osteopathy
When I still worked as a clinician, I have looked after athletes long enough to know that they go for everything that promises to improve their performance. It is thus hardly surprising that Olympians would try all sorts of so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) regardless of whether the therapy is supported by evidence or not. Skeptics are tempted to dismiss all of SCAM for improving fitness. But is that fair? Is it true that no evidence evists for any of them?
The short answer to this question is NO.
Here I have looked at some of the possibilities and show you some of the Medline-listed papers that seem to support SCAM as a means of improving fitness:
Acupuncture
Ashwagandha
Balneology
Cupping
Ginkgo biloba
Ice
Kinesiology tape
Massage guns
Percussion massage
Sports massage
Tai massage
Vibrational massage
Yoga
Please do not mistake this for anything resembling a systematic review of the evidence; it is merely a list to give you a flavour of what is out there. And please don’t assume that the list is complete; I am sure that there is much more.
Looking at the articles that I found, one could get the impression that there is plenty of good evidence to support SCAM for improving fitness. This, however, would be wrong. The evidence for almost every of the above listed therapies is flimsy to say the least. But – as I stated already at the beginning – in my experience, this will not stop athletes to use them.
Since it is a rare occurance these days – I retired more than a decade ago – that I publish something in the peer-reviewed literature, please allow me to make some brief comments of this review just published by Spanish researchers and myself. The aim of this systematic review with meta-analysis was to evaluate the clinical effectiveness of visceral osteopathy (VO) in musculoskeletal and non-musculoskeletal disorders.
Two independent reviewers searched in PubMed, Physiotherapy Evidence Database, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and Web of Science databases in November 2023 and extracted data for randomized controlled trials evaluating the clinical effectiveness of VO. The risk of bias and the certainty of evidence were assessed using the Risk-of-Bias tool 2 and the GRADE Profile, respectively. Meta-analyses were conducted using random effect models using RevMan 5.4. software.
Fifteen studies were included in the qualitative and seven in the quantitative synthesis. For musculoskeletal disorders, the qualitative and quantitative synthesis suggested that VO produces no statistically significant changes in any outcome variable for patients with low back pain, neck pain or urinary incontinence. For non-musculoskeletal conditions, the qualitative synthesis showed that VO was not effective for the treatment of irritable bowel syndrome, breast cancer, and very low weight preterm infants. Most of the studies were classified as high risk of bias and the certainty of evidence downgraded to low or very low.
We concluded that VO did not show any benefit in any musculoskeletal or non-musculoskeletal condition.
Yes, I agree: these findings are hardly surprising. Visceral osteopathy (or visceral manipulation) is an expansion of the general principles of osteopathy and involves the manual manipulation by a therapist of internal organs, blood vessels and nerves (the viscera) from outside the body. Visceral osteopathy was developed by the osteopath Jean-Piere Barral. He stated that through his clinical work with thousands of patients, he created this modality based on organ-specific fascial mobilization. And through work in a dissection lab, he was able to experiment with visceral manipulation techniques and see the internal effects of the manipulations.[1] According to its proponents, visceral manipulation is based on the specific placement of soft manual forces looking to encourage the normal mobility, tone and motion of the viscera and their connective tissues. These gentle manipulations may potentially improve the functioning of individual organs, the systems the organs function within, and the structural integrity of the entire body.[2]
Visceral osteopathy is being practised mostly by osteopaths and less commonly chiropractors and physiotherapists. It comprises of several different manual techniques firstly for diagnosing a health problem and secondly for treating it. Several studies have assessed the diagnostic reliability of the techniques involved. The totality of this evidence fails to show that they are sufficiently reliable to be od practical use.[3] Other studies have tested whether the therapeutic techniques used in visceral osteopathy are effective in curing disease or alleviating symptoms. The totality of this evidence fails to show that visceral osteopathy works for any condition.[4] The treatment itself seems to be safe, yet the risks of visceral osteopathy are nevertheless considerable: if a patient suffers from symptoms related to her inner organs, the therapist is likely to misdiagnose them and subsequently mistreat them. If the symptoms are due to a serious disease, this would amount to medical neglect and could, in extreme cases, cost the patient’s life.
