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 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.

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.

How well do participants in clinical trials represent the U.S. population with chronic neck or back pain?

BACKGROUND: Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) are the gold standard for assessing treatment effectiveness; however, they have been criticized for generalizability issues such as how well trial participants represent those who receive the treatments in clinical practice. We assessed the representativeness of participants from eight RCTs for chronic spine pain in the U.S., which were used for an individual participant data meta-analysis on the cost-effectiveness of spinal manipulation for spine pain. In these clinical trials, spinal manipulation was performed by chiropractors. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective secondary analysis of RCT data to compare trial participants' socio-demographic characteristics, clinical features, and health outcomes to a representative sample of (a) U.S. adults with chronic spine pain and (b) U.S. adults with chronic spine pain receiving chiropractic care, using secondary data from the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) and Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS). We assessed differences between trial and U.S. spine populations using independent t-tests for means and z-tests for proportions, accounting for the complex multi-stage survey design of the NHIS and MEPS. RESULTS: We found the clinical trials had an under-representation of individuals from health disparity populations with lower percentages of racial and ethnic minority groups (Black/African American 7% lower, Hispanic 8% lower), less educated (No high school degree 19% lower, high school degree 11% lower), and unemployed adults (25% lower) with worse health outcomes (physical health scores 2.5 lower and mental health scores 5.3 lower using the SF-12/36) relative to the U.S. population with spine pain. While the odds of chiropractic use in the U.S. are lower for individuals from health disparity populations, the trials also under-represented these populations relative to U.S. adults with chronic spine pain who visit a chiropractor. CONCLUSIONS: Health disparity populations are not well represented in spine pain clinical trials. Embracing key community-based approaches, which have shown promise for increasing participation of underserved communities, is needed.

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.

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

OBJECTIVES: To compare prevalence rates of serious and non-serious adverse events after manipulation and mobilization and to identify risk factors of serious and non-serious adverse events following 4 types of manual therapy treatment in patients with neck pain. DESIGN: A prospective cohort study in primary care manual therapy practice. PARTICIPANTS: Patients with neck pain (N=686) provided data on adverse events after 1014 manipulation treatments, 829 mobilization treatments, 437 combined manipulation and mobilization treatments, and 891 treatments consisting of "other treatment modality". INTERVENTIONS: Usual care manual therapy. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: A chi-square test was performed to explore differences in prevalence rates. Logistic regression analysis was performed within the 4 treatment groups. A priori we defined associations between patient-characteristics and adverse events of odds ratio (OR)>2 or OR<0.5 as clinically relevant. RESULTS: No serious adverse events, such as cervical artery dissection or stroke, were reported. With regard to non-serious adverse events, we found that these are common after manual therapy treatment: prevalence rates are ranging from 0.3% to 64.7%. We found a statistically significant difference between the 4 types of treatments, detrimental to mobilization treatment. Logistic regression analysis resulted in 3 main predictors related to non-serious adverse events after manual therapy treatment: smoking (OR ranges from 2.10 [95% confidence interval [CI] 1.37-3.11] to 3.33 [95% CI 1.83-5.93]), the presence of comorbidity (OR ranges from 2.32 [95% CI 1.22-4.44] to 3.88 [95% CI 1.62-9.26]), and female sex (OR ranges from 0.22 [95% CI 0.11-0.46] to 0.49 [95% CI 0.28-0.86]). CONCLUSION: There is a significant difference in the occurrence of non-serious adverse events after mobilization compared with manipulation or a combination of manipulation and mobilization. Non-serious adverse events in manual therapy practice are common and are associated with smoking and the presence of comorbidity. In addition, women are more likely to report non-serious adverse events.

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.

Effects of fasciatherapy versus fascial manipulation on pain, range of motion and function in patients with chronic neck pain.

