Consequences of neck manipulation performed by a non-professional

The quality of reports on cervical arterial dissection following cervical spinal manipulation

BACKGROUND

Cervical artery dissection (CAD) and stroke are serious harms that are sometimes associated with cervical spinal manipulation therapy (cSMT). Because of the relative rarity of these adverse events, studying them prospectively is challenging. As a result, systematic review of reports describing these events offers an important opportunity to better understand the relation between adverse events and cSMT. Of note, the quality of the case report literature in this area has not yet been assessed.

PURPOSE

1) To systematically collect and synthesize available reports of CAD that have been associated with cSMT in the literature and 2) assess the quality of these reports.

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature was conducted using several databases. All clinical study designs involving CADs associated with cSMT were eligible for inclusion. Included studies were screened by two independent reviewers for the presence/absence of 11 factors considered to be important in understanding the relation between CAD and cSMT.

RESULTS

Overall, 43 articles reported 901 cases of CAD and 707 incidents of stroke reported to be associated with cSMT. The most common type of stroke reported was ischemic stroke (92%). Time-to-onset of symptoms was reported most frequently (95%). No single case included all 11 factors.

CONCLUSIONS

This study has demonstrated that the literature infrequently reports useful data toward understanding the association between cSMT, CADs and stroke. Improving the quality, completeness, and consistency of reporting adverse events may improve our understanding of this important relation.

Manipulation in the presence of cervical spinal cord compression: a case series

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study is to present information from a series of patients with imaging findings of encroachment on the cervical spinal cord who were treated with chiropractic cervical manipulation.

CASE SERIES

There were 27 patients (18 females, 9 males; age range, 23-65, mean age, 44.3 years) with neck and/or arm pain with findings of cervical spinal cord encroachment on magnetic resonance imaging. None of these patients had severe or acute myelopathy or advanced signal changes in the spinal cord indicative of myelomalacia. These patients were treated with a variety of approaches that included some form of cervical manipulation. The mean number of treatments that included manipulation was 12 (range, 2-32). Nineteen patients were treated with high-velocity, low-amplitude "thrust" manipulation, 9 patients were treated with low-velocity muscle energy technique, and 1 patient was treated with both methods. The mean patient-rated subjective improvement at the last follow-up reexamination was 70.0% (range, 10%-100%). From baseline to the last follow-up examination, the mean improvements in outcome measures were as follows: Bournemouth Neck Disability Questionnaire, 23.7 points (31%); Neck Disability Index, 6.4 points; and Numerical Pain Rating Scale, 3.9 points. In 3 patients, there was increased pain after manipulation that lasted from 1 to 4 days. There were no major complications, and in no patient did any increased pain after treatment last more than 4 days. No new neurologic symptoms or signs were seen in any of these patients.

CONCLUSION

The finding of cervical spinal cord encroachment on magnetic resonance imaging, in and of itself, should not necessarily be considered an absolute contraindication to manipulation. However, because radicular and myelopathic complications to cervical manipulation have been reported in the literature, great care should be taken in all cases, particularly those in which anatomic conditions such as cord encroachment are present.

Risks associated with spinal manipulation

The aim of this systematic review was to summarize the evidence about the risks of spinal manipulation. Articles were located through searching three electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library), contacting experts (n =9), scanning reference lists of relevant articles, and searching departmental files. Reports in any language containing data relating to risks associated with spinal manipulation were included, irrespective of the profession of the therapist. Where available, systematic reviews were used as the basis of this article. All papers were evaluated independently by the authors. Data from prospective studies suggest that minor, transient adverse events occur in approximately half of all patients receiving spinal manipulation. The most common serious adverse events are vertebrobasilar accidents, disk herniation, and cauda equina syndrome. Estimates of the incidence of serious complications range from 1 per 2 million manipulations to 1 per 400,000. Given the popularity of spinal manipulation, its safety requires rigorous investigation.

Manipulation of the cervical spine: a systematic review of case reports of serious adverse events, 1995-2001

OBJECTIVE

To summarise recent evidence from case reports (published January 1995-September 2001) of adverse events after cervical spine manipulation.

DATA SOURCES

Five computerised literature searches (MEDLINE-Pubmed; EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, AMED [Allied and Complementary Medicine Database], and CISCOM [Centralised Information Service for Complementary Medicine] were performed. No language restrictions were applied.

STUDY SELECTION

All case reports containing original data of adverse events after cervical spine manipulation were included.

DATA EXTRACTION

All articles were evaluated and key data extracted according to pre-defined criteria: patient's age, sex and diagnosis; type of therapist; type of treatment; nature of adverse event; method of diagnosis; and clinical outcome.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Thirty-one case reports (42 individual cases) were found. The patients were equally distributed between the sexes (21 male, 20 female, one unknown) and mostly middle-aged (range, 3 months to 87 years). Most were treated by chiropractors. Arterial dissection causing stroke was reported in at least 18 cases.

CONCLUSIONS

Serious adverse events after cervical spine manipulation continue to be reported. As the incidence of these events is unknown, large and rigorous prospective studies of cervical spine manipulation are needed to accurately define the risks.