Repeat Radiography in Monitoring Structural Changes in the Treatment of Spinal Disorders in Chiropractic and Manual Medicine Practice: Evidence and Safety

An investigation into the chiropractic practice and communication of routine, repetitive radiographic imaging for the location of postural misalignments

Many chiropractors use radiological imaging, particularly X-rays, to locate and diagnose the cause of their patients' pain. However, this approach is fundamentally flawed because X-rays provide anatomical information but not functional insights. Pain, tissue damage, and injury do not always correlate directly with X-ray appearances. Given the high incidence of abnormalities found in X-rays of asymptomatic patients, the diagnostic validity of X-rays can be questioned, especially when used in isolation of the patient's history and/or a proper clinical assessment. One may posit that their application promotes overdiagnosis, and unvalidated treatment of X-ray findings (such as changes in postural curvature), which may mislead patients into believing these changes are directly responsible for their pain. A substantial amount of research has shown that there is no association between pain and reversed cervical curves. X-ray accuracy can vary due to several factors, including patient positioning, physical and morphological changes, interreliability among doctors, and other influences such as stress, pain, and emotional state. Over the past two decades, medical boards and health associations worldwide have made significant efforts to communicate better when imaging is necessary, focusing on reducing radiographic imaging. This review describes concerns about the frequent, almost routine use of spinal X-rays in primary care for spine-related pain in the absence of red-flag clinical signs.

An investigation into the chiropractic practice and communication of routine repetitive radiographic imaging for the location of postural misalignments

Many clinicians use radiological imaging in efforts to locate and diagnose the cause of their patient's pain, relying on X-rays as a leading tool in clinical evaluation. This is fundamentally flawed because an X-ray represents a "snapshot" of the structural appearance of the spine and gives no indication of the current function of the spine. The health and well-being of any system, including the spinal motion segments, depend on the inter-relationship between structure and function. Pain, tissue damage, and injury are not always directly correlated. Due to such a high incidence of abnormalities found in asymptomatic patients, the diagnostic validity of X-rays can be questioned, especially when used in isolation of history and/or proper clinical assessment. The utility of routine X-rays is, therefore, questionable. One may posit that their application promotes overdiagnosis, and unvalidated treatment of X-ray findings (such as changes in postural curvature), which may mislead patients into believing these changes are directly responsible for their pain. A substantial amount of research has shown that there is no association between pain and reversed cervical curves. Accuracy can also be questioned, as X-ray measurements can vary based on the patient's standing position, which research shows is influenced by an overwhelming number of factors, such as patient positioning, patient physical and morphological changes over time, doctor interreliability, stress, pain, the patient's previous night's sleep or physical activity, hydration, and/or emotional state. Furthermore, research has concluded that strong evidence links various potential harms with routine, repeated X-rays, such as altered treatment procedures, overdiagnosis, radiation exposure, and unnecessary costs. Over the past two decades, medical boards and health associations worldwide have made a substantial effort to communicate better "when" imaging is required, with most education around reducing radiographic imaging. In this review, we describe concerns relating to the high-frequency, routine use of spinal X-rays in the primary care setting for spine-related pain in the absence of red-flag clinical signs.

Failed back surgery syndrome successfully ameliorated with Chiropractic Biophysics® structural rehabilitation improving pain, disability as well as sagittal and coronal balance: a Chiropractic Biophysics® case report with a 6 year follow-up

[Purpose] To present the case of the amelioration of chronic pain and disability in a patient suffering from failed back surgery syndrome. [Participant and Methods] A 27-year-old male with chronic low back pain was treated with a Coflex® intra-spinous instrument, however, it was removed shortly after due to poor outcome including worsening pain and disability. Radiographic assessment revealed significant posterior translation of the thorax complicated by significant loss of the normal lumbar lordosis and a left lateral translated thoracic cage posture. Chiropractic Biophysics® technique was applied over a 5.5-month period leading to structural spine improvements as well as improved pain, Oswestry disability index (ODI) and quality of life (QOL). [Results] There was a 21 mm reduction in posterior thoracic translation, a 6.2° improvement in lumbar lordosis and a 16 mm reduction in lateral thoracic translation corresponding with improved ODI and QOL scores. A 6 year follow-up showed successful outcome despite some degenerative changes in the spine at the prior surgical level. [Conclusion] This case adds to the growing literature showing the efficacy of non-surgical spinal rehabilitative methods in improving outcomes in patients with spinal deformity and associated disabilities. This case also demonstrates necessity of the continued criterion standard of spinal radiography for biomechanical assessment.

