PubMed Health⌕ Search

SEARCH · PubMed Health

Results for “Manipulation, Spinal”

Explore indexed PubMed citations for clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health research. Read source abstracts and follow each citation to its original PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 37 records · Page 2Linked to original sources
PubMed2006

Adverse events associated with pediatric spinal manipulation: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Spinal manipulation is a noninvasive manual procedure applied to specific body tissues with therapeutic intent. Although spinal manipulation is commonly used in children, there is limited understanding of the pediatric risk estimates. OBJECTIVE: Our goal was to systematically identify and synthesize available data on adverse events associated with pediatric spinal manipulation. METHODS: A comprehensive search was performed of 8 major electronic databases (eg, Medline, AMED, MANTIS) from inception to June 2004 irrespective of language. Reports were included if they (1) were a primary investigation of spinal manipulation (eg, observation studies, controlled trials, surveys), (2) included a study population of children who were aged 18 years or younger, and (3) reported data on adverse events. Data were summarized to demonstrate the nature and severity of adverse events that may result rather than their incidence. RESULTS: Thirteen studies (2 randomized trials, 11 observational reports) were identified for inclusion. We identified 14 cases of direct adverse events involving neurologic or musculoskeletal events. Nine cases involved serious adverse events (eg, subarachnoidal hemorrhage, paraplegia), 2 involved moderately adverse events that required medical attention (eg, severe headache), and 3 involved minor adverse events (eg, midback soreness). Another 20 cases of indirect adverse events involved delayed diagnosis (eg, diabetes, neuroblastoma) and/or inappropriate provision of spinal manipulation for serious medical conditions (ie, meningitis, rhabdomyosarcoma). CONCLUSIONS: Serious adverse events may be associated with pediatric spinal manipulation; neither causation nor incidence rates can be inferred from observational data. Conduct of a prospective population-based active surveillance study is required to properly assess the possibility of rare, yet serious, adverse events as a result of spinal manipulation on pediatric patients.

Child↗
PubMed2000

Neurophysiologic response to intraoperative lumbosacral spinal manipulation.

BACKGROUND: Although the mechanisms of spinal manipulation are poorly understood, the clinical effects are thought to be related to mechanical, neurophysiologic, and reflexogenic processes. Animal studies have identified mechanosensitive afferents in animals, and clinical studies in human beings have measured neuromuscular responses to spinal manipulation. Few, if any, studies have identified the basic neurophysiologic mechanisms of spinal manipulation in human beings or animals. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this clinical investigation was to determine the feasibility of obtaining intraoperative neurophysiologic recordings and to quantify mixed-nerve root action potentials in response to lumbosacral spinal manipulation in a human subject undergoing lumbar spinal surgery. METHODS: An L4-L5 laminectomy was performed in a 62-year-old man. Short-duration (<0.1 ms) mechanical force, manually assisted spinal manipulative thrusts (150 N) were delivered to the lumbosacral spine with an Activator II Adjusting Instrument. With the spine exposed, spinal manipulative thrusts were delivered internally to the L5 mammillary process, L5-S1 joint, and the sacral base with various force vectors. This protocol was repeated by contacting the skin overlying respective anatomic landmarks. Mixed-nerve root recordings were obtained from gas-sterilized platinum bipolar hooked electrodes attached to the S1 nerve root at the level of the dorsal root ganglion during the spinal manipulative thrusts and during a 30-second baseline period during which no spinal manipulative thrusts were applied. RESULTS: During the active trials, mixed-nerve root action potentials were observed in response to both internal and external spinal manipulative thrusts. Differences in the amplitude and discharge frequency were noted in response to varying segmental contact points and force vectors, and similarities were noted for internally and externally applied spinal manipulative thrusts. Amplitudes of mixed-nerve root action potentials ranged from 200 to 2600 mV for internal thrusts and 800 to 3500 mV for external thrusts. CONCLUSIONS: Monitoring mixed-nerve root discharges in response to spinal manipulative thrusts in vivo in human subjects undergoing lumbar surgery is feasible. Neurophysiologic responses appeared sensitive to the contact point and applied force vector of the spinal manipulative thrust. Further study of the neurophysiologic mechanisms of spinal manipulation in humans and animals is needed to more precisely identify the mechanisms and neural pathways involved.

Action Potentials↗
PubMed1999

Thoracic epidural hematoma after spinal manipulation therapy.

