Rehabilitation of back pain in the pediatric population: a mixed studies systematic review.

BACKGROUND: A significant proportion of children and adolescents experience back pain. However, a comprehensive systematic review on the effectiveness of rehabilitation interventions is lacking. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate benefits and harms of rehabilitation interventions for non-specific low back pain (LBP) or thoracic spine pain in the pediatric population. METHODS: Seven bibliographic electronic databases were searched from inception to June 16, 2023. Moreover, reference lists of relevant studies and systematic reviews, three targeted websites, and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched. Paired reviewers independently conducted screening, assessed risk of bias, and extracted data related to study characteristics, methodology, subjects, and results. Certainty of evidence was evaluated based on the GRADE approach. RESULTS: We screened 8461 citations and 307 full-text articles. Ten quantitative studies (i.e., 8 RCTs, 2 non-randomized clinical trials) and one qualitative study were included. With very low to moderate certainty evidence, in adolescents with LBP, spinal manipulation (1-2 sessions/week over 12 weeks, 1 RCT) plus exercise may be associated with a greater likelihood of experiencing clinically important pain reduction versus exercise alone; and group-based exercise over 8 weeks (2 RCTs and 1 non-randomized trial) may reduce pain intensity. The qualitative study found information provided via education/advice and compliance of treatment were related to effective treatment. No economic studies or studies examining thoracic spine pain were identified. CONCLUSIONS: Spinal manipulation and group-based exercise may be beneficial in reducing LBP intensity in adolescents. Education should be provided as part of a care program. The overall evidence is sparse. Methodologically rigorous studies are needed. TRIAL REGISTRATION: CRD42019135009 (PROSPERO).

Recent clinical practice guidelines for the management of low back pain: a global comparison.

BACKGROUND: Low back pain (LBP) is a significant health problem worldwide, with a lifetime prevalence of 84% in the general adult population. To rationalise the management of LBP, clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) have been issued in various countries around the world. This study aims to identify and compare the recommendations of recent CPGs for the management of LBP across the world. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PEDro, and major guideline databases were searched from 2017 to 2022 to identify CPGs. CPGs focusing on information regarding the management and/or treatment of non-specific LBP were considered eligible. The quality of included guidelines was evaluated using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II instrument. RESULTS: Our analysis identified a total of 22 CPGs that met the inclusion criteria, and were of middle and high methodological quality as assessed by the AGREE II tool. The guidelines exhibited heterogeneity in their recommendations, particularly in the approach to different stages of LBP. For acute LBP, the guidelines recommended the use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), therapeutic exercise, staying active, and spinal manipulation. For subacute LBP, the guidelines recommended the use of NSAIDs, therapeutic exercise, staying active, and spinal manipulation. For chronic LBP, the guidelines recommended therapeutic exercise, the use of NSAIDs, spinal manipulation, and acupuncture. CONCLUSIONS: Current CPGs provide recommendations for almost all major aspects of the management of LBP, but there is marked heterogeneity between them. Some recommendations lack clarity and overlap with other treatments within the guidelines.

Waste not, want not: call to action for spinal manipulative therapy researchers.

BACKGROUND: Research waste is defined as research outcomes with no or minimal societal benefits. It is a widespread problem in the healthcare field. Four primary sources of research waste have been defined: (1) irrelevant or low priority research questions, (2) poor design or methodology, (3) lack of publication, and (4) biased or inadequate reporting. This commentary, which was developed by a multidisciplinary group of researchers with spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) research expertise, discusses waste in SMT research and provides suggestions to improve future research. MAIN TEXT: This commentary examines common sources of waste in SMT research, focusing on design and methodological issues, by drawing on prior research and examples from clinical and mechanistic SMT studies. Clinical research is dominated by small studies and studies with a high risk of bias. This problem is compounded by systematic reviews that pool heterogenous data from varying populations, settings, and application of SMT. Research focusing on the mechanisms of SMT often fails to address the clinical relevance of mechanisms, relies on very short follow-up periods, and has inadequate control for contextual factors. CONCLUSIONS: This call to action is directed to researchers in the field of SMT. It is critical that the SMT research community act to improve the way research is designed, conducted, and disseminated. We present specific key action points and resources, which should enhance the quality and usefulness of future SMT research.