The Importance of Early Detection of Spinal Tumors Through Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Chiropractic Practices

Primary spinal tumors such as schwannomas are uncommon causes of back pain that can be easily missed during the initial workup. Delayed diagnosis is associated with further neurological impairment. A 46-year-old man presented with a six-month history of progressive lower back pain and left leg radiculopathy. Previous treatments failed, including medications, physical therapy, acupuncture, and chiropractic manipulations. Examination revealed weakness (4/5) in left knee extension and ankle dorsiflexion. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) revealed a 2-cm intraspinal schwannoma at the L4 level with nerve root compression. The patient underwent laminectomy and gross total resection without any complications. The patient had near-complete symptomatic resolution six weeks postoperatively and returned to normal functioning. After four months of postoperative rehabilitation, the patient remained asymptomatic. This case reinforces the urgent need for early MRI in the presence of neurological deficits and other symptoms, despite normal radiographs. An increased suspicion of spinal tumors can prevent delays in diagnosis and minimize adverse outcomes. Multidisciplinary care optimizes the treatment of complex cases.

Comparison of Concordance between Chuna Manual Therapy Diagnostic Methods (Palpation, X-ray, Artificial Intelligence Program) in Lumbar Spine: An Exploratory, Cross-Sectional Clinical Study

Before Chuna manual therapy (CMT), a manual therapy applied in Korean medicine, CMT spinal diagnosis using palpation or X-ray is performed. However, studies on the inter-rater concordance of CMT diagnostic methods, concordance among diagnostic methods, and standard CMT diagnostic methods are scarce. Moreover, no clinical studies have used artificial intelligence (AI) programs for X-ray image-based CMT diagnosis. Therefore, this study sought a feasible and standard CMT spinal diagnostic method and explored the clinical applicability of the CMT-AI program. One hundred participants were recruited, and the concordance within and among different diagnostic modalities was analyzed by dividing them into manual diagnosis (MD), X-ray image-based diagnosis (XRD) by experts and non-experts, and XRD using a CMT-AI program by non-experts. Regarding intra-group concordance, XRD by experts showed the highest concordance (used as a gold standard when comparing inter-group concordance), followed by XRD using the AI program, XRD by non-experts, and then MD. Comparing diagnostic results between the groups, concordance with the gold standard was the highest for XRD using the AI program, followed by XRD by non-experts, and MD. Therefore, XRD is a more reasonable CMT diagnostic method than MD. Furthermore, the clinical applicability of the CMT-AI program is high.

Is the cervical lordosis a key biomechanical biomarker in cervicogenic headache?: a Chiropractic Biophysics® case report with follow-up

[Purpose] To present the successful structural improvement in cervical lordosis in a patient suffering from cervicogenic headache having cervical kyphosis. [Participant and Methods] A 26 year old female presented with the primary complaint of headache. Radiography demonstrated a cervical kyphosis. Chiropractic BioPhysics^® methods were used to restore the cervical spine alignment. Twenty-five treatments were given over 8 weeks. A 2.5 year follow-up was also reported. [Results] Radiography showed a dramatic increase in cervical lordosis following initial treatment. The patient also reported substantial reductions in headache frequency and severity as well as other bodily improvements, reduced disability and improved quality of life. The long-term follow-up showed a maintenance of lordosis correction and patient wellness. [Conclusion] A cervical kyphosis was reversed back to a normal lordosis in 8 weeks and coincided with dramatic resolution of cervicogenic headache in a young female. The cervical lordosis may be a key biomechanical biomarker in cervicogenic headache.

