Vascular accidents after neck manipulation: cause or coincidence?

Identifying Patient Characteristics Associated With the Occurrence of Post Treatment Non-serious Adverse Events After Cervical Spine Manual Therapy Treatment in Patients With Neck Pain

OBJECTIVES

To compare prevalence rates of serious and non-serious adverse events after manipulation and mobilization and to identify risk factors of serious and non-serious adverse events following 4 types of manual therapy treatment in patients with neck pain.

DESIGN

A prospective cohort study in primary care manual therapy practice.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients with neck pain (N=686) provided data on adverse events after 1014 manipulation treatments, 829 mobilization treatments, 437 combined manipulation and mobilization treatments, and 891 treatments consisting of "other treatment modality".

INTERVENTIONS

Usual care manual therapy.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

A chi-square test was performed to explore differences in prevalence rates. Logistic regression analysis was performed within the 4 treatment groups. A priori we defined associations between patient-characteristics and adverse events of odds ratio (OR)>2 or OR<0.5 as clinically relevant.

RESULTS

No serious adverse events, such as cervical artery dissection or stroke, were reported. With regard to non-serious adverse events, we found that these are common after manual therapy treatment: prevalence rates are ranging from 0.3% to 64.7%. We found a statistically significant difference between the 4 types of treatments, detrimental to mobilization treatment. Logistic regression analysis resulted in 3 main predictors related to non-serious adverse events after manual therapy treatment: smoking (OR ranges from 2.10 [95% confidence interval [CI] 1.37-3.11] to 3.33 [95% CI 1.83-5.93]), the presence of comorbidity (OR ranges from 2.32 [95% CI 1.22-4.44] to 3.88 [95% CI 1.62-9.26]), and female sex (OR ranges from 0.22 [95% CI 0.11-0.46] to 0.49 [95% CI 0.28-0.86]).

CONCLUSION

There is a significant difference in the occurrence of non-serious adverse events after mobilization compared with manipulation or a combination of manipulation and mobilization. Non-serious adverse events in manual therapy practice are common and are associated with smoking and the presence of comorbidity. In addition, women are more likely to report non-serious adverse events.

Is manipulative therapy clinically necessary for relief of neck pain? A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To summarize and critically assess the effificacy of Eastern and Western manipulative therapies for the treatment of neck pain in adults.

METHODS

A search of PubMed/MEDLINE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, ClinicalTrials.gov, EMBASE, etc. from their inception date to January 2014 with Chinese, Japanese, and Korean databases. Two reviewers independently selected randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with negative control or blank control, extracted data and assessed methodological quality. Meta-analysis and levels of evidence were performed by Revman5.1 and Grades of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.

RESULTS

Nineteen clinical trials with adequate randomization were included in this review, 11 of them had a low risk of bias. The primary outcome for short-term pain had no significant differences, however, the secondary outcome, only the Numerical Pain Rating Scale (NPRS) score of intermediate-term [n=916, pooled mean differences (MD) =-0.29, P=0.02], the Neck Disability Index (NDI) score of short-term (n=1,145, pooled MD=-2.10, P<0.01), and intermediate-term (n=987, pooled MD=-1.45, P=0.01) were signifificantly reduced with moderate quality evidence. However, it supported the minimally clinically important difference (MCID) of the Visual Analogue Scale and NPRS pain score to be 13 mm, while NDI was 3.5 points. The meta-analysis only suggested a trend in favor of manipulative therapy rather than clinical signifificance.

CONCLUSIONS

The results do not support the existing evidences for the clinical value of Eastern or Western manipulative therapy for neck pain of short-term follow-up according to MCIDs. The limitations of our review related to blinding, allocation concealment and small sample size.

