Spinal StenosisNCT02118103
The Impact of Spinal Manipulation on Leg Movement in Lumbar Spinal Stenosis Patients
A study testing Spinal Manipulation in people with Spinal Stenosis, run by University of Manitoba at 1 site in Canada.
Trial summary
The objectives of the proposed research are to quantify the impact on motor performance of a single SM intervention on surgical waitlist patients with degenerative Lumbar Spinal Stenosis (LSS) using a recently established lower extremity movement task: 1) using alterable levels of task difficulty that is resistant to… Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 to 85 years
- Conditions the study is for
- Spinal Stenosis
- What is being tested?
- Spinal Manipulation
- Type of treatment
- Surgery or procedure
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 24 participants
- Where
- 1 siteCanada
- Study dates
- May 2014to Dec 2016
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 18 to 85 years
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- Confirmed Lumbar Spinal Stenosis Diagnosis (by diagnostic imaging and clinical testing/history from a spine surgeon)
Who cannot join
- Prior surgery to address Spinal Stenosis
- Presence of trauma, tumor, or infectious processes that are contraindications to spinal manipulation
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
Canada1 site
Health Sciences Centre (Rehab Hospital, RR-309)
Winnipeg, Manitoba
About this study
Official title: The Impact of Spinal Manipulation on Lower Extremity Motor Control in Lumbar Spinal Stenosis Patients: a Single-blind Randomized Before-after Trial
The objectives of the proposed research are to quantify the impact on motor performance of a single SM intervention on surgical waitlist patients with degenerative Lumbar Spinal Stenosis (LSS) using a recently established lower extremity movement task: 1) using alterable levels of task difficulty that is resistant to learning and 2) using measurement of movement kinematics.
Read the detailed description
METHODOLOGY:
A non-surgical spine care clinician, (physical therapist or chiropractor) who is not the principal investigator, will rule out, through physical examination and history, any further contraindications to lumbar spinal manipulation (SM) prior to intervention. The physical examination will consist of orthopedic tests typically used in clinical practice prior to spinal manipulation intervention. No intervention will be delivered by the principal investigator.
Upon arrival participants will provide consent to the research assistants by filling out the Research Participant Information and Consent Form. They will then complete a battery of questionnaire based outcome measures including a 2 quadruple numeric rating scales (QNRS), one for each left, and right leg pain, the Swiss Spinal Stenosis score (SSS)(Stucki, Daltroy, Liang et al 1996) and the Waterloo Footededness Questionnaire - revised (WFQ-R) (Elias, Bryden, Bulman-Fleming 1998) on a computer. The width and length of the distal pad of the great toe will be measured bilaterally.
Apparatus:
A 23" projected image will be positioned lengthwise in front of the participant on a surface, parallel to the floor but facing the ceiling, on a custom built support frame and platform. A microswitch will be mounted in the support frame platform on the edge proximal to the participant and will serve as the home position. Custom software (E-prime, v 2.0 Psychology Software Tools Inc., Sharpsburg, PA) will be used to generate the projected images, to track switch initiated timing, and trigger/synchronize 3-dimensional movement recording. An infrared emitting diode (IRED), (Northern Digital, Waterloo, ON) will be mounted to the distal aspect of the great toe using a custom removable brace.
Procedure:
With bare feet participants will stand on the platform with their great toe pad depressing a microswitch identified as the "home" key. A visual precue (black cross in the center of the projected image) will alert the participant that the next trial is about to begin at a variable time (2000-2550 ms) after the precue. They will be asked to reach forward (in the sagittal plane) with their great toe pad to touch the center of targets generated on the computer touch screen as "quickly and accurately as possible". These will be discrete foot aiming movements. Targets will appear on the screen's surface with widths of either 2.5 cm, 5 cm and will require movement amplitudes of 20 cm, and 50 cm for contact. The combination of distance, and target width will be used to determine the index of difficulty for the task. Each of the 4 possible combinations used will generate 4 different indices of difficulty (ID) 3a, 4a, 4b, and 5 bits (IDs 4a, and 4b overlap but consist of different target width/distance combinations). The 4 combinations will be presented in a random order, with each combination being presented 10 times, for a total of 40 trials. Once completed for one foot the procedure will be repeated with the opposite foot, resulting in a total of 80 trials. To reduce the risk of potential falls, participants will wear a gait belt (Ross Flexi Belt) and there is a railing adjacent to the platform. Participants will be allowed to sit and rest between feet if needed. Each round of trials should require less than 10 minutes to perform. The order of foot use will be randomly assigned. The touch surface, toe mounted IRED, and platform surface will be disinfected between participants.
