Three-step Reduction Therapy of Integrated Chinese and Western Medicine for Thoracolumbar Burst Fracture.

Objective: To investigate and compare the efficacy of three-step reduction (TSR) therapy of integrated Chinese and Western Medicine and posterior open (PO) surgery for thoracolumbar burst fracture. Methods: We selected 60 patients diagnosed with thoracolumbar burst fracture and received treatment in our hospital from December 2014 to March 2017. According to randomized digital table, they were randomly divided into TSR and PO groups. VAS pain grade, Oswestry disability index, height of centrum front, Cobb's angle of spine, bleeding, and complication of internal fixation of the two groups were compared. Results: Postoperative reduction of injured centrum, regained volume of canalis vertebralis, volume of bleeding, and early functional rehabilitation of TSR group were better than that of PO groups (P < 0.05). Conclusion: Through three-step reduction combined pedicle screw fixation surgery, we can achieve satisfied reduction of thoracolumbar burst fracture, rebuild the height of centrum, recover the biomechanics function of spine, and reduce bleeding. Three-step reduction therapy is an effective therapy for thoracolumbar burst fracture.

A Clinical Observation of Functional Abdominal Pain Syndrome in Patients Treated by Traditional Chinese Spinal Orthopedic Manipulation.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the clinical effect of traditional Chinese spinal orthopedic manipulation (TCSOM) in treating patients with functional abdominal pain syndrome (FAPS) in comparison with Pinaverium Bromide (Dicetel, PBD), and to assess a possible cause for FAPS. METHODS: Eighty patients with FAPS were randomly and equally assigned to the TCSOM group and PBD group according to the random number table. All patients in the TCSOM group were treated with a maximum of 5 times of spinal manipulations. Patients in the PBD group were instructed to take 50 mg 3 times a day, consistently for 2 weeks. The symptoms of pre- and post-treatment were assessed on a visual analog scale (VAS) pain score. A symptom improvement rating (SIR) was implemented to evaluate the effects of the treatments. RESULTS: The symptoms of 27 cases of the TCSOM group were relieved soon after the first TCSOM treatment and 9 cases were significantly improved. The VAS pain scores in the TCSOM group were significantly lower than those in the PBD group after 2 weeks treatment. According to the SIR based on VAS, the TCSOM group included 30 cases with excellent results, 7 cases with good, and 3 cases with poor. Adverse events to the treatment were not reported. Based on VAS, the PBD group reported 8 cases with excellent results, 10 cases with good and 22 cases with poor. There was a significant difference between the two groups (P<0.01). CONCLUSIONS: The displacement of intervertebral discs and/or vertebra in the thoracic or lumbar region seems to be a contributing factor in the symptoms of FAPS. TCSOM is an effective treatment for FAPS.

Bilateral anterior shoulder dislocation as a result of manipulation: A case report.

RATIONALE: Bilateral anterior shoulder dislocation is clinically rare and has been reported to be related to high-speed sports. PATIENT CONCERNS: A 76-year-old woman presented with bilateral shoulders pain after traditional Chinese manipulation. DIAGNOSES: She was diagnosed with bilateral anterior dislocations, and a closed reduction was immediately performed. INTERVENTION: The patient was referred for rehabilitation 3 days later, and bilateral rotator cuff injuries were identified from musculoskeletal ultrasound. After 4 weeks of physical therapy, the patient's shoulder pain had reduced and the passive ROM was nearly full. OUTCOMES: At 1-year follow-up, only mild intermittent shoulder pain was noted, and there was no limitation of shoulder ROM. LESSONS: This case illustrates that patients with acute shoulder injuries who receive proper diagnosis and treatment can achieve good outcomes. Therefore, patients with musculoskeletal disorders should seek qualified specialists for accurate diagnosis and appropriate management.

Manipulation and mobilisation for neck pain contrasted against an inactive control or another active treatment.