Chronic Low Back Pain in Adults: Evaluation and Management.

Chronic low back pain, defined as lumbar pain persisting for 12 weeks or more, occurs in about 13% of U.S. adults. Patients with chronic low back pain should have a history and physical examination to identify red flags that may indicate serious conditions that warrant immediate intervention or yellow flags (i.e., psychological, environmental, and social factors) that indicate risk of disability. The examination should include an evaluation for radicular symptoms. Routine imaging is not recommended but is indicated when red flags are present, there is a neuromuscular deficit, or if pain does not resolve with conservative therapy. Patients should avoid bed rest. Nonpharmacologic treatment is first-line management and may include therapies with varying evidence of support, such as counseling, exercise therapy, spinal manipulation, massage, heat, dry needling, acupuncture, transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation, and physical therapy. Pharmacologic interventions are second-line treatment. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs are the initial medication of choice; duloxetine may also be beneficial. Evidence is inconclusive to recommend the use of benzodiazepines, muscle relaxants, antidepressants, corticosteroids, insomnia agents, anticonvulsants, cannabis, acetaminophen, or long-term opioids. Epidural corticosteroid injections are not recommended except for short-term symptom relief in patients with radicular pain. Most patients with chronic low back pain will not require surgery; evaluation for surgery may be considered in those with persistent functional disabilities and pain from progressive spinal stenosis, worsening spondylolisthesis, or herniated disk. Physicians should consider prevention of chronic low back pain when patients present with acute back pain. Screening tools are available to predict the progression from acute to chronic low back pain, and targeted treatment strategies are beneficial for preventing progression.

Cervical manipulation versus thoracic or cervicothoracic manipulations for the management of neck pain. A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Cervical and thoracic thrust or non-thrust manipulations have shown to be effective in patients with neck pain, but there is a lack of studies comparing both interventions in patients with neck pain. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effects of cervical thrust or non-thrust manipulations compared to thoracic or cervicothoracic manipulations for improving pain, disability, and range of motion in patients with neck pain. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. METHOD: Searches were performed in PubMed, PEDro, Cochrane Library, CINHAL, and Web of Science databases from inception to May 22, 2023. Randomized clinical trials comparing cervical thrust or non-thrust manipulations to thoracic or cervicothoracic manipulations were included. Methodological quality was assessed with PEDro scale, and the certainty of evidence was evaluated using GRADE guidelines. RESULTS: Six studies were included. Meta-analyses revealed no differences between cervical thrust or non-thrust manipulations and thoracic or cervicothoracic manipulations in pain intensity, disability, or cervical range of motion in any plane. The certainty of evidence was downgraded to very low for pain intensity, to moderate or very low for disability and to low or very low for cervical range of motion. CONCLUSION: There is moderate to very low certainty evidence that there is no difference in effectiveness between cervical thrust or non-thrust manipulations and thoracic or cervicothoracic manipulations for improving pain, disability, and range of motion in patients with neck pain. PROSPERO REGISTRATION: CRD42023429933.

Effects of exercise combined with cervicothoracic spine self-mobilization on chronic non-specific neck pain.

