ClickCease
+1-915-850-0900 spinedoctors@gmail.com
Select Page
Chronic Neck Pain | Understanding Cervical Instability

Chronic Neck Pain | Understanding Cervical Instability

Being involved in an automobile accident can cause damage or injury to the complex structures of the cervical spine which can go unnoticed for months if left untreated. Medically referred to as whiplash-associated disorders, or whiplash, symptoms resulting after an auto accident can often take days to even weeks or months to manifest. Persistent neck pain that lasts for more than 3 months then becomes chronic neck pain, an issue which can be difficult to manage if not treated accordingly. Chronic neck pain may also result due to other underlying issues. The following article demonstrates which types of treatment methods can help relieve chronic neck pain symptoms and its associated complications, including capsular ligament laxity and cervical instability.

 

Chronic Neck Pain: Making the Connection Between Capsular Ligament Laxity and Cervical Instability

 

Abstract

 

The use of conventional modalities for chronic neck pain remains debatable, primarily because most treatments have had limited success. We conducted a review of the literature published up to December 2013 on the diagnostic and treatment modalities of disorders related to chronic neck pain and concluded that, despite providing temporary relief of symptoms, these treatments do not address the specific problems of healing and are not likely to offer long-term cures. The objectives of this narrative review are to provide an overview of chronic neck pain as it relates to cervical instability, to describe the anatomical features of the cervical spine and the impact of capsular ligament laxity, to discuss the disorders causing chronic neck pain and their current treatments, and lastly, to present prolotherapy as a viable treatment option that heals injured ligaments, restores stability to the spine, and resolves chronic neck pain.

 

The capsular ligaments are the main stabilizing structures of the facet joints in the cervical spine and have been implicated as a major source of chronic neck pain. Chronic neck pain often reflects a state of instability in the cervical spine and is a symptom common to a number of conditions described herein, including disc herniation, cervical spondylosis, whiplash injury and whiplash associated disorder, postconcussion syndrome, vertebrobasilar insufficiency, and Barr�-Li�ou syndrome.

 

When the capsular ligaments are injured, they become elongated and exhibit laxity, which causes excessive movement of the cervical vertebrae. In the upper cervical spine (C0-C2), this can cause a number of other symptoms including, but not limited to, nerve irritation and vertebrobasilar insufficiency with associated vertigo, tinnitus, dizziness, facial pain, arm pain, and migraine headaches. In the lower cervical spine (C3-C7), this can cause muscle spasms, crepitation, and/or paresthesia in addition to chronic neck pain. In either case, the presence of excessive motion between two adjacent cervical vertebrae and these associated symptoms is described as cervical instability.

 

Therefore, we propose that in many cases of chronic neck pain, the cause may be underlying joint instability due to capsular ligament laxity. Currently, curative treatment options for this type of cervical instability are inconclusive and inadequate. Based on clinical studies and experience with patients who have visited our chronic pain clinic with complaints of chronic neck pain, we contend that prolotherapy offers a potentially curative treatment option for chronic neck pain related to capsular ligament laxity and underlying cervical instability.

 

Keywords: Atlanto-axial joint, Barr�- Li�ou syndrome, C1-C2 facet joint, capsular ligament laxity, cervical instability, cervical radiculopathy, chronic neck pain, facet joints, post-concussion syndrome, prolotherapy, spondylosis, vertebrobasilar insufficiency, whiplash.

 

Introduction

 

In the realm of pain management, an ever-growing number of treatment-resistant patients are being left with relatively few conventional treatment options that effectively and permanently relieve their chronic pain symptoms. Chronic cervical spine pain is particularly challenging to treat, and data regarding the long-term efficacy of traditional therapies has been extremely discouraging [1]. The prevalence of neck pain in the general population has been reported to range between 30% and 50%, with women over 50 making up the larger portion [1-3]. Although many of these cases resolve with time and require minimal intervention, the recurrence rate of neck pain is high, and about one-third of people will suffer from chronic neck pain (defined as pain that persists longer than 6 months), and 5% will develop significant disability and reduction in quality of life [2, 4]. For this group of chronic pain patients, modern medicine offers few options for long-term recovery.