BACKGROUND: Neck pain is among the common musculoskeletal problem that hinders a person's daily activities. Fascial tightness is a familiar cause of chronic neck pain that is often neglected and can further cause neck disability and a limited range of motion. OBJECTIVE: The purpose was to compare the effects of fascia therapy and fascial manipulation on pain, range of motion and function in patients with chronic neck pain. METHODS: A randomized clinical trial was conducted from February to August 2022 in the Riphah Rehabilitation Centre, Lahore, Pakistan. Fifty-two participants of both genders, aged 18-40 years with chronic neck pain of at least 3-6 months were included. Group A (n = 26) received fascia therapy along with a conventional physical therapy protocol of hot pack, strengthening and stretching, while group B (n = 26) received the fascial manipulation treatment with conventional physical therapy. All the participants were assessed at baseline and after 3 weeks (3 sessions per week). Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NPRS), Neck Disability Index (NDI) and Goniometer (range of motions) were the outcome measures. SPSS 25 was used for the data analysis and normality of the data through the Shaphiro-Wilk test (p > 0.05), and parametric tests were applied. RESULTS: The mean age of group A was 24.82 ± 2.64 years, and group B was 24.17 ± 2.20 years. The independent t-test result showed no significant difference (p ≥ 0.05) in all parameters except in cervical extension and right-side bending (p < 0.05). At the same time, the pair-wise comparison showed significant results (p < 0.05) for all outcome measures in both groups. CONCLUSION: DBM fascia therapy improved cervical extension and side bending (right) more than the fascial manipulation group.It is concluded that DBM fascia therapy shows more improvement as compared to other group. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT05272111 on 09/03/2022.

Socioeconomic differences in the utilization of diagnostic imaging and non-pharmaceutical conservative therapies for spinal diseases.

BACKGROUND: A different utilization of health care services due to socioeconomic status on the same health plan contradicts the principle of equal treatment. We investigated the presence and magnitude of socioeconomic differences in utilization of diagnostic imaging and non-pharmaceutical conservative therapies for patients with spinal diseases. METHODS: The cohort study based on routine healthcare data from Germany with 11.7 million patient-years between 2012 and 2016 for patients with physician-confirmed spinal diseases (ICD-10: M40-M54), occupation and age 20 to 64 years. A Poisson model estimated the effects of the socioeconomic status (school education, professional education and occupational position) for the risk ratio of receiving diagnostic imaging (radiography, computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging) and non-pharmaceutical conservative therapies (physical therapy including exercise therapy, manual therapy and massage, spinal manipulative therapy, acupuncture). RESULTS: Patients received diagnostic imaging in 26%, physical therapy in 32%, spinal manipulative therapy in 25%, and acupuncture in 4% of all patient-years. Similar to previous survey-based studies higher rates of utilization were associated with higher socioeconomic status. These differences were most pronounced for manual therapy, exercise therapy, and magnetic resonance imaging. CONCLUSIONS: The observed differences in health care utilization were highly related to socioeconomic status. Socioeconomic differences were higher for more expensive health services. Further research is necessary to identify barriers to equitable access to health services and to take appropriate action to decrease existing social disparities.

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.

Effectiveness of manual therapy in the treatment of cervicogenic headache: A systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to identify the manual therapy (MT) methods and techniques that have been evaluated for the treatment of cervicogenic headache (CH) and their effectiveness. BACKGROUND: MT seems to be one of the options with the greatest potential for the treatment of CH, but the techniques to be applied are varied and there is no consensus on which are the most indicated. METHODS: A systematic search in Scopus, Medline, PubMed, Cinahl, PEDro, and Web of Science with the terms: secondary headache disorders, physical therapy modalities, musculoskeletal manipulations, cervicogenic headache, manual therapy, and physical therapy. We included articles published from 2015 to the present that studied interventions with MT techniques in patients with CH. Two reviewers independently screened 365 articles for demographic information, characteristics of study design, study-specific intervention, and results. The Oxford 2011 Levels of Evidence and the Jadad scale were used. RESULTS: Of a total of 14 articles selected, 11 were randomized control trials and three were quasi-experimental studies. The techniques studied were: spinal manipulative therapy, Mulligan's Sustained Natural Apophyseal Glides, muscle techniques, and translatory vertebral mobilization. In the short-term, the Jones technique on the trapezius and ischemic compression on the sternocleidomastoid achieved immediate improvements, whereas adding spinal manipulative therapy to the treatment can maintain long-term results. CONCLUSIONS: The manual therapy techniques could be effective in the treatment of patients with CH. The combined use of MT techniques improved the results compared with using them separately. This review has methodological limitations, such as the inclusion of quasi-experimental studies and studies with small sample sizes that reduced the generalizability of the results obtained.