Posttraumatic spinal epidural hematoma is an unusual pathology. The authors report the case of a 64-year-old woman who experienced thoracic epidural hematoma during a session of spinal manipulation therapy (SMT). In the literature, such an event has been reported previously only twice. This case represents the first spinal epidural hematoma occurring after a chiropractic manipulation in the lumbar region. Surgical evacuation of the spinal hematoma resulted in complete recovery in the patient. Complications of SMT are reviewed, and the etiology and features of spinal epidural hematoma are discussed.

Female↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Neurophysiological effects of spinal manipulation.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Despite clinical evidence for the benefits of spinal manipulation and the apparent wide usage of it, the biological mechanisms underlying the effects of spinal manipulation are not known. Although this does not negate the clinical effects of spinal manipulation, it hinders acceptance by the wider scientific and health-care communities and hinders rational strategies for improving the delivery of spinal manipulation. PURPOSE: The purpose of this review article is to examine the neurophysiological basis for the effects of spinal manipulation. STUDY DESIGN: A review article discussing primarily basic science literature and clinically oriented basic science studies. METHODS: This review article draws primarily from the peer-reviewed literature available on Medline. Several textbook publications and reports are referenced. A theoretical model is presented describing the relationships between spinal manipulation, segmental biomechanics, the nervous system and end-organ physiology. Experimental data for these relationships are presented. RESULTS: Biomechanical changes caused by spinal manipulation are thought to have physiological consequences by means of their effects on the inflow of sensory information to the central nervous system. Muscle spindle afferents and Golgi tendon organ afferents are stimulated by spinal manipulation. Smaller-diameter sensory nerve fibers are likely activated, although this has not been demonstrated directly. Mechanical and chemical changes in the intervertebral foramen caused by a herniated intervertebral disc can affect the dorsal roots and dorsal root ganglia, but it is not known if spinal manipulation directly affects these changes. Individuals with herniated lumbar discs have shown clinical improvement in response to spinal manipulation. The phenomenon of central facilitation is known to increase the receptive field of central neurons, enabling either subthreshold or innocuous stimuli access to central pain pathways. Numerous studies show that spinal manipulation increases pain tolerance or its threshold. One mechanism underlying the effects of spinal manipulation may, therefore, be the manipulation's ability to alter central sensory processing by removing subthreshold mechanical or chemical stimuli from paraspinal tissues. Spinal manipulation is also thought to affect reflex neural outputs to both muscle and visceral organs. Substantial evidence demonstrates that spinal manipulation evokes paraspinal muscle reflexes and alters motoneuron excitability. The effects of spinal manipulation on these somatosomatic reflexes may be quite complex, producing excitatory and inhibitory effects. Whereas substantial information also shows that sensory input, especially noxious input, from paraspinal tissues can reflexively elicit sympathetic nerve activity, knowledge about spinal manipulation's effects on these reflexes and on end-organ function is more limited. CONCLUSIONS: A theoretical framework exists from which hypotheses about the neurophysiological effects of spinal manipulation can be developed. An experimental body of evidence exists indicating that spinal manipulation impacts primary afferent neurons from paraspinal tissues, the motor control system and pain processing. Experimental work in this area is warranted and should be encouraged to help better understand mechanisms underlying the therapeutic scope of spinal manipulation.

Biomechanical Phenomena↗
PubMed2000

Spinal reflex attenuation associated with spinal manipulation.

STUDY DESIGN: This study evaluated the effect of lumbosacral spinal manipulation with thrust and spinal mobilization without thrust on the excitability of the alpha motoneuronal pool in human subjects without low back pain. OBJECTIVES: To investigate the effect of high velocity, low amplitude thrust, or mobilization without thrust on the excitability of the alpha motoneuron pool, and to elucidate potential mechanisms in which manual procedures may affect back muscle activity. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The physiologic mechanisms of spinal manipulation are largely unknown. It has been proposed that spinal manipulation may reduce back muscle electromyographic activity in patients with low back pain. Although positive outcomes of spinal manipulation intervention for low back pain have been reported in clinical trials, the mechanisms involved in the amelioration of symptoms are unknown. METHODS: In this study, 17 nonpatient human subjects were used to investigate the effect of spinal manipulation and mobilization on the amplitude of the tibial nerve Hoffmann reflex recorded from the gastrocnemius muscle. Reflexes were recorded before and after manual spinal procedures. RESULTS: Both spinal manipulation with thrust and mobilization without thrust significantly attenuated alpha motoneuronal activity, as measured by the amplitude of the gastrocnemius Hoffmann reflex. This suppression of motoneuronal activity was significant (P < 0.05) but transient, with a return to baseline values exhibited 30 seconds after intervention. CONCLUSIONS: Both spinal manipulation with thrust and mobilization without thrust procedures produce a profound but transient attenuation of alpha motoneuronal excitability. These findings substantiate the theory that manual spinal therapy procedures may lead to short-term inhibitory effects on the human motor system.

