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).

Spinal Manipulative Therapy for Nonspecific Low Back Pain: Does Targeting a Specific Vertebral Level Make a Difference?: A Systematic Review With Meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to examine whether targeting spinal manipulative therapy (SMT), by applying the intervention to a specific vertebral level, produces superior clinical outcomes than a nontargeted approach in patients with nonspecific low back pain. DESIGN: Systematic review with meta-analysis. LITERATURE SEARCH: MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, CINAHL, Scopus, PEDro, and Index to Chiropractic Literature were searched up to May 31, 2023. STUDY SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials comparing targeted SMT (mobilization or manipulation) to a nontargeted approach in patients with nonspecific low back pain, and measuring the effects on pain intensity and patient-reported disability. DATA SYNTHESIS: Data extraction, risk of bias, and evaluation of the overall certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach were performed by 2 authors independently. Meta-analyses were performed using the restricted maximum likelihood method. RESULTS: Ten randomized controlled trials (n = 931 patients) were included. There was moderate-certainty evidence of no difference between targeted SMT and a nontargeted approach for pain intensity at postintervention (weighted mean difference = -0.20 [95% CI: -0.51, 0.10]) and at follow-up (weighted mean difference = 0.05 [95% CI: -0.26, 0.36]). For patient-reported disability, there was moderate-certainty evidence of no difference at postintervention (standardized mean difference = -0.04 [95% CI: -0.36, 0.29]) and at follow-up (standardized mean difference = -0.05 [95% CI: -0.24, 0.13]). Adverse events were reported in 4 trials, and were minor and evenly distributed between groups. CONCLUSION: Targeting a specific vertebral level when administering SMT for patients with nonspecific low back pain did not result in improved outcomes on pain intensity and patient-reported disability compared to a nontargeted approach. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2023;53(9):1-11. Epub: 28 July 2023. doi:10.2519/jospt.2023.11962.

Investigating force-time characteristics of prone thoracic SMT and self-reported patient outcome measures: a feasibility study.

BACKGROUND: Spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) is commonly used to treat musculoskeletal conditions, including thoracic spine pain. Applying patient-specific force-time characteristics are believed to be important to improve SMT's effectiveness. Investigating SMT as part of a multimodal approach is fundamental to account for the complexity of chiropractic clinical practice. Therefore, pragmatic investigations balancing minimal disruptions to the clinical encounter at the same time as ensuring a robust data quality with rigorous protocols are needed. Consequently, preliminary studies are required to assess the study protocol, quality of data recorded and the sustainability of such investigation. Therefore, this study examined the feasibility of investigating SMT force-time characteristics and clinical outcome measures in a clinical setting. METHODS: In this mixed-methods study, providers recorded thoracic SMT force-time characteristics delivered to patients with thoracic spinal pain during regular clinical encounters. Self-reported clinical outcomes of pain, stiffness, comfort during the SMT (using an electronic visual analogue scale), and global rating of change scale were measured before and after each SMT application. Feasibility was quantitatively assessed for participant recruitment, data collection and data quality. Qualitative data assessed participants' perceptions on the impact of data collection on patient management and clinical flow. RESULTS: Twelve providers (58% female, 27.3 ± 5.0 years old) and twelve patients (58% female, 37.2 ± 14.0 years old) participated in the study. Enrolment rate was greater than 40%, data collection rate was 49% and erroneous data was less than 5%. Participant acceptance was good with both providers and patients reporting positive experience with the study. CONCLUSIONS: Recording SMT force-time characteristics and self-reported clinical outcome measures during a clinical encounter may be feasible with specific modification to the current protocol. The study protocol did not negatively impact patient management. Specific strategies to optimize the data collection protocol for the development of a large clinical database are being developed.

Clinician approaches to spinal manipulation for persistent spinal pain after lumbar surgery: systematic review and meta-analysis of individual patient data.

