Lumbopelvic manipulation alone versus combined with dry needling in physically active patients with patellofemoral pain syndrome: A randomized clinical trial.

INTRODUCTION: Patellofemoral pain syndrome (PFPS) is prevalent in physically active people. The multifactorial nature of PFPS necessitates multimodal treatment for this condition. The present study aimed to compare the efficacy of lumbopelvic manipulation alone versus manipulation plus dry needling in physically active patients with PFPS. METHOD: Thirty patients (18 women and 12 men) with a diagnosis of PFPS entered this randomized controlled clinical trial and were divided into two groups: lumbopelvic manipulation alone or lumbopelvic manipulation plus dry needling. The interventions were applied for 3 sessions every other day. Dry needling was performed on the quadratus lumborum and gluteus medius muscles. Pain intensity, Kujala score and side-plank time were recorded at baseline, post-intervention and 1 month after the intervention. RESULTS: The results of Friedman's test showed statistically significant differences in pain and function in participants during the study period, and post hoc tests revealed differences between the two groups in behavior of the marginal means (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The use of lumbopelvic manipulation plus dry needling in the quadratus lumborum and gluteus medius muscles may be more effective than manipulation alone in alleviating pain and promoting function in physically active patients with PFPS.

A new role for spinal manual therapy and for chiropractic? Part I: weaknesses and threats.

Spinal manual therapy is central to chiropractic history, clinical practice, and professional identity. That chiropractors have developed an expertise in this domain has provided some considerable advantages. However, we contend it is also at the crux of the ideological schism that fractures the chiropractic profession. In this article, which is the first in a series of two, we discuss chiropractors' understanding and use of spinal manual therapy and do so with particular emphasis on what we see as weaknesses it creates and threats it gives rise to. These are of particular importance, as we believe they have limited the chiropractic profession's development. As we shall argue, we believe that these threats have become existential in nature, and we are convinced that they call for a resolute and unified response by the profession. Subsequently, in part II, we discuss various strengths that the chiropractic profession possesses and the opportunities that await, provided that the profession is ready to rise to the challenge.

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

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

Notalgia Paresthetica Responding Positively to Chiropractic Spinal Manipulation: A Case Report.

Notalgia paresthetica (NP) is a chronic cutaneous neuropathy characterized by localized pruritus and pain, numbness, and/or paresthesia, often linked to degenerative cervicothoracic changes. Treatment options for NP are limited. This case report details a 54-year-old woman with a six-year history of right-sided periscapular pruritus and cervicothoracic discomfort who presented to a chiropractor upon referral with a prior diagnosis of NP. Prior topical treatments yielded minimal relief. Radiographs revealed degenerative spinal changes at C5/6 and C6/7 which correlated with her periscapular symptom distribution. The patient responded positively to chiropractic spinal manipulative therapy (SMT), focusing on the cervicothoracic region, coupled with myofascial release. Symptoms significantly improved after a single SMT session and resolved after a second session, with no pruritus returning over one-month follow-up. While this case highlights the potential benefits of SMT for NP, further research is needed to explore the effectiveness of this treatment.

Cervical Manipulation and Koren Specific Technique Emotions Protocol in the Improvement of Intensive Nocturnal Dry Cough: A Case Report.

This report describes a 42-year-old female patient who presented with an intensive nocturnal dry cough persisting for over six months. Subsequent to the prolonged cough, she developed shoulder and neck discomfort, leading her to seek chiropractic care. The patient received cervical chiropractic adjustments combined with the Koren Specific Technique (KST) emotions protocol. The patient was mainly treated for her musculoskeletal complaint. However, after two treatment sessions, the patient's chronic cough showed significant improvement. Two weeks later, the cough had completely ceased, and her shoulder and neck discomfort had also improved. The cough symptoms did not reappear during the six-month follow-up. The mechanism of cough improvement remains unclear, whether it is due to spinal adjustments, the KST emotions protocol, their combined effects, or merely a placebo response. This report discusses the potential underlying mechanisms of the case improvement, suggesting a non-pharmacological adjunctive therapeutic approach that could be investigated further in future research.

Physical treatment of migraine.