To investigate the short-term effects and differences between exercise alone and exercise combined with self-mobilization training on chronic non-specific neck pain (CNSNP). Thirty subjects who met the criteria were recruited and randomly assigned to the exercise training group, the exercise combined with cervical self-mobilization training group (ECCM), and the exercise combined with cervicothoracic self-mobilization training group (ECCTM). The exercise training group received 6 weeks of deep neck flexor under biofeedback and scapular stability training, and the other two groups received 6 weeks of cervical self-mobilization and cervicothoracic self-mobilization, respectively, in addition to exercise training. Neck pain, cervical range of motion (ROM), neck disability, strength and endurance of deep neck flexor and quality of life were assessed before and after 6 weeks of training. The study results showed that all the three training programs for 6 weeks increased the strength and endurance of deep neck flexor, increased cervical ROM, reduced pain, and improved neck function (P < 0.05). The exercise combined with self-mobilization two groups compared with only the exercise training group had better improvement in ROM of extension, lateral flexion, rotation and quality of life (P < 0.05). Compared with exercise alone and exercise combined with cervical self-mobilization training, the exercise combined with cervicothoracic self-mobilization training was the best in improving ROM of right lateral flexion (exercise training group vs ECCTM: P < 0.01, d = 1.61, ECCM vs ECCTM: P < 0.05, d = 1.14) and pain (exercise training group vs ECCTM: P < 0.05, d = 1.34, ECCM vs ECCTM: P < 0.05, d = 1.23). Deep flexor muscle and shoulder stability training can improve the endurance and strength of the deep flexor muscles of the neck and coordinate the movement patterns of the shoulder and neck. Self-mobilization techniques can promote improvements in cervical lateral flexion and rotation range of motion, alleviate neck disability and further improve quality of life. A combination of exercise and cervicothoracic self-mobilization training appears beneficial for the management of neck pain.

Comparative effectiveness of cervical vs thoracic spinal-thrust manipulation for care of cervicogenic headache: A randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: There is ample evidence supporting the use of different manipulative therapy techniques for Cervicogenic Headache (CgH). However, no technique can be singled as the best available treatment for patients with CgH. Therefore, the objective of the study is to find and compare the clinical effects of cervical spine over thoracic spine manipulation and conventional physiotherapy in patients with CgH. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: It is a prospective, randomized controlled study conducted between July 2020 and January 2023 at the University hospital. N = 96 eligible patients with CgH were selected based on selection criteria and they were divided into cervical spine manipulation (CSM; n = 32), thoracic spine manipulation (TSM; n = 32) and conventional physiotherapy (CPT; n = 32) groups, and received the respective treatment for four weeks. Primary (CgH frequency) and secondary CgH pain intensity, CgH disability, neck pain frequency, neck pain intensity, neck pain threshold, cervical flexion rotation test (CFRT), neck disability index (NDI) and quality of life (QoL) scores were measured. The effects of treatment at various intervals were analyzed using a 3 × 4 linear mixed model analysis (LMM), with treatment group (cervical spine manipulation, thoracic spine manipulation, and conventional physiotherapy) and time intervals (baseline, 4 weeks, 8 weeks, and 6 months), and the statistical significance level was set at P < 0.05. RESULTS: The reports of the CSM, TSM and CPT groups were compared between the groups. Four weeks following treatment CSM group showed more significant changes in primary (CgH frequency) and secondary (CgH pain intensity, CgH disability, neck pain frequency, pain intensity, pain threshold, CFRT, NDI and QoL) than the TSM and CPT groups (p = 0.001). The same gradual improvement was seen in the CSM group when compared to TSM and CPT groups (p = 0.001) in the above variables at 8 weeks and 6 months follow-up. CONCLUSION: The reports of the current randomized clinical study found that CSM resulted in significantly better improvements in pain parameters (intensity, frequency and threshold) functional disability and quality of life in patients with CgH than thoracic spine manipulation and conventional physiotherapy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical trial registration: CTRI/2020/06/026092 trial was registered prospectively on 24/06/2020.

A new role for spinal manual therapy and for chiropractic? Part II: strengths and opportunities.

In a previous paper, we presented some important weaknesses of and threats to the chiropractic profession as we see them. We further argued that the chiropractic profession's relationship with its principal clinical tool (spinal manual therapy) is at the core of the ideological divide that fractures the profession and prevents professional development towards greater integration in the healthcare landscape. In this manuscript, we shall argue that the historical predilection for spinal manipulation also gifts the profession with some obvious strengths and opportunities, and that these are inextricably linked to the management of musculoskeletal disorders. The onus is now on the chiropractic profession itself to redefine its raison d'être in a way that plays to those strengths and delivers in terms of the needs of patients and the wider healthcare system/market. We suggest chiropractors embrace and cultivate a role as coordinators of long-term and broad-focused management of musculoskeletal disorders. We make specific recommendations about how the profession, from individual clinicians to political organizations, can promote such a development.

