MD, PhD, MAE, FMedSci, FRSB, FRCP, FRCPEd.

spinal manipulation

The aim of this study was to investigate whether there is a difference in outcome between participants with high compared to low pain self-efficacy (PSE) receiving manual therapy, acupuncture, and electrotherapy.

Participants were stratified into high or low baseline (i) PSE, (ii) shoulder pain and disability index (SPADI), and (iii) did or did not receive the treatment. Whether the effect of treatment differs for people with high compared to low PSE was assessed using the 95% confidence interval of the difference of difference (DoD) at a 5% significance level (p < 0.05).

Treatment was labelled using 3 categories, 2 of which were subcategories of the first

  • “Any passive treatment” – any form of manual therapy and/or acupuncture and/or electrotherapy.
  • “Any manual therapy” – shoulder or spine joint mobilisations, deep transverse frictions, capsular stretches, trigger point therapy, muscle facilitation, or other techniques listed by the treating physiotherapist.
  • “Spinal/shoulder joint mobilisation” – for example, Maitland, Kaltenborn or Mulligan techniques.

To be categorised, treatment must have been delivered by the physiotherapist at least once and may have been delivered in conjunction with other treatments.

Six-month SPADI scores were consistently lower (less pain and disability) for those who did not receive passive treatments compared to those who did (statistically significant less pain and disability in 7 of 24 models). However, DoD was statistically insignificant.

The authors concluded that PSE did not moderate the relationship between treatment and outcome. However, participants who received passive treatment experienced equal or more pain and disability at 6 months compared to those who did not. Results are subject to confounding by indication but do indicate the need for further appropriately designed research.

This analysis suggests that manual therapy, electrotherapy, or acupuncture in addition to advice and exercise offered no improvement in pain or disability at six months, irrespective of PSE. Some patients who receive these treatments experienced more pain and disability at six months compared to those who do not.

I am not aware of compelling evidence that either of these treatments, all of which are often recommended, are effective for shoulder pain, and the results of this new study certainly do not suggest they are. However, as the design of the study was not primarily for this research question, these findings are, of course, merely tentative and need to be investigated further.

Since the introduction of their new Education Standards in March 2023, the General Chiropractic Council (GCC) has been working with chiropractic education providers to support them in implementing the changes to their curricula. Recently, the GCC have stated this:

We expect students to be taught evidence-based practice: integrating individual clinical expertise, the best available evidence from current and credible clinical research, and the values and preferences of patients. Chiropractors are important members of a patient’s healthcare team, and interprofessional approaches enable the best outcomes. Programmes that meet these Standards will teach ethical, professional care and produce competent healthcare professionals who can serve the needs of patients.

These are indeed most encouraging words!

Basically, they are saying that chiropractic education will now have to be solidly based on the principles of evidence-based medicine (EBM) as well as sound medical ethics. Let me spell out what this really means. Chiropractic courses must teach that:

  • The current and credible clinical evidence suggesting that spinal manipulations, the hallmark intervention of chiropractors, are effective is weak for back pain and negative or absent for all other conditions.
  • The current and credible clinical evidence suggests that spinal manipulations, the hallmark intervention of chiropractors, can cause harm which in many instances is serious.
  • The current and credible clinical evidence thus suggests that the risk/benefit balance for spinal manipulations, the hallmark intervention of chiropractors, is not positive.
  • Medical ethics require that competent healthcare professionals inform their patients that spinal manipulations, the hallmark intervention of chiropractors, may not generate more good than harm which is the reason why they cannot employ these therapies.

So, the end of chiropractic in the UK is looming!

Unless, of course, the GCC’s words are not really meant to be translated into action. They could be just window dressing and politically correct bullshit. But that’ s really far too far fetched – after all they come from the GENERAL CHIROPRACTIC COUNCIL, known for its excellent track record, e.g.:

The risks of chiropractic spinal manipulations (CSMs) feature regularly on my blog, not least because most chiropractors are in denial of this important issue and insist that chiropractic spinal manipulations are safe!!!. I therefore thought it might be a good idea to try and summarize the arguments they often put forward in promoting their dangerously fallacious and quasi-religious belief that CSMs are safe:

