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 ).

The association between cervical artery dissection and spinal manipulation among US adults.

PURPOSE: Cervical artery dissection (CeAD), which includes both vertebral artery dissection (VAD) and carotid artery dissection (CAD), is the most serious safety concern associated with cervical spinal manipulation (CSM). We evaluated the association between CSM and CeAD among US adults. METHODS: Through analysis of health claims data, we employed a case-control study with matched controls, a case-control design in which controls were diagnosed with ischemic stroke, and a case-crossover design in which recent exposures were compared to exposures in the same case that occurred 6-7 months earlier. We evaluated the association between CeAD and the 3-level exposure, CSM versus office visit for medical evaluation and management (E&M) versus neither, with E&M set as the referent group. RESULTS: We identified 2337 VAD cases and 2916 CAD cases. Compared to population controls, VAD cases were 0.17 (95% CI 0.09 to 0.32) times as likely to have received CSM in the previous week as compared to E&M. In other words, E&M was about 5 times more likely than CSM in the previous week in cases, relative to controls. CSM was 2.53 (95% CI 1.71 to 3.68) times as likely as E&M in the previous week among individuals with VAD than among individuals experiencing a stroke without CeAD. In the case-crossover study, CSM was 0.38 (95% CI 0.15 to 0.91) times as likely as E&M in the week before a VAD, relative to 6 months earlier. In other words, E&M was approximately 3 times more likely than CSM in the previous week in cases, relative to controls. Results for the 14-day and 30-day timeframes were similar to those at one week. CONCLUSION: Among privately insured US adults, the overall risk of CeAD is very low. Prior receipt of CSM was more likely than E&M among VAD patients as compared to stroke patients. However, for CAD patients as compared to stroke patients, as well as for both VAD and CAD patients in comparison with population controls and in case-crossover analysis, prior receipt of E&M was more likely than CSM.

Effectiveness of spinal manipulation and biopsychosocial self-management compared to medical care for low back pain: a randomized trial study protocol.

BACKGROUND: Chronic low back pain (cLBP) is widespread, costly, and burdensome to patients and health systems. Little is known about non-pharmacological treatments for the secondary prevention of cLBP. There is some evidence that treatments addressing psychosocial factors in higher risk patients are more effective than usual care. However, most clinical trials on acute and subacute LBP have evaluated interventions irrespective of prognosis. METHODS: We have designed a phase 3 randomized trial with a 2 × 2 factorial design. The study is also a Hybrid type 1 trial with focus on intervention effectiveness while simultaneously considering plausible implementation strategies. Adults (n = 1000) with acute/subacute LBP at moderate to high risk of chronicity based on the STarT Back screening tool will be randomized in to 1 of 4 interventions lasting up to 8 weeks: supported self-management (SSM), spinal manipulation therapy (SMT), both SSM and SMT, or medical care. The primary objective is to assess intervention effectiveness; the secondary objective is to assess barriers and facilitators impacting future implementation. Primary effectiveness outcome measures are: (1) average pain intensity over 12 months post-randomization (pain, numerical rating scale); (2) average low back disability over 12 months post-randomization (Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire); (3) prevention of cLBP that is impactful at 10-12 months follow-up (LBP impact from the PROMIS-29 Profile v2.0). Secondary outcomes include: recovery, PROMIS-29 Profile v2.0 measures to assess pain interference, physical function, anxiety, depression, fatigue, sleep disturbance, and ability to participate in social roles and activities. Other patient-reported measures include LBP frequency, medication use, healthcare utilization, productivity loss, STarT Back screening tool status, patient satisfaction, prevention of chronicity, adverse events, and dissemination measures. Objective measures include the Quebec Task Force Classification, Timed Up & Go Test, the Sit to Stand Test, and the Sock Test assessed by clinicians blinded to the patients' intervention assignment. DISCUSSION: By targeting those subjects at higher risk this trial aims to fill an important gap in the scientific literature regarding the effectiveness of promising non-pharmacological treatments compared to medical care for the management of patients with an acute episode of LBP and the prevention of progression to a severe chronic back problem. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03581123.

