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.

Articular dysfunction patterns in patients with mechanical neck pain: a clinical algorithm to guide specific mobilization and manipulation techniques.

In view of a didactical approach for teaching cervical mobilization and manipulation techniques to students as well as their use in daily practice, it is mandatory to acquire sound clinical reasoning to optimally apply advanced technical skills. The aim of this Masterclass is to present a clinical algorithm to guide (novice) therapists in their clinical reasoning to identify patients who are likely to respond to mobilization and/or manipulation. The presented clinical reasoning process is situated within the context of pain mechanisms and is narrowed to and applicable in patients with a dominant input pain mechanism. Based on key features in subjective and clinical examination, patients with mechanical nociceptive pain probably arising from articular structures can be categorized into specific articular dysfunction patterns. Pending on these patterns, specific mobilization and manipulation techniques are warranted. The proposed patterns are illustrated in 3 case studies. This clinical algorithm is the corollary of empirical expertise and is complemented by in-depth discussions and knowledge exchange with international colleagues. Consequently, it is intended that a carefully targeted approach contributes to an increase in specificity and safety in the use of cervical mobilizations and manipulation techniques as valuable adjuncts to other manual therapy modalities.

How common are side effects of spinal manipulation and can these side effects be predicted?

Little scientific support is available concerning usual and unusual reactions after spinal manipulation although such reactions are very common in clinical practice. Fifty-nine manipulative therapists were requested to enroll 15 consecutive patients attending for their first visit to receive spinal manipulation. These patients were asked to complete a questionnaire after this first visit that asked for possible risk factors for spinal manipulation and asked about any side effects after the manipulation. The participating practitioners were asked to note medical diagnosis, manipulated spinal region, number of treated areas and type of additional treatment. Four hundred and sixty five valuable responses were analysed. Two hundred and eighty three patients (60.9%) reported at least one post-manipulative reaction. The most common were headache (19.8%), stiffness (19.5%), local discomfort (15.2%), radiating discomfort (12.1%) and fatigue (12.1%). Most of these reactions began within 4 h and generally disappeared within the next 24 h. Women were more likely to report adverse effects than men (P < 0.001). Multivariate analysis showed that upper cervical manipulation (OR: 3.20; 95%CI: 1.89-7.77), use of medication (OR: 2.20; 95%CI: 1.31-3.69), gender (OR: 1.66; 95%CI: 1.01-2.75) and age (OR: 1.02; 95%CI: 1.00-1.05) were independent predictors of headache after spinal manipulation. The results of this study indicate that reactions to spinal manipulation may be relatively common but are benign in nature and of short duration. Although it is difficult to label side effects as a risk, it is important to differentiate those patients who are susceptible to side effects in order to inform them correctly.