  1. There is not evidence to suggest that CSMs do harm. Such a statement is based on wishful thinking and ignorance motivated by the need of making a living. The evidence shows a different picture.
  2. There are hundreds of clinical trials that demonstrate the safety of CSMs. This argument is utterly unconvincing for at least two reasons: firstly clinical trials are far too small for identifying rare (but serious) complications; secondly, we know that clinical trials of CSM very often fail to report adverse events.
  3. Case reports of adverse effects are mere anecdotes and thus not reliable evidence. As there is no post-marketing surveillance system of adverse events after CSMs, case reports are, in fact, the most important and informative source of information we currently have on this subject.
  4. Case reports of harm by CSMs are invariably incomplete and of poor quality. Case reports are usually published by doctors who often have to rely on incomplete information. It would be up to chiropractors to publish case reports with the full details; yet chiropractors hardly ever do this.
  5. Case reports cannot establish cause and effect. True, but they do provide important signals which then should be investigated further. It would be up to chiropractors to do this; sadly, this is not what is happening.
  6. Adverse effects such as arterial dissections or strokes occur spontaneaously. True, but many have an identifiable cause, and it is our duty to find it.
  7. The forces applied during CSM are small and cannot cause an injury. This might be true under ideal conditions, but in clinical practice the conditions are often not ideal.
  8. If an arterial dissection occurs nevertheless, it is because there was a pre-existing injury. This argument is largely based on wishful thinking. Even if it were true, it would be foolish to aggravate a pre-existing injury by CSMs.
  9. Injuries happen only if the contra-indications of CSMs are ignored. This obviously begs the question: what are the contra-indications and how well established are they? The answer is that they are largely based on guess-work and not on systematic research. Thus chiropractors are able to claim that, once an adverse effects has occurred, the incident was due to a disregard of contra-indication and not due to the inherent risks of CSM.
  10. Only poorly trained chiropractors cause harm. This is evidently untrue, yet the argument provides yet another welcome escape route for those defending CSMs: if something went wrong, it must have been due to the practitioner and not the intervention!
  11. Chiropractors are an easy target. In my fairly extensive experience in this field, the opposite is true. Chiropractors tend to have multiple excuses and escape routes. As a consequence, they are difficult to pin down.
  12. Other causes, e.g. car accidents, are much more common causes of vascular injuries. Even if this were true, it does certainly not mean that CSM can be ruled out as the cause of serious harm.
  13. Patients who experience harm had pre-existing issues. Again, this notion is mostly based on wishful thinking and not based on sound evidence. Yet, it clearly is another popular escape route for chiropractors. And again, it is irresponsible to administer CSM if there is the possibility that pre-existing issues are present.
  14. The alleged harms of CSMs are merely an obsession for people who don’t really understand chiropractic. That is an old trick of someone trying to defend the indefensible. Chiropractors like to pompously claim that opponents are ignorant and only chiropractors understand the subject area. They use arrogance in an attempt to intimidate or scilence experts who disagree with them.
  15. Chiropractors do so much more than just CSN. True. They have ‘borrowed’ many modalities from physiotherapy and, by pointing that out, they aim at distracting from the dangers of CSMs. Yet, it is also true that practically every patient who consults a chiropractor will receive a CSM.
  16. Doctors are just jealous of the success of chiropractors. This fallacy is used when chiropractors run out of proper arguments. Rather than addressing the problem, they try to distract from it by claiming the opponent has ulterior motives.
  17. Medical treatments cause much more harm than CSM. Chiropractors are keen to mislead us into believing that NSAIDs, for instance, are much more dangerous than CSMs. The notion is largely based on one lousy article and thus not convincing. Even if it were true, it would obviously be no reason to ignore the risks of CSNs.

I am sure my list is far from complete. If you can think of further (pseudo-) arguments, please use the comments section below to let us know.

Chiropractors may have a bad reputation, but that’s all wrong. They are selfless and dedicated to the extend that some of them even offer their services for free! A UK chiropractor, for instance, proundly claims on his website this:

If your spine is not healthy, you are not healthy. Chiropractic care works to help ensure your spine is aligned so that your central nervous system works properly as it controls every single organ, gland, blood vessel and cell in your body. Over the years, Dr Jason (Chiropractor) has seen how chiropractic care goes far beyond pain relief to find the underlying cause of your problem. “I have seen people simply giving up all hope of a life free from pain and illness, then taking an active role in their health and completely turning their own and their families’ quality of life around.”

