A risk-benefit assessment strategy to exclude cervical artery dissection in spinal manual-therapy: a comprehensive review

Review of nine malpractice cases with allegations of causation of cervical artery dissection by cervical spine manipulation: No evidence for causation

Research shows no convincing evidence to support a causal link between cervical spine manipulation (CSM) and cervical artery dissection (CAD). Researchers have proposed that a belief in a causal link may have significant negative consequences such as numerous episodes of litigation. The objective of this study was to review 10 malpractice cases for evidence of unnecessary litigation due to a belief in a causal link between CSM and CAD. A Google Scholar Case Law search from 1989 to 2024 was conducted to identify the 10 most recent English-language reports of malpractice cases involving an allegation that CSM caused CAD. Although our objective was to review 10 cases, only 9 cases were found. In all cases, causation of CAD by CSM was not supported by the evidence. In 4 out 9 cases reviewed, causation of stroke by CSM was supported by the evidence. In all 9 cases reviewed, failure to diagnose an existing CAD was more likely than not but was not alleged. We conclude that belief in a causal link between CSM and CAD does have negative consequences such as unnecessary litigation. In all 9 cases reviewed, allegations of failure to diagnose an existing CAD would have been more likely to result in a settlement without need for a trial.

Cervical Spine Manipulation and Causation of Cervical Artery Dissection: A Review of 10 Case Reports

Recent media coverage of high-profile cases of cervical artery dissection (CAD) has ignited the discussion about the role of cervical spine manipulation (CSM) in causing cervical artery dissection. However, research does not support a causal association between cervical spine manipulation and cervical artery dissection in a healthy cervical spine. The objective of this study was to review the 10 most recent case reports of cervical spine manipulation and cervical artery dissection for convincing evidence of the causation of cervical artery dissection by cervical spine manipulation. Nine of 10 case reports showed no convincing evidence of a causal relationship between cervical spine manipulation and cervical artery dissection. The 10th case report was exceptional as the CSM was contraindicated by pre-existing cervical spine pathology. We conclude that these 10 case reports provide no convincing evidence of the causation of cervical artery dissection by cervical spine manipulation in a healthy cervical spine. One case report demonstrated that cervical spine manipulation can cause cervical artery dissection when performed in the presence of pre-existing cervical spine pathology. Therefore, we conclude that practitioners should exclude cervical spine pathology before performing cervical spine manipulation.

Plausible Mechanisms of Causation of Immediate Stroke by Cervical Spine Manipulation: A Narrative Review

It has been proposed that cervical spine manipulation (CSM) can cause dissection in healthy cervical arteries, with resultant immediate stroke. However, research does not support a causal association between CSM and cervical artery dissection (CAD) in healthy cervical arteries. The objective of this study was to review the literature to identify plausible mechanisms of causation of immediate stroke by CSM. Immediate stroke is defined as a stroke occurring within seconds or minutes of CSM. Our review found plausible thromboembolic and thrombotic mechanisms of causation of immediate stroke by CSM in the literature. The common premise of these mechanisms is CAD being present before CSM, not occurring as a result of CSM. These mechanisms of causation have clinical and medicolegal implications for physicians performing CSM.

Specific and shared mechanisms associated with treatment for chronic neck pain: study protocol for the SS-MECH trial

BACKGROUND

Treatment mechanisms involve the steps or processes through which an intervention unfolds and produces change in an outcome variable. Treatment mechanisms can be specific to the intervention provided (i.e. pain modulation) or shared with other treatments (i.e. reduced fear of movement). Whether specific and shared treatment mechanisms are different across interventions and whether they lead to the outcomes seen in trials is largely unknown. The management of individuals with chronic neck pain routinely include manual therapy (MT) and resistance exercise (RE), as both approaches are included in clinical practice guidelines and both yield similar outcomes.

OBJECTIVES

Our study plans to answer two research questions: 1) what are the specific mechanisms associated with MT versus interventions (and are these different), and 2) what are the shared mechanisms associated with these interventions, and do specific or shared mechanisms mediate clinical outcomes?

METHODS

This study will involve a 2-group parallel (1:1) single-blinded randomized trial to compare the specific and potential shared treatment mechanisms between these two approaches. We will enroll individuals with a history of chronic neck pain and evaluate whether specific or shared mechanisms mediate clinical outcomes.

