The importance of selecting the correct site to apply spinal manipulation when treating spinal pain: Myth or reality? A systematic review

Comparison of Short-Term Effects of Different Spinal Manipulations in Patients with Chronic Non-Specific Neck Pain: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Spinal manipulations for chronic non-specific neck pain (CNNP) include cervical, cervicothoracic junction, and thoracic spine (CCT) manipulations as well as upper cervical spine (UCS) manipulations. This study aimed to compare the short-term effects of UCS manipulation versus a combination of CCT spine manipulations on pain intensity, disability, and cervical range of motion (CROM) in CNNP patients. In a private physiotherapy clinic, 186 participants with CNNP were randomly assigned to either the UCS (n = 93) or CCT (n = 93) manipulation groups. Neck pain, disability, and CROM were measured before and one week after the intervention. No significant differences were found between the groups regarding pain intensity and CROM. However, there was a statistically significant difference in neck disability, with the CCT group showing a slightly greater decrease (CCT: 16.9 ± 3.8 vs. UCS: 19.5 ± 6.8; p = 0.01). The findings suggest that a combination of manipulations in the CCT spine results in a slightly more pronounced decrease in self-perceived disability compared to UCS manipulation in patients with CNNP after one week. However, no statistically significant differences were observed between the groups in terms of pain intensity or CROM.

Static palpation ain't easy: Evaluating palpation precision using a topographical map of the lumbar spine as a reference

INTRODUCTION

Clinicians commonly use manual therapy to treat low back pain by palpating the spine to identify the spinous processes. This study aims to evaluate the ability of experienced clinicians to consistently locate the spinous processes from S1 to T12 through palpation. The results will be compared to topographical data representing the lumbar lordosis at baseline and four follow-up time points.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In a prior prospective randomized trial, experienced clinicians used palpation to locate the lumbar spinous processes (S1-T12) and then digitized these locations in three-dimensional space. The same digitizing equipment was then used to continuously collect three-dimensional position data of a wheel that rolled along the back's surface through a trajectory that connected the previously digitized locations of the spinous processes. This process was repeated at 4 days, 1, 4, and 12 weeks. The resulting lordosis trajectories were plotted and aligned using the most anterior point in the lordosis to compare the locations of the spinous processes identified in different trials. This way, spinous palpation points could be compared to surface topography over time. Intra- and interrater reliability and agreement were estimated using intraclass correlations of agreement and Bland-Altman limits of agreement.

RESULTS

Five clinicians palpated a total of 119 participants. The results showed a large degree of variation in precision estimates, with a mean total value of 13 mm (95%CI = 11;15). This precision error was consistent across all time points. The smallest precision error was found at L5, followed by S1 File, after which the error increased superiorly. Intra- and interrater reliability was poor to moderate.

CONCLUSIONS

Comparison of palpation results to a topographic standard representing the lumbar lordosis is a new approach for evaluating palpation. Our results confirm the results of prior studies that find palpation of lumbar spinous processes imprecise, even for experienced clinicians.

A modern way to teach and practice manual therapy

BACKGROUND

Musculoskeletal conditions are the leading contributor to global disability and health burden. Manual therapy (MT) interventions are commonly recommended in clinical guidelines and used in the management of musculoskeletal conditions. Traditional systems of manual therapy (TMT), including physiotherapy, osteopathy, chiropractic, and soft tissue therapy have been built on principles such as clinician-centred assessment, patho-anatomical reasoning, and technique specificity. These historical principles are not supported by current evidence. However, data from clinical trials support the clinical and cost effectiveness of manual therapy as an intervention for musculoskeletal conditions, when used as part of a package of care.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this paper is to propose a modern evidence-guided framework for the teaching and practice of MT which avoids reference to and reliance on the outdated principles of TMT. This framework is based on three fundamental humanistic dimensions common in all aspects of healthcare: safety, comfort, and efficiency. These practical elements are contextualised by positive communication, a collaborative context, and person-centred care. The framework facilitates best-practice, reasoning, and communication and is exemplified here with two case studies.

METHODS

A literature review stimulated by a new method of teaching manual therapy, reflecting contemporary evidence, being trialled at a United Kingdom education institute. A group of experienced, internationally-based academics, clinicians, and researchers from across the spectrum of manual therapy was convened. Perspectives were elicited through reviews of contemporary literature and discussions in an iterative process. Public presentations were made to multidisciplinary groups and feedback was incorporated. Consensus was achieved through repeated discussion of relevant elements.