He also states that:

When complications during delivery led Dr Jason’s (Chiropractor) son Jake to be born via a ventouse birth, his passion for paediatric care was also born. Seeing his son immediately benefit from care inspired him and has led the O’Connor Chiropractic direction to focus on helping Yorkshire families experience wellness. Now, Dr Jason (Chiropractor) has paired a passion for helping children with specialised paediatrics training so he can help children to live life to their full potential.

Children are being offered free spinal checks in Harrogate this weekend.

O’Connor Chiropractic on Station Parade is welcoming visitors for a Christmas party on Saturday (16th December). Families are being invited to attend the family wellness centre for coffee and treats from 7:30am until 12pm. And children are being offered free spinal checks from chiropractor Jason O’Connor alongside an offer for 50% off full assessments.

_________________

The 16th December has long passed, and we all missed the occasion of free spinal checks for our kids.

What a shame!!!

Think of all the subluxations that will now have to remain undiagnosed!

Think of all the Yorkshire families unable to experience wellness now!

Think of all the children unable to live life to their full potential!

 

 

PS

To those who are not regulars on my blog, I recommend a few previous posts that put the above into context:

The WHO has just released guidelines for non-surgical management of chronic primary low back pain (CPLBP). The guideline considers 37 types of interventions across five intervention classes. With the guidelines, WHO recommends non-surgical interventions to help people experiencing CPLBP. These interventions include:

  • education programs that support knowledge and self-care strategies;
  • exercise programs;
  • some physical therapies, such as spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) and massage;
  • psychological therapies, such as cognitive behavioural therapy; and
  • medicines, such as non-steroidal anti-inflammatory medicines.

The guidelines also outline 14 interventions that are not recommended for most people in most contexts. These interventions should not be routinely offered, as WHO evaluation of the available evidence indicate that potential harms likely outweigh the benefits. WHO advises against interventions such as:

  • lumbar braces, belts and/or supports;
  • some physical therapies, such as traction;
  • and some medicines, such as opioid pain killers, which can be associated with overdose and dependence.

As you probably guessed, I am particularly intrigued by the WHO’s positive recommendation for SMT. Here is what the guideline tells us about this specific topic:

Considering all adults, the guideline development group (GDG) judged overall net benefits [of spinal manipulation] across outcomes to range from trivial to moderate while, for older people the benefit was judged to be largely uncertain given the few trials and uncertainty of evidence in this group. Overall, harms were judged to be trivial to small for all adults and uncertain for older people due to lack of evidence.

The GDG commented that while rare, serious adverse events might occur with SMT, particularly in older people (e.g. fragility fracture in people with bone loss), and highlighted that appropriate training and clinical vigilance concerning potential harms are important. The GDG also acknowledged that rare serious adverse events were unlikely to be detected in trials. Some GDG members considered that the balance of benefits to harms favoured SMT due to small to moderate benefits while others felt the balance did not favour SMT, mainly due to the very low certainty evidence for some of the observed benefits.

The GDG judged the overall certainty of evidence to be very low for all adults, and very low for older people, consistent with the systematic review team’s assessment. The GDG judged that there was likely to be important uncertainty or variability among people with CPLBP with respect to their values and preferences, with GDG members noting that some people might prefer manual
therapies such as SMT, due to its “hands-on” nature, while others might not prefer such an approach.

Based on their experience and the evidence presented from the included trials which offered an average of eight treatment sessions, the GDG judged that SMT was likely to be associated with moderate costs, while acknowledging that such costs and the equity impacts from out-of-pocket costs would vary by setting.

The GDG noted that the cost-effectiveness of SMT might not be favourable when patients do not experience symptom improvements early in the treatment course. The GDG judged that in most settings, delivery of SMT would be feasible, although its acceptability was likely to vary across
health workers and people with CPLBP.

The GDG reached a consensus conditional recommendation in favour of SMT on the basis of small to moderate benefits for critical outcomes, predominantly pain and function, and the likelihood of rare adverse events.