 

Treatment protocols for acute and sub-acute neck pain are standard and widely agreed upon [1, 2]. However, conventional treatments for chronic neck pain remain debatable and include interventions such as use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and narcotics for pain management, cervical collars, rest, physiotherapy, manual therapy, strengthening exercises, and nerve blocks. Furthermore, the literature on long-term treatment outcomes has been inconclusive at best [5-9]. Chronic neck pain due to whiplash injury or whiplash associated disorder (WAD) is particularly resistant to long-term treatment; conventional treatment for these conditions may give temporary relief but long-term outcomes have been disappointing [10].

 

In light of the poor treatment options and outcomes for chronic neck pain, we propose that in many of these cases, the underlying condition may be related to capsular ligament laxity and subsequent joint instability of the cervical spine. Should this be the case and joint instability is the fundamental problem causing chronic neck pain, a new treatment approach may be warranted.

 

The diagnosis of chronic neck pain due to cervical instability is particularly challenging. In most cases, diagnostic tools for detecting cervical instability have been inconsistent and lack specificity [11-15], and are therefore inadequate. A better understanding of the pathogenesis of cervical instability may better enable practitioners to recognize and treat the condition more effectively. For instance, when cervical instability is related to injury of soft tissue (eg, ligaments) alone and not fracture, the treatment modality should be one that stimulates the involved soft tissue to regenerate and repair itself.

 

Dr Jimenez works on wrestler's neck

 

In that context, comprehensive dextrose prolotherapy offers a promising treatment option for resolving cervical instability and the subsequent pain and disability it causes. The distinct anatomy of the cervical spine and the pathology of cervical instability described herein underlie the rationale for treating the condition with prolotherapy.

 

Anatomy

 

The cervical spine consists of the first seven vertebrae in the spinal column and is divided into two segments, the upper cervical (C0-C2) and lower cervical (C3-C7) regions. Despite having the smallest vertebral bodies, the cervical spine is the most mobile segment of the entire spine and must support a high degree of movement. Consequently, it is highly reliant on ligamentous tissue for stabilizing the neck and spinal column, as well as for controlling normal joint motion; as a result, the cervical spine is highly susceptible to injury.

 

The upper cervical spine consists of C0, called the occiput, and the first two cervical vertebrae, C1 and C2, or atlas and axis, respectively. C1 and C2 are more specialized than the rest of the cervical vertebrae. C1 is ring-shaped and lacks a vertebral body. C2 has a prominent vertebral body called the odontoid process or dens which acts as a pivot point for the C1 ring [16]. This pivoting motion (Fig. ?1), coupled with the lack of intervertebral discs in the upper cervical spine, allows for more movement and rotation of the joint, thus facilitating mobility rather than stability [17]. Collectively, the upper cervical spine is responsible for 50% of total neck flexion and extension at the atlanto-occipital (C0-C1) joint, as well as 50% of total neck rotation that occurs at the atlanto-axial joint (C1-C2) [16]. This motion is possible because the atlas (C1) rotates around the axis (C2) via the dens and the anterior arch of the atlas.

 

Figure 1 Atlanto-Axial Rotational Instability

Figure 1: Atlanto-axial rotational instability. The atlas is shown in the rotated position on the axis. The pivot is the eccentrically placed odontoid process. In rotation, the wall of the vertebral foramen of Cl decreases the opening of the spinal canal between Cl and C2. This can potentially cause migraine headaches, C2 nerve root impingement, dizziness, vertebrobasilar insufficiency, ‘drop attacks; neck-tongue syndrome, Barr�-Li�ou syndrome, severe neck pain, and tinnitus.

 

The intrinsic, passive stability of the spine is provided by the intervertebral discs and surrounding ligamentous structures. The upper cervical spine is stabilized solely by ligaments, including the transverse, alar, and capsular ligaments. The transverse ligament runs behind the dens, originating on a small tubercle on the medial side of a lateral mass of the atlas and inserting onto the identical tubercle on the other side. Thus, the transverse ligament restricts flexion of the head and anterior displacement of the atlas. The left and right alar ligaments originate from the posterior dens and attach to the medial occipital condyles on the ipsilateral sides. They work to limit axial rotation and are under the greatest tension in rotation and flexion. By holding C1 and C2 in proper position, the transverse and alar ligaments help to protect the spinal cord, brain stem, and nervous system from excess movement in the upper cervical spine [18].