[all references in brackets [] can be found in my recent book]While the results of our review might be unsurprising, one thing about it did, after all, surprise me a great deal: the journal that published it, the ‘INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF OSTEOPATHIC MEDICINE‘. I even lost a bet for a bottle of wine with the lead author, because I said they would never accept it for publication!
This review was aimed at quantifying the proportion attributable to contextual effects of physical therapy interventions for musculoskeletal pain. Randomized placebo-controlled trials evaluating the effect of physical therapy interventions on musculoskeletal pain.
Risk of bias was evaluated using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials (ROB 2.0). The proportion of physical therapy interventions effect that is explained by contextual effects was calculated, and a quantitative summary of the data from the studies was conducted using the random-effects inverse-variance model (Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman method).
Sixty-eight studies were included in the systematic review (total number of participants: n=5,238), and 54 placebo-controlled trials informed our meta-analysis (participants: n=3,793). Physical therapy interventions included:
- soft tissue techniques,
- mobilization,
- manipulation,
- taping,
- exercise therapy,
- dry needling.
Placebo interventions included manual, non-manual interventions, or both.
The results show the following:
- The type of treatment with the largest proportion not attributable to the specific effects (PCE) for pain intensity assessed immediately after the intervention was mobilization, which represented 87% of the overall treatment effect (PCE = 0.87, 95% CI: 0.54, 1.19).
- For soft tissue techniques, the PCE was 81% of the overall treatment effect (PCE = 0.81, 95% CI: 0.64, 0.97).
- For dry needling, the PCE was 75% (PCE = 0.75, 95% CI: 0.36, 1.15).
- For manipulation techniques the PCE was 74% (PCE = 0.74, 95% CI: 0.33, 1.14).
- For taping the PCE was 69% of the overall treatment effect (PCE = 0.69, 95% CI: 0.48, 0.89).
- The smallest proportion not attributable to the specific intervention itself for pain intensity was exercise therapy accounting for 46% of the overall treatment effect (PCE = 0.46, 95% CI: 0.41, 0.52).
The authors concluded that the outcomes of physical therapy interventions for musculoskeletal pain were significantly influenced by contextual effects. Boosting contextual effects consciously to enhance therapeutic outcomes represents an ethical opportunity that could benefit patients.
This sounds as though most of the treatments in question rely mainly on placebo effects. But what about conventional therapies? The authors point out that the PCEs of general medicine and surgery in pain-related conditions are also large. In particular, the overall proportion not attributable to the specific effects of general medicine interventions is high (PCE = 65%), with higher values observed in semi-objective and objective outcomes (PCE = 78 and 94%, respectively) than in subjective outcomes (PCE = 50%).
What does that mean for healthcare routine?
As placebo and other context effects are unreliable, usually short-lived, and not normally affecting the cause of the problem (but merely the symptoms), I would say that those treatments with a very high PCE are of limited value, paticularly if they are also expensive or burdened with risks. Of the treatments studied here, I would – based on the current analysis – avoid the following therapies for pain management:
- mobilization,
- soft tissue techniques,
- dry needling,
- manipulation,
- taping.
By and large, these are also the conclusions drawn from various other strands of evidence that we have repeatedly discussed in previous posts.
We have recently heard much about spinal manipulations for kids. It might therefore be relevant to learn about an international taskforce of clinician-scientists formed by specialty groups of World Physiotherapy – International Federation of Orthopaedic Manipulative Physical Therapists (IFOMPT) & International Organisation of Physiotherapists in Paediatrics (IOPTP) – to develop evidence-based practice position statements directing physiotherapists clinical reasoning for the safe and effective use of spinal manipulation and mobilisation for paediatric populations (<18 years) with varied musculoskeletal or non-musculoskeletal conditions.
A three-stage guideline process using validated methodology was completed: 1. Literature review stage (one scoping review, two reviews exploring psychometric properties); 2. Delphi stage (one 3-Round expert Delphi survey); and 3. Refinement stage (evidence-to-decision summative analysis, position statement development, evidence gap map analyses, and multilayer review processes).