CONCLUSIONS

Manual therapy interventions should include both passive and active, person-empowering interventions such as exercise, education, and lifestyle adaptations. These should be delivered in a contextualised healing environment with a well-developed person-practitioner therapeutic alliance. Teaching manual therapy should follow this model.

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 critical review of the role of manual therapy in the treatment of individuals with low back pain

The number of low back pain (LBP) cases is projected to increase to more than 800 million by 2050. To address the substantial burden of disease associated with this rise in prevalence, effective treatments are needed. While clinical practice guidelines (CPG) consistently recommend non-pharmacological therapies as first-line treatments, recommendations regarding manual therapy (MT) in treating low back pain vary. The goal of this narrative review was to critically summarize the available evidence for MT behind these recommendations, to scrutinize its mechanisms of action, and propose some actionable steps for clinicians on how this knowledge can be integrated into a person-centered approach. Despite disparate recommendations from CPG, MT is as effective as other available treatments and may be offered to patients with LBP, especially as part of a treatment package with exercise and education. Most of the effects of MT are not specific to the technique. MT and other interventions share several mechanisms of action that mediate treatment success. These mechanisms can encompass patients' expectations, prior experiences, beliefs and convictions, epistemic trust, and nonspecific contextual effects. Although MT is safer than opioids for patients with LBP, this alone is insufficient. Our goal is to encourage clinicians to shift away from outdated and refuted ideas in MT and embrace a person-centered approach rooted in a comprehensive biopsychosocial framework while incorporating patients' beliefs, addressing illness behaviors, and seeking to understand each patient's journey.

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.

An international consensus on gaps in mechanisms of forced-based manipulation research: findings from a nominal group technique

Force-Based Manipulation (FBM) including light touch, pressure, massage, mobilization, thrust manipulation, and needling techniques are utilized across several disciplines to provide clinical analgesia. These commonly used techniques demonstrate the ability to improve pain-related outcomes; however, mechanisms behind why analgesia occurs with these hands-on interventions has been understudied. Neurological, neuroimmune, biomechanical, neurovascular, neurotransmitter, and contextual factor interactions have been proposed to influence response; however, the specific relationships to clinical pain outcomes has not been well established. The purpose of this study was to identify gaps present within mechanism-based research as it relates to FBM. An international multidisciplinary nominal group technique (NGT) was performed and identified 37 proposed gaps across eight domains. Twenty-three of these gaps met consensus across domains supporting the complex multisystem mechanistic response to FBM. The strength of support for gaps within the biomechanical domain had less overall support than the others. Gaps assessing the influence of contextual factors had strong support as did those associating mechanisms with clinical outcomes (translational studies). The importance of literature investigating how FBM differs with individuals of different pain phenotypes (pain mechanism phenotypes and clinical phenotypes) was also presented aligning with other analgesic techniques trending toward patient-specific pain management (precision medicine) through the use of pain phenotyping.

A randomized controlled trial comparing different sites of high-velocity low amplitude thrust on sensorimotor integration parameters

Increasing evidence suggests that a high-velocity, low-amplitude (HVLA) thrust directed at a dysfunctional vertebral segment in people with subclinical spinal pain alters various neurophysiological measures, including somatosensory evoked potentials (SEPs). We hypothesized that an HVLA thrust applied to a clinician chosen vertebral segment based on clinical indicators of vertebral dysfunction, in short, segment considered as "relevant" would significantly reduce the N30 amplitude compared to an HVLA thrust applied to a predetermined vertebral segment not based on clinical indicators of vertebral dysfunction or segment considered as "non-relevant". In this double-blinded, active-controlled, parallel-design study, 96 adults with recurrent mild neck pain, ache, or stiffness were randomly allocated to receiving a single thrust directed at either a segment considered as "relevant" or a segment considered as "non-relevant" in their upper cervical spine. SEPs of median nerve stimulation were recorded before and immediately after a single HVLA application delivered using an adjusting instrument (Activator). A linear mixed model was used to assess changes in the N30 amplitude. A significant interaction between the site of thrust delivery and session was found (F1,840 = 9.89, p < 0.002). Pairwise comparisons showed a significant immediate decrease in the N30 complex amplitude after the application of HVLA thrust to a segment considered "relevant" (- 16.76 ± 28.32%, p = 0.005). In contrast, no significant change was observed in the group that received HVLA thrust over a segment considered "non-relevant" (p = 0.757). Cervical HVLA thrust applied to the segment considered as "relevant" altered sensorimotor parameters, while cervical HVLA thrust over the segment considered as "non-relevant" did not. This finding supports the hypothesis that spinal site targeting of HVLA interventions is important when measuring neurophysiological responses. Further studies are needed to explore the potential clinical relevance of these findings.