Radiography and Clinical Decision-Making in Chiropractic

The concern over x-ray exposure risks can overshadow the potential benefit of radiography, especially in cases where manual therapy is employed. Spinal malalignment cannot be accurately visualized without imaging. Manual therapy and the load tolerances of injured spinal tissues raise different criteria for the use of x-rays for spinal disorders than in medical practice. Current regulatory bodies rely on radiography risk assessments based on Linear-No-Threshold (LNT) risk models. There is a need to consider radiography guidelines for chiropractic which are different from those for medical practice. Radiography practice guidelines are summaries dominated by frequentist interpretations in the analysis of data from studies. In contrast, clinicians often employ a pseudo-Bayesian form of reasoning during the clinical decision-making process. The overrepresentation of frequentist perspectives in evidence-based practice guidelines alter decision-making away from practical assessment of a patient's needs, toward an overly cautious standard applied to patients without regard to their risk/benefit likelihoods relating to radiography. Guidelines for radiography in chiropractic to fully assess the condition of the spine and spinal alignment prior to manual therapy, especially with high velocity, low amplitude spinal manipulation (HVLA-SM), should necessarily differ from those used in medical practice.

Restoring cervical lordosis by cervical extension traction methods in the treatment of cervical spine disorders: a systematic review of controlled trials

[Purpose] To systematically review the literature on the use of cervical extension traction methods for increasing cervical lordosis in those with hypolordosis and cervical spine disorders. [Methods] Literature searches for controlled clinical trials were performed in Pubmed, PEDro, Cochrane, and ICL databases. Search terms included iterations related to the cervical spine, neck pain and disorders, and extension traction rehabilitation. [Results] Of 1,001 initially located articles, 9 met the inclusion/exclusion criteria. The trials demonstrated increases in radiographically measured lordosis of 12-18°, over 5-15 weeks, after 15-60 treatment sessions. Untreated controls/comparison groups not receiving extension traction showed no increase in cervical lordosis. Several trials demonstrated that both traction and comparison treatment groups experienced immediate pain relief. Traction treatment groups maintained their pain and disability improvements up to 1.5 years later. Comparative groups not receiving lordosis improvement experienced regression of symptoms towards pre-treatment values by 1 years' follow-up. [Conclusion] There are several high-quality controlled clinical trials substantiating that increasing cervical lordosis by extension traction as part of a spinal rehabilitation program reduces pain and disability and improves functional measures, and that these improvements are maintained long-term. Comparative groups who receive multimodal rehabilitation but not extension traction experience temporary relief that regresses after treatment cessation.

Radiophobia Overreaction: College of Chiropractors of British Columbia Revoke Full X-Ray Rights Based on Flawed Study and Radiation Fear-Mongering

Fears over radiation have created irrational pressures to dissuade radiography use within chiropractic. Recently, the regulatory body for chiropractors practicing in British Columbia, Canada, the College of Chiropractors of British Columbia (CCBC), contracted Pierre Côté to review the clinical use of X-rays within the chiropractic profession. A "rapid review" was performed and published quickly and included only 9 papers, the most recent dating from 2005; they concluded, "Given the inherent risks of radiation, we recommend that chiropractors do not use radiographs for the routine and repeat evaluation of the structure and function of the spine." The CCBC then launched an immediate review of the use of X-rays by chiropractors in their jurisdiction. Member and public opinion were gathered but not presented to their members. On February 4, 2021, the College announced amendments to their Professional Conduct Handbook that revoked X-ray rights for routine/repeat assessment and management of patients with spine disorders. Here, we highlight current and historical evidence that substantiates that X-rays are not a public health threat. We also point out critical and insurmountable flaws in the single paper used to support irrational and unscientific policy that discriminates against chiropractors who practice certain forms of evidence-based X-ray-guided methods.