 

The lower cervical spine, while less specialized, allows for the remaining 50% of neck flexion, extension, and rotation. Each vertebra in this region (C3-C7) has a vertebral body, in between which lies an intervertebral disc, the largest avascular structure of the body. This disc is a piece of fibrocartilage that helps cushion the joints and allows for more stability and is comprised of an inner gelatinous nucleus pulposus, which is surrounded by an outer, fibrous annulus fibrosus. The nucleus pulposus is designed to sustain compression loads and the annulus fibrosus, to resist tension, shear and torsion [19]. The annulus fibrosus is thought to determine the proper functioning of the entire intervertebral disc [20] and has been described as a lamellar structure consisting of 15-26 distinct concentric fibrocartilage layers that constitute a criss-crossing fiber matrix [19]. However, the form of this structure has been disputed. A microdissection study using cadavers reported that the cervical annulus fibrosus does not consist of concentric laminae of collagen fibers as it does in lumbar discs. Instead, the authors contend that the three-dimensional architecture of the cervical annulus fibrosus is more like that of a crescentic anterior interosseous ligament surrounding the nucleus pulposus [21].

 

In addition to the discs, multiple ligaments and the two synovial joints on each pair of adjacent vertebrae (facet joints) allow for controlled, fully three dimensional motions. Capsular ligaments wrap around each facet joint, which help to maintain stability during neck rotation. Each vertebra in the lower cervical spine (in addition to C2) contains a spinous process that serves as an attachment site for the interspinal ligaments. These tissues connect adjacent spinous processes and limit flexion of the cervical spine. Anteriorly, they meet with the ligamentum flavum.

 

Three other ligaments, the ligamentum flavum, anterior longitudinal ligament (ALL), and posterior longitudinal ligament (PLL), help to stabilize the cervical spine during motion and protect against excess flexion and extension of the cervical vertebrae. From C1-C2 to the sacrum, the ligamentum flava run down the posterior aspect of the spinal canal and join the laminae of adjacent vertebrae while helping to maintain proper neck posture. The ALL and PLL both run alongside the vertebral bodies. The ALL begins at the occiput and runs anteriorly to the anterior sacrum, helping to stabilize the vertebrae and intervertebral discs and limit spinal extension. The PLL also helps to stabilize the vertebrae and intervertebral discs, as well as limit spinal flexion. It extends from the body of the axis to the posterior sacrum and runs within the anterior aspect of the spinal canal across from the ligamentum flava.

 

A spinous process and two transverse processes emanate off the neural arch (or vertebral arch) which lies at the posterior aspect of the cervical vertebral column. The transverse processes are bony prominences that protrude postero-laterally and serve as attachment sites for various muscles and ligaments. With the exception of C7, each of these processes has a foramen which allows for passage of the vertebral artery towards the brain; the C7 transverse process has foramina which allow for passage of the vertebral vein and sympathetic nerves [22]. The transverse processes of the cervical vertebrae are connected via the intertransverse ligaments; each attaches a transverse process to the one below and helps to limit lateral flexion of the cervical spine.

 

Facet Joints

 

The inferior articular process of the superior cervical vertebra, except for C0-C1, and the superior articular process of the inferior cervical vertebra join to form the facet joints of the cervical spine; in the case of C0-C1, the inferior articular process of C1 joins the occipital condyles. Also referred to as zygapophyseal joints (Fig. ?2), the facet joints are diarrthrodial, meaning they function similar to the knee joint in that they contain synovial cells and joint fluid and are surrounded by a capsule. They also contain a meniscus which helps to further cushion the joint, and like the knee, are lined by articular cartilage and surrounded by capsular ligaments, which stabilize the joint. These capsular ligaments hold adjacent vertebrae to one another, and the articular cartilage therein is aligned such that its opposing tissue surfaces provide for a low-friction environment [23].

 

Figure 2 Typical Z Joint

Figure 2: Typical Z (zygapophyseal/ facet) joint. Each facet joint has articular cartilage, the synovium where synovial fluid is produced, and a meniscus.