Participants will then have their active lumbar range-of-motion (ROM) quantified using electrogoniometry/torsiometry (Biometrics Ltd, Ladysmith, VA) and be randomized to either SM or NI groups. Based on group assignment they will respectively either receive either bilateral high-velocity low-amplitude (HVLA) SM directed toward the lumbar region by a licensed clinician, or wait 5 minutes as a non-intervention. The HVLA lumbar SM procedure delivered will be a hypothenar spinous pull (Peterson, Bergman, 2002). The presence or absence audible joint cavitation following SM will be anecdotally recorded. The NI group will be kept blinded as to whether they may receive SM later during the study. All participants will have their active lumbar range of motion reassessed immediately following intervention (or NI), have their NRS for low back and leg pain repeated, and then perform an additional 80 trials of the foot pointing task again (with an experimenter blinded to the intervention participants received).
Statistical Tests:
Separate paired student's t-tests will be used to compare participants to themselves in terms of left to right baseline QNRS scores, NRS scores pre and post intervention, and lumbar ROM in each axis of movement pre and post intervention. Separate unpaired student's t-tests will compare questionnaire based outcome measure scores between groups, and lumbar ROM in each axis of movement pre and post intervention between groups.
For all behavioural and kinematic measures separate 2 Group (SM, NI) x 2 Limb (left, right) x 4 ID mixed model analysis of variance (ANOVA) designs will be employed. Post hoc analysis will be performed on effects involving more than two means as needed using Tukey's Honestly Significant Difference (HSD).
Adverse Events/Serious Adverse Events:
As this study requires clinical intervention, the following adverse events could be possible: post-treatment soreness and/or exacerbation of existing low back symptoms. Such events may or may not occur following spinal manipulation.
Planned Dissemination:
The results of this study will be prepared for dissemination first at relevant clinical and scientific conferences. Subsequently, this work will be submitted to a peer reviewed journal for consideration of publication.
Additional Ethical Aspects of Protocol:
Potential Benefits to Participants and Others:
The potential benefits of participation to participants include receiving $10 parking reimbursement, and a $5 Tim Hortons gift card. The patient may have increased range of motion and decreased low back pain as a result of clinical intervention. The information learned from this study will benefit others with lumbar spinal stenosis in the future.
Indirect benefits include knowledge that they have contributed to the advancement of scientific understanding of the effect of spinal manipulation on the measurement of movement outcomes in a population with LSS.
There are no direct benefits to others. Indirect benefits include those to the scientific community through the planned dissemination of the work. The results of this study will be prepared for dissemination first at relevant clinical and scientific conferences. Participants have the option (not mandatory) of providing an email address on their consent form if they wish to know the outcome of the study. Subsequently, this work will be submitted to a peer reviewed journal for consideration of publication.
Potential harms to Participants and Others:
The stenosis population could possibly experience fatigue or discomfort related to their pre-existing leg or low back pain. In an attempt to minimize such events trial durations will be kept brief and participants will be allowed to sit and rest between trials if needed.
As this study requires clinical intervention, the following adverse events could be possible: post-treatment soreness and/or exacerbation of existing low back symptoms. Such events may or may not occur following spinal manipulation. A licensed clinician with more than five years of experience will be on hand.
To protect participant privacy all data collected will be coded and put into database format. All data will be de-identified and kept on a single study computer at each site which is password protected and located in a locked office. As such, access to study subject information/data will be highly safeguarded and can only be accessed by Dr. Passmore. Any paper forms and questionnaires will be kept in a locked cabinet in a locked room. Identifying information that will be collected is the subject's name, contact information and date of birth.