BACKGROUND: This review aimed to identify variables influencing clinicians' application of spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) for persistent spine pain after lumbar surgery (PSPS-2). We hypothesized markers of reduced clinical/surgical complexity would be associated with greater odds of applying SMT to the lumbar region, use of manual-thrust lumbar SMT, and SMT within 1-year post-surgery as primary outcomes; and chiropractors would have increased odds of using lumbar manual-thrust-SMT compared to other practitioners. METHODS: Per our published protocol, observational studies describing adults receiving SMT for PSPS-2 were included. PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, OVID, PEDro, and Index to Chiropractic Literature were searched from inception to January 6, 2022. Individual patient data (IPD) were requested from contact authors when needed for selection criteria. Data extraction and a customized risk-of-bias rubric were completed in duplicate. Odds ratios (ORs) for primary outcomes were calculated using binary logistic regressions, with covariates including age, sex, symptom distribution, provider, motion segments, spinal implant, and surgery-to-SMT interval. RESULTS: 71 articles were included describing 103 patients (mean age 52 ± 15, 55% male). The most common surgeries were laminectomy (40%), fusion (34%), and discectomy (29%). Lumbar SMT was used in 85% of patients; and of these patients was non-manual-thrust in 59%, manual-thrust in 33%, and unclear in 8%. Clinicians were most often chiropractors (68%). SMT was used > 1-year post-surgery in 66% of cases. While no primary outcomes reached significance, non-reduced motion segments approached significance for predicting use of lumbar-manual-thrust SMT (OR 9.07 [0.97-84.64], P = 0.053). Chiropractors were significantly more likely to use lumbar-manual-thrust SMT (OR 32.26 [3.17-327.98], P = 0.003). A sensitivity analysis omitting high risk-of-bias cases (missing ≥ 25% IPD) revealed similar results. CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians using SMT for PSPS-2 most often apply non-manual-thrust SMT to the lumbar spine, while chiropractors are more likely to use lumbar-manual-thrust SMT relative to other providers. As non-manual-thrust SMT may be gentler, the proclivity towards this technique suggests providers are cautious when applying SMT after lumbar surgery. Unmeasured variables such as patient or clinician preferences, or limited sample size may have influenced our findings. Large observational studies and/or international surveys are needed for an improved understanding of SMT use for PSPS-2. Systematic review registration PROSPERO (CRD42021250039).

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.

Effects of cervical rotatory manipulation on the cervical spinal cord: a finite element study.

BACKGROUND: Little information is available concerning the biomechanism involved in the spinal cord injury after cervical rotatory manipulation (CRM). The primary purpose of this study was to explore the biomechanical and kinematic effects of CRM on a healthy spinal cord. METHODS: A finite element (FE) model of the basilaris cranii, C1-C7 vertebral bodies, nerve root complex and vertebral canal contents was constructed and validated against in vivo and in vitro published data. The FE model simulated CRM in the flexion, extension and neutral positions. The stress distribution, forma and relative position of the spinal cord were observed. RESULTS: Lower von Mises stress was observed on the spinal cord after CRM in the flexion position. The spinal cord in CRM in the flexion and neutral positions had a lower sagittal diameter and cross-sectional area. In addition, the spinal cord was anteriorly positioned after CRM in the flexion position, while the spinal cord was posteriorly positioned after CRM in the extension and neutral positions. CONCLUSION: CRM in the flexion position is less likely to injure the spinal cord, but caution is warranted when posterior vertebral osteophytes or disc herniations exist.

Traumatic Atlantoaxial Rotatory Subluxation in Adult: Case Report

Traumatic atlantoaxial rotatory subluxation (AARS) is generally found in pediatric patients, rarely found in adults, being a life-threatening condition especially when early diagnosis is not possible, which can lead to severe late neurological deficits.We describe a 38-year-old patient, victim of physical aggression caused by strangulation attempt who developed AARS, an uncommontraumatic cause. During the hospital care, the early diagnosis allowed us to institute a conservative treatment, which made the case uncommon, since most of the time surgical treatment is imperative. With the patient awake and under analgesia, a closed reduction was performed that promoted immediate pain relief, followed by a prescription of wearing a Philadelphia-type collar for 8 weeks. During the follow-up, cervical spine radiographies demonstrated no subluxation after removing the cervical collar. The patient was asymptomatic after 6months of treatment. This case supports the importance of nonoperative management of AARS in selected cases.