RESULTS

We hypothesize that MT and RE approaches will both exhibit different specific treatment mechanisms, and that both approaches will exhibit shared treatment mechanisms, which will notably influence outcomes at both discharge and 6-months.

CONCLUSIONS

This study is important because it will help identify what specific or shared treatment mechanisms are associated with different interventions and, how different treatment mechanisms influence clinical outcomes.

Chiropractic spinal manipulative therapy for acute neck pain: A 4-arm clinical placebo randomized controlled trial. A prospective study protocol

INTRODUCTION

Neck pain poses enormous individual and societal costs worldwide. Spinal manipulative therapy and Non-Steroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drug treatment are frequently used despite a lack of compelling efficacy data. This protocol describes a multicentre 4-arm, clinical placebo randomized controlled trial (RCT), investigating the efficacy of chiropractic spinal manipulative therapy (CSMT) versus sham CSMT, ibuprofen, and placebo medicine for acute neck pain. This superiority study will employ parallel groups, featuring a 1:1:1:1 allocation ratio.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We will randomize 320 participants equally into four groups: CSMT, sham CSMT, ibuprofen, or placebo medicine. CSMT groups are single-blinded, while the medicine groups are double-blinded. Data will be collected at baseline (Day 0), during treatment and post-treatment. The primary endpoint will assess the difference in mean pain intensity from Day 0 to Day 14 on a numeric rating scale 0-10; the CSMT group is compared to sham CSMT, ibuprofen, and placebo medicine groups, respectively. Secondary endpoints will assess mean pain intensity and mean duration at different time points, and adverse events, blinding success, and treatment satisfaction, including comparison between ibuprofen and placebo medicine. Power calculation is based on a mean neck pain rating of 5 at Day 0, with standard deviation of 1 in all groups. Mean pain reduction at Day 14 is expected to be 60% in the CSMT group, 40% in sham CSMT and ibuprofen groups, and 20% in the placebo medicine group. A linear mixed model will compare the mean values for groups with corresponding 95% confidence intervals. P values below 0.017 will be considered statistically significant. All analyses will be conducted blinded from group allocation.

DISCUSSION

This RCT aims towards the highest research standards possible for manual-therapy RCTs owing to its two placebo arms. If CSMT and/or ibuprofen proves to be effective, it will provide evidence-based support for CSMT and/or ibuprofen for acute neck pain.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT05374057. EU Clinical Trials Register: EudraCT number: 2021-005483-21.

Screening for Vertebrobasilar pathology and upper cervical instability by physical therapists treating neck pain: a retrospective chart review

INTRODUCTION

Vertebrobasilar vascular pathology and upper cervical ligament instability may contraindicate the use of cervical manual therapy. We examined physical therapists' documentation of screening for these conditions and hypothesized screening would be more common with specific risk factors and when using manual therapy.

METHODS

This chart review included adults with neck pain presenting for outpatient physical therapy from 2015-2021. Exclusions were age<18 and history of cervical spine surgery. Demographics, vertebrobasilar and upper cervical ligament instability screening questions and examination tests, risk factors (i.e. hypertension, whiplash), and use of manual therapy were extracted.

RESULTS

260 patients were included (mean age ± standard deviation 59.6 ± 16.2 years, 70.8% female). Physical therapists infrequently administered vertebrobasilar and upper cervical ligament instability tests (each<14%). Screening questions were generally more common (e.g. headache, visual disturbances; each>13%). There was no significant difference in any frequency of screening method given the presence of hypertension, whiplash, or use of manual therapy (p > .05 for each).

CONCLUSION

In the present study, physical therapists infrequently documented performance of vertebrobasilar or upper cervical ligament instability screening for adults with neck pain, even in the presence of risk factors or preceding manual therapy. Further research should corroborate these findings and explore reasons for use/avoidance of screening.