Correction of a double spondylolisthesis of the lumbar spine utilizing Chiropractic BioPhysics® technique: a case report with 1 year follow-up

[Purpose] To report on the reduction of a double lumbar spine spondylolisthesis by use of Chiropractic BioPhysics^® technique. [Participant and Methods] A 57 year-old male presented with severe chronic low back pains and sciatica. After playing hockey for 50 years, he was unable to continue and was forced to retire. Lumbar radiography showed an L3 retrolisthesis of −5.3 mm and an L4 anterolisthesis of 5.4 mm. Chiropractic BioPhysics technique including mirror image lumbar spine drop-table adjustments, corrective exercises and a unique pelvic extension traction was performed 50 times over 7-months. [Results] A radiograph after 3-months showed full reduction of the L3 retrolisthesis. A radiograph after 7-months showed full reduction of the L4 anterolisthesis. The patient reported full resolution of chronic back pains and was able to return to play hockey; a 1.75 year follow-up showed maintenance of the corrections and the patient remained injury-free while returning to play hockey. [Conclusion] A customized treatment program including Chiropractic BioPhysics lumbar spine traction, corrective exercises and drop-table spine manipulation resolved chronic back pains and fully reduced an L3 and L4 retro- and antero-listhesis, respectively. Further research may substantiate this treatment approach for reducing translational displacements in the lumbar spine. Routine upright radiography is required to diagnose spondylolisthesis.

Radiophobic Fear-Mongering, Misappropriation of Medical References and Dismissing Relevant Data Forms the False Stance for Advocating Against the Use of Routine and Repeat Radiography in Chiropractic and Manual Therapy

There is a faction within the chiropractic profession passionately advocating against the routine use of X-rays in the diagnosis, treatment and management of patients with spinal disorders (aka subluxation). These activists reiterate common false statements such as "there is no evidence" for biomechanical spine assessment by X-ray, "there are no guidelines" supporting routine imaging, and also promulgate the reiterating narrative that "X-rays are dangerous." These arguments come in the form of recycled allopathic "red flag only" medical guidelines for spine care, opinion pieces and consensus statements. Herein, we review these common arguments and present compelling data refuting such claims. It quickly becomes evident that these statements are false. They are based on cherry-picked medical references and, most importantly, expansive evidence against this narrative continues to be ignored. Factually, there is considerable evidential support for routine use of radiological imaging in chiropractic and manual therapies for 3 main purposes: 1. To assess spinopelvic biomechanical parameters; 2. To screen for relative and absolute contraindications; 3. To reassess a patient's progress from some forms of spine altering treatments. Finally, and most importantly, we summarize why the long-held notion of carcinogenicity from X-rays is not a valid argument.

5 Reasons Why Scoliosis X-Rays Are Not Harmful

Radiographic imaging for scoliosis screening, diagnosis, treatment, and management is the gold standard assessment tool. Scoliosis patients receive many repeat radiographs, typically 10-25 and as many as 40-50, equating to a maximum 50 mGy of cumulative exposure. It is argued this amount of radiation exposure is not carcinogenic to scoliosis patients for 5 main reasons: 1. Estimated theoretical cumulative effective doses remain below the carcinogenic dose threshold; 2. Scoliosis patient x-rays are delivered in serial exposures and therefore, mitigate any potential cumulative effect; 3. Linear no-threshold cancer risk estimates from scoliosis patient cohorts are flawed due to faulty science; 4. Standardized incidence/mortality ratios demonstrating increased cancers from aged scoliosis cohorts are confounded by the effects of the disease entity itself making it impossible to claim cause and effect resulting from low-dose radiation exposures from spinal imaging; 5. Children are not more susceptible to radiation damage than adults. Radiophobia concerns from patients, parents, and doctors over repeat imaging for scoliosis treatment and management is not justified; it adds unnecessary anxiety to the patient (and their parents) and interferes with optimal medical management. X-rays taken in the evidence-based management of scoliosis should be taken without hesitation or concern about negligible radiation exposures.