Effects of spinal manipulative therapy on inflammatory mediators in patients with non-specific low back pain: a non-randomized controlled clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: The inflammatory profiles of patients with acute and chronic nonspecific low back pain (LBP) patients are distinct. Spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) has been shown to modulate the production of nociceptive chemokines differently in these patient cohorts. The present study further investigates the effect(s) of SMT on other inflammatory mediators in the same LBP patient cohorts. METHODS: Acute (n = 22) and chronic (n = 25) LBP patients with minimum pain scores of 3 on a 10-point numeric scale, and asymptomatic controls (n = 24) were recruited according to stringent exclusion criteria. Blood samples were obtained at baseline and after 2 weeks during which patients received 6 SMTs in the lumbar or lumbosacral region. The in vitro production of tumor necrosis factor (TNFα), interleukin-1 ß (IL-1ß), IL-6, IL-2, interferon É£ (IFNÉ£), IL-1 receptor antagonist (IL-1RA), TNF soluble receptor type 2 (sTNFR2) and IL-10 was determined by specific immunoassays. Parametric as well as non-parametric statistics (PAST 3.18 beta software) was used to determine significance of differences between and within study groups prior and post-SMT. Effect size (ES) estimates were obtained using Cohen's d. RESULTS: Compared with asymptomatic controls, SMT-related change scores were significant (P = 0.03-0.01) in reducing the production levels of TNFα in both patient cohorts and those of IL-6, IFNÉ£ and sTNFR2 (P = 0.001-0.02) in patients with chronic LBP. Above-moderate to large ES (d > 0.6-1.4) was observed for these mediators. Compared with respective baselines, a significant post-SMT reduction (P = 0.01) of IL-6 production was detected only in patients with chronic LBP while a significant increase of IL-2 production (P = 0.001 vs. control, and P = 0.004 vs. chronic LBP group) and a large ES (d = 0.87) were observed in patients with acute LBP. Pain and disability scores declined significantly (P < 0.001) in all LBP patients, and were positively correlated (P = 0.03) with IFNÉ£ and IL-2 levels in the acute LBP cohort. CONCLUSION: The short course of SMT treatments of non-specific LBP patients resulted in significant albeit limited and diverse alterations in the production of several of the mediators investigated in this study. This exploratory study highlights the potential of SMT to modulate the production of inflammatory components in acute and chronic non-specific LBP patients and suggests a need for further, randomized controlled clinical trials in this area. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study was prospectively registered April 2012 with Clinical Trials.gov ( #NCT01766141 ). https://register.clinicaltrials.gov/prs/app/action/SelectProtocol?sid=S0003ZIL&selectaction=Edit&uid=U0001V74&ts=2&cx=-axvqtg.

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.

Moderators of the Effect of Spinal Manipulative Therapy on Pain Relief and Function in Patients with Chronic Low Back Pain: An Individual Participant Data Meta-analysis.

STUDY DESIGN: Individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to identify which participant characteristics moderate the effect of spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) on pain and functioning in chronic LBP. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND: The effects of SMT are comparable to other interventions recommended in guidelines for chronic low back pain (LBP); however, it is unclear which patients are more likely to benefit from SMT compared to other therapies. METHODS: IPD were requested from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) examining the effect of SMT in adults with chronic LBP for pain and function compared to various other therapies (stratified by comparison). Potential patient moderators (n = 23) were a priori based on their clinical relevance. We investigated each moderator using a one-stage approach with IPD and investigated this interaction with the intervention for each time point (1, 3, 6, and 12 months). RESULTS: We received IPD from 21 of 46 RCTs (n = 4223). The majority (12 RCTs, n = 2249) compared SMT to recommended interventions. The duration of LBP, baseline pain (confirmatory), smoking, and previous exposure to SMT (exploratory) had a small moderating effect across outcomes and follow-up points; these estimates did not represent minimally relevant differences in effects; for example, patients with <1 year of LBP demonstrated more positive point estimates for SMT versus recommended therapy for the outcome pain (mean differences ranged from 4.97 (95% confidence interval, CI: -3.20 to 13.13) at 3 months, 10.76 (95% CI: 1.06 to 20.47) at 6 months to 5.26 (95% CI: -2.92 to 13.44) at 12 months in patients with over a year LBP. No other moderators demonstrated a consistent pattern across time and outcomes. Few moderator analyses were conducted for the other comparisons because of too few data. CONCLUSION: We did not identify any moderators that enable clinicians to identify which patients are likely to benefit more from SMT compared to other treatments.Level of Evidence: 2.