Immediate Effects of a Single Session of Cervical Spine Manipulation on Cervical Movement Patterns in People With Nonspecific Neck Pain: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the present study was to assess the immediate effects of a single session of cervical spine manipulation on cervical movement patterns, disability, and the patient's perceived improvement in people with nonspecific neck pain. METHODS: A single-blinded, randomized, sham-controlled trial was carried out at a biomechanics institute. Fifty participants diagnosed with acute and chronic nonspecific neck pain (minimum duration of the symptoms being 1 month) were randomized to an experimental group (EG, n = 25) or a sham-control group (CG, n = 25, 23 of whom completed the study). EG received a single cervical spine manipulation session; CG received a single placebo intervention. Both groups received manipulation or sham from the same physiotherapist. Main outcome measures were neck kinematics (ie, range of motion and movement harmony) during cyclic movements, self-reported neck disability, and impression of change assessed before and 5 minutes after treatment. RESULTS: The EG showed no significant improvements (P > .05) in any of the studied biomechanical variables, except for right-side bending and left rotation, in which we found a range of motion significant mean difference of 1.97° and 1.95°, respectively (P < .05). The CG showed enhanced harmonic motion during flexion (P < .05). Both groups showed a significant decrease in self-reported neck disability after treatment (P < .05), and EG participants perceived a significantly larger improvement after manipulation compared with the CG (P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: A single session of cervical manipulation provided by a physiotherapist had no impact on cervical motion during cyclic movements, but rather induced self-reported perceived improvement in neck disability and impression of change after treatment in people with nonspecific neck pain.

Effect of Seated Cervical Spinal Manipulation on Autonomic Nervous System Activity as Measured by Heart Rate Variability and Plasma Norepinephrine Levels: A randomized Pre- and Poststudy.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to determine whether seated cervical manipulation produced changes in autonomic nervous system activity, as measured by heart rate variability and plasma norepinephrine levels. METHODS: Ninety-five healthy young adults (ages 20-48 years) were recruited into a single-blinded physiological study, with 47 randomized to a seated cervical manipulation and 44 randomized to a sham procedure. Heart rate variability in the frequency domain, and plasma norepinephrine levels were measured prior to, immediately following, and 5 minutes following the intervention. RESULTS: Electrocardiograms were obtained from 39 subjects in the sham group and 43 subjects in the manipulation group. No statistically significant changes were found in measures of heart rate variability in the frequency domain in either the manipulation or sham groups. Blood samples were obtained from 22 subjects in the sham group and 27 subjects in the manipulation group. Plasma norepinephrine levels, as measured by spectrophotometry, declined in both groups from pre- to immediately postintervention, and they remained at decreased levels 5 minutes after the interventions. There were no statistically significant differences between groups in pre- or postintervention norepinephrine levels. CONCLUSIONS: Measures of heart rate variability and plasma norepinephrine levels did not show that seated cervical manipulation produced short-term changes in autonomic nervous system activity compared to a sham procedure in healthy young adults.

Effects of thoracic spinal thrust manipulation for the management of shoulder impingement syndrome: Systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the effectiveness of thoracic spinal thrust manipulation for shoulder impingement syndrome in the improvement of pain, range of motion and functional outcomes. METHODS: The systematic review was conducted by 2 researchers independently using search strategy developed for different databases, including Cochrane Central register of control trials, PubMed, Pedro and MEDLINE, for relevant articles published between 2008 and 2020. The search strategy was designed for each database by combining the key terms and Boolean operators related to the review's objective. RESULTS: Of the 312 studies identified, 14(4.5%) were included. Of them, 4(28.6%) were in favour of thoracic thrust manipulation, 8(57.2%) did not support thoracic thrust manipulation as the sole treatment and 2(14.3%) favoured thoracic thrust manipulation along with exercises. CONCLUSIONS: Studies indicated immediate improvement in range of motion as well as pain after thrust manipulation, but others reported no such clinical difference. Manipulation should be combined with other exercise therapy to ensure some clinical improvement.