Tissue damage markers after a spinal manipulation in healthy subjects: a preliminary report of a randomized controlled trial

Spinal manipulation (SM) is a manual therapy technique frequently applied to treat musculoskeletal disorders because of its analgesic effects. It is defined by a manual procedure involving a directed impulse to move a joint past its physiologic range of movement (ROM). In this sense, to exceed the physiologic ROM of a joint could trigger tissue damage, which might represent an adverse effect associated with spinal manipulation. The present work tries to explore the presence of tissue damage associated with SM through the damage markers analysis. Thirty healthy subjects recruited at the University of Jaén were submitted to a placebo SM (control group; n = 10), a single lower cervical manipulation (cervical group; n = 10), and a thoracic manipulation (n = 10). Before the intervention, blood samples were extracted and centrifuged to obtain plasma and serum. The procedure was repeated right after the intervention and two hours after the intervention. Tissue damage markers creatine phosphokinase (CPK), lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), C-reactive protein (CRP), troponin-I, myoglobin, neuron-specific enolase (NSE), and aldolase were determined in samples. Statistical analysis was performed through a 3 × 3 mixed-model ANOVA. Neither cervical manipulation nor thoracic manipulation did produce significant changes in the CPK, LDH, CRP, troponin-I, myoglobin, NSE, or aldolase blood levels. Our data suggest that the mechanical strain produced by SM seems to be innocuous to the joints and surrounding tissues in healthy subjects.

Assessing the risk of stroke from neck manipulation: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Strokes, typically involving vertebral artery dissection, can follow cervical spinal manipulative therapy, and these types of stroke occur rarely. There is disagreement about whether a strong association between neck manipulation and stroke exists. An earlier systematic review found two relevant studies of association that used controls, which also discussed the limitations of the two papers. Our systematic review updates the earlier review, and aims to determine whether conclusive evidence of a strong association exists.

METHODS

PRISMA guidelines for systematic reviews were followed, and the literature was searched using a strategy that included the terms 'neck manipulation' and 'stroke' from the PubMed, Embase, CINAHL Plus and AMED databases. Citations were included if they met criteria such as being case-control studies, and dealt with neck manipulation and/or neck movement/positioning. Papers were scored for their quality, using similar criteria to the earlier review. For individual criteria, each study was assigned a full positive score if the criterion was satisfied completely.

RESULTS

Four case-control studies and one case-control study, which included a case- crossover design, met the selection criteria, but all of them had at least three items in the quality assessment that failed to be completely positive. Two studies were assessed to be the most robustly designed, one indicating a strong association between stroke and various intensities of neck movement, including manipulation, and the other suggesting a much reduced relative association when using primary care practitioners' visits as controls. However, potential biases and confounders render the results inconclusive.

CONCLUSION

Conclusive evidence is lacking for a strong association between neck manipulation and stroke, but is also absent for no association. Future studies of association will need to minimise potential biases and confounders, and ideally have sufficient numbers of cases to allow subgroup analysis for different types of neck manipulation and neck movement.

A replication of the study 'Adverse effects of spinal manipulation: a systematic review'

Objective

To assess the significance of adverse events after spinal manipulation therapy (SMT) by replicating and critically reviewing a paper commonly cited when reviewing adverse events of SMT as reported by Ernst (J Roy Soc Med 100:330–338, 2007).

Method

Replication of a 2007 Ernst paper to compare the details recorded in this paper to the original source material. Specific items that were assessed included the time lapse between treatment and the adverse event, and the recording of other significant risk factors such as diabetes, hyperhomocysteinemia, use of oral contraceptive pill, any history of hypertension, atherosclerosis and migraine.

Results

The review of the 32 papers discussed by Ernst found numerous errors or inconsistencies from the original case reports and case series. These errors included alteration of the age or sex of the patient, and omission or misrepresentation of the long term response of the patient to the adverse event. Other errors included incorrectly assigning spinal manipulation therapy (SMT) as chiropractic treatment when it had been reported in the original paper as delivered by a non-chiropractic provider (e.g. Physician).

The original case reports often omitted to record the time lapse between treatment and the adverse event, and other significant clinical or risk factors. The country of origin of the original paper was also overlooked, which is significant as chiropractic is not legislated in many countries. In 21 of the cases reported by Ernst to be chiropractic treatment, 11 were from countries where chiropractic is not legislated.