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

Reduction of Chronic Primary Low Back Pain by Spinal Manipulative Therapy is Accompanied by Decreases in Segmental Mechanical Hyperalgesia and Pain Catastrophizing: A Randomized Placebo-controlled Dual-blind Mixed Experimental Trial.

Chronic primary low back pain (CPLBP) refers to low back pain that persists over 3 months, that cannot be explained by another chronic condition, and that is associated with emotional distress and disability. Previous studies have shown that spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) is effective in relieving CPLBP, but the underlying mechanisms remain elusive. This randomized placebo-controlled dual-blind mixed experimental trial (NCT05162924) aimed to investigate the efficacy of SMT to improve CPLBP and its underlying mechanisms. Ninety-eight individuals with CPLBP and 49 controls were recruited. Individuals with CPLBP received SMT (n = 49) or a control intervention (n = 49), 12 times over 4 weeks. The primary outcomes were CPLBP intensity (0-100 on a numerical rating scale) and disability (Oswestry Disability Index). Secondary outcomes included pressure pain thresholds in 4 body regions, pain catastrophizing, Central Sensitization Inventory, depressive symptoms, and anxiety scores. Individuals with CPLBP showed widespread mechanical hyperalgesia (P < .001) and higher scores for all questionnaires (P < .001). SMT reduced pain intensity compared with the control intervention (mean difference: -11.7 [95% confidence interval, -11.0 to -12.5], P = .01), but not disability (P = .5). Similar mild to moderate adverse events were reported in both groups. Mechanical hyperalgesia at the manipulated segment was reduced after SMT compared with the control intervention (P < .05). Pain catastrophizing was reduced after SMT compared with the control intervention (P < .05), but this effect was not significant after accounting for changes in clinical pain. Although the reduction of segmental mechanical hyperalgesia likely contributes to the clinical benefits of SMT, the role of pain catastrophizing remains to be clarified. PERSPECTIVE: This randomized controlled trial found that 12 sessions of SMT yield greater relief of CPLBP than a control intervention. These clinical effects were independent of expectations, and accompanied by an attenuation of hyperalgesia in the targeted segment and a modulation of pain catastrophizing.

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 ).

Chiropractic effects on stride parameters and heart rate during exercise in sport horses.

BACKGROUND: Equine veterinarians performing chiropractic treatments are frequently asked to evaluate and treat sound horses to improve their performance and address pain associated with the axial skeleton. Studies describing the effects and mechanisms of chiropractic treatments in horses without overt lameness are scarce. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to evaluate the effect of chiropractic treatments on stride rate, length, symmetry, heart rate and rider-perceived quality of the ridden work in sport horses. STUDY DESIGN: A blind randomised controlled trial with crossover design. METHODS: Thirty-eight horses ridden in the hunter-jumper discipline were enrolled. Exercise tests were recorded before and after chiropractic or sham treatment while horses were wearing a fitness tracker. Stride length, rate and symmetry, heart rate and the perceived quality of the ridden work were compared. RESULTS: There was a difference in the qualitative assessment of the ridden work by riders between treatments (odds ratio 33.8, 95% CI [4.68, 458.71], p < 0.01). Stride length, rate, symmetry and heart rate were not different between treatments. MAIN LIMITATIONS: The quantitative outcomes measured may not be sensitive enough to detect changes that improve the ridden work. Terrain, weather and rider were not standard across horses making small changes difficult to detect. CONCLUSIONS: Riders participating in a blind randomised controlled trial perceived a positive effect of chiropractic treatments on the quality of the ridden work. There were no differences in stride length, stride rate, stride symmetry or heart rate. The mechanisms, indications and potential benefits of chiropractic treatments in horses need further study.