Association between chiropractic spinal manipulation and cauda equina syndrome in adults with low back pain: Retrospective cohort study of US academic health centers.

BACKGROUND: Cauda equina syndrome (CES) is a lumbosacral surgical emergency that has been associated with chiropractic spinal manipulation (CSM) in case reports. However, identifying if there is a potential causal effect is complicated by the heightened incidence of CES among those with low back pain (LBP). The study hypothesis was that there would be no increase in the risk of CES in adults with LBP following CSM compared to a propensity-matched cohort following physical therapy (PT) evaluation without spinal manipulation over a three-month follow-up period. METHODS: A query of a United States network (TriNetX, Inc.) was conducted, searching health records of more than 107 million patients attending academic health centers, yielding data ranging from 20 years prior to the search date (July 30, 2023). Patients aged 18 or older with LBP were included, excluding those with pre-existing CES, incontinence, or serious pathology that may cause CES. Patients were divided into two cohorts: (1) LBP patients receiving CSM or (2) LBP patients receiving PT evaluation without spinal manipulation. Propensity score matching controlled for confounding variables associated with CES. RESULTS: 67,220 patients per cohort (mean age 51 years) remained after propensity matching. CES incidence was 0.07% (95% confidence intervals [CI]: 0.05-0.09%) in the CSM cohort compared to 0.11% (95% CI: 0.09-0.14%) in the PT evaluation cohort, yielding a risk ratio and 95% CI of 0.60 (0.42-0.86; p = .0052). Both cohorts showed a higher rate of CES during the first two weeks of follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that CSM is not a risk factor for CES. Considering prior epidemiologic evidence, patients with LBP may have an elevated risk of CES independent of treatment. These findings warrant further corroboration. In the meantime, clinicians should be vigilant to identify LBP patients with CES and promptly refer them for surgical evaluation.

The immediate effect of cervical rotation-traction manipulation on cervical paravertebral soft tissue: a study using soft tissue tension cloud chart technology.

BACKGROUND: To evaluate the reliability of the Soft Tissue Tension Cloud Chart (STTCC) technology, an original method combining multi-point Cervical Paravertebral Soft Tissue Test (CPSTT) with MATLAB software, we conducted a preliminary analysis on the immediate effects of Orthopaedic Manual Therapy (OMT) on cervical paravertebral soft tissue. METHODS: 30 patients with Cervical Spondylotic Radiculopathy (CSR) were included in this study. We analyzed the differences in CPSTT before and after treatment with Cervical Rotation-Traction Manipulation (CRTM), a representative OMT technique in Traditional Chinese Medicine, using the STTCC technology. RESULTS: The STTCC results demonstrated that post-treatment CPSTT levels in CSR patients were significantly lower than pre-treatment levels after application of CRTM, with a statistically significant difference (P < 0.001). Additionally, pre-treatment CPSTT levels on the symptomatic side (with radicular pain or numbness) were higher across the C5 to C7 vertebrae compared to the asymptomatic side (without symptoms) (P < 0.001). However, this difference disappeared after CRTM treatment (P = 0.231). CONCLUSIONS: The STTCC technology represents a reliable method for analyzing the immediate effects of OMT. CSR patients display uneven distribution of CPSTT characterized by higher tension on the symptomatic side. CRTM not only reduces overall cervical soft tissue tension in CSR patients, but can also balance the asymmetrical tension between the symptomatic and asymptomatic sides. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study was approved by the Chinese Clinical Trials Registry (Website: . https://www.chictr.org.cn .) on 20/04/2021 and the Registration Number is ChiCTR2100045648.

Effects of sustained natural apophyseal glides versus rocabado 6 × 6 program in subjects with cervicogenic headache.