Conclusion

The number of errors or omissions in the 2007 Ernst paper, reduce the validity of the study and the reported conclusions. The omissions of potential risk factors and the timeline between the adverse event and SMT could be significant confounding factors. Greater care is also needed to distinguish between chiropractors and other health practitioners when reviewing the application of SMT and related adverse effects.

A systematic review of evidence for the effectiveness of practitioner-based complementary and alternative therapies in the management of rheumatic diseases: osteoarthritis

OBJECTIVE

To critically review the evidence on the efficacy and effectiveness of practitioner-based complementary therapies for patients with osteoarthritis. We excluded t'ai chi and acupuncture, which have been the subject of recent reviews.

METHODS

Randomized controlled trials, published in English up to May 2011, were identified using systematic searches of bibliographic databases and searching of reference lists. Information was extracted on outcomes, statistical significance in comparison with alternative treatments and reported side effects. The methodological quality of the identified studies was determined using the Jadad scoring system. Outcomes considered were pain and patient global assessment.

RESULTS

In all, 16 eligible trials were identified covering 12 therapies. Overall, there was no good evidence of the effectiveness of any of the therapies in relation to pain or global health improvement/quality of life because most therapies only had a single randomized controlled trial. Where positive results were reported, they were often comparing an active intervention with no intervention. Therapies with multiple trials either provided null (biofeedback) or inconsistent results (magnet therapy), or the trials available scored poorly for quality (chiropractic). There were few adverse events reported in the trials.

CONCLUSION

There is not sufficient evidence to recommend any of the practitioner-based complementary therapies considered here for the management of OA, but neither is there sufficient evidence to conclude that they are not effective or efficacious.

Thoracic spine thrust manipulation versus cervical spine thrust manipulation in patients with acute neck pain: a randomized clinical trial

STUDY DESIGN

Randomized clinical trial.

OBJECTIVE

To determine if patients who met the clinical prediction rule (CPR) criteria for the success of thoracic spine thrust joint manipulation (TJM) for the treatment of neck pain would have a different outcome if they were treated with a cervical spine TJM.

BACKGROUND

A CPR had been proposed to identify patients with neck pain who would likely respond favorably to thoracic spine TJM. Research on validation of that CPR had not been completed when this trial was initiated. In our clinical experience, though many patients with neck pain responded favorably to thoracic spine TJM, they often reported that their symptomatic cervical spine area had not been adequately addressed.

METHODS

Twenty-four consecutive patients, who presented to physical therapy with a primary complaint of neck pain and met 4 out of 6 of the CPR criteria for thoracic TJM, were randomly assigned to 1 of 2 treatment groups. The thoracic group received thoracic TJM and a cervical range-of-motion (ROM) exercise for the first 2 sessions, followed by a standardized exercise program for an additional 3 sessions. The cervical group received cervical TJM and the same cervical ROM exercise for the first 2 sessions, and the same exercise program given to the thoracic group for the next 3 sessions. Outcome measures collected at 1 week, 4 weeks, and 6 months from start of treatment included the Neck Disability Index, numeric pain rating scale, and Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire.

RESULTS

Patients who received cervical TJM demonstrated greater improvements in Neck Disability Index (P ≤.001) and numeric pain rating scale (P ≤.003) scores at all follow-up times. There was also a statistically significant improvement in the Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire physical activity subscale score at all follow-up times for the cervical group (P ≤.004). The number needed to treat to avoid an unsuccessful overall outcome was 1.8 at 1 week, 1.6 at 4 weeks, and 1.6 at 6 months.

CONCLUSION

Patients with neck pain who met 4 of 6 of the CPR criteria for successful treatment of neck pain with a thoracic spine TJM demonstrated a more favorable response when the TJM was directed to the cervical spine rather than the thoracic spine. Patients receiving cervical TJM also demonstrated fewer transient side-effects.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapy, level 1b.