BACKGROUND: Manipulation and mobilisation are commonly used to treat neck pain. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2003, and previously updated in 2010. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of manipulation or mobilisation alone compared wiith those of an inactive control or another active treatment on pain, function, disability, patient satisfaction, quality of life and global perceived effect in adults experiencing neck pain with or without radicular symptoms and cervicogenic headache (CGH) at immediate- to long-term follow-up. When appropriate, to assess the influence of treatment characteristics (i.e. technique, dosage), methodological quality, symptom duration and subtypes of neck disorder on treatment outcomes. SEARCH METHODS: Review authors searched the following computerised databases to November 2014 to identify additional studies: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL). We also searched ClinicalTrials.gov, checked references, searched citations and contacted study authors to find relevant studies. We updated this search in June 2015, but these results have not yet been incorporated. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) undertaken to assess whether manipulation or mobilisation improves clinical outcomes for adults with acute/subacute/chronic neck pain. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected studies, abstracted data, assessed risk of bias and applied Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methods (very low, low, moderate, high quality). We calculated pooled risk ratios (RRs) and standardised mean differences (SMDs). MAIN RESULTS: We included 51 trials (2920 participants, 18 trials of manipulation/mobilisation versus control; 34 trials of manipulation/mobilisation versus another treatment, 1 trial had two comparisons). Cervical manipulation versus inactive control: For subacute and chronic neck pain, a single manipulation (three trials, no meta-analysis, 154 participants, ranged from very low to low quality) relieved pain at immediate- but not short-term follow-up. Cervical manipulation versus another active treatment: For acute and chronic neck pain, multiple sessions of cervical manipulation (two trials, 446 participants, ranged from moderate to high quality) produced similar changes in pain, function, quality of life (QoL), global perceived effect (GPE) and patient satisfaction when compared with multiple sessions of cervical mobilisation at immediate-, short- and intermediate-term follow-up. For acute and subacute neck pain, multiple sessions of cervical manipulation were more effective than certain medications in improving pain and function at immediate- (one trial, 182 participants, moderate quality) and long-term follow-up (one trial, 181 participants, moderate quality). These findings are consistent for function at intermediate-term follow-up (one trial, 182 participants, moderate quality). For chronic CGH, multiple sessions of cervical manipulation (two trials, 125 participants, low quality) may be more effective than massage in improving pain and function at short/intermediate-term follow-up. Multiple sessions of cervical manipulation (one trial, 65 participants, very low quality) may be favoured over transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) for pain reduction at short-term follow-up. For acute neck pain, multiple sessions of cervical manipulation (one trial, 20 participants, very low quality) may be more effective than thoracic manipulation in improving pain and function at short/intermediate-term follow-up. Thoracic manipulation versus inactive control: Three trials (150 participants) using a single session were assessed at immediate-, short- and intermediate-term follow-up. At short-term follow-up, manipulation improved pain in participants with acute and subacute neck pain (five trials, 346 participants, moderate quality, pooled SMD -1.26, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.86 to -0.66) and improved function (four trials, 258 participants, moderate quality, pooled SMD -1.40, 95% CI -2.24 to -0.55) in participants with acute and chronic neck pain. A funnel plot of these data suggests publication bias. These findings were consistent at intermediate follow-up for pain/function/quality of life (one trial, 111 participants, low quality). Thoracic manipulation versus another active treatment: No studies provided sufficient data for statistical analyses. A single session of thoracic manipulation (one trial, 100 participants, moderate quality) was comparable with thoracic mobilisation for pain relief at immediate-term follow-up for chronic neck pain. Mobilisation versus inactive control: Mobilisation as a stand-alone intervention (two trials, 57 participants, ranged from very low to low quality) may not reduce pain more than an inactive control. Mobilisation versus another active treatment: For acute and subacute neck pain, anterior-posterior mobilisation (one trial, 95 participants, very low quality) may favour pain reduction over rotatory or transverse mobilisations at immediate-term follow-up. For chronic CGH with temporomandibular joint (TMJ) dysfunction, multiple sessions of TMJ manual therapy (one trial, 38 participants, very low quality) may be more effective than cervical mobilisation in improving pain/function at immediate- and intermediate-term follow-up. For subacute and chronic neck pain, cervical mobilisation alone (four trials, 165 participants, ranged from low to very low quality) may not be different from ultrasound, TENS, acupuncture and massage in improving pain, function, QoL and participant satisfaction at immediate- and intermediate-term follow-up. Additionally, combining laser with manipulation may be superior to using manipulation or laser alone (one trial, 56 participants, very low quality). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Although support can be found for use of thoracic manipulation versus control for neck pain, function and QoL, results for cervical manipulation and mobilisation versus control are few and diverse. Publication bias cannot be ruled out. Research designed to protect against various biases is needed. Findings suggest that manipulation and mobilisation present similar results for every outcome at immediate/short/intermediate-term follow-up. Multiple cervical manipulation sessions may provide better pain relief and functional improvement than certain medications at immediate/intermediate/long-term follow-up. Since the risk of rare but serious adverse events for manipulation exists, further high-quality research focusing on mobilisation and comparing mobilisation or manipulation versus other treatment options is needed to guide clinicians in their optimal treatment choices.

