Informed choice and consent for cervical spine manipulation

Informed consent is essential in ethical health care practice. Information and advice regarding choices is a precondition of informed consent. Autonomy, truthfulness and ethical decision making are all relevant to the informed choice and consent process. The purpose of this paper is firstly to discuss these topics. Following this, a case of informed choice and consent for cervical spine manipulation is examined. This case illustrates ethical problems that can arise in the informed choice and consent process. The moral reasoning in the case is clarified with the assistance of an ethical grid. The conclusion is that autonomy, a patient's right to self determination, is paramount in the informed choice and consent process. Autonomy enhancing informed consent requires more than a mechanical recitation of procedures, hazards and options. In order to uphold a patient's right to self determination, patients need to be included in the decision making process by allowing them to make treatment choices based on accurate information and advice from the physiotherapist.     

Brain stem infarction due to chiropractic manipulation of the cervical spine

A case of brain stem infarction after chiropractic manipulation of the cervical spine is presented. Proposed mechanisms and sites of possible arterial injury are discussed. A diagnosis of vertebral artery occlusion was made using conventional brachial angiography. Digital intravenous angiography, a relatively new and less invasive vascular imaging technique which was used as an adjunct for evaluating the remainder of the cervicocephalic vessels, documented the vertebral occlusion. Chiropractic manipulation, which is increasing in popularity, may be a cause of potentially devastating neurologic disease.     

Vertebrobasilar ischemia after cervical spine manipulation: A case report

INTRODUCTION: The most serious accidents after cervical spine manipulation are vertebrobasilar ischemia. Their incidence is underestimated. Their risk of apparition is lower if the contraindications are respected and if they are realised according to suitable practice. CASE REPORT: Mrs B, 39 years old, was an active smoker and had migraine for 10 years ago. One day, she presented an unusual headache associated with neck pain that was treated by a cervical spine manipulation. Seven hours after, she developed an alternate syndrome with a right sensory motor defect, a cerebellar syndrome, a pyramidal syndrome and a left defect of cranial nerves. The arteriography showed a thrombosis of the basilar trunk and a dissection of the left vertebral artery. A thrombolysis "in situ" was realized six hours and a half after the onset of the neurological defects. After eight months of rehabilitation, there were still a paralysis of the right upper limb, of the cranial nerves and a cerebellar syndrome but the patient was able to walk with two crutches and can eat by herself. DISCUSSION: Several risk factors were present in this case and there was also a major contraindication to manipulations: unusual acute occipital headache. Given the long period between the onset of neurological symptoms and the confirmation of the diagnosis, intravenous thrombolysis could not be done. Unfortunately, after eight months, important neurological sequels persisted. In order to avoid this type of accident after cervical manipulations, it is necessary to realize a strict medical examination and to implement the recommendations from the French society of manual and orthopaedic osteopathic medicine (Société fran?aise de médecine manuelle orthopédique et ostéopathique [SOFMMOO]).     

Intracranial hypotension syndrome following chiropractic manipulation of the cervical spine

Cervical spine manipulation has been associated with several disorders such as cervical arteries dissection, but rarely has a relationship with intracranial hypotension been reported. We describe a patient showing intracranial hypotension syndrome following chiropractic cervical spine treatment. Magnetic resonance showed the presence of dural leakage at cervical level, suggesting the pathogenesis of the syndrome. We state that cervical spine manipulation should be considered a treatment with risk of neurological complications, including the occurrence of intracranial hypotension.     

Vascular ischemia of the cervical spine: a review of relationship to therapeutic manipulation

Techniques employed by chiropractors in adjusting fixations of the cervical spine have often been a subject of criticism by other health care professionals. A primary concern is the potential risk of vascular occlusion in this region, subsequent to manipulative therapy. Although rare when compared to the millions of such manipulations given over a corresponding period of years, several reports exist to support the possibility of such an occurrence. Recent evidence, however, suggests that manipulation alone may not be solely contributory. Other extrinsic and intrinsic factors may play important roles in predisposing individuals who seek chiropractic intervention. Such factors are reviewed with the intention of establishing chiropractic professional awareness to such entities and to illustrate the need for a greater corroboration among health care professionals.     