Restoring lumbar lordosis: a systematic review of controlled trials utilizing Chiropractic Bio Physics® (CBP®) non-surgical approach to increasing lumbar lordosis in the treatment of low back disorders

[Purpose] To systematically review controlled trial evidence for the use of lumbar extension traction by Chiropractic BioPhysics^® methods for the purpose of increasing lumbar lordosis in those with hypolordosis and low back disorders. [Methods] Literature searches were performed in Pubmed, PEDro, CINAHL, Cochrane, and ICL databases. Search terms included iterations related to the lumbar spine, low back pain and extension traction rehabilitation. [Results] Four articles detailing 2 randomized and 1 non-randomized trial were located. Trials demonstrated increases in radiographic measured lordosis of 7–11°, over 10–12 weeks, after 30–36 treatment sessions. Randomized trials demonstrated traction treated groups mostly maintained lordosis correction, pain relief, and disability after 6-months follow-up. The non-randomized trial showed lordosis and pain intensity were maintained with periodic maintenance care for 1.5 years. Importantly, control/comparison groups had no increase in lumbar lordosis. Randomized trials showed comparison groups receiving physiotherapy-less the traction, had temporary pain reduction during treatment that regressed towards baseline levels as early as 3-months after treatment. [Conclusion] Limited but good quality evidence substantiates that the use of extension traction methods in rehabilitation programs definitively increases lumbar hypolordosis. Preliminarily, these studies indicate these methods provide longer-term relief to patients with low back disorders versus conventional rehabilitation approaches tested.

Are Restrictive Medical Radiation Imaging Campaigns Misguided? It Seems So: A Case Example of the American Chiropractic Association's Adoption of "Choosing Wisely"

Since the 1980s, increased utilization of medical radiology, primarily computed tomography, has doubled medically sourced radiation exposures. Ensuing fear-mongering media headlines of iatrogenic cancers from these essential medical diagnostic tools has led the public and medical professionals alike to display escalating radiophobia. Problematically, several campaigns including Image Gently, Image Wisely, and facets of Choosing Wisely propagate fears of all medical radiation, which is necessary for the delivery of effective and efficient health care. Since there are no sound data supporting the alleged risks from low-dose radiation and since there is abundant evidence of health benefits from low-doses, these imaging campaigns seem misguided. Further, thresholds for cancer are 100 to 1000-fold greater than X-rays, which are within the realm of natural background radiation where no harm has ever been validated. Here, we focus on radiographic imaging for use in spinal rehabilitation by manual therapists, chiropractors, and physiotherapists as spinal X-rays represent the lowest levels of radiation imaging and are critical in the diagnosis and management of spine-related disorders. Using a case example of a chiropractic association adopting "Choosing Wisely," we argue that these campaigns only fuel the pervasive radiophobia and continue to constrain medical professionals, attempting to deliver quality care to patients.

Death of the ALARA Radiation Protection Principle as Used in the Medical Sector

ALARA is the acronym for "As Low As Reasonably Achievable." It is a radiation protection concept borne from the linear no-threshold (LNT) hypothesis. There are no valid data today supporting the use of LNT in the low-dose range, so dose as a surrogate for risk in radiological imaging is not appropriate, and therefore, the use of the ALARA concept is obsolete. Continued use of an outdated and erroneous principle unnecessarily constrains medical professionals attempting to deliver high-quality care to patients by leading to a reluctance by doctors to order images, a resistance from patients/parents to receive images, subquality images, repeated imaging, increased radiation exposures, the stifling of low-dose radiation research and treatment, and the propagation of radiophobia and continued endorsement of ALARA by regulatory bodies. All these factors result from the fear of radiogenic cancer, many years in the future, that will not occur. It has been established that the dose threshold for leukemia is higher than previously thought. A low-dose radiation exposure from medical imaging will likely upregulate the body's adaptive protection systems leading to the prevention of future cancers. The ALARA principle, as used as a radiation protection principle throughout medicine, is scientifically defunct and should be abandoned.