Are Restrictive Medical Radiation Imaging Campaigns Misguided? It Seems So: A Case Example of the American Chiropractic Association's Adoption of "Choosing Wisely"

The Reduction of Cervical Hyperlordosis and Resolution of Craniocervical Symptoms in an Adolescent Female: A Chiropractic Biophysics Case Report With Long-Term Follow-Up

Cervical hyperlordosis is a rare condition in the pediatric population. We present a unique case of the application of Chiropractic Biophysics® (CBP®) technique protocols to reduce a hyperlordotic cervical spine corresponding with many craniocervical symptoms, including chronic migraines and neck pain. A 15-year-old female presented with chronic headaches, neck pain, and neck stiffness among other complaints following a martial arts sprain injury several months prior. There were many positive orthopedic tests and limited range of motion. Radiographs revealed a cervical hyperlordosis and a right lateral head translation. CBP® treatment was given and involved cervical distraction traction as well as corrective exercises twice a week for 12 weeks, and then monthly for one year with a complementary home program. After 12 weeks, there was a full recovery from migraines and neck pain correlating with an 8° reduction in lordosis and correction of head translation. At 15 months, the patient remained well and achieved a 13° total reduction in the neck curve. This is the first case documenting the successful application of CBP® methods to reduce cervical spine hyperlordosis in peer-reviewed literature. We propose too much curve may be as detrimental as too little curve in the cervical spine with respect to causing adverse stresses and strains in the surrounding soft tissues leading to pathological processes and nociceptive tendencies.

The Importance of Early Detection of Spinal Tumors Through Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Chiropractic Practices

Primary spinal tumors such as schwannomas are uncommon causes of back pain that can be easily missed during the initial workup. Delayed diagnosis is associated with further neurological impairment. A 46-year-old man presented with a six-month history of progressive lower back pain and left leg radiculopathy. Previous treatments failed, including medications, physical therapy, acupuncture, and chiropractic manipulations. Examination revealed weakness (4/5) in left knee extension and ankle dorsiflexion. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) revealed a 2-cm intraspinal schwannoma at the L4 level with nerve root compression. The patient underwent laminectomy and gross total resection without any complications. The patient had near-complete symptomatic resolution six weeks postoperatively and returned to normal functioning. After four months of postoperative rehabilitation, the patient remained asymptomatic. This case reinforces the urgent need for early MRI in the presence of neurological deficits and other symptoms, despite normal radiographs. An increased suspicion of spinal tumors can prevent delays in diagnosis and minimize adverse outcomes. Multidisciplinary care optimizes the treatment of complex cases.

Don't Throw the 'Bio' out of the Bio-Psycho-Social Model: Editorial for Spine Rehabilitation in 2022 and Beyond

Spinal injuries, disorders and disabilities are among the leading causes for work loss, suffering, and health care expenditures throughout the industrialized world [...].

Radiophobia Overreaction: College of Chiropractors of British Columbia Revoke Full X-Ray Rights Based on Flawed Study and Radiation Fear-Mongering

Fears over radiation have created irrational pressures to dissuade radiography use within chiropractic. Recently, the regulatory body for chiropractors practicing in British Columbia, Canada, the College of Chiropractors of British Columbia (CCBC), contracted Pierre Côté to review the clinical use of X-rays within the chiropractic profession. A "rapid review" was performed and published quickly and included only 9 papers, the most recent dating from 2005; they concluded, "Given the inherent risks of radiation, we recommend that chiropractors do not use radiographs for the routine and repeat evaluation of the structure and function of the spine." The CCBC then launched an immediate review of the use of X-rays by chiropractors in their jurisdiction. Member and public opinion were gathered but not presented to their members. On February 4, 2021, the College announced amendments to their Professional Conduct Handbook that revoked X-ray rights for routine/repeat assessment and management of patients with spine disorders. Here, we highlight current and historical evidence that substantiates that X-rays are not a public health threat. We also point out critical and insurmountable flaws in the single paper used to support irrational and unscientific policy that discriminates against chiropractors who practice certain forms of evidence-based X-ray-guided methods.

Correction of a double spondylolisthesis of the lumbar spine utilizing Chiropractic BioPhysics® technique: a case report with 1 year follow-up

[Purpose] To report on the reduction of a double lumbar spine spondylolisthesis by use of Chiropractic BioPhysics^® technique. [Participant and Methods] A 57 year-old male presented with severe chronic low back pains and sciatica. After playing hockey for 50 years, he was unable to continue and was forced to retire. Lumbar radiography showed an L3 retrolisthesis of −5.3 mm and an L4 anterolisthesis of 5.4 mm. Chiropractic BioPhysics technique including mirror image lumbar spine drop-table adjustments, corrective exercises and a unique pelvic extension traction was performed 50 times over 7-months. [Results] A radiograph after 3-months showed full reduction of the L3 retrolisthesis. A radiograph after 7-months showed full reduction of the L4 anterolisthesis. The patient reported full resolution of chronic back pains and was able to return to play hockey; a 1.75 year follow-up showed maintenance of the corrections and the patient remained injury-free while returning to play hockey. [Conclusion] A customized treatment program including Chiropractic BioPhysics lumbar spine traction, corrective exercises and drop-table spine manipulation resolved chronic back pains and fully reduced an L3 and L4 retro- and antero-listhesis, respectively. Further research may substantiate this treatment approach for reducing translational displacements in the lumbar spine. Routine upright radiography is required to diagnose spondylolisthesis.