BACKGROUND: Cervicogenic headache is designated as the most common type of secondary headache that results from conditions affecting the neck's bony components, muscles, and intervertebral discs rather than the head itself. OBJECTIVE: The purpose was to determine the effects of Sustained Natural Apophyseal Glides (SNAGs) versus the Rocabado 6 × 6 program in subjects with cervicogenic headaches. METHODS: This study was a randomized clinical trial. The sample size was 38, and participants aged 20-60 years (mean age 40.22 ± 9.66) suffering from cervicogenic headaches were randomly allocated using the lottery method into two groups with 19 participants in each group. Assessment of subjects was done before starting treatment and by the end of the 8th week for all the variables. Outcome measures were the Neck Disability Index (NDI), 6-item Headache Impact Test (HIT-6), Flexion-Rotation test (FRT) to assess the rotation range of motion at the level of C1-C2 (goniometer) and the Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NPRS) for the intensity of pain. Data analysis was done by SPSS (IBM) 25. To check the normality of the data the Shapiro-Wilk test was used. RESULTS: In the Shapiro-Wilk test p-value of all the testing variables i.e. NDI, HIT-6 score, FRT and NPRS was > 0.05, data was normally distributed and parametric tests were used. Group A showed a considerable improvement (p < 0.05) in all variables compared to Group B, while within-group analysis of both groups shows that all outcome measures show significant results (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: It was concluded that both SNAGs and Rocabado's 6 × 6 exercises were effective for the treatment of cervicogenic headache but the effects of headache SNAG were superior and produced more improvement in intensity of headache, disability, frequency of headache, duration of headache as compared to Rocabado 6 × 6 exercises. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT05865808 on date 19/05/2023.

Physical treatment of migraine.

Physical modalities, including acupuncture, massage therapy, physical therapy, and spinal manipulation, are commonly sought for migraine headache management. Acupuncture has been helpful in management of migraine, particularly as an adjunct to standard therapy. Some studies support acupuncture in combination with electroacupuncture and a traditional Chinese medicine form of massage called tuina as beneficial. An estimated 15% of patients with migraine seek spinal manipulation with osteopathic physicians or chiropractors, though evidence of benefit is lacking and potential for adverse effects is low but present. Studies of massage therapy in migraine have been heterogeneous and of low quality, often combined with other manual therapies to show effect. While manual therapies appear to reduce pain and improve quality of life, further study is needed to determine which specific types of manual therapy are most effective. While exercise is good for all patients, specific migraine management with physical therapy and regular exercise is not supported by evidence. Nevertheless, these modalities should be considered in certain situations when performed by trained and licensed professionals.

Enhancing the Development and Growth of Infant Cerebral Palsy Rats Using Selective Spinal Manipulations.

Cerebral palsy (CP) is a refractory pediatric disease with a high prevalence, high disability rate, and difficult treatment. A variety of treatments are currently used for CP. The treatment involves drug and non-drug therapy. Traditional Chinese medicine external therapy is a very distinctive treatment method in non-drug therapy. As one of the external therapies of traditional Chinese medicine, massage is used in treating cerebral palsy and has good efficacy, small side effects, and strong operability. As a part of TCM external therapy, selective spinal manipulation can effectively promote the growth and development of infant rats with cerebral palsy.The operation was mainly divided into four steps: first, the rubbing method was applied to the spine and both sides of the spine for 1 min. The pressing and kneading method was applied to the spine for 5 min, and the muscles on both sides of the spine for 5 min. Second, pressing and kneading the sensitive local acupoints in the spine for 2 min were performed. Thirdly, the affected limb was treated by twisting method for 1 min. Fourth, the rubbing method was applied to a midline from the forehead to the back of the brain for 1 min. This study aimed to use selective spinal manipulation to treat infant rats with cerebral palsy. The weight, Rotarod test, Foot-fault score, and growth hormone of infant rats with cerebral palsy were detected to understand the effect of selective spinal manipulation on the growth and development of infant rats with cerebral palsy. The results showed that it can promote weight gain, improve balance ability and motor function, promote growth and development of infant cerebral palsy rats, promote growth hormone secretion, and increase the temperature of sensitive parts of the back.