The GDG concluded by consensus that the likely short-term benefits outweighed potential harms, and that delivery was feasible in most settings. The conditional nature of the recommendation was informed by variability in acceptability, possible moderate costs, and concerns that equity might be negatively impacted in a user-pays model of financing.

___________________________

This clearly is not a glowing endorsement or recommendation of SMT. Yet, in my view, it is still too positive. In particular, the assessment of harm is woefully deficient. Looking into the finer details, we find how the GDG assessed harms:

WHO commissioned quantitative systematic evidence syntheses of randomized controlled
trials (RCTs) to evaluate the benefits and harms (as reported in included trials) of each of the
prioritized interventions compared with no care (including trials where the effect of an
intervention could be isolated), placebo or usual care for each of the critical outcomes (refer to Table 2 for the PICO criteria for selecting evidence). Research designs other than RCTs
were not considered.

That explains a lot!

It is not possible to establish the harms of SMT (or any other therapy) on the basis of just a few RCTs, particularly because the RCTs in question often fail to report adverse events. I can be sure of this phenomenon because we investigated it via a systematic review:

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.

The GDG did not cite our review (or any other of our articles on the subject) but, as it was published in a very well-known journal, they must have been aware of it. I am afraid that this wilfull ignorance caused the WHO guideline to underestimate the level of harm of SMT. As there is no post-marketing surveillance system for SMT, a realistic assessment of the harm is far from easy and needs to include a carefully weighted summary of all the published reports (such as this one).

The GDG seems to have been aware of (some of) these problems, yet they ignored them and simply assumed (based on wishful thinking?) that the harms were small or trivial.

Why?

Even the most cursory look at the composition of the GDG, begs the question: could it be that the GDG was highjacked by chiropractors and other experts biased towards SMT?

The more I think of it, the more I feel that this might actually be the case. One committee even listed an expert, Scott Haldeman, as a ‘neurologist’ without disclosing that he foremost is a chiropractor who, for most of his professional life, has promoted SMT in one form or another.

Altogether, the WHO guideline is, in my view, a shameful example of pro-chiropractic bias and an unethical disservice to evidence-based medicine.

 

As promised, here is my translation of the article published yesterday in ‘Le Figaro’ arguing in favour of integrating so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) into the French healthcare system [the numbers in square brackets were inserted by me and refer to my comments listed at the bottom].

So-called unconventional healthcare practices (osteopathy, naturopathy, acupuncture, homeopathy and hypnosis, according to the Ministry of Health) are a cause for concern for the health authorities and Miviludes, which in June 2023 set up a committee to support the supervision of unconventional healthcare practices, with the task of informing consumers, patients and professionals about their benefits and risks, both in the community and in hospitals. At the time, various reports, surveys and press articles highlighted the risks associated with NHPs, without pointing to their potential benefits [1] in many indications, provided they are properly supervised. There was panic about the “booming” use of these practices, the “explosion” of aberrations, and the “boost effect” of the pandemic [2].

But what are the real figures? Apart from osteopathy, we lack reliable data in France to confirm a sharp increase in the use of these practices [3]. In Switzerland, where it has been decided to integrate them into university hospitals and to regulate the status of practitioners who are not health professionals, the use of NHPs has increased very slightly [4]. With regard to health-related sectarian aberrations, referrals to Miviludes have been stable since 2017 (around 1,000 per year), but it should be pointed out that they are a poor indicator of the “risk” associated with NHPs (unlike reports). The obvious contrast between the figures and the press reports raises questions [5]. Are we witnessing a drift in communication about the risks of ‘alternative’ therapies? [6] Is this distortion of reality [7] necessary in order to justify altering the informed information and freedom of therapeutic choice of patients, which are ethical and democratic imperatives [8]?

It is the inappropriate use of certain NHPs that constitutes a risk, more than the NHPs themselves! [9] Patients who hope to cure their cancer with acupuncture alone and refuse anti-cancer treatments are clearly using it in a dangerous alternative way [10]. However, acupuncture used to relieve nausea caused by chemotherapy, as a complement to the latter, is recommended by the French Association for Supportive Care [11]. The press is full of the dangers of alternative uses, but they are rare: less than 5% of patients treated for cancer according to a European study [12]. This is still too many. Supervision would reduce this risk even further [13].