Adult↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Medication-assisted spinal manipulation.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: The acceptance of spinal manipulation as a reasonable method of treating certain patients with spinal pain over the past decade has led to a renewed interest and increased use of these techniques performed in conjunction with commonly used medications and procedures. Manual therapy is increasingly being used in conjunction with anesthetics, sedatives or analgesics as well as local, epidural and intra-articular injections. PURPOSE: This report provides a review of the literature and presents a description of current clinical practice methods for the application of the different techniques of medication-assisted spinal manipulation therapy followed by a discussion of the current clinical support and the published indications, contraindications and complications for each of these procedures. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: This technical report integrates a literature review with information gathered through personal interviews, review of medicine-assisted manipulation courses and observations of clinical procedures. METHODS: A PubMed search from 1966 to the present was performed to identify appropriate articles concerning the combination of spinal manipulation therapy with such medical procedures as the use of anesthetic, conscious sedation, local injection of analgesic, anti-inflammatory and proliferant agents and intra-articular injections. Additional articles and information were gathered through review of pertinent references, attendance of various technique specific seminars and communication with experts familiar with these procedures. RESULTS: Four categories of medication-assisted manipulation were identified: manipulation under general anesthesia or sedation, manipulation under epidural anesthesia with or without epidural steroid injection, manipulation under joint anesthesia/analgesia, and manipulation with injectants, such as steroids or proliferant agents. The literature consists primarily of case reports and case series with two randomized controlled trials and one cohort study. CONCLUSIONS: Medicine-assisted spinal manipulation therapies have a relatively long history of clinical use and have been reported in the literature for over 70 years. However, evidence for the effectiveness of these protocols remains largely anecdotal, based on case series mimicking many other surgical and conservative approaches for the treatment of chronic pain syndromes of musculoskeletal origin. There is, however, sufficient theoretical basis and positive results from case series to warrant further controlled trials on these techniques.

Anesthesia, Epidural↗
PubMed1993

Post-traumatic myelopathy following flopping high jump: a pilot case of spinal manipulation.

OBJECTIVE: To present the first case of spinal cord injury from high jump and the first pilot case of spinal manipulation for post-traumatic myelopathy. CLINICAL FEATURES: An 11-yr-old tetraplegic boy was admitted to the hospital, where he had a thorough neurological examination, including myelogram, EEG and skull and spinal X rays, with normal findings. The author revealed subtle subluxations on plain X-ray films. Triceps hyperreflexia was detected bilaterally. Bilateral patella and ankle clonus with hyperreflexia, basic and excess spasticity, and bilateral extensor plantar responses were noted in the lower limbs. A clinical diagnosis of early post-traumatic incomplete spastic tetraplegia below C7 was made. INTERVENTION AND OUTCOME: He did not respond to 3 months of orthodox conservative hospital management, including steroid therapy. Spinal manipulation of the lower cervical and upper thoracic spine was performed in a private chiropractic clinic for 2 wk. He apparently recovered after 3 months of spinal manipulation. On recent examination, he has virtually completely recovered. He still suffers from hand muscle atrophy, hyperreflexia of the triceps and ankle reflex and bilateral positive Babinski reflex; ankle and patellar clonus are almost absent. CONCLUSIONS: The early response and long-term (9-yr follow-up) benefits of spinal manipulation to the early delayed traumatic myelopathy of this patient suggest spinal cord ischemia as its pathophysiology. Mechanisms of post-traumatic myelopathy are postulated. Biomechanical mechanisms of spinal manipulation for neurological recovery of post-traumatic myelopathy and/or radiculopathy are advanced. Further pilot spinal manipulation by experienced chiropractors after adequate anti-edematous (steroid) therapy is recommended for selected patients with post-traumatic myelopathy and/or radiculopathy, especially in a multidisciplinary spinal injury unit.