A randomized controlled trial comparing different sites of high-velocity low amplitude thrust on sensorimotor integration parameters.

Increasing evidence suggests that a high-velocity, low-amplitude (HVLA) thrust directed at a dysfunctional vertebral segment in people with subclinical spinal pain alters various neurophysiological measures, including somatosensory evoked potentials (SEPs). We hypothesized that an HVLA thrust applied to a clinician chosen vertebral segment based on clinical indicators of vertebral dysfunction, in short, segment considered as "relevant" would significantly reduce the N30 amplitude compared to an HVLA thrust applied to a predetermined vertebral segment not based on clinical indicators of vertebral dysfunction or segment considered as "non-relevant". In this double-blinded, active-controlled, parallel-design study, 96 adults with recurrent mild neck pain, ache, or stiffness were randomly allocated to receiving a single thrust directed at either a segment considered as "relevant" or a segment considered as "non-relevant" in their upper cervical spine. SEPs of median nerve stimulation were recorded before and immediately after a single HVLA application delivered using an adjusting instrument (Activator). A linear mixed model was used to assess changes in the N30 amplitude. A significant interaction between the site of thrust delivery and session was found (F1,840 = 9.89, p < 0.002). Pairwise comparisons showed a significant immediate decrease in the N30 complex amplitude after the application of HVLA thrust to a segment considered "relevant" (- 16.76 ± 28.32%, p = 0.005). In contrast, no significant change was observed in the group that received HVLA thrust over a segment considered "non-relevant" (p = 0.757). Cervical HVLA thrust applied to the segment considered as "relevant" altered sensorimotor parameters, while cervical HVLA thrust over the segment considered as "non-relevant" did not. This finding supports the hypothesis that spinal site targeting of HVLA interventions is important when measuring neurophysiological responses. Further studies are needed to explore the potential clinical relevance of these findings.

Dosing of lumbar spinal manipulative therapy and its association with escalated spine care: A cohort study of insurance claims.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to evaluate the relationship between three distinct spinal manipulative therapy dose groups and escalated spine care by analyzing insurance claims from a cohort of patients with low back pain. METHODS: We compared three distinct spinal manipulative therapy dose groups (low = 1 SMT visits, moderate = 2-12 SMT visits, high = 13+ SMT visits), to a control group (no spinal manipulative therapy) regarding the outcome of escalated spine care. Escalated spine care procedures include imaging studies, injection procedures, emergency department visits, surgery, and opioid medication use. Propensity score matching was performed to address treatment selection bias. Modified Poisson regression modeling was used to estimate the relative risk of spine care escalation among three spinal manipulative therapy doses, adjusting for age, sex, retrospective risk score and claim count. RESULTS: 83,025 claims were categorized into 11,114 unique low back pain episodes; 8,137 claims had 0 spinal manipulative therapy visits, with the remaining episodes classified as low dose (n = 404), moderate dose (n = 1,763) or high dose (n = 810). After propensity score matching, 5,348 episodes remained; 2,454 had 0 spinal manipulative therapy visits with the remaining episodes classified as low dose (n = 404), moderate dose (n = 1,761), or high dose (n = 729). The estimated relative risk (vs no spinal manipulative therapy) for any escalated spine care was 0.45 (95% confidence interval 0.38, 0.55, p <0.001), 0.58 (95% confidence interval 0.53, 0.63, p <0.001), and 1.03 (95% confidence interval 0.95, 1.13, p = 0.461) for low, moderate, and high dose spinal manipulative therapy groups, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: For claims associated with initial episodes of low back pain, low and moderate dose spinal manipulative therapy groups were associated with a 55% and 42% reduction, respectively, in the relative risk of any escalated spine care.