Evidence on the use of alternative substances and therapies in hypertension

OBJECTIVE

Review of some of the best-known biological and non-biological complementary/alternative therapies/medicines (CAM) and their relationship with blood pressure (BP) and hypertension (HT).

SEARCH STRATEGY

Narrative review assessing a recent series of systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and clinical trials published in recent years, focusing on the effects of CAM on BP and HT.

SELECTION OF STUDIES

We searched EMBASE, MEDLINE, Cochrane Library and Google Scholar, obtaining a total of 4336 articles, finally limiting the search to 181 after applying filters.

SYNTHESIS OF RESULTS

Some studies on biological therapies show some usefulness in BP reduction with an adequate benefit-risk balance, although there is a scarcity of high-quality trials that support these results. Some mind-body therapies have shown hypothetical benefit; in contrast, others lack robust evidence.

CONCLUSIONS

Although some therapies present a reasonable risk-benefit ratio, they should in no case replace pharmacological treatment when indicated.

Effects of matched vs. unmatched physical therapy interventions on pain or disability in patients with neck pain - a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The interventions performed in most randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on neck pain patients are standardized, irrespective of the high heterogeneity of patients. However, clinicians tend to choose an intervention based on the patients' clinical characteristics, and thus match the treatment to the patient.

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the effectiveness of interventions matched to the clinical characteristics of patients with neck pain versus the same, but unmatched treatment for improving pain or disability.

DESIGN

A systematic review and meta-analysis conducted following Cochrane guidelines.

METHODS

Databases searches were performed from inception to September 2023. RCTs were included if the patients in the experimental group received a treatment matched to clinical presentation or to clinicians' assessment, if the patients in the control group received a similar but unmatched treatment, and if pain or disability were reported as outcome measures.

RESULTS

The literature search produced 9516 records of which 27 met the inclusion criteria. Matched exercise therapy was superior to unmatched exercise for pain (SMD -0.57; 95% CI -0.95, -0.18) and for disability (SMD -0.69; 95% CI -1.14, -0.23) at short term, but not at intermediate-term follow-up. Matched manual treatment was not superior to unmatched manual therapy for pain or for disability at short or intermediate-term follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

Results suggest that matching exercise to movement limitation, trapezius myalgia, or forward head position may lead to better outcomes in the short term, but not in the intermediate-term. Matched manual therapy was not superior to unmatched treatment either short or intermediate-term. Further research is warranted to verify if those criteria are potentially useful matching criteria.

Spinal Manipulative Therapy for Nonspecific Low Back Pain: Does Targeting a Specific Vertebral Level Make a Difference?: A Systematic Review With Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to examine whether targeting spinal manipulative therapy (SMT), by applying the intervention to a specific vertebral level, produces superior clinical outcomes than a nontargeted approach in patients with nonspecific low back pain. DESIGN: Systematic review with meta-analysis. LITERATURE SEARCH: MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, CINAHL, Scopus, PEDro, and Index to Chiropractic Literature were searched up to May 31, 2023. STUDY SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials comparing targeted SMT (mobilization or manipulation) to a nontargeted approach in patients with nonspecific low back pain, and measuring the effects on pain intensity and patient-reported disability. DATA SYNTHESIS: Data extraction, risk of bias, and evaluation of the overall certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach were performed by 2 authors independently. Meta-analyses were performed using the restricted maximum likelihood method. RESULTS: Ten randomized controlled trials (n = 931 patients) were included. There was moderate-certainty evidence of no difference between targeted SMT and a nontargeted approach for pain intensity at postintervention (weighted mean difference = -0.20 [95% CI: -0.51, 0.10]) and at follow-up (weighted mean difference = 0.05 [95% CI: -0.26, 0.36]). For patient-reported disability, there was moderate-certainty evidence of no difference at postintervention (standardized mean difference = -0.04 [95% CI: -0.36, 0.29]) and at follow-up (standardized mean difference = -0.05 [95% CI: -0.24, 0.13]). Adverse events were reported in 4 trials, and were minor and evenly distributed between groups. CONCLUSION: Targeting a specific vertebral level when administering SMT for patients with nonspecific low back pain did not result in improved outcomes on pain intensity and patient-reported disability compared to a nontargeted approach. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2023;53(9):1-11. Epub: 28 July 2023. doi:10.2519/jospt.2023.11962.