Athletic Injuries↗
PubMed2004

Factors related to the inability of individuals with low back pain to improve with a spinal manipulation.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Although spinal manipulation is one of the few interventions for low back pain supported by evidence, it appears to be underutilized by physical therapists, possibly due to therapists' concerns that a patient may not benefit from the intervention. The purpose of this study was to identify factors that are associated with an inability to benefit from manipulation. SUBJECTS: Seventy-five people with nonradicular low back pain (mean age=37.6 years, SD=10.6, range=19-59; mean duration of symptoms=41.7 days, SD=54.7, range=1-252) participated. METHODS: Subjects underwent a standardized examination that included history-taking; self-reports of pain, disability, and fear-avoidance beliefs; measurement of lumbar and hip range of motion; and use of various tests. All subjects received a spinal manipulation intervention for a maximum of 2 sessions. Subjects who did not show greater than 5 points of improvement on the modified Oswestry Low Back Pain Disability Questionnaire were considered to have shown no improvement with the manipulation. Baseline variables were tested for univariate relationship with the outcome of the manipulation. Variables showing a univariate relationship were entered into a logistic regression equation, and adjusted odds ratios were calculated. RESULTS: Twenty subjects (28%) did not improve with manipulation. Six variables were identified as being related to inability to improve with manipulation: longer symptom duration, having symptoms in the buttock or leg, absence of lumbar hypomobility, less hip rotation range of motion, less discrepancy in left-to-right hip medial rotation range of motion, and a negative Gaenslen sign. The resulting logistic regression model explained 63% of the variance in manipulation outcome. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: The majority of subjects improved with manipulation. Baseline variables could be identified that were predictive of which subjects would not improve.

Adult↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Procedural skills in spinal manipulation: do prerequisites matter?

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Spinal manipulation has undergone a resurgence of interest. Developing evidence suggests a relationship between safety, skill and clinical outcome. Training programs are variable and range from extensive formalized curricula to weekend seminars and individual demonstrations. Systematic study of a relationship between prerequisites and skill development has not been conducted. PURPOSE: This project evaluated programmatic differences in prerequisites of students during their training for spinal manipulation with respect to quantitative biomechanical evidence of procedural control and skill of performance of a novel task. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: The research used an experimental design comparing two cohorts involved in separate training programs at different institutions that had distinguishing characteristics in methods of prerequisites to manipulation training. METHODS: A common manipulation procedure (L4 mamillary push [L4MP]) was chosen as a standard test maneuver. Performance of the procedure on initial effort by two cohorts of students (n=38 vs n=39) entering into training for lumbar spine procedures was measured. Comparisons were made based on quantitative biomechanical parameters to assess control and skill. Results were compared with a cohort of experts as a reference standard. RESULTS: Significant differences were observed between the performance measures of the two cohorts. The more skilled performance group was more similar to the expert reference standard than was the lesser skilled group. CONCLUSIONS: The duration, extent and content of prerequisites for learning the dynamic and complex manual skills for spinal manipulation can significantly influence the level of skill attainment even early in the course of training.

Adult↗
PubMed2002

First Prize: Central motor excitability changes after spinal manipulation: a transcranial magnetic stimulation study.

BACKGROUND: The physiologic mechanism by which spinal manipulation may reduce pain and muscular spasm is not fully understood. One such mechanistic theory proposed is that spinal manipulation may intervene in the cycle of pain and spasm by affecting the resting excitability of the motoneuron pool in the spinal cord. Previous data from our laboratory indicate that spinal manipulation leads to attenuation of the excitability of the motor neuron pool when assessed by means of peripheral nerve Ia-afferent stimulation (Hoffmann reflex). OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine the effects of lumbar spinal manipulation on the excitability of the motor neuron pool as assessed by means of transcranial magnetic stimulation. METHODS: Motor-evoked potentials were recorded subsequent to transcranial magnetic stimulation. The motor-evoked potential peak-to-peak amplitudes in the right gastrocnemius muscle of healthy volunteers (n = 24) were measured before and after homolateral L5-S1 spinal manipulation (experimental group) or side-posture positioning with no manipulative thrust applied (control group). Immediately after the group-specific procedure, and again at 5 and 10 minutes after the procedure, 10 motor-evoked potential responses were measured at a rate of 0.05 Hz. An optical tracking system (OptoTRAK, Northern Digital Inc, Waterloo, Canada [<0.10 mm root-mean-square]) was used to monitor the 3-dimensional (3-D) position and orientation of the transcranial magnetic stimulation coil, in real time, for each trial. RESULTS: The amplitudes of the motor-evoked potentials were significantly facilitated from 20 to 60 seconds relative to the prebaseline value after L5-S1 spinal manipulation, without a concomitant change after the positioning (control) procedure. CONCLUSIONS: When motor neuron pool excitability is measured directly by central corticospinal activation with transcranial magnetic stimulation techniques, a transient but significant facilitation occurs as a consequence of spinal manipulation. Thus, a basic neurophysiologic response to spinal manipulation is central motor facilitation.