Evidence-based practice position statements were developed to guide the appropriate use of spinal manipulation and mobilisation for paediatric populations. All were predicated on clinicians using biopsychosocial clinical reasoning to determine when the intervention is appropriate.
1. It is not recommended to perform:
• Spinal manipulation and mobilisation on infants.
• Cervical and lumbar spine manipulation on children.
•Spinal manipulation and mobilisation on infants, children, and adolescents for non-musculoskeletal paediatric conditions including asthma, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, autism spectrum disorder, breastfeeding difficulties, cerebral palsy, infantile colic, nocturnal enuresis, and otitis media.
2. It may be appropriate to treat musculoskeletal conditions including spinal mobility impairments associated with neck-back pain and neck pain with headache utilising:
• Spinal mobilisation and manipulation on adolescents;
• Spinal mobilisation on children; or
• Thoracic manipulation on children for neck-back pain only.
3. No high certainty evidence to recommend these interventions was available.
Reports of mild to severe harms exist; however, risk rates could not be determined.
It was concluded that specific directives to guide physiotherapists’ clinical reasoning on the appropriate use of spinal manipulation or mobilisation were identified. Future research should focus on trials for priority conditions (neck-back pain) in children and adolescents, psychometric properties of key outcome measures, knowledge translation, and harms.
Whether one agrees with these directions or not (and I am not sure I fully do), I have always thought that people who, despite the largely lacking or flimsy evidence for spinal manipulations, insist on having manual therapy should consult a physiotherapist, rather than a chiropractor or osteopath.
Why?
Because, in my experience, physiotherapist:
- display less cult-dependent behaviours,
- do not follow the gospel of charlatans, like Palmer and Still,
- do not believe in the fiction of subluxation,
- are not so money-minded,
- less prone to use un- or disproven methods, like applied kinesiology, homeopathy, cranial osteopathy, etc.,
- unlikely to try to sell you useless dietary supplements,
- tend to judge better their limits of professional competence,
- are far less likely to try to persuade you of BS related to anti-vax, anti-drug, anti-science, anti-EBM, etc.
On 8 March 2019, the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) Health Council (CHC) noted community concerns about spinal manipulation on children performed by chiropractors and agreed that there was a need to consider whether public safety was at risk.
On behalf of the CHC, the Victorian Minister for Health, the Hon. Jenny Mikakos MP, instructed Safer Care Victoria (SCV) to undertake an independent review of the practice of chiropractic spinal manipulation on children under 12 years. The findings of this review are to be provided to the Minister for reporting to the CHC. To provide expert guidance and advice to inform the review, SCV established an independent advisory panel. The panel included expertise in chiropractic care, academic allied health, health practitioner regulation, healthcare evidence, governance, paediatrics and paediatric surgery, and musculoskeletal care, and had consumer representation.
The main conclusions were as follows:
- … spinal manipulation in children is not wholly without risk. Any risk associated
with care, no matter how uncommon or minor, must be considered in light of any potential or likely
benefits. This is particularly important in younger children, especially those under the age of 2 years in
whom minor adverse events may be more common. - … the evidence base for spinal manipulation in children is very poor. In particular, no studies have been performed in Australia … The possible, but unlikely, benefits of spinal manipulation in the management of colic or enuresis should be balanced by the possibility, albeit rare, of minor harm.
The main recommendation was straight forward: “Spinal manipulation, as defined in Section 123 of National Law, should not be provided to children under 12 years of age, by any practitioner, for general wellness or for the management of the following conditions: developmental and behavioural disorders, hyperactivity disorders, autism spectrum disorders, asthma, infantile colic, bedwetting, ear infections, digestive problems, headache, cerebral palsy and torticollis.”