- Conditions
- Spinal Stenosis
- Being tested
- Spinal Manipulation
- Keywords
- Lumbosacral Region, Psychomotor Performance, Manipulation, Spinal
- Medical subject headings
- Spinal Stenosis
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Spinal ManipulationProcedure or surgery
Lumbar spinal manipulation
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Spinal Manipulation | Experimental | bilateral lumbar spine manipulation Receives: Procedure: Spinal Manipulation |
| No Intervention - control | No intervention | no intervention |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Active Lumbar Range of Motion (ROM)
Active lumbar ROM (in degrees) will include flexion, extension, bilateral lateral flexion and bilateral rotation. It will be compared between groups, both prior to and following intervention (or NI).
Measured: same 1 day, prior to and following intervention or non-intervention
Reaction Time
Reaction time (milliseconds) will be defined as the time between the presentation of the target, to the lift off from the home position of the toe reaching toward the target.
Measured: same 1 day, during foot pointing tasks
Movement Time
Movement time (milliseconds) will be defined as the time between toe lift off from the home position and contact with the target.
Measured: same 1 day, during foot pointing tasks
Spatial Endpoint Accuracy
Spatial endpoint accuracy will be the distance from the center of the toe pad touch down to the center of the target.
Measured: same 1 day, during foot pointing tasks
Displacement
measured in millimeters
Measured: same 1 day, during foot pointing tasks
Peak Velocity
Peak velocity will be defined as the point of greatest velocity (meters per second) of the great toe in the plane of movement toward the target.
Measured: same 1 day, during foot pointing tasks
Time to Peak Velocity
Time to peak velocity will be defined as the time point in ms at which the great toe reached peak velocity in the plane of movement toward the target.
Measured: same 1 day, during foot pointing tasks
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted21 Apr 2014 (estimated)
- Study startMay 2014
- Primary completionDec 2016 (estimated)
- Study completionDec 2016 (estimated)
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (14)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Spinal StenosisStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- More trials run by University of ManitobaThe sponsor's other registered studies.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Single blind
- Who is masked
- Investigator
- Enrolment
- 24 participants (estimated)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- University of Manitoba
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- Gibson Orthopaedic Fund for Research and Education
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Dr. Steven Passmore, University of Manitoba
- Investigators
- Steven Passmore, DC, PhD, Principal investigator, University of Manitoba
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT02118103
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- H2014:079
- Status last verified
- Apr 2015
- First submitted
- 16 Apr 2014
- Last updated
- 17 Apr 2015
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
Publications
Beamish D, Bhatti SA, MacKenzie IS, Wu J. Fifty years later: A neurodynamic explanation of Fitts' law. J R Soc Interface. 2006 Oct 22;3(10):649-54. doi: 10.1098/rsif.2006.0123.
PubMed 16971333Peterson, D.H., Bergmann, T.F., editors. Chiropractic technique. 2nd ed. St. Louis: Mosby; 2002 p.308-309.
Ciol MA, Deyo RA, Howell E, Kreif S. An assessment of surgery for spinal stenosis: time trends, geographic variations, complications, and reoperations. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1996 Mar;44(3):285-90. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-5415.1996.tb00915.x.
PubMed 8600197Descarreaux M, Passmore SR, Cantin V. Head movement kinematics during rapid aiming task performance in healthy and neck-pain participants: the importance of optimal task difficulty. Man Ther. 2010 Oct;15(5):445-50. doi: 10.1016/j.math.2010.02.009. Epub 2010 Jun 25.
PubMed 20579929Elias LJ, Bryden MP, Bulman-Fleming MB. Footedness is a better predictor than is handedness of emotional lateralization. Neuropsychologia. 1998 Jan;36(1):37-43. doi: 10.1016/s0028-3932(97)00107-3.
PubMed 9533385FITTS PM. The information capacity of the human motor system in controlling the amplitude of movement. J Exp Psychol. 1954 Jun;47(6):381-91. No abstract available.