Association between spinal manipulative therapy and lumbar spine reoperation after discectomy: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Patients who undergo lumbar discectomy may experience ongoing lumbosacral radiculopathy (LSR) and seek spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) to manage these symptoms. We hypothesized that adults receiving SMT for LSR at least one year following lumbar discectomy would be less likely to undergo lumbar spine reoperation compared to matched controls not receiving SMT, over two years' follow-up. METHODS: We searched a United States network of health records (TriNetX, Inc.) for adults aged ≥ 18 years with LSR and lumbar discectomy ≥ 1 year previous, without lumbar fusion or instrumentation, from 2003 to 2023. We divided patients into two cohorts: (1) chiropractic SMT, and (2) usual care without chiropractic SMT. We used propensity matching to adjust for confounding variables associated with lumbar spine reoperation (e.g., age, body mass index, nicotine dependence), calculated risk ratios (RR), with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and explored cumulative incidence of reoperation and the number of SMT follow-up visits. RESULTS: Following propensity matching there were 378 patients per cohort (mean age 61 years). Lumbar spine reoperation was less frequent in the SMT cohort compared to the usual care cohort (SMT: 7%; usual care: 13%), yielding an RR (95% CIs) of 0.55 (0.35-0.85; P = 0.0062). In the SMT cohort, 72% of patients had ≥ 1 follow-up SMT visit (median = 6). CONCLUSIONS: This study found that adults experiencing LSR at least one year after lumbar discectomy who received SMT were less likely to undergo lumbar spine reoperation compared to matched controls not receiving SMT. While these findings hold promise for clinical implications, they should be corroborated by a prospective study including measures of pain, disability, and safety to confirm their relevance. We cannot exclude the possibility that our results stem from a generalized effect of engaging with a non-surgical clinician, a factor that may extend to related contexts such as physical therapy or acupuncture. REGISTRATION: Open Science Framework ( https://osf.io/vgrwz ).

Comparison of the Effects of Cervical Thrust Manipulation and Exercise in Mechanical Neck Pain: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of cervical thrust manipulation and exercise in patients with mechanical neck pain (MNP). METHOD: Sixty (mean age 31.45 ± 7.31 years) patients were randomized into three groups: manipulation (Group 1); exercise (Group 2); and manipulation plus exercise (Group 3). All interventions were performed 2 days a week for 6 weeks. The visual analog scale (VAS) and Neck Disability Index (NDI) were primary outcome measures; pressure pain threshold (PPT), range of motion (ROM), Short form-36 (SF-36), and Global Rating of Change (GROC) were secondary outcome measures. RESULTS: All parameters improved in all groups (p < .05). Only the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for NDI was achieved in Group 3. Group 3 had greater improvement in: VAS-rest (p = .004); NDI (p < .001); PPT-left (p = .012); and vitality (p = .002), as well as higher GROC compared to the other groups (p = .043). Group 3 was superior to Group 2 in terms of: ROM (Lateral flexion [LF]-right, p = .003/left, p = .003, rotation-right, p = .012/left, p = .010), PPT-right (p = .022); and emotional well-being (p = .003). Group 1 was superior to Group 2 in terms of ROM (LF-left, p = .043/rotation-left, p = .049). The between-group effect sizes were large (0.12-0.36). CONCLUSION: The combined application of cervical thrust manipulation and exercise in MNP resulted in greater improvement in clinical parameters, especially function, and higher patient satisfaction in the short term compared to their application alone. Because of its positive effects, cervical thrust manipulation can be added to the exercise program according to the patient's needs and suitability for manipulation.

Clinician approaches to new spine pain cases in primary care: Balance of opioid prescribing and early linkage to exercise therapy and spinal manipulation.