HISTORIAL: A los veterinarios de equinos que realizan tratamientos quiroprácticos, se les pide frecuentemente evaluar y tratar caballos que están sanos para mejorar su desempeño y tratar el dolor asociado con el esqueleto axial. Estudios que describen los efectos y mecanismos de los tratamientos quiropráctico en caballos sin cojeras aparentes, son pocos. OBJETIVOS: Este estudio tiene por objetivo evaluar el efecto de los tratamientos quiroprácticos sobre frecuencia, largo y simetría de la zancada, la frecuencia cardiaca y la calidad del trabajo montado percibida por el jinete en caballos de deporte. DISEÑO DEL ESTUDIO: Prueba aleatoria cegada controlada con diseño cruzado. MÉTODOS: Se enrolaron 38 caballos montados en la disciplina de caza-salto. Pruebas de ejercicio fueron anotadas antes y después de tratamientos quiropráctico reales o simulados mientras los caballos llevaban un monitor físico. Se compararon el largo, frecuencia y simetría de la zancada, frecuencia cardiaca y calidad del trabajo montado percibida por el jinete. RESULTADOS: Se encontró una diferencia en la evaluación cualitativa del trabajo montado por los jinetes entre los tratamientos (odds ratio 33.8, 95% CI [4.68, 458.71], p < 0.01). Largo, frecuencia y simetría de zancada y frecuencia cardiacas no difirieron entre tratamientos. LIMITACIONES PRINCIPALES: Los resultados cuantitativos medidos, pueden no ser lo suficientemente sensibles para detectar cambios que mejoran el trabajo montado. El terreno, tiempo y jinete no fueron estandarizados a través de los caballos, lo que hizo que cambios pequeños fuesen difíciles de detectar. CONCLUSIONES: Los jinetes que participaron en una prueba aleatoria cegada controlada, percibieron un efecto positivo de los tratamientos quiroprácticos sobre la calidad del trabajo montado. No hubo diferencia en largo de zancada, frecuencia de zancada, simetría de zancada o frecuencia cardiaca. Los mecanismos, indicaciones y beneficios potenciales de los tratamientos quiroprácticos en caballos necesitan ser estudiados mas.

Spinal manipulation and electrical dry needling as an adjunct to conventional physical therapy in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis: a multi-center randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Nonoperative management of lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) includes activity modification, medication, injections, and physical therapy. Conventional physical therapy includes a multimodal approach of exercise, manual therapy, and electro-thermal modalities. There is a paucity of evidence supporting the use of spinal manipulation and dry needling as an adjunct to conventional physical therapy in patients with LSS. PURPOSE: This study aimed to determine the effects of adding thrust spinal manipulation and electrical dry needling to conventional physical therapy in patients with LSS. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Randomized, single-blinded, multi-center, parallel-group clinical trial. PATIENT SAMPLE: One hundred twenty-eight (n=128) patients with LSS from 12 outpatient clinics in 8 states were recruited over a 34-month period. OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcomes included the Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NPRS) and the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). Secondary outcomes included the Roland Morris Disability Index (RMDI), Global Rating of Change (GROC), and medication intake. Follow-up assessments were taken at 2 weeks, 6 weeks, and 3 months. METHODS: Patients were randomized to receive either spinal manipulation, electrical dry needling, and conventional physical therapy (MEDNCPT group, n=65) or conventional physical therapy alone (CPT group, n=63). RESULTS: At 3 months, the MEDNCPT group experienced greater reductions in overall low back, buttock, and leg pain (NPRS: F=5.658; p=.002) and related-disability (ODI: F=9.921; p<.001; RMDI: F=7.263; p<.001) compared to the CPT group. Effect sizes were small at 2 and 6 weeks, and medium at 3 months for the NPRS, ODI, and RMDI. At 3 months, significantly (p=.003) more patients in the MEDNCPT group reported a successful outcome (GROC≥+5) than the CPT group. CONCLUSION: Patients with LSS who received electrical dry needling and spinal manipulation in addition to impairment-based exercise, manual therapy and electro-thermal modalities experienced greater improvements in low back, buttock and leg pain and related-disability than those receiving exercise, manual therapy, and electro-thermal modalities alone at 3 months, but not at the 2 or 6 week follow-up.