Ultrasound-guided hematoma block in distal radial fracture reduction: a randomised clinical trial.

OBJECTIVE: We compared the efficacy and safety of ultrasound-guided haematoma block with that of procedural sedation and analgesia in patients with acute distal radial fracture reduction pain control. METHODS: This was a randomised clinical trial on adult patients conducted in two teaching hospitals. Patients received intravenous midazolam plus fentanyl in the procedural sedation and analgesia group, and fracture site injection of lidocaine 10% in the ultrasound guided haematoma block group. We measured pain scores before reduction, during reduction and 5, 10 and 15 min after reduction by a numeric rating scale, and patient and physician satisfaction by a four-level Likert scale. Time to discharge, early adverse effects and late complications were also compared. RESULTS: We enrolled 160 patients with distal radial fracture and randomised 143 patients into two groups (after excluding 17 patients). Pain was effectively controlled in both groups. Pain scores had no statistically significant difference before and during reduction and 5 and 15 min after reduction in the procedural sedation and analgesia and ultrasound guided haematoma block groups. Patient and physician overall satisfaction were similar in the two groups. Time to discharge was significantly lower in the ultrasound guided haematoma block group. Four patients (5.5%) in the procedural sedation and analgesia group showed early adverse effects. No patient in either group showed any late complications. CONCLUSIONS: Ultrasound guided haematoma block may be a safe and effective alternative to procedural sedation and analgesia. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: 201112308104N5.

Standardization of adverse event terminology and reporting in orthopaedic physical therapy: application to the cervical spine.

SYNOPSIS: Orthopaedic physical therapy is considered safe, based on a lack of reported harms. Most of the research until now has focused on benefits. Consideration of benefits and harm involves informed consent, clinical decision making, and cost-benefit analyses. Benefits and harms are treatment and dosage specific. There is currently an insufficient number of dosage trials in orthopaedic physical therapy to identify optimal dosage for common interventions, including exercise and manual therapy. Published cases of severe adverse events following chiropractic manipulation illustrate the need for physical therapy to have high-quality data documenting the safety of orthopaedic physical therapy, including cervical manipulation. A recent systematic review identified poor reporting standards of harms within clinical research in this area. Lack of standardization of terminology has contributed to this problem. Pharmacovigilence provides a framework for terms that orthopaedic physical therapy can adapt and thereafter adopt into clinical practice and research. Adverse events are unexpected events that occur following an intervention without evidence of causality. Where temporality of an event is highly suggestive of causality, the term "adverse reaction" may be more appropriate. Future studies in orthopaedic physical therapy should adopt the CONSORT statement extension on the reporting of harms, published in 2004, to ensure better reporting. Consistent reporting of harms in both research and clinical practice requires professional consensus on terminology pertaining to harms, as well as defining what constitutes an adverse event or an adverse reaction. Widespread consultation and consensus should support optimal definitions and processes and facilitate their implementation into practice. This paper is focused on theoretical considerations and evidence in terms of harm reporting within physical therapy using cervical manual therapy as an example.