The Chiropractic Board of Australia nevertheless decided they would re-start manipulationg babies. On 11/6/2024 The Sydney Morning Harald reported:
Chiropractors have given themselves the green light to resume manipulating the spines of babies following a four-year interim ban supported by the country’s health ministers. In a move slammed by doctors as irresponsible, the Chiropractic Board of Australia has quietly released new guidelines permitting the controversial treatment for children under two. The Royal Australian College of General Practitioners (RACGP) hit out at the decision, saying there was no evidence supporting the spinal manipulation of babies and children and that the practice should be outlawed. ‘‘There is no way in the world I would let anyone manipulate a child’s spine,’’ said Dr James Best, the college’s Specific Interests Child and Young Person’s Health chair. ‘‘The fact that it hasn’t been ruled out by this organisation is very disappointing and concerning. It’s irresponsible.’’ …
Subsequently, it was reported that the federal health minister has intervened in the Chiropractic Board of Australia’s controversial decision to allow practitioners to resume spinal manipulation of children under two and is seeking an urgent explanation.
As pressure mounts on chiropractors to ditch the treatment, federal Health Minister Mark Butler confirmed on Thursday that he would also raise the issue with his state and territory colleagues at a meeting of health ministers in South Australia on Friday.
“The Health Minister is writing to the Chiropractic Board seeking an urgent explanation on its decision to allow a resumption of spinal manipulation of infants under two, in spite of two reviews concluding there was no evidence to support that practice,” a spokeswoman said.
___________________________
This course of events can only be surprising to those who are not familiar with the chiropractors’ general attitude. Chiropractors have always put income before ethics and safety. This, I fear, is not a phenomenon confined to Australia or to the care of children but one that beleagues this profession worldwide from the days of DD Palmer to the present.
Due to the unclear risk level of adverse events (AEs) associated with high-velocity, low-amplitude (HVLA) cervical manipulation, the aim of this study was to extract available information from randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and thereby synthesize the comparative risk of AEs following cervical manipulation to that of various control interventions.
A systematic literature search was conducted in the PubMed and Cochrane databases. This search included RCTs in which cervical HVLA manipulations were applied and AEs were reported. Two independent reviewers performed the study selection, the methodological quality assessment, and the GRADE approach. Incidence rate ratios (IRR) were calculated. The study quality was assessed by using the risk of bias 2 (RoB-2) tool, and the certainty of evidence was determined by using the GRADE approach.
Fourteen articles were included in the systematic review and meta-analysis. The pooled IRR indicates no statistically significant differences between the manipulation and control groups. All the reported AEs were classified as mild, and none of the AEs reported were serious or moderate.
The authors concluded that HVLA manipulation does not impose an increased risk of mild or moderate AEs compared to various control interventions. However, these results must be interpreted with caution, since RCTs are not appropriate for detecting the rare serious AEs. In addition, future RCTs should follow a standardized protocol for reporting AEs in clinical trials.
I am more than a little puzzled by this paper. To explain why, I best show you our systematic review of a closely related subject:
Objective: To systematically review the reporting of adverse effects in clinical trials of chiropractic manipulation.
Data sources: Six databases were searched from 2000 to July 2011. Randomised clinical trials (RCTs) were considered, if they tested chiropractic manipulations against any control intervention in human patients suffering from any type of clinical condition. The selection of studies, data extraction, and validation were performed independently by two reviewers.
Results: Sixty RCTs had been published. Twenty-nine RCTs did not mention adverse effects at all. Sixteen RCTs reported that no adverse effects had occurred. Complete information on incidence, severity, duration, frequency and method of reporting of adverse effects was included in only one RCT. Conflicts of interests were not mentioned by the majority of authors.
Conclusions: Adverse effects are poorly reported in recent RCTs of chiropractic manipulations.
So, AEs are known to get seriously (and unethically) neglected in RCTs of chiropractic. Therefore, it must be expected that the new review finds only few of them in RCTs. No big deal! But why then conclude that HVLA manipulations do not impose an increased risk? Why do the authors claim that “case reports … do not imply causal relationships”? Why not be honest and simply state that RCTs are an inadequate tool for assessing the risks of spinal manipulation? And why ignore our review which, after all, is highly relevant and was published in a most visible journal? Did they perhaps read it and then decided to ignore it because it would have rendered their whole approach idiotic?