Urinary TNF-α as a potential biomarker for chronic primary low back pain

Introduction

Over two thirds of individuals with low back pain (LBP) may experience recurrent or persistent symptoms in the long term. Yet, current data do not allow to predict who will develop chronic low back pain and who will recover from an acute episode. Elevated serum levels of the proinflammatory cytokine tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α) have been associated with poor recovery and persistent pain following an acute episode of LBP. Inflammatory cytokines may also mediate mechanisms involved in nociplastic pain, and thus, have significant implications in chronic primary low back pain (CPLBP).

Methods

This study aimed to investigate the potential of urinary TNF-α levels for predicting outcomes and characterizing clinical features of CPLBP patients. Twenty-four patients with CPLBP and 24 sex- and age-matched asymptomatic controls were recruited. Urinary TNF-α concentrations were measured at baseline and after 4 weeks, during which CPLBP patients underwent spinal manipulative therapy (SMT).

Results

Concentrations of TNF-α were found to be elevated in baseline urine samples of CPLBP patients compared to asymptomatic controls. Moreover, these values differed among patients depending on their pain trajectory. Patients with persistent pain showed higher levels of TNF-α, when compared to those with episodic CPLBP. Furthermore, baseline TNF-α concentrations and their changes after 4 weeks predicted alterations in pain intensity and disability following SMT in patients with CPLBP.

Discussion

These findings warrant further research on the potential use of urinary TNF-α concentrations as a prognostic biomarker for CPLBP.

The effectiveness of spinal manipulative therapy procedures for spine pain: protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) is a guideline-recommended treatment option for spinal pain. The recommendation is based on multiple systematic reviews. However, these reviews fail to consider that clinical effects may depend on SMT "application procedures" (i.e., how and where SMT is applied). Using network meta-analyses, we aim to investigate which SMT "application procedures" have the greatest magnitude of clinical effectiveness for reducing pain and disability, for any spinal complaint, at short-term and long-term follow-up. We will compare application procedural parameters by classifying the thrust application technique and the application site (patient positioning, assisted, vertebral target, region target, Technique name, forces, and vectors, application site selection approach and rationale) against: 1. Waiting list/no treatment; 2. Sham interventions not resembling SMT (e.g., detuned ultrasound); 3. Sham interventions resembling SMT; 4. Other therapies not recommended in clinical practice guidelines; and 5. Other therapies recommended in clinical practice guidelines. Secondly, we will examine how contextual elements, including procedural fidelity (whether the SMT was delivered as planned) and clinical applicability (whether the SMT is similar to clinical practice) of the SMT.

METHODS

We will include randomized controlled trials (RCT) found through three search strategies, (i) exploratory, (ii) systematic, and (iii) other known sources. We define SMT as a high-velocity low-amplitude thrust or grade V mobilization. Eligibility is any RCT assessing SMT against any other type of SMT, any other active or sham intervention, or no treatment control on adult patients with pain in any spinal region. The RCTs must report on continuous pain intensity and/or disability outcomes. Two authors will independently review title and abstract screening, full-text screening, and data extraction. Spinal manipulative therapy techniques will be classified according to the technique application and choice of application sites. We will conduct a network-meta analysis using a frequentist approach and multiple subgroup and sensitivity analyses.

DISCUSSION

This will be the most extensive review of thrust SMT to date, and will allow us to estimate the importance of different SMT application procedures used in clinical practice and taught across educational settings. Thus, the results are applicable to clinical practice, educational settings, and research studies. PROSPERO registration: CRD42022375836.

Modernizing patient-centered manual therapy: Findings from a Delphi study on orthopaedic manual therapy application

BACKGROUND

Recent literature challenges the process by which orthopaedic manual therapy (OMT) has traditionally been applied. Progressive understanding of the complexities surrounding OMT analgesia and the decreased reliance on technique specific characteristics in determining treatment effectiveness promotes an update to training paradigms related to OMT.

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this Delphi study was to establish consensus on what trainees should be focusing on when demonstrating OMT techniques and how candidates for OMT should be identified.

DESIGN

An international three-round Delphi study following recommended guidelines for conducting and reporting of Delphi studies (CREDES) was performed.

METHODS

One-hundred sixty-four expert manual therapy educators were identified for participation across four countries. Participants were asked to provide what concepts trainees should be focusing on when demonstrating OMT techniques and how candidates for OMT should be identified. Twenty-one themes were identified for each question.

