Spinal manipulation

Effectiveness

Back pain

Clinical guidelines from different countries come to different conclusions with respect to spinal manipulation.

A 2012 Cochrane review found that spinal manipulation was as effective as other commonly used therapies. A 2010 systematic review found that most studies suggest SM achieves equal or superior improvement in pain and function compared with other commonly used interventions for short-, intermediate-, and long-term follow-up. A 2019 systematic review concluded that SM produced comparable results to recommended treatments for chronic low back pain, while SM appeared to give improved results over non-recommended therapies for short-term functional improvement.

In 2007, the American College of Physicians and the American Pain Society jointly recommended that clinicians consider spinal manipulation for patients who do not improve with self-care options, and the Clinical Guideline Committee for the American College of Physicians updated the guideline in 2017 to include that non-pharmacological approaches to pain management should be considered, however, that there is only low-quality evidence supporting effectiveness of spinal manipulation. Reviews published in 2008 and 2006 suggested that SM for low back pain was equally effective as other commonly used interventions. A 2007 literature synthesis found good evidence supporting SM and mobilization for low back pain. Of four systematic reviews published between 2000 and 2005, one recommended SM and three stated that there was insufficient evidence to make recommendations.

• A 2017 review concludes "for patients with nonchronic, nonradicular LBP, available evidence does not support the use of spinal manipulation or exercise therapy in addition to standard medical therapy."

Neck pain

For neck pain, manipulation and mobilization produce similar changes, and manual therapy and exercise are more effective than other strategies. A 2015 Cochrane systematic review found that there is no high-quality evidence assessing the effectiveness of spinal manipulation for treating neck pain. There is not enough evidence to suggest that spinal manipulation is an effective long-term treatment for whiplash, but there are short-term benefits.

Non-musculoskeletal disorders

Historically, some within the chiropractic profession have claimed that spinal adjustments have physiological effects on visceral functions and thus affect overall health beyond musculoskeletal conditions. This view originated in the 19th century with Daniel David Palmer's original thesis that subluxations caused many diseases. Over time, this hypothesis is inconsistent with our modern understanding of pathology and disease, and only "a small proportion of chiropractors, osteopaths, and other manual medicine providers use[ing] spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) to manage non-musculoskeletal disorders. However, the efficacy and effectiveness of these interventions to prevent or treat non-musculoskeletal disorders remain controversial."

A 2019 global summit of "50 researchers from 8 countries and 28 observers from 18 chiropractic organizations" conducted a systematic review of the literature, and 44 of the 50 "found no evidence of an effect of SMT for the management of non-musculoskeletal disorders including infantile colic, childhood asthma, hypertension, primary dysmenorrhea, and migraine. This finding challenges the validity of the theory that treating spinal dysfunctions with SMT has a physiological effect on organs and their function."

Assistance of medication or anesthesia

As for manipulation with the assistance of medication or anesthesia, a 2013 review concludes that the best evidence lacks coherence to support its use for chronic spine pain.

Safety

There is not sufficient data to establish the safety of spinal manipulations, and the rate of adverse events is unknown.

• Spinal manipulation is frequently associated with mild to moderate temporary adverse effects, and also rare serious outcomes which can result in permanent disability or death. The National Health Service in the UK notes that about half of people reported encountering adverse effects following spinal manipulation. A 2015 Cochrane systematic review noted that more than half of the randomized controlled trials looking at the effectiveness of spinal manipulation for neck pain, did not include adverse effects in their reports.

Risks of neck manipulation

The degree of serious risks associated with manipulation of the cervical spine is uncertain, with little evidence of risk of harm but also little evidence of safety either. There is controversy regarding the degree of risk of vertebral artery dissection, which can lead to stroke and death, from cervical manipulation. Several deaths have been associated with this technique and it has been suggested that the relationship is causative, but this is disputed by many chiropractors who believe it is unproven.

Understandably, vascular accidents are responsible for the major criticism of spinal manipulative therapy. However, it has been pointed out that:

In very rare instances, the manipulative adjustment to the cervical spine of a vulnerable patient becomes the final intrusive act which results in a very serious consequence.

Edzard Ernst found that there is little evidence for efficacy and some evidence for adverse effects, and due to that, the procedure should be approached with caution, particularly forceful manipulation of the upper spine with rotation.