Radiophobic Fear-Mongering, Misappropriation of Medical References and Dismissing Relevant Data Forms the False Stance for Advocating Against the Use of Routine and Repeat Radiography in Chiropractic and Manual Therapy

There is a faction within the chiropractic profession passionately advocating against the routine use of X-rays in the diagnosis, treatment and management of patients with spinal disorders (aka subluxation). These activists reiterate common false statements such as "there is no evidence" for biomechanical spine assessment by X-ray, "there are no guidelines" supporting routine imaging, and also promulgate the reiterating narrative that "X-rays are dangerous." These arguments come in the form of recycled allopathic "red flag only" medical guidelines for spine care, opinion pieces and consensus statements. Herein, we review these common arguments and present compelling data refuting such claims. It quickly becomes evident that these statements are false. They are based on cherry-picked medical references and, most importantly, expansive evidence against this narrative continues to be ignored. Factually, there is considerable evidential support for routine use of radiological imaging in chiropractic and manual therapies for 3 main purposes: 1. To assess spinopelvic biomechanical parameters; 2. To screen for relative and absolute contraindications; 3. To reassess a patient's progress from some forms of spine altering treatments. Finally, and most importantly, we summarize why the long-held notion of carcinogenicity from X-rays is not a valid argument.

Are Continued Efforts to Reduce Radiation Exposures from X-Rays Warranted?

There are pressures to avoid use of radiological imaging throughout all healthcare due to the notion that all radiation is carcinogenic. This perception stems from the long-standing use of the linear no-threshold (LNT) assumption of risk associated with radiation exposures. This societal perception has led to relentless efforts to avoid and reduce radiation exposures to patients at great costs. Many radiation reduction campaigns have been launched to dissuade doctors from using radiation imaging. Lower-dose imaging techniques and practices are being advocated. Alternate imaging procedures are encouraged. Are these efforts warranted? Based on recent evidence, LNT ideology is shown to be defunct for risk assessment at low-dose exposure ranges which includes X-rays and CT scans. In fact, the best evidence that was once used to support LNT ideology, including the Life Span Study data, now indicates thresholds for cancer induction are high; therefore, low-dose X-rays cannot cause harm. Current practices are safe as exposures currently encountered are orders of magnitude below threshold levels shown to be harmful. As long as imaging is medically warranted, it is shown that efforts to reduce exposures that are within background radiation levels and that are also shown to enhance health by upregulating natural adaptive protection systems are definitively wasted resources.

5 Reasons Why Scoliosis X-Rays Are Not Harmful

Radiographic imaging for scoliosis screening, diagnosis, treatment, and management is the gold standard assessment tool. Scoliosis patients receive many repeat radiographs, typically 10-25 and as many as 40-50, equating to a maximum 50 mGy of cumulative exposure. It is argued this amount of radiation exposure is not carcinogenic to scoliosis patients for 5 main reasons: 1. Estimated theoretical cumulative effective doses remain below the carcinogenic dose threshold; 2. Scoliosis patient x-rays are delivered in serial exposures and therefore, mitigate any potential cumulative effect; 3. Linear no-threshold cancer risk estimates from scoliosis patient cohorts are flawed due to faulty science; 4. Standardized incidence/mortality ratios demonstrating increased cancers from aged scoliosis cohorts are confounded by the effects of the disease entity itself making it impossible to claim cause and effect resulting from low-dose radiation exposures from spinal imaging; 5. Children are not more susceptible to radiation damage than adults. Radiophobia concerns from patients, parents, and doctors over repeat imaging for scoliosis treatment and management is not justified; it adds unnecessary anxiety to the patient (and their parents) and interferes with optimal medical management. X-rays taken in the evidence-based management of scoliosis should be taken without hesitation or concern about negligible radiation exposures.

The LNT Issue Is About Politics and Economics, Not Safety

The Sykes commentary advocates “a more sensible, graded approach for protection from low dose ionizing radiation” until the LNT dose-response issue is resolved. It urges scientists to stop criticizing the LNT model that links radiation to a risk of cancer and accept regulatory use of the threshold model to “protect” people, but with higher limits. It fails to mention the 120-year history of successful low-dose treatments of a wide variety of serious diseases, including cancers. The commentary ignores published evidence of a threshold at 1.1 Gy for radiogenic leukemia and a dose-rate threshold at about 0.6 Gy per year for lifespan shortening. LNT came from politicized science, replete with scientific misconduct and conflict of interest. Its acceptance created a false cancer scare that was likely intended to stop atomic bomb testing, but it has severely damaged human welfare. Many vitally important low-dose therapies were discarded when the radiation scare was disseminated in 1956. The rapid growth of nuclear energy ended with the media-inflamed public panic after the Three Mile Island accident in 1979. Extreme implementation of the precautionary principle made it uneconomic. Availability of a low-dose therapy for lung inflammation could have dramatically decreased the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic.