Device, protocol and measurement of regional spinal stiffness

Spinal stiffness in asymptomatic subjects

“…The results obtained in this the study agree in many respects with several previous studies in the fact that increasing load results in increased spinal stiffness observed as also reported by Latimer et al (1998) and Kumar and Stoll (2011). In the current study since the cycle time was kept constant (0.1 Hz) and the load magnitude was increased it would have increased the loading rate.…”

“…are the magnitude of manual load applied by clinician's hand, the speed and direction of load application, the phase of respiration at which the patient is tested in addition to geometry and the state of the spinal joints of tested individuals. Latimer et al (1998) and Kumar and Stoll (2011) reported that different force ranges produced significantly different spinal stiffness values. As in manual assessment performed by different clinicians the magnitude of load cannot be standardized, it has been considered an important factor causing poor reliability of these techniques.…”

“…The Therapeutic Spinal Mobilizer (TSM) (Kumar and Stoll, 2011) was used for spinal stiffness testing (Fig. 1).…”

“…To overcome this variability, the device and protocol proposed by Kumar and Stoll (2011) was used in this study. It is for this reason it is believed that the results reported here are objective and repeatable.…”

“…It is this diversity of methodology which may lead to variation in findings and hence lack of reliability. Considering these factors Kumar and Stoll (2011) developed a device and standardized methodology which eliminates subjectivity and standardizes the loading and measurement methodology. This could lead to results that can be compared between clinicians, between subjects, and between different sessions.…”