 

There is some dissimilarity in facet joint anatomy between the upper and lower cervical spine. Even in the upper cervical region, C0-C1 and C1-C2 facet joints differ anatomically. At C0-C1, the convex shape of the occipital condyles enables them to fit into the concave surface of the inferior articular process. The C1-C2 facet joints are oriented cranio-caudally, meaning they run more parallel to their transverse processes. As such, their capsular ligaments are normally relatively lax, and thus, are inherently less stable and meant to facilitate mobility (i.e., rotation) [23, 24].

 

In contrast, the facet joints of the lower cervical spine are positioned at more of an angle. In the transverse plane, the angles of the right and left C2-C3 facet joints are estimated to be 32� to 65� and 32� to 60�, respectively, while those of the C6-C7 facet joints are typically steeper at 45� to 75� and 50� to 78� [25]. As the cervical spine extends downward, the angle of the facet joint becomes bigger such that the joint slopes backwards and downwards. Thus, the facet joints of the lower cervical spine have progressively less rotation than those of the upper cervical spine. Furthermore, the presence of intervertebral discs helps give the lower cervical spine more stability.

 

Nevertheless, injury to any of the facet joints can cause instability to the cervical spine. Researchers have found there is a continuum between the amount of trauma and degree of instability to the cervical facets, with greater trauma causing a higher degree of facet instability [26-28].

 

Cervical Capsular Ligaments

 

The capsular ligaments are extremely strong and serve as the main stabilizing tissue in the spinal column. They lie close to the intervertebral centers of rotation and provide significant stability in the neck, especially during axial rotation [29]; consequently, they serve as essential components for ensuring neck stability with movement. The capsular ligaments have a high peak force and elongation potential, meaning they can withstand large forces before rupturing. This was demonstrated in a dynamic mechanical study in which the capsular ligaments and ligamentum flavum were shown to have the highest average peak force, up to 220 N and 244 N, respectively [30]. This was reported as considerably greater than the force shown in the anterior longitudinal ligament and middle third disc.

 

While much has been reported about the strength of the capsular ligaments as related to cervical stability, when damaged, these ligaments lose their strength and are unable to support the cervical spine properly. For instance, in an animal study, it was shown that sequential removal of sheep capsular ligaments and cervical facets caused an undue increase in range of motion, especially in axial rotation, flexion and extension with caudal progression [31]. Human cadaver studies have also indicated that transection or injury of joint capsular ligaments significantly increases axial rotation and lateral flexion [32, 33]. Specifically, the largest increase in axial rotation with damage to a unilateral facet joint was 294% [33].

 

Capsular ligament laxity can occur instantaneously as a single macrotrauma, such as a whiplash injury, or can develop slowly as cumulative microtraumas, such as those from repetitive forward or bent head postures. In either case, the cause of injury occurs through similar mechanisms, leading to capsular ligament laxity and excess motion of the facet joints, which often results in cervical instability. When ligament laxity develops over time, it is defined as �creep� (Fig. ?3) and refers to the elongation of a ligament under a constant or repetitive stress [34]. While this constitutes low-level subfailure ligament injuries, it may represent the vast majority of cervical instability cases and can potentially incapacitate people due to disabling pain, vertigo, tinnitus or other concomitant symptoms of cervical instability. Such symptoms can be caused by elongation-induced strains of the capsular ligaments; these strains can progress to subsequent subfailure tears in the ligament fibers or to laxity in the capsular ligaments, leading to instability at the level of the cervical facet joints [35]. This is most evident when the neck is rotated (ie, looking to the left or right) and that movement�causes a �cracking� or �popping� sound. Clinical instability indicates that the spine is unable to maintain normal motion and function between vertebrae under normal physiological loads, inducing irritation to nerves, possible structural deformation, and/or incapacitating pain.

 

Figure 3 Ligament Laxity and Creep

Figure 3: Ligament laxity and creep. When ligaments are under a constant stress, they display creep behavior. Creep refers to a time-dependent increase in strain and causes ligaments to “stretch out” over time.

 

Furthermore, the capsular ligaments surrounding the facet joints are highly innervated by mechanoreceptive and nociceptive free nerve endings. Hence, the facet joint has long been considered the primary source of chronic spinal pain [36-38]. Additionally, injury to these nerves has been shown to affect the overall joint function of the facet joints [39]. Therefore, injury to the capsular ligaments and subsequent nerve endings could explain the prevalence of chronic pain and joint instability in the facet joints of the cervical spine.