I don’t know the answer to any of these questions. What I do know, however, is that this new review arrives at a utterly misleading and possibly harmful conclusion. It thus is a significant disservice to our need to making progress in this important area.
Vertebral artery dissections (VAD) pose a significant risk for strokes, particularly in young adults. This case report details the presentation and management of a 48-year-old patient who was diagnosed with an extracranial VAD following cervical spine manipulation (CSM).
The patient’s symptoms included:
- acute right-sided ataxia,
- giddiness,
- vertigo,
- nausea,
- vomiting,
- persistent pain behind the right ear.
They prompted immediate evaluation. After ruling out acute intracerebral hemorrhages, a computed tomography angiogram (CTA) of the head and neck identified a severe narrowing of the right distal vertebral artery with a string sign at the level of the right C1 loop (V3 segment), indicating an extracranial VAD. This finding was further supported when ultrasound (US) imaging revealed a high resistance flow pattern in the right distal vertebral artery. Furthermore, T2 and diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) confirmed a 1.8 cm VAD/hematoma and a 1.4 cm acute/subacute infarct in the right posterior inferior cerebellar artery (PICA) territory.
The authors concluded by stressing the importance of recognizing and addressing that neck pain can be a symptom of musculoskeletal dysfunction or could have neurovascular origins. In this case, the patient’s neck pain may have been musculoskeletal or could have been due to a previous dissection. Thus, differentiation should be considered before cervical spine manipulation.
The link between CSM and arterial dissection is hard to deny. On this blog, we have discussed these issues with depressing regularity, e.g.:
- Cervical Arterial Dissections and Association With Cervical Manipulative Therapy
- Double-sided vertebral artery dissection in a 33-year-old man. The chiropractor is not guilty?
- A ‘Self-Chiropractic Spinal Manipulation’ that resulted in death
- Chiropractic spinal manipulations are safe!!! … Or aren’t they?
- Another case of stroke due to chiropractic
- The death of Mr Lawler highlights the scandals of chiropractic
- Another serious complication after chiropractic manipulation; best to avoid neck manipulations altogether, I think
- Ophthalmic Adverse Effects after Chiropractic Neck Manipulation
- New review confirms: neck manipulations are dangerous
- Upper neck manipulations (by chiropractors) regularly cause serious harm. Why are they still used?
- Evidence for a causal link between chiropractic treatment and adverse effects
- More on the risks of spinal manipulation
- Another serious complication after neck manipulation + a reminder of the importance of informed consent
Whether the CSM was the cause of the dissection of a previously intakt artery, or whether the CSM made a pre-existing problem worse, might often be difficult to decide in retrospect. What is crucial in both scenarios, is that CSM carries serious risks. This insight is all the more important, if we consider that the benefits of CSM are minimal or unproven. The inescapable conclusion, therefore, is that the risk/benefit balance of CSM is not positive. In other words, the only sensible advice here is this:
don’t allow chiropractors (who use CSM more often that any other profession), osteopaths, physiotherapists, etc. perform CSMs on your neck.
This systematic review and meta-analysis investigated the effectiveness and safety of manual therapy (MT) interventions compared to oral or topical pain medications in the management of neck pain.
The investigators searched from inception to March 2023, in Cochrane Central Register of Controller Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, Allied and Complementary Medicine (AMED) and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL; EBSCO) for randomized controlled trials that examined the effect of manual therapy interventions for neck pain when compared to oral or topical medication in adults with self-reported neck pain, irrespective of radicular findings, specific cause, and associated cervicogenic headaches. Trials with usual care arms were also included if they prescribed medication as part of the usual care and they did not include a manual therapy component. The authors used the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool to assess the potential risk of bias in the included studies, and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) approach to grade the quality of the evidence.
Nine trials with a total of 779 participants were included in the meta-analysis.
- low certainty of evidence was found that MT interventions may be more effective than oral pain medication in pain reduction in the short-term (Standardized Mean Difference: -0.39; 95% CI -0.66 to -0.11; 8 trials, 676 participants),
- moderate certainty of evidence was found that MT interventions may be more effective than oral pain medication in pain reduction in the long-term (Standardized Mean Difference: −0.36; 95% CI −0.55 to −0.17; 6 trials, 567 participants),
- low certainty evidence that the risk of adverse events may be lower for patients who received MT compared to the ones that received oral pain medication (Risk Ratio: 0.59; 95% CI 0.43 to 0.79; 5 trials, 426 participants).