Adult↗
PubMed1999

Electromyographic responses of back and limb muscles associated with spinal manipulative therapy.

STUDY DESIGN: Ten young, asymptomatic male subjects underwent 11 clinically relevant spinal manipulative treatments along the length of the spine to test the magnitude and extent of reflex responses associated with the treatments. OBJECTIVES: To determine the magnitude and extent of reflex responses elicited by spinal manipulative treatments. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Spinal manipulative treatments have been associated with a reflexogenic relief of pain and a loss of hypertonicity in muscles within the treatment area. However, there is no study in which results show the probability of occurrence or the extent of reflex responses during spinal manipulative treatments. METHODS: Asymptomatic subjects received spinal manipulative treatments on the cervical, thoracic, and lumbar levels and on the sacroiliac joint. Reflex activities were measured using 16 pairs of bipolar surface electrodes placed on the back and proximal limb musculature. The percentage of occurrence and the extent of reflex responses in the back and proximal limb musculature were determined. RESULTS: Each treatment produced consistent reflex responses in a target-specific area. The reflex responses occurred within 50-200 msec after the onset of the treatment thrust and lasted for approximately 100-400 msec. The responses were probably of multireceptor origin and were elicited asynchronously. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study in which results show a consistent reflex response associated with spinal manipulative treatments. Because reflex pathways are evoked systematically during spinal manipulative treatment, there is a distinct possibility that these responses may cause some of the clinically observed beneficial effects, such as a reduction in pain and a decrease in hypertonicity of muscles.

Adult↗
PubMed2006

Immediate effects of spinal manipulation on thermal pain sensitivity: an experimental study.

BACKGROUND: The underlying causes of spinal manipulation hypoalgesia are largely unknown. The beneficial clinical effects were originally theorized to be due to biomechanical changes, but recent research has suggested spinal manipulation may have a direct neurophysiological effect on pain perception through dorsal horn inhibition. This study added to this literature by investigating whether spinal manipulation hypoalgesia was: a) local to anatomical areas innervated by the lumbar spine; b) correlated with psychological variables; c) greater than hypoalgesia from physical activity; and d) different for A-delta and C-fiber mediated pain perception. METHODS: Asymptomatic subjects (n = 60) completed baseline psychological questionnaires and underwent thermal quantitative sensory testing for A-delta and C-fiber mediated pain perception. Subjects were then randomized to ride a stationary bicycle, perform lumbar extension exercise, or receive spinal manipulation. Quantitative sensory testing was repeated 5 minutes after the intervention period. Data were analyzed with repeated measures ANOVA and post-hoc testing was performed with Bonferroni correction, as appropriate. RESULTS: Subjects in the three intervention groups did not differ on baseline characteristics. Hypoalgesia from spinal manipulation was observed in lumbar innervated areas, but not control (cervical innervated) areas. Hypoalgesic response was not strongly correlated with psychological variables. Spinal manipulation hypoalgesia for A-delta fiber mediated pain perception did not differ from stationary bicycle and lumbar extension (p > 0.05). Spinal manipulation hypoalgesia for C-fiber mediated pain perception was greater than stationary bicycle riding (p = 0.040), but not for lumbar extension (p = 0.105). CONCLUSION: Local dorsal horn mediated inhibition of C-fiber input is a potential hypoalgesic mechanism of spinal manipulation for asymptomatic subjects, but further study is required to replicate this finding in subjects with low back pain.

Adult↗
PubMed2006

Selecting an appropriate placebo for a trial of spinal manipulative therapy.