Evaluating and Characterizing the Scope of Care for Interventions Labeled as Manual Therapy in Low Back Pain Trials: A Scoping Review.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this scoping review was to evaluate and characterize the scope of care for low back pain that falls under the specific label of manual therapy. METHODS: PubMed database, Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and SPORTDiscus were searched from journal inception through May 2022 for randomized controlled trials that investigated the treatment of low back pain using manual therapy. Terminology used to define manual therapy was extracted and categorized by using only the words included in the description of the intervention. An expert consultation phase was undertaken to gather feedback. RESULTS: One hundred seventy-six trials met final inclusion criteria, and 169 unique terms labeled as manual therapy for the treatment of low back pain were found. The most frequent terms were mobilization (29.0%), manipulation (16.0%), and thrust (6.4%). Eight percent of trials did not define or specify what type of manual therapy was used in the study. After removing duplicates, 169 unique terms emerged within 18 categories. CONCLUSIONS: Manual therapy intervention labels used in low back pain trials are highly variable. With such variation, the heterogeneity of the intervention in trials is likely large, and the likelihood that different trials are comparing the same interventions is low. Researchers should consider being more judicious with the use of the term manual therapy and provide greater detail in titles, methods, and supplementary appendices in order to improve clarity, clinical applicability, and usefulness of future research. IMPACT: The ability to interpret and apply findings from manual therapy-related research for low back pain is challenging due to the heterogeneity of interventions under this umbrella term. A clear use of terminology and description of interventions by researchers will allow for improved understanding for the role of manual therapy in managing back pain.

Drivers, barriers, and response to care of Australian pregnant women seeking chiropractic care for low back and pelvic girdle pain: a qualitative case study.

BACKGROUND: Pregnancy-related low back and/or pelvic girdle pain is common, with a prevalence rate of up to 86% in pregnant women. Although 19.5% of Australian pregnant women visit a chiropractor for pelvic girdle pain, little is known about the experience of pregnant women who seek this care. The aim of this study was to describe and explore the experiences of Australian pregnant women who seek chiropractic care for their current pregnancy-related low back and/or pelvic girdle pain. METHODS: A qualitative case study approach with purposive sampling from 27 chiropractic practices was used. A grounded theory approach was informed by a constructivist and interpretivist stance, which provided understanding and meaning to the pregnant women's experiences. Online unstructured interviews were recorded, transcribed, and anonymised. A thematic analysis was subsequently conducted on the primary data. Codes and major themes were developed with the use of critical self- reflection (memos), survey finding triangulation and respondent validation. RESULTS: Sixteen potential respondents expressed interest in participating. After eligibility screening and data saturation, nine interviews were undertaken. Four key themes were identified: "Care drivers: what drives care seeking?", "Care barriers: what barriers are encountered?", "Chiropractic treatment: what does treatment consist of?" and "Response to care: what response was there to care?". CONCLUSION: Four key themes: care drivers, care barriers, chiropractic treatment, and response to care support an emergent substantive-level theory in women's care seeking experiences for pregnancy-related back pain and chiropractic care. This theory is that chiropractic care for pregnant women experiencing low back pain and pelvic girdle pain may improve pain and function, while reducing pregnancy-related biopsychosocial concerns. The findings may inform antenatal health providers and the chiropractic profession about pregnant women's experience seeking chiropractic care as well as directing future research.

Can self-assessment and augmented feedback improve performance and learning retention in manual therapy: results from an experimental study.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to investigate how feedback and self-assessment strategies affect performance and retention of manual skills in a group of chiropractic students. METHODS: Seventy-five students participated in two spinal manipulation (SM) learning sessions using a force-sensing table. They were recruited between May and November 2022 during HVLA technical courses. Students were randomly assigned into three different groups: participants in group 1 received visual feedback, those in group 2 received visual feedback after self-assessment, and participants in group 3 (C) received no feedback. During the first session, participants started with one block of 3 familiarization trials, followed by two blocks of 6 SM HVLA (high velocity low amplitude) posterior-to-anterior thoracic SM trials, with 3 trials performed with a target force of 450 N and 3 others at 800 N. They received feedback according to their group during the first block, but no feedback was provided during the second block. All participants were invited to participate in a second session for the retention test and to perform a new set SM without any form of feedback. RESULTS: Results showed that visual feedback and visual feedback in addition to self-assessment did not improve short-term SM performance, nor did it improve performance at the one-week retention test. The group that received visual feedback and submitted to self-assessment increased the difference between the target force and the peak force applied, which can be considered a decrease in performance. CONCLUSION: No learning effects between the three groups of students exposed to different feedback and self-assessment learning strategies were highlighted in the present study. However, future research on innovative motor learning strategies could explore the role of external focus of attention, self-motivation and autonomy in SM performance training.