PubMed 13174710FITTS PM, PETERSON JR. INFORMATION CAPACITY OF DISCRETE MOTOR RESPONSES. J Exp Psychol. 1964 Feb;67:103-12. doi: 10.1037/h0045689. No abstract available.
PubMed 14114905Guadagnoli MA, Lee TD. Challenge point: a framework for conceptualizing the effects of various practice conditions in motor learning. J Mot Behav. 2004 Jun;36(2):212-24. doi: 10.3200/JMBR.36.2.212-224.
PubMed 15130871Jenis LG, An HS. Spine update. Lumbar foraminal stenosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000 Feb 1;25(3):389-94. doi: 10.1097/00007632-200002010-00022.
PubMed 10703115Katz JN, Harris MB. Clinical practice. Lumbar spinal stenosis. N Engl J Med. 2008 Feb 21;358(8):818-25. doi: 10.1056/NEJMcp0708097. No abstract available.
PubMed 18287604Onla-or S, Winstein CJ. Determining the optimal challenge point for motor skill learning in adults with moderately severe Parkinson's disease. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2008 Jul-Aug;22(4):385-95. doi: 10.1177/1545968307313508. Epub 2008 Mar 8.
PubMed 18326891Passmore SR, Burke J, Lyons J. Older adults demonstrate reduced performance in a Fitts' task involving cervical spine movement. Adapt Phys Activ Q. 2007 Oct;24(4):352-63. doi: 10.1123/apaq.24.4.352.
PubMed 18042971Pratt RK, Fairbank JC, Virr A. The reliability of the Shuttle Walking Test, the Swiss Spinal Stenosis Questionnaire, the Oxford Spinal Stenosis Score, and the Oswestry Disability Index in the assessment of patients with lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2002 Jan 1;27(1):84-91. doi: 10.1097/00007632-200201010-00020.
PubMed 11805642Stucki G, Daltroy L, Liang MH, Lipson SJ, Fossel AH, Katz JN. Measurement properties of a self-administered outcome measure in lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1996 Apr 1;21(7):796-803. doi: 10.1097/00007632-199604010-00004.
PubMed 8779009
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 17 Apr 2015. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- The Impact of Spinal Manipulation on Lower Extremity Motor Control in Lumbar Spinal Stenosis Patients: a Single-blind Randomized Before-after Trial
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT02118103
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- H2014:079
- Conditions
- Spinal Stenosis
- Keywords
- Lumbosacral Region, Psychomotor Performance, Manipulation, Spinal
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Unknown status
- Enrolment
- 24 participants (estimated)
- Lead sponsor
- University of ManitobaUniversity, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- Gibson Orthopaedic Fund for Research and Education
- Study start
- May 2014
- Primary completion
- Dec 2016 (estimated)
- Study completion
- Dec 2016 (estimated)
- First posted
- 21 Apr 2014 (estimated)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
The objectives of the proposed research are to quantify the impact on motor performance of a single SM intervention on surgical waitlist patients with degenerative Lumbar Spinal Stenosis (LSS) using a recently established lower extremity movement task: 1) using alterable levels of task difficulty that is resistant to learning and 2) using measurement of movement kinematics.
Detailed description
METHODOLOGY:
A non-surgical spine care clinician, (physical therapist or chiropractor) who is not the principal investigator, will rule out, through physical examination and history, any further contraindications to lumbar spinal manipulation (SM) prior to intervention. The physical examination will consist of orthopedic tests typically used in clinical practice prior to spinal manipulation intervention. No intervention will be delivered by the principal investigator.
Upon arrival participants will provide consent to the research assistants by filling out the Research Participant Information and Consent Form. They will then complete a battery of questionnaire based outcome measures including a 2 quadruple numeric rating scales (QNRS), one for each left, and right leg pain, the Swiss Spinal Stenosis score (SSS)(Stucki, Daltroy, Liang et al 1996) and the Waterloo Footededness Questionnaire - revised (WFQ-R) (Elias, Bryden, Bulman-Fleming 1998) on a computer. The width and length of the distal pad of the great toe will be measured bilaterally.
Apparatus:
A 23" projected image will be positioned lengthwise in front of the participant on a surface, parallel to the floor but facing the ceiling, on a custom built support frame and platform. A microswitch will be mounted in the support frame platform on the edge proximal to the participant and will serve as the home position. Custom software (E-prime, v 2.0 Psychology Software Tools Inc., Sharpsburg, PA) will be used to generate the projected images, to track switch initiated timing, and trigger/synchronize 3-dimensional movement recording. An infrared emitting diode (IRED), (Northern Digital, Waterloo, ON) will be mounted to the distal aspect of the great toe using a custom removable brace.
Procedure:
With bare feet participants will stand on the platform with their great toe pad depressing a microswitch identified as the "home" key. A visual precue (black cross in the center of the projected image) will alert the participant that the next trial is about to begin at a variable time (2000-2550 ms) after the precue. They will be asked to reach forward (in the sagittal plane) with their great toe pad to touch the center of targets generated on the computer touch screen as "quickly and accurately as possible". These will be discrete foot aiming movements. Targets will appear on the screen's surface with widths of either 2.5 cm, 5 cm and will require movement amplitudes of 20 cm, and 50 cm for contact. The combination of distance, and target width will be used to determine the index of difficulty for the task. Each of the 4 possible combinations used will generate 4 different indices of difficulty (ID) 3a, 4a, 4b, and 5 bits (IDs 4a, and 4b overlap but consist of different target width/distance combinations). The 4 combinations will be presented in a random order, with each combination being presented 10 times, for a total of 40 trials. Once completed for one foot the procedure will be repeated with the opposite foot, resulting in a total of 80 trials. To reduce the risk of potential falls, participants will wear a gait belt (Ross Flexi Belt) and there is a railing adjacent to the platform. Participants will be allowed to sit and rest between feet if needed. Each round of trials should require less than 10 minutes to perform. The order of foot use will be randomly assigned. The touch surface, toe mounted IRED, and platform surface will be disinfected between participants.
Participants will then have their active lumbar range-of-motion (ROM) quantified using electrogoniometry/torsiometry (Biometrics Ltd, Ladysmith, VA) and be randomized to either SM or NI groups. Based on group assignment they will respectively either receive either bilateral high-velocity low-amplitude (HVLA) SM directed toward the lumbar region by a licensed clinician, or wait 5 minutes as a non-intervention. The HVLA lumbar SM procedure delivered will be a hypothenar spinous pull (Peterson, Bergman, 2002). The presence or absence audible joint cavitation following SM will be anecdotally recorded. The NI group will be kept blinded as to whether they may receive SM later during the study. All participants will have their active lumbar range of motion reassessed immediately following intervention (or NI), have their NRS for low back and leg pain repeated, and then perform an additional 80 trials of the foot pointing task again (with an experimenter blinded to the intervention participants received).
Statistical Tests:
Separate paired student's t-tests will be used to compare participants to themselves in terms of left to right baseline QNRS scores, NRS scores pre and post intervention, and lumbar ROM in each axis of movement pre and post intervention. Separate unpaired student's t-tests will compare questionnaire based outcome measure scores between groups, and lumbar ROM in each axis of movement pre and post intervention between groups.
For all behavioural and kinematic measures separate 2 Group (SM, NI) x 2 Limb (left, right) x 4 ID mixed model analysis of variance (ANOVA) designs will be employed. Post hoc analysis will be performed on effects involving more than two means as needed using Tukey's Honestly Significant Difference (HSD).
Adverse Events/Serious Adverse Events:
As this study requires clinical intervention, the following adverse events could be possible: post-treatment soreness and/or exacerbation of existing low back symptoms. Such events may or may not occur following spinal manipulation.
Planned Dissemination:
The results of this study will be prepared for dissemination first at relevant clinical and scientific conferences. Subsequently, this work will be submitted to a peer reviewed journal for consideration of publication.
Additional Ethical Aspects of Protocol:
Potential Benefits to Participants and Others:
The potential benefits of participation to participants include receiving $10 parking reimbursement, and a $5 Tim Hortons gift card. The patient may have increased range of motion and decreased low back pain as a result of clinical intervention. The information learned from this study will benefit others with lumbar spinal stenosis in the future.
Indirect benefits include knowledge that they have contributed to the advancement of scientific understanding of the effect of spinal manipulation on the measurement of movement outcomes in a population with LSS.
There are no direct benefits to others. Indirect benefits include those to the scientific community through the planned dissemination of the work. The results of this study will be prepared for dissemination first at relevant clinical and scientific conferences. Participants have the option (not mandatory) of providing an email address on their consent form if they wish to know the outcome of the study. Subsequently, this work will be submitted to a peer reviewed journal for consideration of publication.
Potential harms to Participants and Others:
The stenosis population could possibly experience fatigue or discomfort related to their pre-existing leg or low back pain. In an attempt to minimize such events trial durations will be kept brief and participants will be allowed to sit and rest between trials if needed.
As this study requires clinical intervention, the following adverse events could be possible: post-treatment soreness and/or exacerbation of existing low back symptoms. Such events may or may not occur following spinal manipulation. A licensed clinician with more than five years of experience will be on hand.
To protect participant privacy all data collected will be coded and put into database format. All data will be de-identified and kept on a single study computer at each site which is password protected and located in a locked office. As such, access to study subject information/data will be highly safeguarded and can only be accessed by Dr. Passmore. Any paper forms and questionnaires will be kept in a locked cabinet in a locked room. Identifying information that will be collected is the subject's name, contact information and date of birth.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Single blind (investigator)
- Number of arms
- 2
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Spinal Manipulation | Experimental | Procedure: Spinal Manipulationbilateral lumbar spine manipulation |
| No Intervention - control | No intervention | –no intervention |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 to 85 years
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (1 listed)
- Confirmed Lumbar Spinal Stenosis Diagnosis (by diagnostic imaging and clinical testing/history from a spine surgeon)
Key exclusion criteria (2 listed)
- Prior surgery to address Spinal Stenosis
- Presence of trauma, tumor, or infectious processes that are contraindications to spinal manipulation
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| Spinal ManipulationLumbar spinal manipulation | Procedure or surgery | Spinal Manipulation |
Primary outcome
Active Lumbar Range of Motion (ROM)
Time frame: same 1 day, prior to and following intervention or non-intervention
Active lumbar ROM (in degrees) will include flexion, extension, bilateral lateral flexion and bilateral rotation. It will be compared between groups, both prior to and following intervention (or NI).
Reaction Time
Time frame: same 1 day, during foot pointing tasks
Reaction time (milliseconds) will be defined as the time between the presentation of the target, to the lift off from the home position of the toe reaching toward the target.
Movement Time
Time frame: same 1 day, during foot pointing tasks
Movement time (milliseconds) will be defined as the time between toe lift off from the home position and contact with the target.
Spatial Endpoint Accuracy
Time frame: same 1 day, during foot pointing tasks
Spatial endpoint accuracy will be the distance from the center of the toe pad touch down to the center of the target.
Displacement
Time frame: same 1 day, during foot pointing tasks
measured in millimeters
Peak Velocity
Time frame: same 1 day, during foot pointing tasks
Peak velocity will be defined as the point of greatest velocity (meters per second) of the great toe in the plane of movement toward the target.
Time to Peak Velocity
Time frame: same 1 day, during foot pointing tasks
Time to peak velocity will be defined as the time point in ms at which the great toe reached peak velocity in the plane of movement toward the target.
Results and safety
Results are not available in the source record.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 17 Apr 2015.
- Background: PubMed 16971333Beamish D, Bhatti SA, MacKenzie IS, Wu J. Fifty years later: A neurodynamic explanation of Fitts' law. J R Soc Interface. 2006 Oct 22;3(10):649-54. doi: 10.1098/rsif.2006.0123.
- BackgroundPeterson, D.H., Bergmann, T.F., editors. Chiropractic technique. 2nd ed. St. Louis: Mosby; 2002 p.308-309.