Adverse events and manual therapy: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: To explore the incidence and risk of adverse events with manual therapies. METHOD: The main health electronic databases, plus those specific to allied medicine and manual therapy, were searched. Our inclusion criteria were: manual therapies only; administered by regulated therapists; a clearly described intervention; adverse events reported. We performed a meta-analysis using incident estimates of proportions and random effects models. RESULTS: Eight prospective cohort studies and 31 manual therapy RCTs were accepted. The incidence estimate of proportions for minor or moderate transient adverse events after manual therapy was approximately 41% (CI 95% 17-68%) in the cohort studies and 22% (CI 95% 11.1-36.2%) in the RCTs; for major adverse events approximately 0.13%. The pooled relative risk (RR) for experiencing adverse events with exercise, or with sham/passive/control interventions compared to manual therapy was similar, but for drug therapies greater (RR 0.05, CI 95% 0.01-0.20) and less with usual care (RR 1.91, CI 95% 1.39-2.64). CONCLUSIONS: The risk of major adverse events with manual therapy is low, but around half manual therapy patients may experience minor to moderate adverse events after treatment. The relative risk of adverse events appears greater with drug therapy but less with usual care.

Manipulation or mobilisation for neck pain.

BACKGROUND: Manipulation and mobilisation are often used, either alone or combined with other treatment approaches, to treat neck pain. OBJECTIVES: To assess if manipulation or mobilisation improves pain, function/disability, patient satisfaction, quality of life, and global perceived effect in adults with acute/subacute/chronic neck pain with or without cervicogenic headache or radicular findings. SEARCH STRATEGY: CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2009, issue 3) and MEDLINE, EMBASE, Manual Alternative and Natural Therapy, CINAHL, and Index to Chiropractic Literature were updated to July 2009. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials on manipulation or mobilisation. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected studies, abstracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Pooled relative risk and standardised mean differences (SMD) were calculated. MAIN RESULTS: We included 27 trials (1522 participants).Cervical Manipulation for subacute/chronic neck pain : Moderate quality evidence suggested manipulation and mobilisation produced similar effects on pain, function and patient satisfaction at intermediate-term follow-up. Low quality evidence showed manipulation alone compared to a control may provide short- term relief following one to four sessions (SMD pooled -0.90 (95%CI: -1.78 to -0.02)) and that nine or 12 sessions were superior to three for pain and disability in cervicogenic headache. Optimal technique and dose need to be determined.Thoracic Manipulation for acute/chronic neck pain : Low quality evidence supported thoracic manipulation as an additional therapy for pain reduction (NNT 7; 46.6% treatment advantage) and increased function (NNT 5; 40.6% treatment advantage) in acute pain and favoured a single session of thoracic manipulation for immediate pain reduction compared to placebo for chronic neck pain (NNT 5, 29% treatment advantage).Mobilisation for subacute/chronic neck pain: In addition to the evidence noted above, low quality evidence for subacute and chronic neck pain indicated that 1) a combination of Maitland mobilisation techniques was similar to acupuncture for immediate pain relief and increased function; 2) there was no difference between mobilisation and acupuncture as additional treatments for immediate pain relief and improved function; and 3) neural dynamic mobilisations may produce clinically important reduction of pain immediately post-treatment. Certain mobilisation techniques were superior. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Cervical manipulation and mobilisation produced similar changes. Either may provide immediate- or short-term change; no long-term data are available. Thoracic manipulation may improve pain and function. Optimal techniques and dose are unresolved. Further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate.