Effects of a Single Myofascial Induction Session on Neural Mechanosensitivity in Breast Cancer Survivors: A Secondary Analysis of a Crossover Study.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to investigate the short-term effects of myofascial induction on mechanosensitivity of upper limb nerves. METHODS: In this secondary analysis of a randomized, single-blind, placebo-controlled crossover study, 21 breast cancer survivors with stage I-IIIA cancer were randomly allocated to an experimental group (30 minutes of myofascial induction session) or placebo control group (unplugged pulsed 30 minutes of shortwave therapy), with a 4-week washout period between sessions that occurred in a physical therapy laboratory in the Health Science Faculty (University of Granada, Spain). Range of motion (universal goniometry), structural differentiation, symptoms (yes/no), and pressure pain thresholds (electronic algometry) were assessed during neurodynamic tests and attitude toward massage scale as covariate. RESULTS: An analysis of covariance revealed significant time × group interactions for range of motion in affected upper limb nerves (median, P < .001; radial, P = .036; ulnar, P = .002), but not for nonaffected upper limb nerves (median, P = .083; radial, P = .072; ulnar, P = .796). A χ2 or Fisher exact test, as appropriate, also revealed a significant difference (P = .044) in sensitivity for the affected upper limb ulnar nerve in the experimental group, whereas the rest of the assessed nerves (affected and nonaffected upper limb nerves) showed no significant changes in either the experimental or control groups (P > .05). An analysis of covariance revealed no significant interactions on pressure pain thresholds over the nerves for affected (all P > .05) and nonaffected (all P > .05) upper limb nerves. CONCLUSION: A single myofascial induction session may partially improve mechanosensitivity of median, radial, and ulnar nerves and yield positive effects on symptom mechanosensitivity, especially regarding the ulnar nerve in breast cancer survivors.

Serial Casting in Neuromuscular and Syndromic Early-onset Scoliosis (EOS) Can Delay Surgery Over 2 Years.

BACKGROUND: The primary goal in managing early-onset scoliosis (EOS) is delaying/preventing surgical intervention while allowing improved spinal growth and chest wall and lung development to improve life expectancy. The effectiveness of serial casting for patients with neuromuscular and syndromic EOS is unclear. METHODS: Patients from 2 multicenter registries who underwent serial casting for nonidiopathic scoliosis (NIS) were reviewed retrospectively. Comparisons were made between precasting and postcasting major and compensatory curves and spine height. The need for surgical intervention and any treatment complications were documented. Risk factors for major curve progression from baseline to casting cessation were evaluated via univariate analysis. RESULTS: Forty-four patients (23 females; 21 males) with NIS (26 syndromic, 18 neuromuscular) and a mean age of 3.2 years at baseline were included. Mean follow-up and casting duration was 3.9 and 2.0 years, respectively. There were no statistically significant differences between mean precasting and postcasting major curve (55 vs. 60 degrees; P=0.348), minor curve (31 vs. 33 degrees; P=0.510), or rib-vertebra angle difference (18 vs. 29 degrees; P=0.840). However, thoracic height (15.5 vs. 16.8 cm; P=0.031) and lumbar height (8.9 vs. 9.8 cm; P=0.013) were significantly greater upon casting cessation. Currently, 13 patients (30%) have had successful casting (improvement of major curve ≥10 degrees) while 24 patients (55%) experienced major curve progression (worsening), and 19 patients (43%) required surgical intervention. Mean time from first casting to surgery was 34.5±15.1 months. There were no statistically significant predictors for major curve progression on univariate analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Spinal deformity progression despite casting and the subsequent need for surgical intervention for NIS were significantly higher compared with those reported for idiopathic EOS. However, serial casting did afford a substantial delay in surgical intervention. Ultimately, serial casting for neuromuscular or syndromic EOS is an effective strategy for delaying surgical intervention, despite suboptimal radiographic outcomes. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.

Physiotherapeutic management of a patient with spinal Schwannoma: A case report.

INTRODUCTION: Tumors are generally considered as red flags to manual therapy. The purpose of this report is to describe the clinical course of a patient diagnosed with spinal Schwannoma at L2-L3 level, who was referred to physiotherapy (PT) for the treatment of low back pain radiating to the left lower limb. CASE DESCRIPTION: A 30-year old man previously diagnosed with L2-L3 Schwannoma was referred for physiotherapy for the treatment of radiating pain. The patient had not responded favorably to symptomatic management. As the patient's history and physical examination were consistent with a mechanical dysfunction, it was decided to manage the patient along similar lines. The patient was treated with McKenzie extension and central postero-anterior mobilization over T4-T6 vertebrae. This intervention was followed up with strengthening and aerobic exercises. RESULTS: The outcomes were measured by the numerical rating scale (NRS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and the Global rate of Change (GRC) scale. The patient responded well to McKenzie extension exercises and Thoracic mobilization. The NRS (7 at rest; 10 on activity) at the time of referral reduced to (2 on activity) at the time of discharge. The outcomes were maintained after 7 months. CONCLUSION: This case suggests that there is a need to undertake a detailed musculoskeletal examination and mobilization may be safely performed in patients diagnosed with spinal schwannomas. An individualized tailored approach may be beneficial in these patients.

The clinical efficacy of Shi-style lumbar manipulations for symptomatic degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis: protocol for a randomized, blinded, controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Symptomatic degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis (DLS) presents spinal problems in daily life. Shi-style lumbar manipulation (SLM), as an alternative treatment for DLS, is popular in China. SLM is based on the channels and collaterals theory of the traditional Chinese medicine, in which the symptoms are believed to result from channel blockage and joint displacement. However, there is no solid evidence to show the effect of the SLM on the management of symptomatic DLS. METHODS/DESIGN: We conduct a prospective randomized, blinded, controlled trial to compare the effectiveness of SLM with mechanical lumbar traction and explore whether it could be a potential therapy for symptomatic DLS. A total of 60 patients with symptomatic DLS will be enrolled and treated with the SLM or mechanical lumbar traction for 2 weeks. VAS score and SF-36 questionnaire were assessed at baseline and at 2, 4, 12, and 24 weeks. Any signs of acute adverse reactions, such as lower limb paralysis or syndrome of cauda equina, will be recorded at each visit during treatment. DISCUSSION: Although the SLM has been used in China for many years to treat symptomatic DLS, there is a lack of consensus about its effectiveness. This trial will provide convincing evidence about the effect of SLM on symptomatic DLS. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registered on 6 January 2019; the trial number is ChiCTR1900020519 .

Multicentre comparative study of Z-shape elevating-pulling reduction and skull traction reduction for treatment of lower cervical locked facets.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to assess the clinical efficacy and safety of Z-shape elevating-pulling reduction as compared to that of conventional skull traction in the treatment of lower cervical locked facet. METHODS: Patients with cervical locked facet (n = 63) were retrospectively enrolled from four medical centers and divided into two groups according to the pre-operative reduction method used: Z-shape elevating-pulling reduction (Z-shape elevating group; n = 20) or traditional skull traction reduction (skull traction group; n = 43). RESULTS: The success rates, efficacy of reduction, and safety were compared between the two groups. The success rates were significantly better in the Z-shape elevating group than in the skull traction group: 87.5% (7/8) vs. 35.3% (6/17) for unilateral locked facet reduction (P = 0.03) and 100% (12/12) vs. 69.2% (18/26) for bilateral locked facet reduction (P = 0.04). There was no obvious change in American Spinal Injury Association (ASIA) grade after the reduction in either group. Combined surgery was necessary in 5% in the Z-shape elevating group vs. 27.9% in the skull traction group. Imaging showed that the segment angle and horizontal displacement were significantly improved after surgery in both groups, with no significant difference between the groups. Follow-up with radiography showed good recovery of the cervical spine sequence; all internal fixation sites were stable, with no loosening, prolapse, or breakage of internal fixators. CONCLUSIONS: Halo vest-assisted Z-shape elevating-pulling reduction appears to be a simple, safe, and effective technique for pre-operative reduction of lower cervical locked facets.

Short- or Long-Term Treatment of Spinal Disability in Older Adults With Manipulation and Exercise.

OBJECTIVE: Back and neck pain are associated with disability and loss of independence in older adults. Whether long-term management using commonly recommended treatments is superior to shorter-term treatment is unknown. This randomized clinical trial compared short-term treatment (12 weeks) versus long-term management (36 weeks) of back- and neck-related disability in older adults using spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) combined with supervised rehabilitative exercises (SRE). METHODS: Eligible participants were ages ≥65 years with back and neck disability for ≥12 weeks. Coprimary outcomes were changes in Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and Neck Disability Index (NDI) scores after 36 weeks. An intent-to-treat approach used linear mixed-model analysis to detect between-group differences. Secondary analyses included other self-reported outcomes, adverse events, and objective functional measures. RESULTS: A total of 182 participants were randomized. The short-term and long-term groups demonstrated significant improvements in back disability (ODI score -3.9 [95% confidence interval (95% CI) -5.8, -2.0] versus ODI score -6.3 [95% CI -8.2, -4.4]) and neck disability (NDI score -7.3 [95% CI -9.1, -5.5] versus NDI score -9.0 [95% CI -10.8, -7.2]) after 36 weeks, with no difference between groups (back ODI score 2.4 [95% CI -0.3, 5.1]; neck NDI score 1.7 [95% CI 0.8, 4.2]). The long-term management group experienced greater improvement in neck pain at week 36, in self-efficacy at weeks 36 and 52, and in functional ability, and balance. CONCLUSION: For older adults with chronic back and neck disability, extending management with SMT and SRE from 12 to 36 weeks did not result in any additional important reduction in disability.

Outcomes indicators and a risk classification system for spinal manipulation under anesthesia: a narrative review and proposal.

Over a period of decades chiropractors have utilized spinal manipulation under anesthesia (SMUA) to treat chronic back and neck pain. As an advanced form of manual therapy, SMUA is reserved for the patient whose condition has proven refractory to office-based manipulation and other modes of conservative care. Historically, the protocols and guidelines put forth by chiropractic MUA proponents have served as the clinical compass for directing MUA practice. With many authors and MUA advocates having focused primarily on anticipated benefit, the published literature contains no resource dedicated to treatment precautions and contraindications. Also absent from current relevant literature is acknowledgement or guidance on the preliminary evidence that may predict poor clinical outcomes with SMUA. This review considers risk and unfavorable outcomes indicators in therapeutic decision making for spinal manipulation under anesthesia. A new risk classification system is proposed that identifies patient safety and quality of care interests for a procedure that remains without higher-level research evidence. A scale which categorizes risk and outcome potential for SMUA is offered for the chiropractic clinician, which aims to elevate the standard of care and improve patient selection through the incorporation of specific indices from existing medical literature.