A Single-Center Study Comparing the Effects of Thoracic Spine Manipulation vs Mobility Exercises in 26 Office Workers with Chronic Neck Pain: A Randomized Controlled Clinical Study.

BACKGROUND Neck pain is associated with computer work, poor posture, imbalanced neck muscles, and fatigue, particularly in office workers. This study from a single center aimed to compare the effects of thoracic spine mobility exercise and thoracic spine manipulation to improve cervical spine range of motion in 26 office workers who had chronic neck pain for more than 12 weeks. MATERIAL AND METHODS The participants were 26 office workers with neck pain lasting >12 weeks. These participants were randomly assigned to undergo TSME (n=13) or TSM (n=13). Both groups underwent cervical joint mobilization and deep cervical flexor muscle exercises for 25 min a day, twice weekly, for 6 weeks. The TSME group additionally performed TSME 15 min a day, twice a week, for 6 weeks, while the TSM group received TSM 2 times a day, twice a week, for 6 weeks. Cervical and thoracic spine ROM, numeric pain rating scale (NPRS), and neck disability index (NDI) were measured before and after interventions. The ROM of cervical and thoracic spine was measured using a dual inclinometer. RESULTS Both groups showed significant changes in cervical spine ROM, thoracic spine ROM, NPRS, and NDI after intervention compared to before intervention (P<0.05). Cervical spine right lateral flexion and right rotation differed significantly between the groups (P<0.05), while thoracic spine ROM, NPRS, and NDI did not. CONCLUSIONS TSME and TSM have similar effects in improving pain and disability in office workers with non-specific chronic neck pain.

Effectiveness of Multimodal Chiropractic Care Featuring Spinal Manipulation for Persistent Spinal Pain Syndrome Following Lumbar Spine Surgery: Retrospective Chart Review of 31 Adults in Hong Kong.

BACKGROUND The term "persistent spinal pain syndrome type 2" (PSPS-2) has been proposed by the International Association for the Study of Pain to replace the term "failed back surgery syndrome". This retrospective study aimed to evaluate effectiveness of multimodal care featuring chiropractic spinal manipulation (CSMT) in 31 adults in Hong Kong with PSPS-2. MATERIAL AND METHODS We identified new adult patients with PSPS-2 receiving CSMT from 2016 to 2018. Demographic and clinical data and baseline/follow-up numeric pain rating scale (NPRS) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores were extracted. Multiple linear regression was used to examine posttreatment NPRS and ODI reduction, with clinical variables as covariates. RESULTS Of 6589 patients with low back pain, 31 met criteria (mean age 52.2±13.7 years). Surgeries included laminectomy (81%), discectomy (13%), and fusion (6%). Mean baseline NRPS was 6.6±1.9; ODI was 43.8±15.1%. Patients received CSMT (100%), drop technique (81%), passive modalities (65%), soft tissue manipulation (13%), flexion-distraction (13%), and mechanical traction (13%). Mean posttreatment NPRS was 0.6±1.0; ODI was 2.4±3.3%. All patients had a minimum clinically important difference for NPRS (≥2/10) and ODI (≥30%). One year after treatment, 48% maintained improvement, 42% experienced recurrence; in 10%, follow-up was unavailable. Regression analysis identified younger age, shorter symptom duration, and greater baseline NPRS as predictors of NPRS reduction; and greater baseline ODI as a predictor of ODI reduction (all P<0.05). CONCLUSIONS Patients with PSPS-2 improved with multimodal care featuring CSMT, which was more effective in patients with younger age, shorter symptom duration, and higher baseline pain or disability levels.

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.

Spinal manipulation and mobilisation in the treatment of infants, children, and adolescents: a systematic scoping review.