Three-dimensional visualization of vertebrobasilar system aneurysms in a vertigo patient.

Cerebral artery fenestration refers to a division in the lumen of an artery leading to two distinct endothelium-lined channels. At the site of turbulent flow, fenestration may predispose to an aneurysm formation. In this study, a 45-year-old woman suffered an acute vertiginous attack after cervical manipulation. The MRI scan demonstrated basilar artery duplication and tortuous left distal vertebral artery impinging on the cisternal segment of the cochleovestibular nerve. Subsequent three-dimensional (3D) reconstruction by MR imaging showed vertebrobasilar artery fenestrations with aneurysms. Unfortunately, subarachnoid hemorrhage occurred 6 days later, and the patient became comatose one year after presentation. In summary, subarachnoid hemorrhage caused by vertebrobasilar system aneurysms is a life-threatening event. Delineating the configuration by 3D-reconstruction of MR images allows more accurate diagnosis and more effective management.

[Systematic review of the effects of therapy in infants with the KISS-syndrome (kinetic imbalance due to suboccipital strain)]. / Systematisch literatuuronderzoek naar de effecten van behandeling bij zuigelingen met 'kopgewrichteninvloed bij storingen in de symmetrie' ('KISS-syndroom').

OBJECTIVE: To establish the effects of manual therapy, chiropractic, or osteopathic treatment of the KISS-syndrome (kinetic imbalance due to suboccipital strain) in infants with positional preference, plagiocephaly, and colic. DESIGN: Systematic review of the literature. METHOD: PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Library were searched for articles on the effects of manual therapy, chiropractic and osteopathy on the KISS-syndrome. Experts in the field of manual medicine and osteopathy were asked to provide relevant articles. The bibliography in a textbook of manual therapy for children was hand-searched for additional references to the KISS-syndrome. RESULTS: No clinical trials were found that evaluated the effects of manual therapy or osteopathy on either the KISS-syndrome or its symptoms. Pooled analysis of two randomised clinical trials on the effects of chiropractic in infantile colic showed no statistically significant difference between active and control treatments. In addition, we found that 22% of infants showed short episodes of apnoea during manual therapy of the spine, and that one case has been described in which such apnoea resulted in death. CONCLUSION: Given the absence of evidence of beneficial effects of spinal manipulation in infants and in view of its potential risks, manual therapy, chiropractic and osteopathy should not be used in infants with the KISS-syndrome, except within the context of randomised double-blind controlled trials.

Safety of spinal manipulation in the treatment of lumbar disk herniations: a systematic review and risk assessment.

OBJECTIVE: To provide a qualitative systematic review of the risk of spinal manipulation in the treatment of lumbar disk herniations (LDH) and to estimate the risk of spinal manipulation causing a severe adverse reaction in a patient presenting with LDH. DATA SOURCES: Relevant case reports, review articles, surveys, and investigations regarding treatment of lumbar disk herniations with spinal manipulation and adverse effects and associated risks were found with a search of the literature. DATA SYNTHESIS: Prospective/retrospective studies and review papers were graded according to quality, and results and conclusions were tabulated. From the data published, an estimate of the risk of spinal manipulation causing a clinically worsened disk herniation or cauda equina syndrome (CES) in patients presenting with LDH was calculated. This was compared with estimates of the safety of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and surgery in the treatment of LDH. RESULTS: An estimate of the risk of spinal manipulation causing a clinically worsened disk herniation or CES in a patient presenting with LDH is calculated from published data to be less than 1 in 3.7 million. CONCLUSION: The apparent safety of spinal manipulation, especially when compared with other "medically accepted" treatments for LDH, should stimulate its use in the conservative treatment plan of LDH.

Vertebral artery flow and spinal manipulation: a randomized, controlled and observer-blinded study.

