Adverse events following cervical manipulative therapy: consensus on classification among Dutch medical specialists, manual therapists, and patients.

OBJECTIVES: To obtain consensus-based agreement on a classification system of adverse events (AE) following cervical spinal manipulation. The classification system should be comprised of clear definitions, include patients' and clinicians' perspectives, and have an acceptable number of categories. METHODS: Design: A three-round Delphi study. Participants: Thirty Dutch participants (medical specialists, manual therapists, and patients) participated in an online survey. Procedure: Participants inventoried AE and were asked about their preferences for either a three- or a four-category classification system. The identified AE were classified by two analysts following the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF), and the International Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD-10). Participants were asked to classify the severity for all AE in relation to the time duration. RESULTS: Consensus occurred in a three-category classification system. There was strong consensus for 16 AE in all severities (no, minor, and major AE) and all three time durations [hours, days, weeks]. The 16 AE included anxiety, flushing, skin rash, fainting, dizziness, coma, altered sensation, muscle tenderness, pain, increased pain during movement, radiating pain, dislocation, fracture, transient ischemic attack, stroke, and death. Mild to strong consensus was reached for 13 AE. DISCUSSION: A consensus-based classification system of AE is established which includes patients' and clinicians' perspectives and has three categories. The classification comprises a precise description of potential AE in accordance with internationally accepted classifications. After international validation, clinicians and researchers may use this AE classification system to report AE in clinical practice and research.

Knowledge, beliefs, and attitudes of spinal manipulation: a cross-sectional survey of Italian physiotherapists.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: High-velocity low-amplitude thrust spinal manipulation (SM) is a recommended and commonly used manual therapy intervention in physiotherapy. Beliefs surrounding the safety and effectiveness of SM have challenged its use, and even advocated for its abandonment. Our study aimed to investigate the knowledge and beliefs surrounding SM by Italian physiotherapists compared with similar practitioners in other countries. METHODS: An online survey with 41 questions was adapted from previous surveys and was distributed via a mailing list of the Italian Physiotherapists Association (March 22-26, 2020). The questionnaire was divided into 4 sections to capture information on participant demographics, utilization, potential barriers, and knowledge about SM. Questions were differentiated between spinal regions. Attitudes towards different spinal regions, attributes associated with beliefs, and the influence of previous educational background were each evaluated. RESULTS: Of the 7398 registered physiotherapists, 575 (7.8%) completed the survey and were included for analysis. The majority of respondents perceived SM as safe and effective when applied to the thoracic (74.1%) and lumbar (72.2%) spines; whereas, a smaller proportion viewed SM to the upper cervical spine (56.8%) as safe and effective. Respondents reported they were less likely to provide and feel comfortable with upper cervical SM (respectively, 27.5% and 48.5%) compared to the thoracic (respectively, 52.2% and 74.8%) and lumbar spines (respectively, 46.3% and 74.3%). Most physiotherapists (70.4%) agreed they would perform additional screening prior to upper cervical SM compared to other spinal regions. Respondents who were aware of clinical prediction rules were more likely to report being comfortable with SM (OR 2.38-3.69) and to perceive it as safe (OR 1.75-3.12). Finally, physiotherapists without musculoskeletal specialization, especially those with a traditional manual therapy background, were more likely to perform additional screening prior to SM, use SM less frequently, report being less comfortable performing SM, and report upper cervical SM as less safe (p < 0.001). DISCUSSION: The beliefs and attitudes of physiotherapists surrounding the use of SM are significantly different when comparing the upper cervical spine to other spinal regions. An educational background in traditional manual therapy significantly influences beliefs and attitudes. We propose an updated framework on evidence-based SM.