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: Spine pain (SP) is common and often disabling. Clinical practice guidelines discourage opioid treatment and outline the value of varied nonpharmacologic therapies (NPTs). This study elucidates the amount of variability in primary-care clinicians' (PCPs') prescribing of opioids and in their cases' receipt of the two most common NPTs (exercise therapy and spinal manipulation). METHOD: The design was a retrospective cohort study examining variation in the treatment of PCPs' new SP cases, classified by receipt of (a) prescription of an opioid at the initial visit; (b) exercise therapy and/or spinal manipulation within 30 days of initial visit. The study was set in the primary care clinics at military treatment facilities of the US Military Health System in the period between October 2011 and September 2016. RESULTS: The majority of cases did not receive a study treatment (66.3%); 19.6% of cases received only NPT within 30 days of initial visit; 11.5% were prescribed only an opioid at the initial visit with receipt of both NPT and opioid during early treatment rare (2.6%). Exercise therapy within 30 days exhibited more than a twofold difference in interquartile percentile rates (IQR) (median provision 15.8%, IQR 9.8%-22.1%). The other treatments exhibited even greater variation; specifically, spinal manipulation (median 8.5%, IQR 3.3%-15.8%), and opioid at initial visit (median 10.3%, IQR 4.4%-18.2%). The availability of physical therapists and doctors of chiropractic had significant association with several clinical provision rates. CONCLUSION: Among providers of spine care for a sample of Army soldiers, there was substantial variation in the early provision of exercise therapy, spinal manipulation, and opioid prescriptions. The magnitude of the case-mix adjusted variation and its association with facility availability of providers suggests that quality of care initiatives may help reduce this variation.

Spinal displacement during thoracic manipulative therapy in mechanical neck pain patients: an observational study.

INTRODUCTION: Thoracic manipulative therapy (TMT) is recommended for treating patients with mechanical neck pain (MNP). However, there are multiple proposed recommendations for the mechanism for neck pain reduction. OBJECTIVE: To investigate displacement of the cervicothoracic spine during the application of TMT in patients with MNP. METHODS: Thirty-five male patients with MNP were recruited. Displacements of C3, C5, C7, T2, T4 and T6 were measured using a motion capture system while a therapist applied a grade III central posteroanterior TMT (cpa-TMT) to T6. RESULTS: Mean (SD) displacement ranged from 2.2 (0.62) to 5.5 (1.1) mm. A significant decrease in neck pain intensity at rest was found after the application of the cpa-TMT (mean difference 17 mm, p < 0.001). A downward trend in spinal displacement was noted, with the largest and smallest displacement occurring at T6 and C3, respectively. Correlations between the displacement of T6 and adjacent spinal levels were moderate to high (Pearson's r range 0.70-0.90, p < 0.001). It was showed that cpa-TMT applied to T6 produced the PA displacement toward the upper cervical spine. CONCLUSION: TMT produces spinal segmental displacements toward the upper cervical spine in MNP patients. These segmental displacements would activate the alleviation effect at both the spinal and supraspinal levels resulting in neck pain reduction. These findings would provide supporting evidence for the use of TMT in neck pain reduction.

Effectiveness of mid thoracic spine mobilization on postural balance and gait ability in subacute stroke patients: A randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Although mulligan sustained natural apophyseal glides (SNAG) and maitland mobilization (MM) are common interventions for musculoskeletal disease, no study has directly compared the effectiveness of mid-thoracic spine mobilization in subacute stroke patients. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effects of mid-thoracic spine mobilization (SNAG vs. MM) on postural balance and gait ability in subacute stroke patients. METHODS: Fifty subacute stroke patients were randomly allocated to the SNAG (n= 17), MM (n= 16), and control (n= 17) groups, each receiving a neuro-developmental therapy program for four successive weeks. The SNAG and MM groups additionally received mid-thoracic spine mobilization (T4∼8). The primary outcome measure was postural sway, and secondary outcome measures included the five times sit-to-stand test (FTSST), functional reach test (FRT), 10-m walk test (10MWT), 6-minute walk test (6MWT) and global rating of change (GRC). RESULTS: Participants reported no adverse events, and there was no loss to follow-up. The SNAG and MM group patients demonstrated significant improvements (p< 0.05) in postural sway, FTSST, FRT, 10MWT, and 6MWT compared with those in the control group, with no between-group differences. CONCLUSIONS: Mid-thoracic spine mobilization allows significant improvements in postural balance and gait ability in subacute stroke patients, with no differences between the SNAG and MM techniques.