Chiropractic Management of Neck Pain Complicated by Symptomatic Vertebral Artery Stenosis and Dizziness

BACKGROUND Vertebrobasilar insufficiency (VBI) is most often caused by vertebrobasilar atherosclerosis, often presenting with dizziness and occasionally neck pain. Little research or guidelines regarding management of neck pain in affected patients exists. CASE REPORT A 62-year-old male hypertensive smoker presented to a chiropractor with a 13-year history of insidious-onset neck pain, dizziness, and occipital headache with a Dizziness Handicap Inventory (DHI) of 52%. The patient had known VBI, caused by bilateral vertebral artery plaques, and cervical spondylosis, and was treated with multiple cardiovascular medications. The chiropractor referred patient to a neurosurgeon, who cleared him to receive manual therapies provided manual-thrust cervical spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) was not performed. The chiropractor administered thoracic SMT and cervicothoracic soft tissue manipulation. The neck pain and dizziness mostly resolved by 1 month. At 1-year follow-up, DHI was 0%; at 2 years it was 8%. A literature search revealed 4 cases in which a chiropractor used manual therapies for a patient with VBI. Including the present case, all patients had neck pain, 60% had dizziness, and all were treated with SMT either avoiding manual cervical manipulation altogether or modifying it to avoid or limit cervical rotation, yielding positive outcomes. CONCLUSIONS The present and previous cases provide limited evidence that some carefully considered chiropractic manual therapies can afford patients with VBI relief from concurrent neck pain and possibly dizziness. Given the paucity of research, cervical SMT cannot be recommended in such patients. These findings do not apply to vertebral artery dissection, for which SMT is an absolute contraindication.

Potential Add-On Effects of Manual Therapy Techniques in Migraine Patients: A Randomised Controlled Trial

Objective: To ascertain whether the combination of soft tissue and articulatory manual techniques is more effective than either one of these techniques alone for reducing migraine impact; Methods: Seventy-five participants with migraine were randomly divided into three groups (n = 25 per group): (i) soft tissue (STG), (ii) articulatory (AG), and (iii) combined treatment (STAG). Pain, frequency of occurrence, duration, disability and impact, depression and anxiety levels, and perception of change were analysed at baseline, post intervention (T2) and at four-week follow-up (T3); Results: STAG showed a significantly greater reduction in pain versus STG and AG at T2 (p < 0.001; p = 0.014) and at T3 (p < 0.001; p = 0.01). Furthermore, STAG achieved a significantly greater reduction in pain duration versus STG at T2 (p = 0.020) and T3 (p = 0.026) and a greater impression of change versus STG (p = 0.004) and AG (p = 0.037) at T3. Similar effects were observed in all groups for frequency of occurrence, migraine disability, impact, and depression and anxiety levels; Conclusions: A combined manual therapy protocol including soft tissue and articulatory techniques yields larger improvements on pain and perception of change than either technique alone, yet the three therapeutic approaches show similar benefits for reducing pain, disability and impact caused by the migraine, depression or anxiety levels.

Effects of Cervical Rotatory Manipulation on Hemodynamics and Plaque Stability of Atherosclerotic Internal Carotid Artery in Rabbits

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of cervical rotatory manipulation (CRM) on hemodynamics and plaque stability of atherosclerotic internal carotid artery (ICA) in rabbits.

METHODS

Forty rabbits were randomly divided into 4 groups: (1) internal carotid atherosclerosis (ICAS) rabbits treated with CRM (ICAS-CRM group); (2) ICAS rabbits treated without CRM (ICAS group), (3) Normal-CRM group (normal rabbits treated with CRM), and (4) blank control group. In the ICAS-CRM group and ICAS group, the ICAS model was induced by ICA balloon injury combined with a high-fat diet for 12 weeks. CRM was applied to rabbits in the ICAS-CRM and the Normal-CRM groups. During the study, an ultrasonography examination was performed for detecting plaque and hemodynamics on the ICAs. At the end of the study, all atherosclerotic ICAs were removed for histological and immunohistochemical detection.

RESULTS

The hemodynamics (especially end-diastolic velocity, resistance index, and pulsatility index) through the ICAs were adversely affected by atherosclerosis while not adversely affected by CRM. Compared with the ICAS group, the micro-vessel density and average integrated optical densities of macrophages in the ICAS-CRM group were significantly increased. Compared to the ICAS group, in the ICAS-CRM group, the atherosclerosis was more serious, and the tunica intima was more unstable.

CONCLUSIONS

Although CRM did not affect the hemodynamic index of ICA, it was observed to decrease the stability of severe ICAS plaques in rabbits, which may increase the plaque vulnerability.