RESULTS

Twenty-eight participants completed all three rounds of the Delphi. Consensus was reached on nineteen themes and eighteen themes respectively. Results from this Delphi stress patient-centered care within a biopsychosocial pain management model. Representation across all pillars of evidence-based practice were represented. Themes reaching consensus within this study favored the importance of neurophysiological, psychological, and biomechanical principles.

CONCLUSION

This Delphi presents consensus-based recommendations for what manual therapy trainees should focus on when demonstrating OMT techniques and on how candidates for OMT should be identified. These findings in collaboration with previous consensus recommendations on concepts to focus on within OMT education promote restructuring of OMT curriculum to evidence-based patient-centered care models.

Manual Therapy versus Localisation (Tactile, Sensory Training) in Patients with Non-Specific Neck Pain: A Randomised Clinical Pilot Trial

Manual therapy (MT) techniques typically incorporate localised touch on the skin with the application of specific kinetic forces. The contribution of localised touch to the effectiveness of MT techniques has not been evaluated. This study investigated the immediate effects of MT versus localisation training (LT) on pain intensity and range of movement (ROM) for neck pain. In this single-blind randomised controlled trial thirty eligible neck pain volunteers (23 females and 7 males), aged 28.63 ± 12.49 years, were randomly allocated to MT or to a motionless (LT) group. A single three-minute treatment session was delivered to each group's cervico-thoracic area. The LT involved tactile sensory stimulation applied randomly to one out of a nine-block grid. Subjects were asked to identify the number of the square being touched, reflecting a different location on the region of skin. MT involved three-minute anteroposterior (AP) glides and sustained natural apophyseal glides (SNAG) techniques. Pre- and post-intervention pain intensity were assessed using a pressure pain threshold (PPT) algometer and the numeric pain rating scale (NPRS). Neck ROM was recorded with a bubble inclinometer. Improvements in ROM and self-reported pain were recorded in both groups (p < 0.001) without differences in NPRS, ROM or PPT scores between groups (p > 0.05). Tactile sensory training (localisation) was as effective as MT in reducing neck pain, suggesting a component of MT's analgesic effect to be related with the element of localised touch rather than the forces induced during passive movements.

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).

Priorities in updating training paradigms in orthopedic manual therapy: an international Delphi study

PURPOSE

Orthopedic manual therapy (OMT) education demonstrates significant variability between philosophies and while literature has offered a more comprehensive understanding of the contextual, patient specific, and technique factors which interact to influence outcome, most OMT training paradigms continue to emphasize the mechanical basis for OMT application. The purpose of this study was to establish consensus on modifications & adaptions to training paradigms which need to occur within OMT education to align with current evidence.

METHODS

A 3-round Delphi survey instrument designed to identify foundational knowledge to include and omit from OMT education was completed by 28 educators working within high level manual therapy education programs internationally. Round 1 consisted of open-ended questions to identify content in each area. Round 2 and Round 3 allowed participants to rank the themes identified in Round 1.

RESULTS

Consensus was reached on 25 content areas to include within OMT education, 1 content area to omit from OMT education, and 34 knowledge components which should be present in those providing OMT. Support was seen for education promoting understanding the complex psychological, neurophysiological, and biomechanical systems as they relate to both evaluation and treatment effect. While some concepts were more consistently supported there was significant variability in responses which is largely expected to be related to previous training.

CONCLUSION

The results of this study indicate manual therapy educators understanding of evidence-based practice as support for all 3 tiers of evidence were represented. The results of this study should guide OMT training program development and modification.

Evidence (-based medicine) in manual medicine/manual therapy—a summary review

Objective

The aim of this summary review is to analyse the current state of evidence in manual medicine or manual therapy.

Methods

The literature search focussed on systematic reviews listed in PubMed referring to manual medicine treatment until the beginning of 2022, limited to publications in English or German. The search concentrates on (1) manipulation, (2) mobilization, (3) functional/musculoskeletal and (4) fascia. The CASP Checklist for Systematic Reviews was used to present the included reviews in a clear way.

Results

A total of 67 publications were included and herewith five categories: low back pain, neck pain, extremities, temporomandibular disorders and additional effects. The results were grouped in accordance with study questions.

Conclusion

Based on the current systematic reviews, a general evidence-based medicine level III is available, with individual studies reaching level II or Ib. This allows manual medicine treatment or manual therapy to be used in a valid manner.