Changes in pulmonary function following thoracic spine manipulation in a healthy inactive older adult population-a pilot study.

[Purpose] Pulmonary function pathology is primarily treated pharmacologically, with a range of medication side effects. Few studies have systematically examined non-pharmacologic approaches such as joint manipulation effects on pulmonary function. This study examined the immediate and short-term effects of thoracic manipulation on pulmonary function. [Participants and Methods] Twenty-one physically inactive otherwise healthy participants aged 50 years or older were randomly assigned to either receive three sessions of thoracic manipulation (n=10) or three sessions of "sham intercostal training" (n=11). Outcome measures included forced vital capacity, maximal voluntary ventilation and thoracic excursion during maximal inhalation and exhalation. [Results] There was a statistically significant difference in maximal voluntary ventilation in the manipulation group, when measured within a week of the third intervention session and immediate effects in thoracic excursion during exhalation in the sham group following a single intervention session. There were no significant changes in other measures. [Conclusion] Spinal manipulation had no immediate effect on pulmonary function, however, affected an improvement in maximal voluntary ventilation within 7 days following a third session. The sham intervention showed a change in thoracic excursion during exhalation after the first session. Future research is necessary to further explore the relationship between thoracic manipulation and pulmonary function.

Spine-Adjusting Instrument (Impulse®) Attenuates Nociception and Modulates Oxidative Stress Markers in the Spinal Cord and Sciatic Nerve of a Rat Model of Neuropathic Pain.

OBJECTIVE: Oxidative stress plays an important role in neuropathic pain (NP). Spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) can exert beneficial effects on pain outcomes in humans and in animal models. SMT can also modulate oxidative stress markers in both humans and animals. We aimed to determine the effect of Impulse®-assisted SMT (ISMT) on nociception and oxidative stress biomarkers in the spinal cords and sciatic nerves of rats with NP. METHODS: NP was induced by chronic constriction injury (CCI) of the sciatic nerve. Animals were randomly assigned to naive, sham (rats with sciatic nerve exposure but without ligatures), or CCI, with and without ISMT. ISMT was applied onto the skin area corresponding to the spinous process of L4-L5, three times per week for 2 weeks. Mechanical threshold, latency to paw withdrawal in response to thermal stimulus, and oxidative stress biomarkers in the spinal cord and sciatic nerve were the main outcomes evaluated. RESULTS: ISMT significantly increased mechanical threshold and withdrawal latency after CCI. In the spinal cord, ISMT prevented the increase of pro-oxidative superoxide anion generation and hydrogen peroxide levels. Lipid hydroperoxide levels both in the spinal cord and in the sciatic nerve were attenuated by ISMT. Total antioxidant capacity increased in the spinal cords and sciatic nerves of CCI rats with and without ISMT. CCI and ISMT did not significantly change the total thiol content of the spinal cord. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that reduced oxidative stress in the spinal cord and/or nerve may be an important mechanism underlying a therapeutic effect of SMT to manage NP nonpharmacologically.

Association between cervical artery dissection and spinal manipulative therapy -a medicare claims analysis.