Comparison of tibial nerve H-reflex excitability after cervical and lumbar spine manipulation

BACKGROUND: Previous investigations indicate that spinal manipulation leads to short-term attenuation of alpha-motoneuron excitability, when assessed by means of the Hoffmann reflex. Past studies, however, are limited to regional effects, such as lumbar manipulation effects on lumbar alpha-motoneuron activity. OBJECTIVE: This study compared and contrasted the effects of cervical and lumbar spine manipulation on the excitability of the lumbar alpha-motoneuronal pool in human subjects without low back pain, and compared the effects of cervical (nonregional) and lumbar (regional) spinal manipulation on lumbar alpha-motoneuron pool excitability in healthy subjects. The specific aim of this study was to determine if the inhibitory effects on the lumbar alpha-motoneuron pool associated with spinal manipulation are limited to the specific region in which the manipulative procedure is applied, or if rostral (cervical) manipulation can also influence caudal (lumbar) motoneuron excitability. METHOD: Thirty-six nonpatient human subjects were used to study the effect of cervical and lumbar spinal manipulation on the amplitude of the tibial nerve Hoffmann reflex, recorded from the gastrocnemius muscle. The Hoffmann reflex (H-reflex) technique allows for an indirect index of motoneuron pool excitability by means of peripheral nerve Ia-afferent fiber stimulation. Reflexes were recorded before and after spinal manipulative procedures. RESULTS: Lumbar spinal manipulation, as measured by amplitude changes of the tibial nerve H-reflex, attenuated lumbar alpha-motoneuronal activity. Suppression of motoneuronal excitability was significant (P <.05) but transient, with a return to baseline within 60 seconds after manipulation. Cervical spinal manipulation had no significant effect on lumbar motoneuron activity. CONCLUSION: These data indicate that the inhibitory effects of spinal manipulation on motoneuronal excitability are regional, rather than global.     

A survey to examine attitudes and patterns of practice of physiotherapists who perform cervical spine manipulation

As part of the process of developing a Clinical Practice Guideline (CPG) on cervical spine manipulation (CSM), a working group sent out an 82-item postal survey to 150 randomly selected Ontario physiotherapists (PTs) who perform spinal manipulation, to collect information on the socio-demographics, practices, opinions of risk, and attitudes towards CPGs of these PTs (n = 118; response rate = 79%). Of the 118 respondents who performed spinal manipulation, 41 performed CSM. Respondents strongly agreed with three out of six indications listed in the survey for applying CSM: segmental fixation, stiff but stable joint, internal derangement (over 70%). Respondents also strongly agreed (over 88%) that all screening tests listed in the survey should be performed prior to applying CSM: tests for irritability, stability, vascular and neurological systems. Respondents rated patient education, other manual therapy, and exercise as the most common adjuncts to CSM (over 88%). Respondents reported seeing mild complications or side effects only rarely following the application of CSM. Fourteen percent of respondents reported having a written CSM policy or CPG on CSM in their work setting. Feedback from this survey will be used in developing a CSM CPG. A future survey will evaluate changes in clinical practice and in attitudes toward CPGs some time after the dissemination of the CSM CPG.     

The effect of direction specific thoracic spine manipulation on the cervical spine: a randomized controlled trial

Objectives: To determine the difference on neck outcomes with directional manipulation to the thoracic spine. There is evidence that thoracic spine manipulation is effective in treating patients with neck pain. However, there is no research that determines if the assessment of directional hypomobility and the selection of thrust direction offer improved outcomes.

Methods: A total of 69 patients with cervical spine pain were randomly assigned to receive either a manipulation that was consistent with their thoracic spine motion loss (matched) or opposite their motion loss (unmatched). The patient was given care consistent with the orthopedic section guidelines for neck pain and the physical therapist’s clinical reasoning. Baseline outcome measures (NPRS, NDI, GROC) were taken and reassessed two days and two weeks after treatment.

Results: Both groups had positive results when pain, neck disability index, and global rating of change were assessed. There was no difference between the matched and unmatched groups.

Discussion: Directional manipulation of hypomobile thoracic spine segments may not be required to improved outcomes in patients with neck pain. Future studies should assess a variety of factors when determining the best available treatment, including manual therapy procedures, exercise, and patient selection.

Level of Evidence: 1b.     

