Vertebral artery dissection in term pregnancy after cervical spine manipulation: a case report and review the literature

Cervical Spine Manipulation and Causation of Cervical Artery Dissection: A Review of 10 Case Reports

Recent media coverage of high-profile cases of cervical artery dissection (CAD) has ignited the discussion about the role of cervical spine manipulation (CSM) in causing cervical artery dissection. However, research does not support a causal association between cervical spine manipulation and cervical artery dissection in a healthy cervical spine. The objective of this study was to review the 10 most recent case reports of cervical spine manipulation and cervical artery dissection for convincing evidence of the causation of cervical artery dissection by cervical spine manipulation. Nine of 10 case reports showed no convincing evidence of a causal relationship between cervical spine manipulation and cervical artery dissection. The 10th case report was exceptional as the CSM was contraindicated by pre-existing cervical spine pathology. We conclude that these 10 case reports provide no convincing evidence of the causation of cervical artery dissection by cervical spine manipulation in a healthy cervical spine. One case report demonstrated that cervical spine manipulation can cause cervical artery dissection when performed in the presence of pre-existing cervical spine pathology. Therefore, we conclude that practitioners should exclude cervical spine pathology before performing cervical spine manipulation.

Spinal manipulation and adverse event reporting in the pregnant patient limits estimation of relative risk: a narrative review

OBJECTIVE

To describe variability in spinal manipulation technique details and adverse event (AE) documentation of spinal manipulation during pregnancy.

METHODS

Five databases were searched for peer-reviewed investigations of spinal manipulation during pregnancy. Criteria for inclusion was as follows: high velocity, low amplitude thrust manipulation performed, subjects pregnant during manipulation, and English language. Studies were excluded when participants were not currently pregnant, and when the manipulation performed was not high-velocity, low-amplitude thrust. Data extraction included study design, number of participants, gestational age, spinal region, number of manipulations, manipulation technique details, profession of manipulator, AE reporting (Yes vs. No), type, and number of AE.

RESULTS

Out of 18 studies included in the review, only three provide details of the spinal manipulation technique. The reported variables include patient position, practitioner position, and direction of thrust. Fourteen studies documented AE; however, only seven provide AE details.

DISCUSSION

Reporting of spinal manipulation techniques and AE during pregnancy were inconsistent. Replication of methods in future investigations is limited without more detailed documentation of manipulation techniques performed. Furthermore, determining the relative risk and safety of spinal manipulation during pregnancy is not possible without more detailed reporting of AE. Due to these inconsistencies, a checklist is proposed for standardized reporting of spinal manipulation techniques and AE. With more consistent reporting of these parameters, results of future investigations may allow for more definitive and generalizable safety recommendations on spinal manipulation during pregnancy.