- Background: PubMed 8600197Ciol MA, Deyo RA, Howell E, Kreif S. An assessment of surgery for spinal stenosis: time trends, geographic variations, complications, and reoperations. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1996 Mar;44(3):285-90. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-5415.1996.tb00915.x.
- Background: PubMed 20579929Descarreaux M, Passmore SR, Cantin V. Head movement kinematics during rapid aiming task performance in healthy and neck-pain participants: the importance of optimal task difficulty. Man Ther. 2010 Oct;15(5):445-50. doi: 10.1016/j.math.2010.02.009. Epub 2010 Jun 25.
- Background: PubMed 9533385Elias LJ, Bryden MP, Bulman-Fleming MB. Footedness is a better predictor than is handedness of emotional lateralization. Neuropsychologia. 1998 Jan;36(1):37-43. doi: 10.1016/s0028-3932(97)00107-3.
- Background: PubMed 13174710FITTS PM. The information capacity of the human motor system in controlling the amplitude of movement. J Exp Psychol. 1954 Jun;47(6):381-91. No abstract available.
- Background: PubMed 14114905FITTS PM, PETERSON JR. INFORMATION CAPACITY OF DISCRETE MOTOR RESPONSES. J Exp Psychol. 1964 Feb;67:103-12. doi: 10.1037/h0045689. No abstract available.
- Background: PubMed 15130871Guadagnoli MA, Lee TD. Challenge point: a framework for conceptualizing the effects of various practice conditions in motor learning. J Mot Behav. 2004 Jun;36(2):212-24. doi: 10.3200/JMBR.36.2.212-224.
- Background: PubMed 10703115Jenis LG, An HS. Spine update. Lumbar foraminal stenosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000 Feb 1;25(3):389-94. doi: 10.1097/00007632-200002010-00022.
- Background: PubMed 18287604Katz JN, Harris MB. Clinical practice. Lumbar spinal stenosis. N Engl J Med. 2008 Feb 21;358(8):818-25. doi: 10.1056/NEJMcp0708097. No abstract available.
- Background: PubMed 18326891Onla-or S, Winstein CJ. Determining the optimal challenge point for motor skill learning in adults with moderately severe Parkinson's disease. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2008 Jul-Aug;22(4):385-95. doi: 10.1177/1545968307313508. Epub 2008 Mar 8.
- Background: PubMed 18042971Passmore SR, Burke J, Lyons J. Older adults demonstrate reduced performance in a Fitts' task involving cervical spine movement. Adapt Phys Activ Q. 2007 Oct;24(4):352-63. doi: 10.1123/apaq.24.4.352.
Related trials for Spinal Stenosis
RecruitingObservational study
MILD® Percutaneous Image-Guided Lumbar Decompression: A Medicare Claims Study
Lumbar Spinal Stenosis
Recruiting
Post-Market Clinical Study of Functional Motion Outcomes in Subjects Treated With the Minuteman Device
Degenerative Conditions of the Lumbar Spine, Lumbar Spinal Stenosis
Not yet recruitingObservational study
Foraminal Imaging and Symptoms in Single-Level Degenerative Lumbar Stenosis
Degenerative Lumbar Spinal Stenosis, Lumbar Foraminal Stenosis
Active, not recruitingPhase 3
Randomized Study Comparing Two Dosing Schedules for Hypofractionated Image-Guided Radiation Therapy
Melanoma, Ovarian Cancer
RecruitingObservational study
Thoracic-Lumbar Arthrodesis- Implanet Jazz
Spondylolisthesis, Spinal Stenosis
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
Steven Passmore, DC, PhD principal investigator
University of Manitoba
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Spinal Manipulation in people with Spinal Stenosis, run by University of Manitoba at 1 site in Canada.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 1 inclusion and 2 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: status not confirmed, as of the sponsor's last update on 17 Apr 2015. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in Canada. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
Results are not available in the source record.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Active Lumbar Range of Motion (ROM) (time frame: same 1 day, prior to and following intervention or non-intervention). The study lists 7 primary outcomes in all. It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT02118103, which also lists 14 linked publications.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 17 Apr 2015; AzTrials last refreshed its copy on 7 Nov 2026.