The authors conluded that MT may be more effective for people with neck pain in both short and long-term with a better safety profile regarding adverse events when compared to patients receiving oral pain medications. However, we advise caution when interpreting our safety results due to the different level of reporting strategies in place for MT and medication-induced adverse events. Future MT trials should create and adhere to strict reporting strategies with regards to adverse events to help gain a better understanding on the nature of potential MT-induced adverse events and to ensure patient safety.
Let’s have a look at the primary studies. Here they are with their conclusions (and, where appropriate, my comments in capital letters):
- For participants with acute and subacute neck pain, spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) was more effective than medication in both the short and long term. However, a few instructional sessions of home exercise with (HEA) resulted in similar outcomes at most time points. EXERCISE WAS AS EFFECTIVE AS SMT
- Oral ibuprofen (OI) pharmacologic treatment may reduce pain intensity and disability with respect to neural mobilization (MNNM and CLG) in patients with CP during six weeks. Nevertheless, the non-existence of between-groups ROM differences and possible OI adverse effects should be considered. MEDICATION WAS BETTER THAN MT
- It appears that both treatment strategies (usual care + MT vs usual care) can have equivalent positive influences on headache complaints. Additional studies with larger study populations are needed to draw firm conclusions. Recommendations to increase patient inflow in primary care trials, such as the use of an extended network of participating physicians and of clinical alert software applications, are discussed. MT DOES NOT IMPROVE OUTCOMES
- The consistency of the results provides, in spite of several discussed shortcomings of this pilot study, evidence that in patients with chronic spinal pain syndromes spinal manipulation, if not contraindicated, results in greater improvement than acupuncture and medicine. THIS IS A PILOT STUDY, A TRIAL TESTING FEASIBILITY, NOT EFFECTIVENESS
- The consistency of the results provides, despite some discussed shortcomings of this study, evidence that in patients with chronic spinal pain, manipulation, if not contraindicated, results in greater short-term improvement than acupuncture or medication. However, the data do not strongly support the use of only manipulation, only acupuncture, or only nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs for the treatment of chronic spinal pain. The results from this exploratory study need confirmation from future larger studies.
- In daily practice, manual therapy is a favorable treatment option for patients with neck pain compared with physical therapy or continued care by a general practitioner.
- Short-term results (at 7 weeks) have shown that MT speeded recovery compared with GP care and, to a lesser extent, also compared with PT. In the long-term, GP treatment and PT caught up with MT, and differences between the three treatment groups decreased and lost statistical significance at the 13-week and 52-week follow-up. MT IS NOT SUPERIOR [SAME TRIAL AS No 6]
- In this randomized clinical trial, for patients with chronic neck pain, Chuna manual therapy was more effective than usual care in terms of pain and functional recovery at 5 weeks and 1 year after randomization. These results support the need to consider recommending manual therapies as primary care treatments for chronic neck pain.
- In patients with chronic spinal pain syndromes, spinal manipulation, if not contraindicated, may be the only treatment modality of the assessed regimens that provides broad and significant long-term benefit. SAME TRIAL AS No 5
- An impairment-based manual physical therapy and exercise (MTE) program resulted in clinically and statistically significant short- and long-term improvements in pain, disability, and patient-perceived recovery in patients with mechanical neck pain when compared to a program comprising advice, a mobility exercise, and subtherapeutic ultrasound. THIS STUDY DID NOT TEST MT ALONE AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN INCLUDED
I cannot bring myself to characterising this as an overall positive result for MT; anyone who can is guilty of wishful thinking, in my view. The small differences in favor of MT that (some of) the trials report have little to do with the effectiveness of MT itself. They are almost certainly due to the fact that none of these studies were placebo-controlled and double blind (even though this would clearly be possible). In contrast to popping a pill, MT involves extra attention, physical touch, empathy, etc. These factors easily suffice to bring about the small differences that some studies report.
