The effect of sacroiliac joint manipulation, when combined with conventional treatment, in the management of chronic hamstring strains

Abstract

Background: Hamstring muscle strains are a common musculoskeletal injury amongst athletes, with a high rate of recurrence that suggests room for improvement in the treatment and management of these injuries. Cibulka et al. (1986) suggest a possible link between injuries of the hamstring muscles and dysfunction of the sacroiliac joint. A study by Fyfer (2005) found that sacroiliac manipulation alone had a positive effect in the treatment of recurrent hamstring strains, but this was not combined with or compared to conventional treatment for muscle strain. Fox (2006) found that sacroiliac manipulation added to hamstring stretching increased the resultant flexibility of uninjured hamstring muscles. Objective: The purpose of this study was to determine the relative effectiveness that manipulation may have when combined with and compared to a regime of hamstring stretching and strengthening in the treatment of chronic hamstring strains. Method: Thirty two participants suffering from chronic hamstring injuries and concomitant dysfunction of the sacroiliac joint were randomly allocated into two treatment groups. Both groups attended six consultations over a period of three weeks. Group one received treatment in the form of proprioceptive neuromuscular feedback (PNF) stretching and resisted isometric exercises of the hamstring, and were taught a home routine consisting of static stretching of the hamstring and Theraband® exercises directed at the hamstring. Group two received the same treatment and home routine as those in Group one, with the addition of Chiropractic manipulation of the dysfunctional sacroiliac joint. Outcomes were obtained by using the Numerical Pain Rating Scale (NRS-101), inclinometer testing of passive straight leg raiser test, and algometer assessment of pain threshold in the injured hamstring muscle and ipsilateral sacroiliac joint. Results: Data was analysed using the SPSS version 18.0 (SPSS Inc. Chicago, Ill, USA). Subjective and objectives outcomes were measured quantitatively. The effect of the intervention was measured using repeated measures ANOVA testing. The time versus treatment group interaction effect assessed whether the effect of the different treatment over time is the same, with a p value of <0.05 being v considered significant. Both treatment groups showed improvement of outcomes, and manipulation showed a marginally non-significant trend of greater improvement with regards to sacroiliac joint algometry. Conclusion: This study did not provide conclusive evidence of either a benefit or no benefit of manipulation, but where non-significant trends were shown, it is likely that this was due to lack of statistical power and that with an appropriate a priori analysis being done a greater sample size may have shown the same effect to be statistically significant.