Cervical Spine Manipulations: Role of Diagnostic Procedures, Effectiveness, and Safety from a Rehabilitation and Forensic Medicine Perspective: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Cervical spine manipulations (CSM) have been performed for centuries and are a widely practiced intervention to manage cervical spine musculoskeletal disorders. We aimed to perform an overview of the literature concerning the effects and the adverse events of CSM in the Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine (PRM) field with a forensic medicine perspective.

METHODS

A search in the scientific literature (PubMed, Google Scholar, PEDro and Cochrane) was carried out from inception until October 2020.

RESULTS

Fourteen articles were included in this narrative summary. The possible development of side effects requires a careful mandatory balance of benefits and risks even when there is an indication for this approach. Moreover, a qualified professional is essential to perform CSM-a non-invasive therapeutic procedure that can be potentially harmful.

CONCLUSIONS

In conclusion, it is essential to perform the diagnosis, to treat, and to manage complications within the PRM field, both for the reduction of malpractice claims and, most importantly, for the safety of the patient.

Spinal Manipulative Therapy for Acute Neck Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomised Controlled Trials

(1) Background: Acute neck pain is common and usually managed by medication and/or manual therapy. General practitioners (GPs) hesitate to refer to manual therapy due to uncertainty about the effectiveness and adverse events (AEs); (2) Method: To review original randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effect of spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) for acute neck pain. Data extraction was done in duplicate and formulated in tables. Quality and evidence were assessed using the Cochrane Back and Neck (CBN) Risk of Bias tool and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria, respectively; (3) Results: Six studies were included. The overall pooled effect size for neck pain was very large −1.37 (95% CI, −2.41, −0.34), favouring treatments with SMT compared with controls. A single study that showed that SMT was statistically significantly better than medicine (30 mg ketorolac im.) one day post-treatment, ((−2.8 (46%) (95% CI, −2.1, −3.4) vs. −1.7 (30%) (95% CI, −1.1, −2.3), respectively; p = 0.02)). Minor transient AEs reported included increased pain and headache, while no serious AEs were reported; (4) Conclusions: SMT alone or in combination with other modalities was effective for patients with acute neck pain. However, limited quantity and quality, pragmatic design, and high heterogeneity limit our findings.

Vertebral artery dissection in term pregnancy after cervical spine manipulation: a case report and review the literature

BACKGROUND

Vertebral artery dissection is an uncommon, but potentially fatal, vascular event. This case aimed to describe the pathogenesis and clinical presentation of vertebral artery dissection in a term pregnant patient. Moreover, we focused on the differential diagnosis, reviewing the available evidence.

CASE PRESENTATION

A 39-year-old Caucasian woman presented at 38 + 4 weeks of gestation with a short-term history of vertigo, nausea, and vomiting. Symptoms appeared a few days after cervical spine manipulation by an osteopathic specialist. Urgent magnetic resonance imaging of the head was obtained and revealed an ischemic lesion of the right posterolateral portion of the brain bulb. A subsequent computed tomography angiographic scan of the head and neck showed a right vertebral artery dissection. Based on the correlation of the neurological manifestations and imaging findings, a diagnosis of vertebral artery dissection was established. The patient started low-dose acetylsalicylic acid and prophylactic enoxaparin following an urgent cesarean section.

CONCLUSION

Vertebral artery dissection is a rare but potential cause of neurologic impairments in pregnancy and during the postpartum period. It should be considered in the differential diagnosis for women who present with headache and/or vertigo. Women with a history of migraines, hypertension, or autoimmune disorders in pregnancy are at higher risk, as well as following cervical spine manipulations. Prompt diagnosis and management of vertebral artery dissection are essential to ensure favorable outcomes.

Spinal manipulative therapy and cervical artery dissection: A retrospective comparison with spontaneous, traumatic, and iatrogenic etiologies at a single academic medical center

OBJECTIVE

Cervical artery dissection (CAD) has been associated with spinal manipulative therapy (SMT). Although uncommonly reported, SMT-associated CADs hold devastating neurological consequences, warranting further exploration. We endeavored to investigate this association through the comparison of all CAD etiologies at a single academic medical center.

METHODS

A retrospective chart review was conducted of patients diagnosed with CAD or transferred to our institution for primary management of CAD during the 10-year period from 2010 to 2020 (n = 578). Patients were divided into SMT-associated (within 1 month of presentation), spontaneous, traumatic, and iatrogenic cohorts.

