spinal cord as organizer of disease processes: II. The peripheral autonomic nervous system

    J Am Osteopath Assoc

    (1979)
  • Cited by (15)

    • The physiology of manual therapy

      2021, A Comprehensive Guide to Sports Physiology and Injury Management: An Interdisciplinary Approach
    • Spinal manipulation therapy: Is it all about the brain? A current review of the neurophysiological effects of manipulation

      2019, Journal of Integrative Medicine
      Citation Excerpt :

      Most of the early theories proposed to explain the analgesic and hypoalgesic effects of spinal manipulation were heavily focused on the biomechanical changes following the intervention [1–3]. In recent years, however, there has been a paradigm shift toward a neurophysiological mechanism of spinal manipulation, as an increasing number of recent studies have reported various neural effects of spinal manipulation such as changes in somatosensory processing, muscle-reflexogenic responses, central motor excitability, motor neuron activity, neuroplastic brain changes, Hoffmann’s reflex (H-reflex) responses, sympathetic activity and central sensitisation [5–11]. These studies have suggested a cascade of neurochemical responses in the central and peripheral nervous system following spinal manipulation.

    • Thoracic spine pain in a soccer player: A combined movement theory approach

      2019, Clinical Reasoning in Musculoskeletal Practice
    • Changes in biochemical markers following spinal manipulation-a systematic review and meta-analysis

      2017, Musculoskeletal Science and Practice
      Citation Excerpt :

      These findings suggest that a central anti-inflammatory mechanism might be activated following a spinal manipulation. This is in agreement with previous theories proposed (Bialosky et al., 2009; Evans, 2002; Pickar, 2002; Sampath et al., 2015). We expect minimal biases in extracting and reporting of data (two authors' independently extracted data and a third one was involved wherever necessary).

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text