Spinal manipulation characteristics: a scoping literature review of force-time characteristics.

BACKGROUND: Spinal manipulation (SM) is a recommended and effective treatment for musculoskeletal disorders. Biomechanical (kinetic) parameters (e.g. preload/peak force, rate of force application and thrust duration) can be measured during SM, quantifying the intervention. Understanding these force-time characteristics is the first step towards identifying possible active ingredient/s responsible for the clinical effectiveness of SM. Few studies have quantified SM force-time characteristics and with considerable heterogeneity evident, interpretation of findings is difficult. The aim of this study was to synthesise the literature describing force-time characteristics of manual SM. METHODS: This scoping literature review is reported following the Preferred Reporting Items for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) statement. Databases were searched from inception to October 2022: MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase, CINAHL, ICL, PEDro and Cochrane Library. The following search terms and their derivatives were adapted for each platform: spine, spinal, manipulation, mobilization or mobilisation, musculoskeletal, chiropractic, osteopathy, physiotherapy, naprapathy, force, motor skill, biomechanics, dosage, dose-response, education, performance, psychomotor, back, neck, spine, thoracic, lumbar, pelvic, cervical and sacral. Data were extracted and reported descriptively for the following domains: general study characteristics, number of and characteristics of individuals who delivered/received SM, region treated, equipment used and force-time characteristics of SM. RESULTS: Of 7,607 records identified, 66 (0.9%) fulfilled the eligibility criteria and were included in the analysis. Of these, SM was delivered to the cervical spine in 12 (18.2%), the thoracic spine in 40 (60.6%) and the lumbopelvic spine in 19 (28.8%) studies. In 6 (9.1%) studies, the spinal region was not specified. For SM applied to all spinal regions, force-time characteristics were: preload force (range: 0-671N); peak force (17-1213N); rate of force application (202-8700N/s); time to peak thrust force (12-938ms); and thrust duration (36-2876ms). CONCLUSIONS: Considerable variability in the reported kinetic force-time characteristics of SM exists. Some of this variability is likely due to differences in SM delivery (e.g. different clinicians) and the measurement equipment used to quantify force-time characteristics. However, improved reporting in certain key areas could facilitate more sophisticated syntheses of force-time characteristics data in the future. Such syntheses could provide the foundation upon which dose-response estimates regarding the clinical effectiveness of SM are made.

Creating and testing a questionnaire to predict immediate and strong positive responders to spinal manipulative therapy for non-specific low back pain. A pilot study.

BACKGROUND: Many chiropractors use spinal manipulative techniques (SMT) to treat spinal pain. A recent Delphi study posited 18 items across five domains as predictors of patients experiencing non-specific low back pain most likely to experience a strong and immediate positive response to SMT. We sought to create a 'pen and paper' questionnaire that would measure these items and then pilot its use in a clinical setting to determine its 'usability' for a larger study. Knowing this information would inform a more efficacious use of SMT. METHOD: Of the 18 items identified in the Delphi study, 13 were deemed historical in nature and readily provided by the chiropractor and patient. A literature search revealed reliable and valid measures for two more items. The remaining three items were generated by creating descriptive questions matched to an appropriate Likert scale. A panel of six chiropractors who had used SMT for at least 7 years when treating non-specific low back pain was formed to evaluate the items for clarity and relevance. Ten Western Australian chiropractors were then recruited to pilot the questionnaire on ten consecutive patients with non-specific low back pain where SMT was used from March to June 2020. Ethics approval was obtained from Murdoch University. RESULTS: COVID-19 restrictions impacted on practitioner recruitment and delayed the data collection. Of the intended 100 participants, only 63 could be recruited over a 3-month period from seven chiropractors. Time constraints forced the closure of the data collection. The measures of all predictor items demonstrated ceiling effects. Feedback from open-ended practitioner questions was minimal, suggesting an ease of use. CONCLUSION: The length of time and level of participation required to collect the calculated sample size was inadequate and suggested that incentivization may be required for a larger investigation. Significant ceiling effects were found and suggested that participants did so because of a positive bias toward chiropractic care and the use of SMT. The questionnaires in this pilot study require alternative measures and further validation before use in a larger study.