A 2007 systematic-review found correlations of mild to moderate adverse effects and less frequently with cervical artery dissection, with unknown incidence.

Potential for incident under-reporting

Statistics on the reliability of incident reporting for injuries related to manipulation of the cervical spine vary. The RAND study assumed that only 1 in 10 cases would have been reported. However, Edzard Ernst surveyed neurologists in Britain for cases of serious neurological complications occurring within 24 hours of cervical spinal manipulation by various types of practitioners; 35 cases had been seen by the 24 neurologists who responded, but none of the cases had been reported. He concluded that under-reporting was close to 100%, rendering estimates "nonsensical." He therefore suggested that "clinicians might tell their patients to adopt a cautious approach and avoid the type of spinal manipulation for which the risk seems greatest: forceful manipulation of the upper spine with a rotational element." The NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination stated that the survey had methodological problems with data collection. Both NHS and Ernst noted that bias is a problem with the survey method of data collection.

A 2001 study in the journal Stroke found that vertebrobasilar accidents (VBAs) were five times more likely in those aged less than 45 years who had visited a chiropractor in the preceding week, compared to controls who had not visited a chiropractor. No significant associations were found for those over 45 years. The authors concluded: "While our analysis is consistent with a positive association in young adults... The rarity of VBAs makes this association difficult to study despite high volumes of chiropractic treatment." The NHS notes that this study collected data objectively by using administrative data, involving less recall bias than survey studies, but the data were collected retrospectively and probably contained inaccuracies.

Mis-attribution problems

Studies of stroke and manipulation do not always clearly identify what professional has performed the manipulation. In some cases this has led to confusion and improper placement of blame. In a 1995 study, chiropractic researcher Allan Terrett, DC, pointed to this problem:

This error was taken into account in a 1999 review of the scientific literature on the risks and benefits of manipulation of the cervical spine (MCS). Special care was taken, whenever possible, to correctly identify all the professions involved, as well as the type of manipulation responsible for any injuries and/or deaths. It analyzed 177 cases that were reported in 116 articles published between 1925 and 1997, and summarized:

In Figure 1 in the review, the types of injuries attributed to manipulation of the cervical spine are shown, and Figure 2 shows the type of practitioner involved in the resulting injury. For the purpose of comparison, the type of practitioner was adjusted according to the findings by Terrett.

The review concluded: "The literature does not demonstrate that the benefits of MCS outweigh the risks. Several recommendations for future studies and for the practice of MCS are discussed."

History

Spinal manipulation is a therapeutic intervention that has roots in folk medicine such as the traditional bone-setting and has been used by various cultures, apparently for thousands of years. Hippocrates, the "father of medicine" used manipulative techniques, as did the ancient Egyptians and many other cultures. A modern re-emphasis on manipulative therapy occurred in the late 19th century in North America with the emergence of osteopathic and chiropractic medicine. Spinal manipulative therapy gained recognition by mainstream medicine during the 1960s.

Providers

In North America, it is most commonly performed by chiropractors, osteopathic physicians, and physical therapists. In Europe, osteopaths, chiropractors, and physiotherapists are the majority providers, although the precise figure varies between countries. In 1992, chiropractors were estimated to perform over 90% of all manipulative treatments given for low back pain treatment in the USA. A 2012 survey in the US found that 99% of the first-professional physical therapy programs that responded were teaching some form of thrust joint manipulation.

Terminology

Manipulation has been known by several other names. Chiropractors often refer to manipulation of a spinal joint as an 'adjustment'. Following the labeling system developed by Geoffery Maitland, manipulation is synonymous with Grade V mobilization. Because of its distinct segmental biomechanics (see section below), the term high velocity low amplitude (HVLA) thrust is often used interchangeably with manipulation. However, it is important to note that the magnitude of neither force, velocity, or amplitude are regarded as defining attributes.

Biomechanics

Spinal manipulation can be distinguished from other manual therapy interventions such as mobilization by its biomechanics, both kinetics and kinematics.

Kinetics

Force-time profiles measured during spinal manipulation were originally described as consisting of three distinct phases: the 'preload' phase, the 'thrust' (or 'impulse') phase, and the 'resolution' phase. Evans and Breen added a fourth 'orientation' phase to describe the first period, during which the patient is oriented into the appropriate position in preparation for the preload phase.