RESULTS

SMT-associated dissections represented 23/578 (4%) of all dissections and 5.9% of vertebral artery dissections specifically. These patients were generally younger than those in the spontaneous (p = .004) and iatrogenic groups (p < .001), and more often non-smokers or former smokers compared to the spontaneous (p = .009), traumatic (p = .001), and iatrogenic (p = .008) groups. Additionally, the SMT group had a higher mean low-density lipoprotein (LDL) than the spontaneous (p = .009) and traumatic (p = .003) types. SMT-associated CADs were more often vertebral and bilateral, compared to the spontaneous (p = .003; p < .001), traumatic (p = .047; p = .004), and iatrogenic (p = .002; p = .002) groups. Outcomes including infarct (p = .112), medical treatment (p = .523), intervention (p = .47), and length of stay (p = .512) were similar between the SMT and spontaneous groups.

CONCLUSIONS

In this unique study comparing SMT-associated CADs with other dissection etiologies, SMT-associated CADs were uncommon and not associated with worse clinical outcomes. However, SMT-associated CADs were more likely to be bilateral and affected the vertebral arteries in young, non-smoking patients with high LDL.

Teaching and use of cervical high-velocity, low-amplitude manipulation at colleges of osteopathic medicine

Context

Despite the documented effectiveness of high-velocity, low-amplitude (HVLA) treatment of the cervical spine, concerns about patient safety potentially limit didactic instruction and use in clinical practice. Understanding how cervical HVLA is taught and employed is of interest to osteopathic educators and clinicians.

Objectives

To characterize the perspectives of osteopathic manipulative medicine/osteopathic principles and practices (OMM/OPP) departments within colleges of osteopathic medicine (COMs) in the US regarding patterns of teaching and practice of HVLA treatment of the cervical spine.

Methods

A questionnaire was distributed on April 11, 2019 in paper format to OMM/OPP department chairs or designated faculty member attendees at the Educational Council on Osteopathic Principles biannual meeting. If the department chair was not available, the survey was provided to the faculty member designated to represent the Chair of the institution at ECOP. All respondents in this category returned the survey in paper before they left the meeting. The OMM/OPP department chairs who did not attend or send representatives to the ECOP meeting were sent the survey by email on April 11, 2019 and given three opportunities over 6 weeks at 2-week intervals to reply to this voluntary online survey. The survey was given or sent to a total of 51 OMM/OPP department chairs or representatives. Six questions elicited demographic information pertaining to status, age, gender, ethnicity, board-certified specialty, and COM affiliation. Nine questions examined perspectives related to the instruction of cervical HVLA manipulation and treatment.

Results

Of the 51 OMM/OPP department chairs surveyed, 38 (74.5%) responded, 32 to the paper survey at the ECOP meeting and six to the digital survey. Respondents were primarily dual Board-certified in Family Medicine and Neuromuscular Medicine (55.3%). At over 90% (35) of the COMs for which department chairs responded to the survey, cervical HVLA instruction occurs in the curriculum primarily during program years 1 and 2. Instruction in cervical HVLA to the 2nd through 7th cervical vertebral levels occurred in 97% (37), while 11% (4) of the COMs excluded the occipital-atlanto (OA) and atlanto-axial (AA) joints. A high percentage (81.6%; 31) of the OMM/OPP department chairs or representatives reported employing cervical HVLA techniques within their practice. Among the respondents, 40.5% (15) reported that 0-25% of their school's medical school class could perform cervical HVLA competently upon graduation, whereas 27% (10) said that 51-75% of their class could perform cervical HVLA.

Conclusions

A majority of COMs provide education in their curricula related to cervical HVLA primarily in the first 2 years of medical education. However, instruction often excludes cervical HVLA to the upper regions of the cervical spine. At COMs where HVLA to the cervical spine is not taught, that decision is because the techniques are thought to be too difficult and the attendant medicolegal risk perceived to be too high. OMM/OPP department chairs expressed confidence in only a small proportion of their graduates having the ability to competently apply HVLA to the cervical spine immediately after completing their predoctoral medical training.

Malpractice Litigation Involving Chiropractic Spinal Manipulation

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the relationship between chiropractic spinal manipulation and medical malpractice using a legal database.