Immediate Changes After Manual Therapy in Patients With Persistent, Nonspecific Back Pain: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

CONTEXT: Thoracic manipulation decreases pain and disability. However, when such manipulation is contraindicated, the use of other manual techniques based on the regional interdependence of the thoracic spine, upper ribs, and shoulders is an alternative approach. OBJECTIVE: The study intended to investigate the immediate changes resulting from 3 manual therapy treatments on spinal mobility, flexibility, comfort, and pain perception in patients with persistent, nonspecific back pain as well as changes in their sense of physical well-being and their perception of change after treatment. DESIGN: The study was a randomized, double-blind, controlled trial. SETTING: The study took place in the Department of Physiotherapy of the Faculty of Physiotherapy at the University of Valencia (Valencia, Spain). PARTICIPANTS: Participants were 112 individuals from the community-56.6% female, with a mean age of 21.8 ± 0.2 y-who had persistent, nonspecific back pain. INTERVENTION: Participants were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 groups, receiving (1) neurolymphatic therapy (NL group), (2) articulatory spinal manual therapy (AS group), or (3) articulatory costal manual therapy (AC group). OUTCOME MEASURES: Cervical mobility, lumbar flexibility, comfort, pain perception, and physical well-being were assessed at baseline and immediately postintervention. Perception of change was evaluated postintervention. RESULTS: Between baseline and postintervention, the AC group showed a significant increase in cervical flexion (P = .010), whereas the NL and AS groups improved in lumbar flexibility, P = .047 and P = .012, respectively. For that period, significant changes were found in lumbar comfort for the AS group (P < .001) and the NL group (P < .026) and in thoracic comfort (P < .001) for the AC group. All groups improved in physical well-being and pain perception (P < .05). Changes in thoracic comfort, lumbar comfort, and physical well-being differed among the groups, with some differences being statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: All treatments improved pain perception and increased physical well-being. The NL and AS treatments were more effective in lumbar flexibility, the AC treatment in cervical flexion and thoracic comfort, and the NL treatment in lumbar comfort.

Beliefs in the population about cracking sounds produced during spinal manipulation.

OBJECTIVES: To examine beliefs about cracking sounds heard during high-velocity low-amplitude (HVLA) thrust spinal manipulation in individuals with and without personal experience of this technique. METHODS: We included 100 individuals. Among them, 60 had no history of spinal manipulation, including 40 who were asymptomatic with or without a past history of spinal pain and 20 who had nonspecific spinal pain. The remaining 40 patients had a history of spinal manipulation; among them, 20 were asymptomatic and 20 had spinal pain. Participants attended a one-on-one interview during which they completed a questionnaire about their history of spinal manipulation and their beliefs regarding sounds heard during spinal manipulation. RESULTS: Mean age was 43.5±15.4years. The sounds were ascribed to vertebral repositioning by 49% of participants and to friction between two vertebras by 23% of participants; only 9% of participants correctly ascribed the sound to the formation of a gas bubble in the joint. The sound was mistakenly considered to indicate successful spinal manipulation by 40% of participants. No differences in beliefs were found between the groups with and without a history of spinal manipulation. CONCLUSIONS: Certain beliefs have documented adverse effects. This study showed a high prevalence of unfounded beliefs regarding spinal manipulation. These beliefs deserve greater attention from healthcare providers, particularly those who practice spinal manipulation.

Cauda Equina Syndrome Due to Vigorous Back Massage With Spinal Manipulation in a Patient With Pre-Existing Lumbar Disc Herniation: A Case Report and Literature Review.

Cauda equina syndrome (CES) resulting from acute lumbar disc herniation due to spinal massage is extremely rare. We present a case of CES caused by the acute worsening of a lumbar disc herniation after a vigorous back massage that included spinal manipulation. After vigorous back massage with spinal manipulation performed by a massage therapist, a 38-yr-old male patient experienced CES with severe numbness in both lower limbs, inability to walk due to weakness of bilateral lower limbs, and incontinence of urine and feces. The magnetic resonance imaging and computer tomography scan results showed that the L4-5 disc herniated down into the spinal canal, extensively compressing the ventral dural sac. The patient was successfully treated with an emergency operation including laminectomy, spinal canal decompression, discectomy, interbody fusion, and pedicle screw fixation. The muscle power in both lower limbs of the patient recovered rapidly to support standing only 1 wk later. Moreover, he regained continence of urine and feces. In conclusion, this case brings us novel knowledge that spinal massage or manipulation may worsen pre-existing disc herniation causing CES, and a timely emergency surgery is necessary and effective for treatment of CES-related symptoms.