Talking about risky use is therefore more relevant than listing “illusory therapies”, vaguely defined as “not scientifically validated” and which are by their very nature “risky” [14]. What’s more, it suggests that conventional treatments are always validated and risk-free [15]. But this is not true! In France, iatrogenic drug use is estimated to cause over 200,000 hospital admissions and 10,000 deaths a year [16]. Yes, some self-medication with phytotherapy or aromatherapy does carry risks… just like any self-medication with conventional medicines [17]. Yes, acupuncture can cause deep organ damage, but these accidents occur in fewer than 5 out of every 100,000 patients [18]. Yes, cervical manipulations by osteopaths can cause serious or even fatal injuries, but these exceptional situations are caused by practitioners who do not comply with the decree governing their practice.[19] Yes, patients can be swindled by charlatans, but there are also therapeutic and financial abuses in conventional medicine, such as those reported in dental and ophthalmology centres. [20]

Are patients really that naive? No. 56% are aware that “natural” remedies can have harmful side-effects, and 70% know that there is a risk of sectarian aberrations or of patients being taken in by a sect [21]. In view of the strong demand from patients, we believe that guaranteeing safe access to certain NHPs is an integral part of their supervision, based on regulation of the training and status of practitioners who are not health professionals, transparent communication, appropriate research, the development of hospital services and outpatient networks of so-called “integrative” medicine combining conventional practices and NHPs, structured care pathways with qualified professionals, precise indications and a safe context for treatment.[22] This pragmatic approach to reducing risky drug use [17] has demonstrated its effectiveness in addictionology [23]. It should inspire decision-makers in the use of NHPs”.

  1. Reports about things going wrong usually do not include benefits. For instance, for a report about rail strikes it would be silly to include a paragraph on the benefits of rail transport. Moreover, it is possible that the benefits were not well documented or even non-existent.
  2. No, there was no panic but some well-deserved criticism and concern.
  3. Would it not be the task of practitioners to provide reliable data of their growth or decline?
  4. The situation in Switzerland is often depicted by enthusiasts as speaking in favour of SCAM; however, the reality is very different.
  5. Even if reports were exaggerated, the fact is that the SCAM community does as good as nothing to prevent abuse.
  6. For decades, these therapies were depicted as gentle and harmless (medicines douces!). As they can cause harm, it is high time that there is a shift in reporting and consumers are informed responsibly.
  7. What seems a ‘distortion of reality’ to enthusiasts might merely be a shift to responsible reporting akin to that in conventional medicine where emerging risks are taken seriously.
  8. Are you saying that informing consumers about risks is not an ethical imperative? I’d argue it is an imperative that outweighs all others.
  9. What if both the inappropriate and the appropriate use involve risks?
  10.  Sadly, there are practitioners who advocate this type of usage.
  11. The recommendation might be outdated; current evidence is far less certain that this treatment might be effective (“the certainty of evidence was generally low or very low“)
  12. The dangers depend on a range of factors, not least the nature of the therapy; in case of spinal manipulation, for instance, about 50% of all patients suffer adverse effects which can be severe, even fatal.
  13. Do you have any evidence showing that supervision would reduce this risk, or is this statement based on wishful thinking?
  14. As my previous comments demonstrate, this statement is erroneous.
  15. No, it does not.
  16. Even if this figure is correct, we need to look at the risk/benefit balance. How many lives were saved by conventional medicine?
  17. Again: please look at the risk/benefit balance.
  18. How can you be confident about these figures in the absence of any post-marketing surveillance system? The answer is, you cannot!
  19. No, they occur even with well-trained practitioners who comply with all the rules and regulations that exist – spoiler: there hardly are any rules and regulations!
  20. Correct! But this is a fallacious argument that has nothing to do with SCAM. Please read up about the ‘tu quoque’ and the strawman’ fallacies.
  21. If true, that is good news. Yet, it is impossible to deny that thousands of websites try to convince the consumer that SCAM is gentle and safe.
  22. Strong demand is not a substitute for reliable evidence. In any case, you stated above that demand is not increasing, didn’t you?
  23. Effectiveness in addictionology? Do you have any evidence for this or is that statement also based on wishful thinking?

My conclusion after analysing this article in detail is that it is poorly argued, based on misunderstandings, errors, and wishful thinking. It cannot possibly convince rational thinkers that SCAM should be integrated into conventional healthcare.