Global and regional kinematics of the cervical spine during upper cervical spine manipulation: A reliability analysis of 3D motion data

Studies reporting spine kinematics during cervical manipulation are usually related to continuous global head–trunk motion or discrete angular displacements for pre-positioning. To date, segmental data analyzing continuous kinematics of cervical manipulation is lacking. The objective of this study was to investigate upper cervical spine (UCS) manipulation in vitro. This paper reports an inter- and intra-rater reliability analysis of kinematics during high velocity low amplitude manipulation of the UCS. Integration of kinematics into specific-subject 3D models has been processed as well for providing anatomical motion representation during thrust manipulation.Three unembalmed specimens were included in the study. Restricted dissection was realized to attach technical clusters to each bone of interest (skull, C₁–C₄ and sternum). During manipulation, bone motion data was computed using an optoelectronic system. The reliability of manipulation kinematics was assessed for three experimented practitioners performing two trials of 3 repetitions on two separate days.During UCS manipulation, average global head–trunk motion ROM (±SD) were 14 ± 5°, 35 ± 7° and 14 ± 8° for lateral bending, axial rotation and flexion-extension, respectively. For regional ROM (C₀–C₂), amplitudes were 10 ± 5°, 30 ± 5° and 16 ± 4° for the same respective motions. Concerning the reliability, mean RMS ranged from 1° to 4° and from 3° to 6° for intra- and inter-rater comparisons, respectively.The present results confirm the limited angular displacement during manipulation either for global head–trunk or for UCS motion components, especially for axial rotation. Additionally, kinematics variability was low confirming intra- and inter-practitioners consistency of UCS manipulation achievement.     

Vectored upper cervical manipulation for chronic sleep bruxism,headache, and cervical spine pain in a child

OBJECTIVE: To discuss the management of chronic sleep bruxism in a 6-year old girl. Clinical features The patient had morning headaches and cervical spine pain. Due to abnormal tooth wear, bruxism had been previously diagnosed and was verified by observation during sleep. She also had abnormal postural and palpatory findings, indicating upper cervical joint dysfunction. Intervention and outcome Bilateral rotary cervical stretching/mobilization and a vectored high-velocity, low-amplitude adjustment were performed in the upper cervical spine, using the atlas transverse process as the contact point. There was complete relief of the chronic subjective symptoms concomitant with remission of the objective signs of joint dysfunction. CONCLUSIONS: Cervical, particularly upper cervical, spine muscle-joint dysfunction should be considered as a potential etiology in chronic childhood sleep bruxism.     

Decrease in elbow flexor inhibition after cervical spine manipulation in patients with chronic neck pain

OBJECTIVE: This study measured functional capacity and subjective pain in patients with chronic neck pain before and after manipulation of the cervical spine. DESIGN: Outcomes study on 16 patients with chronic neck pain. BACKGROUND: Muscle inhibition, i.e., the inability to fully activate a muscle, has been observed following joint pathologies and in low back pain conditions. Although chronic neck pain has been associated with changes in muscle recruitment and coordination in the shoulder and arms, the possibility of muscle inhibition has not been explored. METHODS: Biceps activation during a maximal voluntary elbow flexor contraction was assessed using the interpolated twitch technique and electromyography. Cervical range of motion and pressure pain thresholds were measured using a goniometer and an algometer. Manipulation of the cervical spine was applied at the level of C5/6/7, and functional assessments were repeated. RESULTS: Patients showed significant inhibition in their biceps muscles. Cervical range of motion was restricted laterally, and increased pressure pain sensitivity was evident. After cervical spine manipulation, a significant reduction in biceps inhibition and an increase in biceps force occurred. Cervical range of motion and pressure pain thresholds increased significantly. CONCLUSIONS: Significant dysfunction in biceps activation was evident in patients with chronic neck pain, indicating that this muscle group cannot be used to the full extent. Spinal manipulation decreased muscle inhibition and increased elbow flexor strength at least in the short term. RELEVANCE: Muscle inhibition in the biceps has not been previously documented in patients with chronic neck pain. Further research is needed to establish whether muscle inhibition is related to clinical symptoms and functional outcome. Spinal manipulation improved muscle function, cervical range of motion and pain sensitivity, and might therefore be beneficial for treating patients with chronic neck pain.