Posterior-anterior(PA) pressure Puffin for measuring and treating spinal stiffness: Mechanism and repeatability

Abstract Background Posterior–anterior (PA) pressure technique is widely used for assessing and treating spinal segments. PA pressure is manually applied and stiffness is subjectively assessed. The method has been deemed unreliable and is associated with occupational strain. Objectives To introduce...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Manual therapy 2016-04, Vol.22 (NA), p.72-79
Hauptverfasser: Bjornsdottir, S V, Guomundsson, G, Auounsson, G A, Matthiasson, J, Ragnarsdottir, M
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Abstract Background Posterior–anterior (PA) pressure technique is widely used for assessing and treating spinal segments. PA pressure is manually applied and stiffness is subjectively assessed. The method has been deemed unreliable and is associated with occupational strain. Objectives To introduce a new ergonomically designed hand-held device measuring spinal stiffness, and to assess its repeatability. Design Quasi experimental study. Method A convenience sample of 30 university students, 20–30 years old was used. The participants were tested two consecutive days by two physical therapy students using the new device; the PA pressure Puffin. The spinal segments under study were L1, Th12, Th7 and Th6 which all were tested three times with 9 kg force by both testers, both days. Intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC3,k ) were used to assess intra- and inter-tester repeatability and analysis of variance with alpha-level at 0.05 was used to assess differences in joint mobility at the four segments measured. Linear regression analyses were used to assess repeatability. Results Inter-tester and intra-tester coefficients (ICCs) ranged from 0.88 to 0.97 and from 0.83 to 0.97, respectively. There was no significant difference in displacement between Th6 and Th7 but all other joints were significantly different from each other. Displacement was always significantly greater the second day compared with day one (p 
ISSN:1356-689X
1532-2769
DOI:10.1016/j.math.2015.10.005