BACKGROUND: Several studies have been published on the effect of cervical rotation alone upon blood flow in the vertebral arteries. However, we have not found articles addressing the question of how spinal manipulative therapy per se affects the vertebral artery flow. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the present study was to investigate whether any changes occur in peak flow velocity in the vertebral artery after spinal manipulative therapy as measured using the latest Doppler ultrasound technology. DESIGN AND SETTING: A randomized, controlled and observer-blinded study at a university hospital vascular laboratory. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty university students with a "biomechanical dysfunction" in the cervical spine. RESULTS: We observed no change in peak flow velocity immediately after spinal manipulative therapy and found no correlation between peak flow velocity and systolic blood pressure. CONCLUSION: To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study comparing flow velocity in the vertebral artery before and after spinal manipulative therapy. We found no significant changes in otherwise healthy subjects with a biomechanical dysfunction of the cervical spine. Major changes in peak flow velocity might in theory explain the pathophysiology of cerebrovascular accidents after spinal manipulative therapy. However, in uncomplicated spinal manipulative therapy, this potential risk factor was not prevalent.

Side effects of chiropractic treatment: a prospective study.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate whether the characteristics of unpleasant sid effects after spinal manipulative therapy coincide with those obtained in a previous study. DESIGN: A prospective interview survey using standard questionnaires. SETTING: Sixty-six Swedish private practices of chiropractic (response rate, 78%). SUBJECTS: Ten consecutive patients per chiropractor (625 patients, 73% of target sample; 1858 recorded visits). INTERVENTION: Spinal manipulation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Self-reported unpleasant reactions, time of onset, duration and severity of symptoms. RESULTS: Reactions to spinal manipulation are common and benign. They typically arise and disappear shortly after treatment (usually gone the day after treatment). The most common reactions are local discomfort in the area of treatment (two thirds of reactions), followed by pain in areas other than that of treatment, fatigue or headache (10% each). Nausea, dizziness or "other" reactions are uncommonly reported (< 5% of reactions). Reactions are most commonly reported by women and (for both genders) at the beginning of the treatment series. Patients with long lasting problems are more likely to report treatment reactions; however, patients with no prior experience of chiropractic care do not report more reactions than patients previously treated by chiropractors. CONCLUSION: Common and uncommon reactions to chiropractic spinal manipulation have been identified, are to a large degree foreseeable and seem to be predominantly physiological in nature.

Clinical consequences of spina bifida occulta.

OBJECTIVE: To study data concerning the pathogenesis, frequency of occurrence, clinical manifestations and associated abnormalities of spina bifida occulta (SBO) and re-evaluate the clinical importance of the lesion. DATA SOURCES: International journal articles indexed through Medline, and specific related texts, the majority of which were published after 1989. Key indexing terms used were spina bifida occulta, tethered cord syndrome and spondylolysis. RESULTS: The reported frequency of occurrence of SBO varies widely, depending largely on the age groups included in a particular study. The most accurate estimate of occurrence rate is 17% of examined spines. There is a significant association of some cutaneous stigmata, most notably hypertrichosis, with midline posterior arch defects. An increasing amount of evidence links SBO with a number of specific anomalies and clinical syndromes, including intraspinal lipoma, tethered cord syndrome, genitourinary dysfunction, increased incidence of disc pathology, lumbar spondylolysis, foot deformities and syringomyelia. A questionable association exists with epilepsy. A supposed link between constipation and SBO is lacking sufficient data to support it. CONCLUSIONS: SBO may be associated with pathology and significant sequelae, although the majority of lesions pose no clinical threat. The predictive value for adverse sequelae in a particular lesion is difficult to assess; however, multilevel occurrence and more expansive involvement in a given segment seem to be associated with higher risk of sequela. The treatment for SBO with progressive neurologic deficit is surgical intervention; however, reversal of the deficit is unusual and a halting of neurologic deterioration is a more realistic goal. Early diagnosis of this lesion, before the age of 3 yr, is associated with better surgical outcomes.