BACKGROUND: Cervical artery dissection and subsequent ischemic stroke is the most serious safety concern associated with cervical spinal manipulation. METHODS: We evaluated the association between cervical spinal manipulation and cervical artery dissection among older Medicare beneficiaries in the United States. We employed case-control and case-crossover designs in the analysis of claims data for individuals aged 65+, continuously enrolled in Medicare Part A (covering hospitalizations) and Part B (covering outpatient encounters) for at least two consecutive years during 2007-2015. The primary exposure was cervical spinal manipulation; the secondary exposure was a clinical encounter for evaluation and management for neck pain or headache. We created a 3-level categorical variable, (1) any cervical spinal manipulation, 2) evaluation and management but no cervical spinal manipulation and (3) neither cervical spinal manipulation nor evaluation and management. The primary outcomes were occurrence of cervical artery dissection, either (1) vertebral artery dissection or (2) carotid artery dissection. The cases had a new primary diagnosis on at least one inpatient hospital claim or primary/secondary diagnosis for outpatient claims on at least two separate days. Cases were compared to 3 different control groups: (1) matched population controls having at least one claim in the same year as the case; (2) ischemic stroke controls without cervical artery dissection; and (3) case-crossover analysis comparing cases to themselves in the time period 6-7 months prior to their cervical artery dissection. We made each comparison across three different time frames: up to (1) 7 days; (2) 14 days; and (3) 30 days prior to index event. RESULTS: The odds of cervical spinal manipulation versus evaluation and management did not significantly differ between vertebral artery dissection cases and any of the control groups at any of the timepoints (ORs 0.84 to 1.88; p > 0.05). Results for carotid artery dissection cases were similar. CONCLUSION: Among Medicare beneficiaries aged 65 and older who received cervical spinal manipulation, the risk of cervical artery dissection is no greater than that among control groups.

The association of biomarkers with pain and function in acute and subacute low back pain: a secondary analysis of an RCT.

BACKGROUND: Low back pain (LBP) is a common musculoskeletal condition and a major cause of disability worldwide. Previous studies have found associations of biomarkers with pain and pain-related disability in LBP patients. This study aimed to explore the association between serum biomarkers and pain and disability in patients with acute or subacute axial LBP. METHODS: This study was ancillary to a parent randomized controlled trial. Enrolled participants were randomized into three intervention groups: one of two types of spinal manipulation or medical care. In the parent study, 107 adults who experienced a new episode of LBP within 3 months prior to enrollment were recruited. For this study, 90 of these 107 participants consented to have blood samples obtained, which were drawn immediately before the beginning of treatment. Seven biomarkers were chosen based on previous literature and analyzed. Clinical outcomes were pain and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) evaluated at baseline and 4 weeks. Spearman's |r| was used to study the association of initial levels of each biomarker with pain and ODI scores at baseline and with changes in outcome scores from baseline to 4 weeks (end of treatment) within each intervention group. RESULTS: At baseline, 4 of 7 biomarkers had an association with pain that was |r| ≥ .20: neuropeptide Y (NPY) (r = 0.23, p = .028), E-Selectin (r = 0.22, p = .043), vitamin D ((r = - 0.32, p = .002), and c-reactive protein (CRP) (r = 0.37, p = .001). No baseline biomarker had an association with disability that was |r| ≥ 0.20. For the correlations of baseline biomarkers with 4-week change in outcomes, vitamin D showed a correlation with change in disability and/or pain (|r| ≥ 0.20, p > .05) in manipulation-related groups, while CRP, NPY, and E-selectin along with TNFα, Substance P and RANTES showed at least one correlation with change in pain or disability (|r| ≥ 0.20, p > .05) in at least one of the treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: In 90 LBP patients, the analyzed biomarkers, especially vitamin D, represent a small set of potential candidates for further research aimed at individualizing patient care. Overall, the associations investigated in the current study are an initial step in identifying the direct mechanisms of LBP and predicting outcomes of manipulation-related treatments or medical care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01211613, Date of Registration: September 29, 2010, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01211613?term=schneider&cond=Low+Back+Pain&cntry=US&state=US%3APA&draw=2&rank=1.

Absence of Neuroplastic Changes in the Bilateral H-Reflex Amplitude following Spinal Manipulation with Activator IV.