METHODS

The legal database VerdictSearch was queried using the terms "chiropractor" OR "spinal manipulation" under the classification of "Medical Malpractice" between 1988 and 2018. Cases with chiropractors as defendants were identified. Relevant medicolegal characteristics were obtained, including legal outcome (plaintiff/defense verdict, settlement), payment amount, nature of plaintiff claim, and type and location of alleged injury.

RESULTS

Forty-eight cases involving chiropractic management in the United States were reported. Of these, 93.8% (n = 45) featured allegations involving spinal manipulation. The defense (practitioner) was victorious in 70.8% (n = 34) of cases, with a plaintiff (patient) victory in 20.8% (n = 10) (mean payment $658,487 ± $697,045) and settlement in 8.3% (n = 4) (mean payment $596,667 ± $402,534). Overaggressive manipulation was the most frequent allegation (33.3%; 16 cases). A majority of cases alleged neurological injury of the spine as the reason for litigation (66.7%, 32 cases) with 87.5% (28/32) requiring surgery. C5-C6 disc herniation was the most frequently alleged injury (32.4%, 11/34, 83.3% requiring surgery) followed by C6-C7 herniation (26.5%, 9/34, 88.9% requiring surgery). Claims also alleged 7 cases of stroke (14.6%) and 2 rib fractures (4.2%) from manipulation therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

Litigation claims following chiropractic care predominately alleged neurological injury with consequent surgical management. Plaintiffs primarily alleged overaggressive treatment, though a majority of trials ended in defensive verdicts. Ongoing analysis of malpractice provides a unique lens through which to view this complicated topic.

Proposing a new algorithm for premanipulative testing in physical therapy practice

In the field of physical therapy, there is debate as to the clinical utility of premanipulative vascular assessments. Cervical artery dysfunction (CAD) risk assessment involves a multi-system approach to differentiate between spontaneous versus mechanical events. The purposes of this inductive analysis of the literature are to discuss the link between cervical spine manipulation (CSM) and CAD, to examine the literature on premanipulative vascular tests, and to suggest an optimal sequence of premanipulative testing based on the differentiation of a spontaneous versus mechanical vascular event. Knowing what premanipulative vascular tests assess and the associated clinical application facilitates an evidence-informed decision for clinical application of vascular assessment before CSM.

Remission of Primary Headache Associated With Sexual Activity in a Woman After Chiropractic Spinal Manipulation: A Case Study

Objective

Primary headache associated with sexual activity (PHASA) is rare but recognized by the International Classification of Headache Disorders. Although triptans and indomethacin have been suggested as a pharmacological treatment option for acute treatment, indomethacin can be administered preemptively, and β-blockers has been proposed as a treatment option for prophylactic management, pharmacologic efficacy remains uncertain. Manual therapy for PHASA has not been studied and thus has no scientifically proven effect. The purpose of this case study is to present a successful case of chiropractic care for a patient with PHASA.

Clinical Features

This case study presents a case where a 19-year-old white European female student presented to a primary care chiropractic clinic complaining of mainly left-sided intense headache, which had acute onset right before or during orgasm. The patient had never suffered headaches before this, and the intense headache never occurred outside sexual activity nor during intercourse if she did not reach orgasm. The diagnosis of PHASA was later confirmed by a hospital neurologist with extensive experience in headache diagnostics.

Intervention and Outcomes

After 7 manual therapy sessions consisting of spinal manipulative therapy at the lumbosacral area conducted by an experienced chiropractor, the patient reported remission of her PHASA, which remained as such at a 12-month follow-up.

Conclusion

This case study generates the observational hypothesis that a patient with PHASA may respond to chiropractic spinal manipulative therapy. The underlying mechanisms for this symptom amelioration are, however, unclear.

Interprofessional Collaboration in Dentistry: Role of physiotherapists to improve care and outcomes for chronic pain conditions and sleep disorders

Physiotherapists can manage chronic pain patients by using technical interventions such as mobility, strengthening, manual therapy, or flexibility in a specific and functional manner, being a key component of a multidisciplinary team. Dentists are involved in the management of different chronic pain conditions such as temporomandibular disorders and sleep disorders such as obstructive sleep apnea. However, they are frequently unaware of the benefits of collaborating with physical therapists. In this review, the collaboration of physical therapists and dentists will be explored when managing orofacial pain, headaches, and sleep disorders. The physical therapist is important in the management of these disorders and also in the screening of risk factors.