It follows that the main conclusion of the authors of the review should be modified:
There is no compelling evidence to show that MT is more effective for people with neck pain in both short and long-term when compared to patients receiving oral pain medications.
Spinal manipulation is usually performed by a therapist (chiropractor, osteopath, physiotherpist, doctor, etc.). But many people do it themselves. Self-manipulation is by no means safer than the treatment by a therapist, it seems. We have previously seen cases where the results were dramatic:
- Spinal epidural haematoma after neck manipulation (edzardernst.com)
- A ‘Self-Chiropractic Spinal Manipulation’ that resulted in death (edzardernst.com)
Now, a further case has been reported. In this paper, American pathologists present a tragic case of fatal vertebral artery dissection that occurred as the result of self-manipulation of the cervical spine.
The decedent was a 40-year-old man with no significant past medical history. He was observed to “crack his neck” while at work. Soon after, he began experiencing neck pain, then developed stroke-like symptoms and became unresponsive. He was transported to a local medical center, where imaging showed bilateral vertebral artery dissection. His neurological status continued to decline, and brain death was pronounced several days later.
An autopsy examination showed evidence of cerebellar and brainstem infarcts, herniation, and diffuse hypoxic-ischemic injury. A posterior neck dissection was performed to expose the vertebral arteries, which showed grossly visible hemorrhage and dilation. There was no evidence of traumatic injury to the bone or soft tissue of the head or neck. Bilateral dissection tracts were readily appreciated on microscopic examination. Death was attributed to self-manipulation of the neck, which in turn led to bilateral vertebral artery dissection, cerebellar and brainstem infarcts, herniation, hypoxic-ischemic injury, and ultimately brain death.
It seems clear to me that only few and spectacular cases of this nature are being published. In other words, the under-reporting of adverse effects of self-manipulation must be close to 100%. It follows that the risk of sel-manipulation is impossible to quantify. I suspect it is substancial. In any case, the precautionary principle compells me to re-issue my warning:
do not allow anybody to manipulate your neck, not even yourself!
The aim of this study was to establish an international consensus regarding the use of spinal manipulation and mobilisation among infants, children, and adolescents among expert international physiotherapists. Twenty-six international expert physiotherapists in manual therapy and paediatrics voluntarily participated in a 3-Round Delphi survey to reach a consensus via direct electronic mail solicitation using Qualtrics®. Consensus was defined a-priori as ≥75% agreement on all items with the same ranking of agreement or disagreement. Round 1 identified impairments and conditions where spinal mobilisation and manipulation might be utilised. In Rounds 2 and 3, panelists agreed or disagreed using a 4-point Likert scale.
Eleven physiotherapists from seven countries representing five continents completed all three Delphi rounds. Consensus regarding spinal mobilisation or manipulation included:
● Manipulation is not recommended: (1) for infants across all conditions, impairments, and
spinal levels; and (2) for children and adolescents across most conditions and spinal levels.
● Manipulation may be recommended for adolescents to treat spinal region-specific joint
hypomobility (thoracic, lumbar), and pain (thoracic).
● Mobilisation may be recommended for children and adolescents with hypomobility, joint
pain, muscle/myofascial pain, or stiffness at all spinal levels.
The authors of this paper concluded that consensus revealed spinal manipulation should not be performed on infants regardless of condition, impairment, or spinal level. Additionally, the panel agreed that manipulation may be recommended only for adolescents to treat joint pain and joint hypomobility (limited to thoracic and/or lumbar levels). Spinal mobilisation may be recommended for joint hypomobility, joint pain, muscle/myofascial pain, and muscle/myofascial stiffness at all spinal levels among children and adolescents.
Various forms of spinal manipulations are the hallmark therapy of chiropractors. Almost 100% of their patients recieve these interventions. So, what will our friends, the chiros, say about the consensus? Might it be this:
- Physiotherapists are not the experts on spinal manipulation.
- Only chiropractors can do them properly.
- And when WE do them, they are very good*!
(* for our income)