Background and Objectives: Chiropractic spinal manipulation is an alternative medical procedure for treating various spinal dysfunctions. Great interest exists in investigating its neuroplastic effects on the central nervous system. Previous studies have found contradictory results in relation to the neuroplastic changes in the H-reflex amplitude as a response to manual spinal manipulation. The discrepancies could be partly due to differences in the unilateral nature of these recordings and/or the variable force exerted in manual techniques applied by distinct chiropractors. Concerning the latter point, the variability in the performance of manual interventions may bias the determination of the significance of changes in H-reflex responses derived from spinal manipulation. To investigate such responses, a chiropractic device can be used to provide more precise and reproducible results. The current contribution aimed to examine whether spinal manipulation with an Activator IV instrument generates neuroplastic effects on the bilateral H-reflex amplitude in dancers and non-dancers. Materials and Methods: A radiograph verified spinal dysfunction in both groups of participants. Since there were significant differences between groups in the mean Hmax values of the H-reflex amplitude before spinal intervention, an assessment was made of the possible dependence of the effects of spinal manipulation with Activator IV on the basal conditions. Results: Ten sessions of spinal manipulation with Activator IV did not cause statistically significant changes in the bilateral H-reflex amplitude (measured as the Hmax/Mmax ratio) in either group. Furthermore, no significant difference was detected in the effects of spinal manipulation between groups, despite their distinct basal H-reflex amplitude. Conclusions: Regarding the therapeutic benefits of a chiropractic adjustment, herein carried out with Activator IV, the present findings suggest that the mechanism of action is not on the monosynaptic H-reflex pathway. Further research is needed to understand the mechanisms involved.

"Short- and mid-term effects of adding upper cervical manual therapy to a conventional physical therapy program in patients with chronic mechanical neck pain. Randomized controlled clinical trial."

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of adding an Upper Cervical Translatoric Mobilization (UCTM) or an Inhibitory Suboccipital Technique (IST) to a physiotherapy treatment in the symptomatology and function of mechanical chronic neck pain patients. DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial. SETTING: Primary Care Center in Cornellà, Spain. SUBJECTS: 78 patients (64 women), with mean age (SD) of 59.96 (13.30) years with mechanical chronic neck pain were divided in three groups: control, IST and UCTM groups. INTERVENTIONS: All groups received 15 physiotherapy sessions for three weeks. The UCTM and IST groups added 5 minutes of the assigned technique during six sessions. MAIN MEASURES: Neck disability index (NDI) and numeric pain rating scale (NPRS) for neck pain were measured baseline, three-weeks and 15-weeks follow-up. RESULTS: NDI (SD) at baseline, three-weeks and 15-weeks were 11.62 (7.08), 9.65 (6.25), 7.58 (5.64) for the control group, 14.38 (6.92), 8.50 (6.11), 7.12 (4.98) for the IST group and 13.19(7.23), 5.35(6.10), 4.35(2.76) for the UCTM group. NPRS (SD) at baseline, three-weeks and 15-weeks were 58.69 (19.46), 45.19 (23.43), 44.58 (24.08) for the control group; 64.08 (19.26), 42.19 (19.69), 34 (21.14) for the IST group; and 67.65 (20.65), 36.23 (20.10), 39.85 (25.44) for the UCTM group. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with no treatment, both forms of mobilization were associated with reduced disability at three weeks, and UCTM remained better than control at 15 weeks; there were no significant differences between the two mobilization groups. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study was registered in Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02832232).

The contemporary model of vertebral column joint dysfunction and impact of high-velocity, low-amplitude controlled vertebral thrusts on neuromuscular function.

PURPOSE: There is growing evidence that vertebral column function and dysfunction play a vital role in neuromuscular control. This invited review summarises the evidence about how vertebral column dysfunction, known as a central segmental motor control (CSMC) problem, alters neuromuscular function and how spinal adjustments (high-velocity, low-amplitude or HVLA thrusts directed at a CSMC problem) and spinal manipulation (HVLA thrusts directed at segments of the vertebral column that may not have clinical indicators of a CSMC problem) alters neuromuscular function. METHODS: The current review elucidates the peripheral mechanisms by which CSMC problems, the spinal adjustment or spinal manipulation alter the afferent input from the paravertebral tissues. It summarises the contemporary model that provides a biologically plausible explanation for CSMC problems, the manipulable spinal lesion. This review also summarises the contemporary, biologically plausible understanding about how spinal adjustments enable more efficient production of muscular force. The evidence showing how spinal dysfunction, spinal manipulation and spinal adjustments alter central multimodal integration and motor control centres will be covered in a second invited review. RESULTS: Many studies have shown spinal adjustments increase voluntary force and prevent fatigue, which mainly occurs due to altered supraspinal excitability and multimodal integration. The literature suggests physical injury, pain, inflammation, and acute or chronic physiological or psychological stress can alter the vertebral column's central neural motor control, leading to a CSMC problem. The many gaps in the literature have been identified, along with suggestions for future studies. CONCLUSION: Spinal adjustments of CSMC problems impact motor control in a variety of ways. These include increasing muscle force and preventing fatigue. These changes in neuromuscular function most likely occur due to changes in supraspinal excitability. The current contemporary model of the CSMC problem, and our understanding of the mechanisms of spinal adjustments, provide a biologically plausible explanation for how the vertebral column's central neural motor control can dysfunction, can lead to a self-perpetuating central segmental motor control problem, and how HVLA spinal adjustments can improve neuromuscular function.

Three Patterns of Spinal Manipulative Therapy for Back Pain and Their Association With Imaging Studies, Injection Procedures, and Surgery: A Cohort Study of Insurance Claims.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the relationship between procedures and care patterns in back pain episodes by analyzing health insurance claims. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study of insurance claims data from a single Fortune 500 company. The 3 care patterns we analyzed were initial spinal manipulative therapy, delayed spinal manipulative therapy, and no spinal manipulative therapy. The 3 procedures analyzed were imaging studies, injection procedures, and back surgery. We considered "escalated care" to be any claims with diagnostic imaging, injection procedures, or back surgery. Modified-Poisson regression modeling was used to determine relative risk of escalated care. RESULTS: There were 83 025 claims that were categorized into 10 372 unique patient first episodes. Spinal manipulative therapy was present in 2943 episodes (28%). Initial spinal manipulation was present in 2519 episodes (24%), delayed spinal manipulation was present in 424 episodes (4%), and 7429 (72%) had no evidence of spinal manipulative therapy. The estimated relative risk, adjusted for age, sex, and risk score, for care escalation (eg, imaging, injections, or surgery) was 0.70 (95% confidence interval 0.65-0.75, P < .001) for initial spinal manipulation and 1.22 (95% confidence interval 1.10-1.35, P < .001) for delayed spinal manipulation with no spinal manipulation used as the reference group. CONCLUSION: For claims associated with initial episodes of back pain, initial spinal manipulative therapy was associated with an approximately 30% decrease in the risk of imaging studies, injection procedures, or back surgery compared with no spinal manipulative therapy. The risk of imaging studies, injection procedures, or back surgery in episodes in the delayed spinal manipulative therapy group was higher than those without spinal manipulative therapy.

[Manual medicine, manual treatment : Principles, mode of action, indications and evidence]. / Manuelle Medizin, manuelle Therapie : Grundlagen, Wirkmechanismen, Indikationen und Evidenz.

Manual medicine is the medical discipline that comprehensively deals with the diagnosis, treatment and prevention of reversible functional disorders of the musculoskeletal system and other related organ systems. The article illustrates the neuroanatomical and neurophysiological basic elements and mechanisms of manual medical diagnostics and treatment. Based on the most recent literature and in consideration of various scientific guidelines, the evidence-based effectiveness of manual medical procedures is presented. In detail: acute and chronic low back pain, cervicogenic headache, neck and shoulder pain, radicular arm pain, dysfunctional thoracic pain syndromes, diseases of the rotator cuff, carpal tunnel syndrome and plantar fasciitis. Clinical case examples illustrate the clinical approach. The terminology, origin and clinical presence of "osteopathy" are described in detail and the national and international associations and societies of manual medicine, the German Society for Manual Medicine (DGMM), the European Scientific Society of Manual Medicine (ESSOMM) and the Fédération Internationale de Medicine Manuelle (FIMM) are lexically presented. Finally, contraindications for manual interventions and an outlook on requirements and possibilities of the scientific analysis of pain are presented, as they are postulated in the preamble of the guidelines on specific low back pain of the German Society for Orthopedics and Orthopedic Surgery (DGOOC).