Kinematics

The kinematics of a complete spinal motion segment, when one of its constituent spinal joints is manipulated, are much more complex than the kinematics that occur during manipulation of an independent peripheral synovial joint. However, the events that take place in a manipulated synovial joint are the same, irrespective of whether the synovial joint in the spine or the periphery. Evans and Lucas defined manipulation using these events: "Separation (gapping) of opposing articular surfaces of a synovial joint, caused by a force applied perpendicularly to those articular surfaces, that results in cavitation within the synovial fluid of that joint." The corresponding definition for the mechanical response of a manipulation is: "Separation (gapping) of opposing articular surfaces of a synovial joint that results in cavitation within the synovial fluid of that joint." In turn, the action of a manipulation can be defined as: "A force applied perpendicularly to the articular surfaces."

Suggested mechanisms

The effects of spinal manipulation have been shown to include:

• Temporary relief of musculoskeletal pain
• Shortened time to recover from acute back pain
• Temporary increase in passive range of motion (ROM)
• Physiological effects on the central nervous system (specifically the sympathetic nervous system)
• Altered sensorimotor integration
• No alteration of the position of the sacroiliac joint
• Sham or placebo manipulation

Common side effects of spinal manipulation are characterized as mild to moderate and may include: local discomfort, headache, tiredness, or radiating discomfort.