PURPOSE: To i) identify and map the available evidence regarding effectiveness and harms of spinal manipulation and mobilisation for infants, children and adolescents with a broad range of conditions; ii) identify and synthesise policies, regulations, position statements and practice guidelines informing their clinical use. DESIGN: Systematic scoping review, utilising four electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, CINHAL and Cochrane) and grey literature from root to 4th February 2021. PARTICIPANTS: Infants, children and adolescents (birth to < 18 years) with any childhood disorder/condition. INTERVENTION: Spinal manipulation and mobilisation OUTCOME MEASURES: Outcomes relating to common childhood conditions were explored. METHOD: Two reviewers (A.P., L.L.) independently screened and selected studies, extracted key findings and assessed methodological quality of included papers using Joanna Briggs Institute Checklist for Systematic Reviews and Research Synthesis, Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklist for Text and Opinion Papers, Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool and International Centre for Allied Health Evidence Guideline Quality Checklist. A descriptive synthesis of reported findings was undertaken using a levels of evidence approach. RESULTS: Eighty-seven articles were included. Methodological quality of articles varied. Spinal manipulation and mobilisation are being utilised clinically by a variety of health professionals to manage paediatric populations with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS), asthma, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), autism spectrum disorder (ASD), back/neck pain, breastfeeding difficulties, cerebral palsy (CP), dysfunctional voiding, excessive crying, headaches, infantile colic, kinetic imbalances due to suboccipital strain (KISS), nocturnal enuresis, otitis media, torticollis and plagiocephaly. The descriptive synthesis revealed: no evidence to explicitly support the effectiveness of spinal manipulation or mobilisation for any condition in paediatric populations. Mild transient symptoms were commonly described in randomised controlled trials and on occasion, moderate-to-severe adverse events were reported in systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials and other lower quality studies. There was strong to very strong evidence for 'no significant effect' of spinal manipulation for managing asthma (pulmonary function), headache and nocturnal enuresis, and inconclusive or insufficient evidence for all other conditions explored. There is insufficient evidence to draw conclusions regarding spinal mobilisation to treat paediatric populations with any condition. CONCLUSION: Whilst some individual high-quality studies demonstrate positive results for some conditions, our descriptive synthesis of the collective findings does not provide support for spinal manipulation or mobilisation in paediatric populations for any condition. Increased reporting of adverse events is required to determine true risks. Randomised controlled trials examining effectiveness of spinal manipulation and mobilisation in paediatric populations are warranted.

Spinal manipulative therapy in older adults with chronic low back pain: an individual participant data meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: Many systematic reviews have reported on the effectiveness of spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) for low back pain (LBP) in adults. Much less is known about the older population regarding the effects of SMT. OBJECTIVE: To assess the effects of SMT on pain and function in older adults with chronic LBP in an individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis. SETTING: Electronic databases from 2000 until June 2020, and reference lists of eligible trials and related reviews. DESIGN AND SUBJECTS: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) which examined the effects of SMT in adults with chronic LBP compared to interventions recommended in international LBP guidelines. METHODS: Authors of trials eligible for our IPD meta-analysis were contacted to share data. Two review authors conducted a risk of bias assessment. Primary results were examined in a one-stage mixed model, and a two-stage analysis was conducted in order to confirm findings. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Pain and functional status examined at 4, 13, 26, and 52 weeks. RESULTS: 10 studies were retrieved, including 786 individuals, of which 261 were between 65 and 91 years of age. There is moderate-quality evidence that SMT results in similar outcomes at 4 weeks (pain: mean difference [MD] - 2.56, 95% confidence interval [CI] - 5.78 to 0.66; functional status: standardized mean difference [SMD] - 0.18, 95% CI - 0.41 to 0.05). Second-stage and sensitivity analysis confirmed these findings. CONCLUSION: SMT provides similar outcomes to recommended interventions for pain and functional status in the older adult with chronic LBP. SMT should be considered a treatment for this patient population.

Effects of autogenic and reciprocal inhibition techniques with conventional therapy in mechanical neck pain - a randomized control trial.

BACKGROUND: Neck pain is a common musculoskeletal issue that has been seen as high in terms of disability. Muscle Energy Techniques (MET) are advanced soft tissue techniques to treat Mechanical Neck Pain (MNP). This study compares the Autogenic inhibition (AI) technique with the Reciprocal Inhibition (RI) technique providing conventional treatment to improve functional outcomes. METHODS: A randomized control trial was conducted at Sindh Institute of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation, Karachi, Pakistan from August 28, 2021, to December 31, 2021 among 20-50 years old patients with Moderate intensity MNP for more than 4 weeks and with limited Neck ROMs. The sample were divided randomly and allocated into two groups (groups 1 and 2). Group 1 and 2 received 12 sessions of AI and RI with Conventional therapy respectively. The randomization sheet was generated online from randomization.com for a sample size of 80 and two groups of study 'AI' and 'RI' with a ratio of 1:1 by an independent statistician. Pain (primary outcome), range of motion, and functional disability (secondary outcomes) were assessed through visual analog scale (VAS), Goniometer, and Neck disability index (NDI) at baseline, 1st, and last session respectively. Mean and standard deviation, frequency, and percentages were calculated. Chi-square test and independent t-test compare baseline characteristics. The Repeated Measure Two-Way ANOVA compared mean VAS, NDI, and ROM. The significant P-value was less than 0.05. RESULTS: The mean duration of neck pain was 8 weeks. There was a more significant (p < 0.001) improvement in pain (ES = 0.975), disability (ES = 0.887), neck ROMs; flexion (ES = 0.975), extension (ES = 0.965), right and left lateral flexion (ES = 0.949 and 0.951), and right and left rotation (ES = 0.966 and 0.975) in the AI group than the RI group at 12th session. CONCLUSION: The Autogenic Inhibition-MET is more beneficial than Reciprocal Inhibition-MET in improving Pain, Range of Motion, and Functional Disability in patients with Sub-Acute and Chronic Mechanical Neck Pain. Therefore, it is a beneficial technique to add with conventional neck pain therapy to get better treatment outcomes in MNP patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Prospectively registered on ClincalTrials.Gov with ID: NCT05044078 .

Guideline-concordant utilization of magnetic resonance imaging in adults receiving chiropractic manipulative therapy vs other care for radicular low back pain: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Lumbar magnetic resonance imaging (LMRI) is often performed early in the course of care, which can be discordant with guidelines for non-serious low back pain. Our primary hypothesis was that adults receiving chiropractic spinal manipulative therapy (CSMT) for incident radicular low back pain (rLBP) would have reduced odds of early LMRI over 6-weeks' follow-up compared to those receiving other care (a range of medical care, excluding CSMT). As a secondary hypothesis, CSMT recipients were also expected to have reduced odds of LMRI over 6-months' and 1-years' follow-up. METHODS: A national 84-million-patient health records database including large academic healthcare organizations (TriNetX) was queried for adults age 20-70 with rLBP newly-diagnosed between January 31, 2012 and January 31, 2022. Receipt or non-receipt of CSMT determined cohort allocation. Patients with prior lumbar imaging and serious pathology within 90 days of diagnosis were excluded. Propensity score matching controlled for variables associated with LMRI utilization (e.g., demographics). Odds ratios (ORs) of LMRI over 6-weeks', 6-months', and 1-years' follow-up after rLBP diagnosis were calculated. RESULTS: After matching, there were 12,353 patients per cohort (mean age 50 years, 56% female), with a small but statistically significant reduction in odds of early LMRI in the CSMT compared to other care cohort over 6-weeks' follow-up (9%, 10%, OR [95% CI] 0.88 [0.81-0.96] P = 0.0046). There was a small but statistically significant increase in odds of LMRI among patients in the CSMT relative to the other care cohort over 6-months' (12%, 11%, OR [95% CI] 1.10 [1.02-1.19], P < 0.0174) and 1-years' follow-up (14%, 12%, OR [95% CI] 1.21 [1.13-1.31], P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that patients receiving CSMT for newly-diagnosed rLBP are less likely to receive early LMRI than patients receiving other care. However, CSMT recipients have a small increase in odds of LMRI over the long-term. Both cohorts in this study had a relatively low rate of early LMRI, possibly because the data were derived from academic healthcare organizations. The relationship of these findings to other patient care outcomes and cost should be explored in a future randomized controlled trial. REGISTRATION: Open Science Framework ( https://osf.io/t9myp ).