PS

The list of signatories can be found in the original paper.

Due to the common adverse effects of motion sickness pharmaceuticals (e.g., drowsiness), medication options to treat the condition are limited. Thus many non-pharmacological therapies are being advocated for it. One of them is osteopathy.

The purpose of this study was to explore the potential utility of a nonpharmaceutical method for motion sickness prevention, specifically an osteopathic manipulative technique (OMT). A novel OMT protocol for the reduction of motion sickness symptoms and severity was evaluated using a sham-controlled, counterbalanced, between-subjects study design. The independent variable was OMT treatment administered prior to the motion sickness-inducing procedure (rotating chair). The primary dependent measures were total and subscale scores from the Motion Sickness Assessment Questionnaire.

The OMT treatment group experienced significantly fewer gastrointestinal (mean scores postprocedure, treatment M = 20.42, sham M = 41.67) and sopite-related (mean scores postprocedure, treatment M = 12.81, sham M = 20.68) symptoms than the sham group while controlling for motion sickness susceptibility. There were no differences between groups with respect to peripheral and central symptoms.

The authors concluded that the results suggest that the treatment may prevent gastrointestinal (nausea) and sopite-related symptoms (sleepiness). These preliminary findings support further exploration of OMT for the prevention of motion sickness. A more precise evaluation of the mechanism of action is needed. Additionally, the duration of the effects needs to be investigated to determine the usefulness of this technique in training and operational settings.

Motion sickness is one of those conditions for which many forms of so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) have been tried and found in dodgy studies to be promissing, e.g.:

And now even OMT!

But before we rush into doing further research on this topic, we should perhaps ask whether the trial really does show OMT to be effective. Unfortunately, the article is behind a paywall, and I can therefore only speculate and ask whether the sham procedure was credible. Was the success of patient-blinding tested? I suspect it wasn’t. If that is so, it could mean that the OMT itself was not the reason for the results but that patient expectation caused the reported outcomes.

In any case, if nothing else, this paper shows yet again that the notion of OMT being an option purely for spinal problems is fantasy. Its advocates try everything to get it accepted as a cure all.

 

The purpose of this systematic review was to assess the effectiveness and safety of conservative interventions compared with other interventions, placebo/sham interventions, or no intervention on disability, pain, function, quality of life, and psychological impact in adults with cervical radiculopathy (CR), a painful condition caused by the compression or irritation of the nerves that supply the shoulders, arms and hands.

A multidisciplinary team autors searched MEDLINE, CENTRAL, CINAHL, Embase, and PsycINFO from inception to June 15, 2022 to identify studies that were:

  1. randomized trials,
  2. had at least one conservative treatment arm,
  3. diagnosed participants with CR through confirmatory clinical examination and/or diagnostic tests.

Studies were appraised using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool and the quality of the evidence was rated using the Grades of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach.

Of the 2561 records identified, 59 trials met the inclusion criteria (n = 4108 participants). Due to clinical and statistical heterogeneity, the findings were synthesized narratively.

There is very-low certainty evidence supporting the use of:

  • acupuncture,
  • prednisolone,
  • cervical manipulation,
  • low-level laser therapy

for pain and disability in the immediate to short-term, and

  • thoracic manipulation,
  • low-level laser therapy

for improvements in cervical range of motion in the immediate term.

There is low to very-low certainty evidence for multimodal interventions, providing inconclusive evidence for pain, disability, and range of motion.

There is inconclusive evidence for pain reduction after conservative management compared with surgery, rated as very-low certainty.

The authors concluded that there is a lack of high-quality evidence, limiting our ability to make any meaningful conclusions. As the number of people with CR is expected to increase, there is an urgent need for future research to help address these gaps.

I agree!

Yet, to patients suffering from CR, this is hardly constructive advice. What should they do vis a vis such disappointing evidence?

They might speak to a orthopedic surgeon; but often there is no indication for an operation. What then?

Patients are bound to try some of the conservative options – but which one?

  • Acupuncture?
  • Prednisolone?
  • Cervical manipulation,?
  • Low-level laser therapy?