Selecting an appropriate control group or placebo for randomised controlled trials of spinal manipulative therapy is essential to the final interpretation and usefulness of these studies. Prior to starting a randomised controlled trial of spinal manipulative therapy for acute low back pain we wanted to ensure that the placebo selected would be considered appropriate by experts in the field thereby making the results more likely to be accepted and more likely to influence clinical practice. We developed ten placebo techniques that aimed to mimic spinal manipulative therapy as closely as possible which, while not including the active component of spinal manipulative therapy, were still credible. This list of placebo techniques with detailed descriptions was sent to 25 experts in the field from Australia and New Zealand including both clinicians and academics. We asked the experts to rate whether they believed each technique was appropriate for use as a placebo in a trial of spinal manipulative therapy. Sixteen (64%) of the experts responded. There were extremely low levels of agreement between the experts on which placebos were appropriate (kappa = 0.05, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.10). For nine of the ten placebos at least one expert considered the placebo to include the active component of spinal manipulative therapy while at least one other expert believed the same placebo was not only not active but also not credible. The results of this study demonstrate the different views of experts on what constitutes an appropriate placebo for trials of spinal manipulative therapy. Different beliefs about what is the active component of spinal manipulative therapy appear to be responsible for much of the disagreement.

Clinical Trials as Topic↗
PubMed2000

Adverse effects of spinal manipulation.

Guidelines on acute back pain recommend spinal manipulation, but some commentators express concern that the adverse effects are under-reported. Eleven chiropractors distributed questionnaires to 108 consecutive new patients aged > 18 years, enquiring about adverse effects one hour, one day and two days after spinal manipulation. The forms were to be completed anonymously. 80 questionnaires (74%) were returned, 68 suitable for analysis. 28 patients reported adverse effects at one hour after treatment, the most common of which were extra pain (14) and radiating pain (9). 8 had reactions beginning the morning after. No serious adverse effects were reported. The adverse reactions, recorded in 53% of respondents, are those to be expected from a treatment that entails initial discomfort. They need to be set against the long-term benefits of spinal manipulation.

Acute Disease↗
PubMed2005

Sources of bias in reviews of spinal manipulation for back pain.

The effectiveness of spinal manipulation as a treatment for back pain remains uncertain and controversial. This is because of methodological weakness in many of the published clinical trials and also because of markedly opposing interpretations of the primary data by different reviewers. We have systematically assessed a representative sample of recent reviews on this topic. Reviews were included in the analysis if they were published between 1993 and March 2004, were listed in PubMed with an abstract and categorised as a review or meta-analysis, and were written in English. They were also required to present the evidence from at least two referenced clinical trials of spinal manipulation for back pain and to reach a conclusion about the effectiveness of the intervention. Each review was evaluated for methodological quality. Twenty-nine reviews met the inclusion criteria. Sixteen reached an overall positive conclusion, 7 a negative conclusion and 6 a neutral conclusion regarding therapeutic effectiveness. There were statistically significant pairwise correlations between each of the three factors: direction of conclusion, methodological quality and authorship by osteopaths or chiropracters. This indicates an association between authorship by osteopaths or chiropractors and low methodological quality and positive conclusion. We conclude that the outcomes of reviews of this subject are strongly influenced by both scientific rigour and profession of authors. The effectiveness of spinal manipulation for back pain is less certain than many reviews suggest; most high quality reviews reach negative conclusions.

Authorship↗
PubMed1992

Spinal manipulation for low-back pain.

PURPOSE: To review the use, complications, and efficacy of spinal manipulation as a treatment for low-back pain. DATA IDENTIFICATION: Articles were identified through a MEDLINE search, review of articles' bibliographies, and advice from expert orthopedists and chiropractors. STUDY SELECTION: All studies reporting use and complications of spinal manipulation and all controlled trials of the efficacy of spinal manipulation were analyzed. Fifty-eight articles, including 25 controlled trials, were retrieved. DATA ANALYSIS: Data on the use and complications of spinal manipulation were summarized. Controlled trials of efficacy were critically appraised for study quality. Data from nine studies were combined using the confidence profile method of meta-analysis to estimate the effect of spinal manipulation on patients' pain and functional outcomes. RESULTS OF DATA SYNTHESIS: Chiropractors provide most of the manipulative therapy used in the United States for patients with low-back pain. Serious complications of lumbar manipulation, including paraplegia and death, have been reported. Although the occurrence rate of these complications is unknown, it is probably low. For patients with uncomplicated, acute low-back pain, the difference in probability of recovery at 3 weeks favoring treatment with spinal manipulation is 0.17 (for example, increase in recovery from 50% to 67%; 95% probability limits of estimate, 0.07 to 0.28). For patients with low-back pain and sciatic nerve irritation, the difference in probabilities of recovery at 4 weeks is 0.098 (probability limits, -0.016 to 0.209). CONCLUSIONS: Spinal manipulation is of short-term benefit in some patients, particularly those with uncomplicated, acute low-back pain. Data are insufficient concerning the efficacy of spinal manipulation for chronic low-back pain.

Back Pain↗