The Potential Mechanisms of High-Velocity, Low-Amplitude, Controlled Vertebral Thrusts on Neuroimmune Function: A Narrative Review.

The current COVID-19 pandemic has necessitated the need to find healthcare solutions that boost or support immunity. There is some evidence that high-velocity, low-amplitude (HVLA) controlled vertebral thrusts have the potential to modulate immune mediators. However, the mechanisms of the link between HVLA controlled vertebral thrusts and neuroimmune function and the associated potential clinical implications are less clear. This review aims to elucidate the underlying mechanisms that can explain the HVLA controlled vertebral thrust--neuroimmune link and discuss what this link implies for clinical practice and future research needs. A search for relevant articles published up until April 2021 was undertaken. Twenty-three published papers were found that explored the impact of HVLA controlled vertebral thrusts on neuroimmune markers, of which eighteen found a significant effect. These basic science studies show that HVLA controlled vertebral thrust influence the levels of immune mediators in the body, including neuropeptides, inflammatory markers, and endocrine markers. This narravtive review discusses the most likely mechanisms for how HVLA controlled vertebral thrusts could impact these immune markers. The mechanisms are most likely due to the known changes in proprioceptive processing that occur within the central nervous system (CNS), in particular within the prefrontal cortex, following HVLA spinal thrusts. The prefrontal cortex is involved in the regulation of the autonomic nervous system, the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis and the immune system. Bi-directional neuro-immune interactions are affected by emotional or pain-related stress. Stress-induced sympathetic nervous system activity also alters vertebral motor control. Therefore, there are biologically plausible direct and indirect mechanisms that link HVLA controlled vertebral thrusts to the immune system, suggesting HVLA controlled vertebral thrusts have the potential to modulate immune function. However, it is not yet known whether HVLA controlled vertebral thrusts have a clinically relevant impact on immunity. Further research is needed to explore the clinical impact of HVLA controlled vertebral thrusts on immune function.

Learning Spinal Manipulation: Objective and Subjective Assessment of Performance.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to investigate associations between objective spinal manipulation therapy (SMT) biomechanical parameters and subjective assessments provided by patients, clinicians, and expert assessors. METHODS: Chiropractic students (N = 137) and expert instructors (N = 14) were recruited. Students were asked to perform a thoracic SMT alternately on each other on a force-sensing table while being observed by an expert instructor. Students who performed (clinicians) and received (patients) SMT, and expert instructors, independently scored each SMT performance using visual analog scales. Correlations between these subjective scores and SMT biomechanical parameters were calculated. The following parameters were evaluated: peak force, preload force, thrust duration, and drop in preload force. Spinal manipulation therapy comfort was also assessed by patients, clinicians, and expert instructors. RESULTS: Results of the study indicate that thrust duration assessed by instructors and patients was the only parameters significantly correlated with the table data (r = .37; P < .001 and r = .26; P = .002). Comfort assessed by clinicians was significantly correlated with their own assessments of thrust duration (r = .37; P < .001) and preload force (r = .23; P = .007), whereas comfort assessed by instructors was significantly correlated with their own assessment of thrust duration (r = .27; P = .002) and drop in preload force (r = -.34; P < .001). Objective biomechanical parameters of performance did not predict perceived comfort. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the results from the subjective assessments of SMT performance are weakly correlated with objective measures of SMT performance. Only the thrust duration evaluated by expert instructors and patients was associated with scores obtained from the table. Perceived comfort of the procedure seems to be associated mostly with perceived thrust duration and preload characteristics.

Reaction Force Magnitude and Orientation During Supine Thoracic Spine Thrust Manipulation: An Exploratory Analysis and Reliability of Preload and Impulse Phase.