My advice is this: be patient – the vast majority of cases resolves spontaneously regardless of therapy – and, if you are desperate, try any of them except cervical manipulation which is burdened with the risk of serious complications and often makes things worse.

I was alerted to the updated and strengthened guidance to ensure safer practice by chiropractors who treat children under the age of 12 years that has recently been published by the Chiropractic Board of Australia after considering the recommendations made by the Safer Care Victoria independent review. The Board also considered community needs and expectations, and specifically the strong support for consumer choice voiced in the public consultation of the independent review.

The Board examined how common themes in the independent review’s recommendations align with its existing regulatory guidance, and used these insights to inform a risk-based approach to updating its Statement on paediatric care. This includes updated advice reinforcing the need to ensure that parents or guardians fully understand their rights and the evidence before treatment is provided to children. ‘Public safety is our priority, and especially so when we consider the care of children’, Board Chair Dr Wayne Minter said.

According to the statement, the Board expects chiropractors to various things, including the following [the numbers in the following passage were added by me and refer to my brief comments below]:

  • inform the patient and their parent/guardian about the quality of the acceptable evidence and explain the basis for the proposed treatment [1]
  • provide the patient and their parent/guardian with information about the risks and benefits of the proposed treatment and the risks of receiving no treatment [2]
  • appropriately document consent, including considering the need for written consent for high-risk procedures [3]
  • refer patients when they have conditions or symptoms outside a chiropractor’s area of competence, for example ‘red flags’ such as the presence of possible serious pathology that requires urgent medical referral to the care of other registered health practitioners [4]

______________________________

  1. I know what is meant by the ‘quality of the evidence’ but am not sure what to make of the ‘quality of the acceptable evidence]. Acceptable by whom? In any case, who checks whether this information is being provided?
  2. Imagine the scenatio following this guidance: Chiro informs that there is a serious risk and no proven benefit – which parent would then procede with the treatment? In any case, the informed consent is incomplete because it also requires information as to which conventional treatment is effective for the condition at had [information that chiros are not competent to provide].
  3. Who checks whether this is done properly?
  4. Arguably, all pediatric conditions or symptoms are outside a chiropractor’s area of competence!

In view of these points, I fear that the updated guidance is a transparent attempt of window dressing, yet unfit for purpose. Most certainly, it does not ensure safer practice by chiropractors who treat children under the age of 12 years.

A case report of a U-type sacral fracture, or spinopelvic dissociation, resulting from chiropractic manipulation has recently been published. It presents the case of a 74-year-old male patient who sustained a U-type sacral fracture after drop-table chiropractic manipulation.

The drop table chiropractic technique is claimed by chiropractors to involve lesser brute force for spinal manipulation than traditional chiropractic care. It involves low-velocity movement and less spinal manoeuvring on the specific area of injury. It is said to be particularly beneficial for adjusting the pelvis or sacroiliac joints. Furthermore, this is, according to chiros, one of the only methods that can adjust spondylolisthesis. In fact, the evidence that it is effective for anything other that boosting the chiros’ income is more than thin, while there is at least one tragic report that it can be lethal.

The recent case of a spinopelvic dissociation demonstrates that chiropractic manipulative therapy involving the commonly used drop-table can cause severe injury. The patient’s course was complicated by a delay in diagnosis and a prolonged hospital stay. Orthopaedic surgeons should have a high degree of suspicion for spinopelvic dissociation in the setting of bilateral sacral fractures. One year after injury, with conservative management, the patient returned to baseline function with mild residual neuropathy.

Spinopelvic dissociation is a rare injury associated with 2% to 3% of transverse sacral fractures and 3% of sacral fractures associated with pelvic ring injuries. When spinopelvic dissociation is expediently identified and treated appropriately, patient outcomes can be maximized, highlighting the importance of early diagnosis and treatment. Because of its rarity and complexity, there remains a paucity of high-level evidence-based guidance on treating this complex issue.  Most cases are caused by a fall from heights, followed by road accidents. Many patients show neurologic impairment at initial presentation, which often improves after surgery, the treatment of choice.

 

Subscribe via email

Enter your email address to receive notifications of new blog posts by email.

Recent Comments

Note that comments can be edited for up to five minutes after they are first submitted but you must tick the box: “Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.”

The most recent comments from all posts can be seen here.

Archives
Categories