Assessing Cranial Nerves in Physical Therapy Practice: Findings from a Cross-Sectional Survey and Implication for Clinical Practice.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Serious pathologies of the neck can potentially result in cranial nerve palsy. Knowledge about cranial nerve examination (CNE) seems sparse, and its use is still unknown. We aim to investigate the knowledge, skills, and utilization of CNE of Italian physiotherapists. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An online cross-sectional survey. RESULTS: 396 completed the survey, reaching the required sample size. Although Italian physiotherapists consider CNE relevant (mean ± SD = 7.6/10 ± 2.0), over half of all responders (n = 229 (57.8%)) were not trained in the fundamentals and around a third did not use it in their daily practice (n = 138 (34.8%)). Additionally, participants were unconfident and insecure in conducting (n = 152 (38.4%) and n = 147 (37.1%)), interpreting (n = 140 (35.4%) and n = 164 (41.4%)), and managing the CNE (n = 141 (35.6%) and n = 154 (38.9%)). Possessing a musculoskeletal specialization was associated with an increased value attributed to clinical practice guidelines and reduced the lack of confidence in conducting, interpreting, and managing the CNE (respectively, n = 35 (25.5%), p = 0.0001; n = 32 (23.4%) p = 0.0002; n = 32 (23.4%) p = 0.0002). Working in a direct access setting significantly increased the considered relevance of guidelines and the concerns about arterial (p = 0.004) and other serious pathologies (p = 0.021). Pain and visual disturbances were considered the main indicators to CNE, demonstrating limited knowledge of signs and symptoms' indicating CNE. Participants considered specific training in CNE as relevant (mean ± SD = 7.6/10 = 2.1). CONCLUSIONS: a substantial proportion of Italian physiotherapists are not schooled in the fundamentals of cranial nerve examination. Given the number of physiotherapists who work in first contact roles, this is a professional concern.

Yes, we should abandon pre-treatment positional testing of the cervical spine.

Although there seems to be no causality between cervical spine (CS) manipulation and major adverse events (MAE), it remains important that manual therapists try to prevent every potential MAE. Although the validity of positional testing for vertebrobasilar insufficiency (VBI) has been questioned, recently, the use of these tests was recommended. However, based on the low sensitivity of the VBI tests, which may result in too many false-negative results, the VBI tests seem to be less valuable in pre-manipulative screening. Moreover, because the VBI tests are unable to consistently produce a decreased blood flow in the contralateral vertebral artery in (healthy people), the underlying mechanism of the test may not be a valid construct. There are numerous cases reporting MAE after a negative VBI test, indicating that the VBI tests do not have a role in assessing the risk of serious neurovascular pathology, such as cervical arterial dissection, the most frequently described MAE after CS manipulation. Symptoms of VBI can be identified in the patient interview and should be considered as red flags or warning signs and require further medical investigation. VBI tests are not able to predict MAE and seem not to have any added value to the patient interview with regard to detecting VBI or another vascular pathology. Furthermore, a negative VBI test can be wrongly interpreted as 'safe to manipulate'. Therefore, the use of VBI tests cannot be recommended and should be abandoned.

Effects of Head and Neck Positions on Blood Flow in the Vertebral, Internal Carotid, and Intracranial Arteries: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Manual therapy interventions targeting the neck include various positions and movements of the craniocervical region. The hemodynamic changes in various spinal positions potentially have clinical relevance. OBJECTIVES: To investigate the effects of craniocervical positions and movements on hemodynamic parameters (blood flow velocity and/or volume) of cervical and craniocervical arteries. METHODS: A search of 4 databases (PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, and Index to Chiropractic Literature) and, subsequently, a hand search of reference lists were conducted. Full-text experimental and quasi-experimental studies on the influence of cervical positions on blood flow of the vertebral, internal carotid, and basilar arteries were eligible for this review. Two independent reviewers selected and extracted the data using the double-screening method. RESULTS: Of the 1453 identified studies, 31 were included and comprised 2254 participants. Most studies mentioned no significant hemodynamic changes during maximal rotation (n = 16). A significant decrease in hemodynamics was identified for the vertebral artery, with a hemodynamic decrease in the position of maximum rotation (n = 8) and combined movement of maximum extension and maximum rotation (n = 4). A similar pattern of decreased hemodynamics was also identified for the internal carotid and intracranial arteries. Three studies focused on high-velocity thrust positioning and movement. None of the studies reported hemodynamic changes. The synthesized data suggest that in the majority of people, most positions and movements of the craniocervical region do not affect blood flow. CONCLUSION: The findings of this systematic review suggest that craniocervical positioning may not alter blood flow as much as previously expected. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapy, level 2a. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2019;49(10):688-697. Epub 5 Jul 2019. doi:10.2519/jospt.2019.8578.