References

References

1. (29 January 2024). "Epidemiology: spinal manipulation utilization.". Electromyogr Kinesiol.
2. (December 2010). "An updated overview of clinical guidelines for the management of non-specific low back pain in primary care". European Spine Journal.
3. (2012-09-12). "Spinal manipulative therapy for acute low-back pain". Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews.
4. (October 2010). "NASS Contemporary Concepts in Spine Care: spinal manipulation therapy for acute low back pain". The Spine Journal.
5. (March 2019). "Benefits and harms of spinal manipulative therapy for the treatment of chronic low back pain: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials". BMJ.
6. (October 2007). "Diagnosis and treatment of low back pain: a joint clinical practice guideline from the American College of Physicians and the American Pain Society". Annals of Internal Medicine.
7. (2017-04-04). "Noninvasive Treatments for Acute, Subacute, and Chronic Low Back Pain: A Clinical Practice Guideline From the American College of Physicians". Annals of Internal Medicine.
8. (September 2006). "Inconsistent grading of evidence across countries: a review of low back pain guidelines". Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics.
9. (2008). "Evidence-informed management of chronic low back pain with spinal manipulation and mobilization". The Spine Journal.
10. (2007). "Chiropractic management of low back pain and low back related leg complaints". [[Council on Chiropractic Guidelines and Practice Parameters]].
11. (January 2017). "Complementary therapies in addition to medication for patients with nonchronic, nonradicular low back pain: a systematic review". The American Journal of Emergency Medicine.
12. (February 2008). "Treatment of neck pain: noninvasive interventions: results of the Bone and Joint Decade 2000-2010 Task Force on Neck Pain and Its Associated Disorders". Spine.
13. (2007). "Chronic mechanical neck pain in adults treated by manual therapy: a systematic review of change scores in randomized clinical trials". Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics.
14. (May 2007). "[Effectiveness of spinal manipulation in treating whiplash injuries]". Atencion Primaria.
15. (February 2021). "The global summit on the efficacy and effectiveness of spinal manipulative therapy for the prevention and treatment of non-musculoskeletal disorders: a systematic review of the literature". Springer Science and Business Media LLC.
16. (May 2013). "Spinal manipulation under anesthesia: a narrative review of the literature and commentary". Chiropractic & Manual Therapies.
17. (May 2009). "Safety of chiropractic interventions: a systematic review". Spine.
18. (September 2015). "Manipulation and mobilisation for neck pain contrasted against an inactive control or another active treatment". The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews.
19. (2023-01-23). "A retrospective analysis of the incidence of severe adverse events among recipients of chiropractic spinal manipulative therapy". Scientific Reports.
20. (September 2016). "The reporting of adverse events following spinal manipulation in randomized clinical trials-a systematic review". The Spine Journal.
21. (April 2012). "Reporting of adverse effects in randomised clinical trials of chiropractic manipulations: a systematic review". The New Zealand Medical Journal.
22. (October 2010). "Adverse events associated with the use of cervical manipulation and mobilization for the treatment of neck pain in adults: a systematic review". Manual Therapy.
23. (October 2012). "Assessing the risk of stroke from neck manipulation: a systematic review". International Journal of Clinical Practice.
24. (May 2010). "Vascular accidents after neck manipulation: cause or coincidence?". International Journal of Clinical Practice.
25. (July 2010). "Deaths after chiropractic: a review of published cases". International Journal of Clinical Practice.
26. Kleynhans AM, Terrett AG. Cerebrovascular complications of manipulation. In: Haldeman S, ed. ''Principles and practice of chiropractic'', 2nd ed. East Norwalk, CT, Appleton Lang, 1992.
27. (January 2002). "Unpredictability of cerebrovascular ischemia associated with cervical spine manipulation therapy: a review of sixty-four cases after cervical spine manipulation". Spine.
28. (May 2001). "Chiropractic manipulation and stroke: a population-based case-control study". Stroke.
29. (2002). "Clinical perceptions of the risk of vertebral artery dissection after cervical manipulation: the effect of referral bias". The Spine Journal.
30. (2001). "Arterial dissections following cervical manipulation: the chiropractic experience". Canadian Medical Association Journal.
31. Ernst, E.. (2002). "Spinal manipulation: its safety is uncertain". Canadian Medical Association Journal.
32. [http://www.nelh.nhs.uk/hth/chiro.asp NHS Evaluation of the evidence base for the adverse effects of spinal manipulation by chiropractors] {{webarchive. link. (2006-05-30)
33. (May 2001). "Chiropractic manipulation and stroke: a population-based case-control study". Stroke.
34. (May 1995). "Misuse of the literature by medical authors in discussing spinal manipulative therapy injury". Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics.
35. (January 1999). "Manipulation of the cervical spine: risks and benefits". Physical Therapy.
36. [http://www.ptjournal.org/cgi/content/full/79/1/50/F1 Figure 1. Injuries attributed to manipulation of the cervical spine.] {{webarchive. link. (2007-09-27)
37. [http://www.ptjournal.org/cgi/content/full/79/1/50/F2 Figure 2. Practitioners providing manipulation of the cervical spine that resulted in injury.] {{webarchive. link. (2007-02-25)
38. Dean C. Swedlo, "[http://www.hom.ucalgary.ca/Dayspapers2002.pdf The Historical Development of Chiropractic.] {{webarchive. link. (2008-06-25 " pp. 55-58, ''The Proceedings of the 11th Annual History of Medicine Days'', Faculty of Medicine, The University of Calgary)
39. Burke, G.L., "[http://www.macdonaldpublishing.com Backache from Occiput to Coccyx]" Chapter 1
40. (June 2003). "Several pathways in the evolution of chiropractic manipulation". Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics.
41. Burke, G.L., "[http://www.macdonaldpublishing.com/Chapter_7.html Backache from Occiput to Coccyx] {{Webarchive. link. (2014-07-14 " Chapter 7)
42. "International MUA Academy of Physicians - Historical Considerations".
43. (October 1992). "Spinal manipulation for low-back pain". Annals of Internal Medicine.
44. (June 2015). "Thrust joint manipulation curricula in first-professional physical therapy education: 2012 update". The Journal of Orthopaedic and Sports Physical Therapy.
45. Maitland, G.D. ''Peripheral Manipulation'' 2nd ed. Butterworths, London, 1977.
    Maitland, G.D. ''Vertebral Manipulation'' 5th ed. Butterworths, London, 1986.
46. (2023). "What is manipulation? A new definition.". BMC Musculoskelet Disord.
47. (2022). "Why is the prevailing model of joint manipulation (still) incorrect?". Chiropr Man Ther.
48. (2001). "The biomechanics of spinal manipulation.". Crit Rev Phys Rehabil Med.
49. (January 2006). "A biomechanical model for mechanically efficient cavitation production during spinal manipulation: prethrust position and the neutral zone". Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics.
50. (March 1995). "Sacroiliac joint manipulation decreases the H-reflex". Electromyography and Clinical Neurophysiology.
51. (August 2014). "The effects of spinal mobilizations on the sympathetic nervous system: a systematic review". Manual Therapy.
52. (May 1998). "Manipulation does not alter the position of the sacroiliac joint. A roentgen stereophotogrammetric analysis". Spine.
53. (February 1997). "Frequency and characteristics of side effects of spinal manipulative therapy". Spine.