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.

A risk-benefit assessment strategy to exclude cervical artery dissection in spinal manual-therapy: a comprehensive review.

Cervical artery dissection refers to a tear in the internal carotid or the vertebral artery that results in an intramural haematoma and/or an aneurysmal dilatation. Although cervical artery dissection is thought to occur spontaneously, physical trauma to the neck, especially hyperextension and rotation, has been reported as a trigger. Headache and/or neck pain is the most common initial symptom of cervical artery dissection. Other symptoms include Horner's syndrome and lower cranial nerve palsy. Both headache and/or neck pain are common symptoms and leading causes of disability, while cervical artery dissection is rare. Patients often consult their general practitioner for headache and/or neck pain, and because manual-therapy interventions can alleviate headache and/or neck pain, many patients seek manual therapists, such as chiropractors and physiotherapists. Cervical mobilization and manipulation are two interventions that manual therapists use. Both interventions have been suspected of being able to trigger cervical artery dissection as an adverse event. The aim of this review is to provide an updated step-by-step risk-benefit assessment strategy regarding manual therapy and to provide tools for clinicians to exclude cervical artery dissection. Key messages Cervical mobilization and/or manipulation have been suspected to be able to trigger cervical artery dissection (CAD). However, these assumptions are based on case studies which are unable to established direct causality. The concern relates to the chicken and the egg discussion, i.e. whether the CAD symptoms lead the patient to seek cervical manual-therapy or whether the cervical manual-therapy provoked CAD along with the non-CAD presenting complaint. Thus, instead of proving a nearly impossible causality hypothesis, this study provide clinicians with an updated step-by-step risk-benefit assessment strategy tool to (a) facilitate clinicians understanding of CAD, (b) appraise the risk and applicability of cervical manual-therapy, and (c) provide clinicians with adequate tools to better detect and exclude CAD in clinical settings.

Vertebral artery injury during foraminal decompression in "low-risk" cervical spine surgery: incidence and management.

OBJECTIVES: Vertebral artery injury (VAI) during foraminal decompression in cervical spine surgery in the absence of repositioning or screw stabilization is rare. Without immediate recognition and treatment, it may have disastrous consequences. We aimed to describe the incidence and management of iatrogenic VAI in low-risk cervical spine surgery. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The records of all patients who underwent surgical procedures of the cervical spine between January 2007 and May 2012 were retrospectively consecutively evaluated. Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion or arthroplasty as well as dorsal foraminal decompression through the Frykholm approach in degenerative diseases were defined as low-risk surgeries (n = 992). RESULTS: VAI occurred in 0.3 % (n = 3) of 992 procedures: in one case during a dorsal foraminal decompression, and in two cases during the anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) of two or four levels, respectively. In the first case, the VAI was intraoperatively misdiagnosed. Despite an initially uneventful course, the patient suffered hemorrhage from a pseudoaneurysm of the injured VA 1 month after surgery. The aneurysm was successfully occluded by endovascular coiling. In both ACDF cases, angiography and endovascular stenting of the lacerated segment proceeded immediately after the surgery. All three patients suffered no permanent deterioration. CONCLUSIONS: In a high-volume surgical center, the incidence of VAI during low-risk cervical spine surgery is extremely low, comprising 0.3 % of all cases. The major risks are delayed sequels of the vessel wall laceration. In cases of VAI, immediate angiographic diagnostics and generous indications for endovascular treatment are obligatory.

Current optimal assessment and management of carotid and vertebral spontaneous and traumatic dissection.

Dissection of the internal carotid or vertebral artery has been recognized as a cause of stroke in young patients. It is disproportionate in its representation as a cause of stroke in this age group. Intimal tears, intramural hematomas, and dissection aneurysms may be the result of trauma or may occur spontaneously. Spontaneous dissection may be the result of inherent arterial weakness or in association with other predisposing factors. Clinical diagnosis is often difficult, but increased awareness and a range of modern investigations such as computerized tomography or magnetic resonance imaging may aid in diagnosis. Management options include antiplatelet therapy, anticoagulation, thrombolysis, and surgical or endovascular procedures. Prognosis is variable, and dissection may be asymptomatic but may lead to profound neurological deficit and death.