OBJECTIVE: The main purpose of this study was to explore specific kinetic parameters during supine thoracic thrust manipulation and to analyze task reliability and differences between various practitioners METHODS: Kinetic parameters were assessed by examining ground reaction force magnitude and orientation (on the basis of the zenithal angle) using force platforms. The manipulative procedure (consisting of the application of 3 preloads followed by 1 single thrust adjustment) was performed by different practitioners at 3 sessions. Application of thrust was allowed for trained practitioners only. Preload force, peak force, and vector force orientation were compared between sessions and practitioners. RESULTS: Reliability analysis showed that practitioners achieved similar preload and peak force independent of the session, with comparable force orientation data. Differences between practitioners were observed for preload and peak force but not regarding the zenithal angle during the thrust phase. CONCLUSION: This study is the first that explores kinetic parameters for supine thoracic thrust manipulation. Task repeatability was confirmed and several differences were observed between practitioners. Certainly, there is a need for further investigation examining both dynamic parameters (ie, velocity and accelerations) and the potential neurologic effect of such manipulative technique.

The Impact of Spinal Manipulation on Migraine Pain and Disability: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Several small studies have suggested that spinal manipulation may be an effective treatment for reducing migraine pain and disability. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of published randomized clinical trials (RCTs) to evaluate the evidence regarding spinal manipulation as an alternative or integrative therapy in reducing migraine pain and disability. METHODS: PubMed and the Cochrane Library databases were searched for clinical trials that evaluated spinal manipulation and migraine-related outcomes through April 2017. Search terms included: migraine, spinal manipulation, manual therapy, chiropractic, and osteopathic. Meta-analytic methods were employed to estimate the effect sizes (Hedges' g) and heterogeneity (I2 ) for migraine days, pain, and disability. The methodological quality of retrieved studies was examined following the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool. RESULTS: Our search identified 6 RCTs (pooled n = 677; range of n = 42-218) eligible for meta-analysis. Intervention duration ranged from 2 to 6 months; outcomes included measures of migraine days (primary outcome), migraine pain/intensity, and migraine disability. Methodological quality varied across the studies. For example, some studies received high or unclear bias scores for methodological features such as compliance, blinding, and completeness of outcome data. Due to high levels of heterogeneity when all 6 studies were included in the meta-analysis, the 1 RCT performed only among chronic migraineurs was excluded. Heterogeneity across the remaining studies was low. We observed that spinal manipulation reduced migraine days with an overall small effect size (Hedges' g = -0.35, 95% CI: -0.53, -0.16, P < .001) as well as migraine pain/intensity. CONCLUSIONS: Spinal manipulation may be an effective therapeutic technique to reduce migraine days and pain/intensity. However, given the limitations to studies included in this meta-analysis, we consider these results to be preliminary. Methodologically rigorous, large-scale RCTs are warranted to better inform the evidence base for spinal manipulation as a treatment for migraine.

Cervical epidural hematoma after spinal manipulation therapy: a case report.

BACKGROUND: Cervical spinal manipulation therapy is a common non-invasive treatment for neck pain and stiffness, and has been widely used in the population. However, most people do not pay attention to the potential risks of neck manipulation, such as ligament damage, fractures, and spinal cord injuries. Epidural hematoma is a disease in which blood accumulates in the epidural space of the vertebral body. This disease is usually caused by trauma or iatrogenic surgery, and may be associated with blood coagulopathies, neoplasms, or degenerative spinal disease. Reports of epidural hematoma caused by cervical spinal manipulation are rare. CASE PRESENTATION: We present the case of a patient with tetraplegia and spinal shock after neck manipulation. A physical examination of the patient on admission found tenderness in the neck and increased muscle tension in both upper limbs. The superficial sensation of the upper limb disappeared, but the deep sensation still remained. The lower extremity had 0/5 power on both sides. The sensation below the T2 level completely disappeared. A cervical magnetic resonance imaging scan showed an acute posterior epidural hematoma from the C3-T3 vertebrae. Ultimately, the patient underwent emergency hematoma removal and showed partial improvement in symptoms of paralysis during follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Although spinal manipulation is simple and neck pain is common and recurrent in the general population, the basic condition and disease history of patients should be determined before manipulation. For high-risk patients, caution should be applied for cervical spinal manipulation or it should be prohibited. For a suspected hematoma, MRI should be used at an early stage to diagnose and locate the hematoma.