Impact of audible pops associated with spinal manipulation on perceived pain: a systematic review

OBJECTIVES

An audible pop is the sound that can derive from an adjustment in spinal manipulative therapy and is often seen as an indicator of a successful treatment. A review conducted in 1998 concluded that there was little scientific evidence to support any therapeutic benefit derived from the audible pop. Since then, research methods have evolved considerably creating opportunities for new evidence to emerge. It was therefore timely to review the evidence.

METHODS

The following electronic databases were searched for relevant studies pertaining to the impact of audible pops in spinal manipulative therapy: PubMed, Index to Chiropractic Literature (ICL), Cumulative Index to Nursing & Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) and Web-of-Science. The main outcome was pain. Two reviewers independently selected studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias and quality of the evidence using the Downs and Black checklist. Results of the included literature were synthesized into a systematic review.

RESULTS

Five original research articles were included in the review, of which four were prospective cohort studies and one a randomized controlled trial. All studies reported similar results: regardless of the area of the spine manipulated or follow-up time, there was no evidence of improved pain outcomes associated with an audible pop. One study even reported a hypoalgesic effect to external pain stimuli after spinal manipulation, regardless of an audible pop.

CONCLUSIONS

Whilst there is still no consensus among chiropractors on the association of an audible pop and pain outcomes in spinal manipulative therapy, knowledge about the audible pop has advanced. This review suggests that the presence or absence of an audible pop may not be important regarding pain outcomes with spinal manipulation.

Effects of manual therapy on body posture: Systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Several clinical trials investigated the effectiveness of MT on body posture, but a systematic review grouping the results of these studies was not found in the literature.

RESEARCH QUESTION

Does manual therapy (MT) cause postural changes?

METHODS

Inclusion criteria were: randomized controlled trials in any population; studies in which the primary intervention was the use of any MT technique; studies that evaluated the immediate, short, medium, or long-term effects of interventions on body posture; and studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals in any year and language. In March 2022, we conducted a search in the PUBMED, Cinahl, Embase, PEDro, and Cochrane Central databases that yielded 6627 articles, of which 38 including 1597 participants were eligible; of these, 35 could be grouped into 12 meta-analyses. The risk of bias was assessed using the PEDro scale and the certainty in the scientific evidence rated through the GRADE system.

RESULTS

The results allowed us to conclude with moderate certainty in the evidence that, when compared to no intervention or sham, in the short and medium term, MT reduced the forward head posture (14 studies, 584 individuals, 95%CI 0.38, 1.06), reduced thoracic kyphosis (5 studies, 217 individuals, 95%CI 0.37, 0.94), improved lateral pelvic tilt (5 studies, 211 individuals, 95%CI 0.11, 0.67) and pelvic torsion (2 studies, 120 individuals, 95%CI 0.44, 1.19) and increased plantar area (3 studies, 134 individuals, 95%CI 0.04, 0.74). With moderate certainty, there was no significant effect on shoulder protrusion (5 studies, 176 individuals, 95%CI -0.11, 0.61), shoulder alignment in the frontal plane (3 studies, 160 individuals, 95%CI -0.15, 0.52), scoliosis (2 studies, 26 individuals, 95%CI -1.57, 2.19), and pelvic anteversion (5 studies, 233 individuals, 95%CI -0.02, 0.51). With low certainty, MT had no effect on scapular upward rotation (2 studies, 74 individuals, 95%CI -0.76, 2.17). With low to very low certainty, it is possible to conclude that MT was not superior to other interventions in the short or medium term regarding the improvement of forward head posture (5 studies, 170 individuals, 95%CI -1.39, 0.67) and shoulder protrusion (3 studies, 94 individuals, 95%CI -4.04, 0.97).

SIGNIFICANCE

MT can be recommended to improve forward head posture, thoracic kyphosis and pelvic alignment in the short and medium term, but not shoulder posture and scoliosis. MT reduces the height of the plantar arch and this must be taken into account in physical therapy planning. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42021244423.

Chiropractic Management of Symptomatic Pedicle Hemangioma: a Case Report

Spinal hemangiomas are the most commonly encountered primary vertebral tumors, which are benign and asymptomatic. They usually occur in the vertebral body and rarely extend into or originate from the posterior column. Thus, hemangiomas of the pedicle are extremely rare. Only one case of pedicle hemangioma has been documented in the literature. Disc herniations and annular tears are not always symptomatic, and they have always been observed in asymptomatic patients. Therefore, even with a thorough medical history and physical examination, patients with comorbid hemangioma and annular tears present a formidable challenge to the most experienced clinicians. This report describes a rare case of pedicle hemangioma and disc herniation without spinal cord compression in a 47-year-old woman complaining of lower back pain and inability to walk.