Benefits and Harms of Spinal Manipulative Therapy for Treating Recent and Persistent Nonspecific Neck Pain: A Systematic Review With Meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to estimate the benefits and harms of cervical spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) for treating neck pain. DESIGN: Intervention systematic review with meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). LITERATURE SEARCH: We searched the MEDLINE, Cochrane CENTRAL, Embase, CINAHL, PEDro, Chiropractic Literature Index bibliographic databases, and grey literature sources, up to June 6, 2022. STUDY SELECTION CRITERIA: RCTs evaluating SMT compared to guideline-recommended and nonrecommended interventions, sham SMT, and no intervention for adults with neck pain were eligible for our systematic review. Prespecified outcomes included pain, range of motion, disability, health-related quality of life. DATA SYNTHESIS: Random-effects meta-analysis for clinically homogenous RCTs at short-term and long-term outcomes. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 Tool. We used the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations approach to judge the certainty of evidence. RESULTS: We included 28 RCTs. There was very low to low certainty evidence that SMT was more effective than recommended interventions for improving pain at short term (standardized mean difference [SMD], 0.66; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.35, 0.97) and long term (SMD, 0.73; 95% CI: 0.31, 1.16), and for reducing disability at short-term (SMD, 0.95; 95% CI: 0.48, 1.42) and long term (SMD, 0.65; 95% CI: 0.23, 1.06). Transient side effects only were found (eg, muscle soreness). CONCLUSION: There was very low certainty evidence supporting cervical SMT as an intervention to reduce pain and improve disability in people with neck pain. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2023;53(9):510-528. Epub: 10 August 2023. doi:10.2519/jospt.2023.11708.

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.

Patients With a History of Spine Surgery Receiving Chiropractic Spinal Manipulation in US Academic Health Centers: A Cross-Sectional Cohort Study.

INTRODUCTION: The number and characteristics of patients with previous spine surgery receiving chiropractic spinal manipulation (CSM) are largely unknown. This study aimed to explore the proportion of patients receiving CSM with a history of spine surgery, the characteristics of these patients, and the treatments received compared to a broader population of patients receiving CSM. METHODS: We queried a 110-million-patient United States (US) network of aggregated records and claims data from patients attending integrated academic health centers (TriNetX, Inc.) on March 6, 2023, yielding data spanning 2013-2023. We identified two patient groups: (1) those receiving CSM and (2) a subset receiving CSM with prior spine surgery. We compared baseline characteristics and treatments received over a one-year follow-up after CSM. RESULTS: Of the 81,291 patients receiving CSM, 8,808 (10.8%) had at least one prior spine surgery. Patients with prior spine surgery receiving CSM were older, more often female, more often non-Hispanic/Latino and White, less often Black, had a greater body mass index, and had a higher prevalence of low back and neck pain compared to the broader CSM cohort (p<0.0001 for each). Those with prior spine surgery were also more likely to receive multiple medications, physiotherapy procedures, and spinal injections (p<0.0001 for each). CONCLUSION: Patients receiving CSM with a history of spine surgery comprise a substantial proportion of CSM patients in large US academic health centers. This subset of patients differs characteristically from the broader CSM population and more often receives medications, physiotherapy, and spinal injections. Further research is needed to examine the safety and efficacy of CSM in this population, given the high proportion of patients and limited research on this topic.

Cervicogenic Dizziness After Self-Manipulation of the Cervical Spine.

Patients with pre-existing cervical pathologies who experience dizziness and related neck pain are referred to as having cervicogenic dizziness. We describe a case of a 49-year-old female who presented with acute onset of vertigo and imbalance following self-manipulation of the cervical spine. Examination revealed a restricted cervical range of motion, muscle hypertonicity, and positive neurological signs. Radiographs demonstrated loss of normal cervical lordosis. The patient was diagnosed with cervicogenic dizziness and prescribed chiropractic treatments that included spinal manipulation, soft tissue release, and rehabilitative exercises. After four weeks of care, her symptoms had improved. At the six-month follow-up, the patient remained asymptomatic with a full cervical range of motion. This case highlights the risks associated with neck manipulation and the effectiveness of chiropractic treatment for cervicogenic dizziness. Patients should be counseled to seek evaluation and treatment from appropriate medical professionals for neck issues or dizziness/imbalance.

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).