 

Cervical Instability

 

Clinical instability is not to be confused with hypermobility. In general, instability implies a pathological condition with resultant symptoms, whereas joint hypermobility alone does not (Fig. ?4). Clinical instability refers to a loss of motion stiffness in a particular spinal segment when the application of force to it produces greater displacement(s) than would otherwise be seen in a normal structure. In clinical instability, symptoms such as pain and muscle spasms can thus be experienced within a person�s range of motion, not just at its furthest extension point. These muscle spasms can cause intense pain and are the body�s response to cervical instability in that the ligaments act as sensory organs involved in ligamento-muscular reflexes. The ligamento-muscular reflex is a protective reflex emanating from mechanoreceptors (ie, pacinian corpuscles, golgi tendon organs, and ruffini endings) in the ligaments and transmitted to the muscles. Subsequent activation of these muscles helps to preserve joint stability, either directly by muscles crossing the joint or indirectly by muscles that do not cross the joint but limit joint motion [40].

 

Figure 4 Cervical Spinal Motion Continuum and Role of Prolotherapy

Figure 4: Cervical spinal motion continuum and role of prolotherapy. When minor or moderate spinal instability occurs, treatment with prolotherapy may be of benefit in alleviating symptoms and restoring normal cervical joint function.

 

In a clinically unstable joint where neurologic insult is present, it is presumed that the joint has undergone more severe damage in its stabilizing structures, which may include the vertebrae themselves. In contrast, joints that are hypermobile demonstrate increased segmental mobility but are able to maintain their stability and function normally under physiological loads [41].

 

Clinical instability can be classified as mild, moderate or severe, with the later being associated with catastrophic injury. Minor injuries of the cervical spine are those involving soft tissues alone without evidence of fracture and are the most common causes of cervical instability. Mild or moderate clinical instability is that which is without neurologic (somatic) injury and is typically due to cumulative micro-traumas.

 

Diagnosis of Cervical Instability

 

Cervical instability is a diagnosis based primarily on a patient�s history (ie, symptoms) and physical examination because there is yet to be standardized functional X-rays or imaging able to diagnose cervical instability or detect ruptured ligamentous tissue without the presence of bony lesions [24]. For example, in one autopsy study of cryosection samples of the cervical spine, [42] only one out of ten gross ligamentous disruptions was evident on x-ray. Furthermore, there is often little correlation between the degree of instability or hypermobility shown on radiographic studies and clinical symptoms [43-45]. Even after severe whiplash injuries, plain radiographs are usually normal despite clinical findings indicating the presence of soft tissue damage.

 

However, functional computerized tomography (fCT) and magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) scans and digital motion x-ray (DMX) are able to adequately depict cervical instability pathology [46, 47]. Studies using fCT for diagnosing soft tissue ligament or post-whiplash injuries have demonstrated the ability of this technique to show excess atlanto-occipital or atlanto-axial movement during axial rotation [48, 49]. This is especially pertinent when patients have signs and symptoms of cervical instability, yet have normal MRIs in a neutral position.

 

Functional imaging technology, as opposed to static standard films, is necessary for adequate radiologic depiction of instability in the cervical spine because they provide dynamic imaging of the neck during movement and are helpful for evaluating the presence and degree of cervical instability (Fig. ?5). There are also specialized physical examination tests specific for upper cervical instability, such as the Sharp-Purser test, upper cervical flexion test, and cervical flexion-rotation test.

 

Figure 5 3D CT Scan of Upper Cervical Spine

Figure 5: 3D CT scan of upper cervical spine. C1-C2 instability can easily be seen in the patient, as 70% of C1 articular facet is subluxed posteriorly (arrow) on C2 facet when the patient rotates his head (turns head to the left then the right).

 

Upper Cervical Pathology and Instability

 

Although not usually apparent radiographically, injury to the ligaments and soft tissues of C0-C2 from head or neck trauma is more likely than are cervical fractures or subluxation of bones [50, 51]. Ligament laxity across the C0-C1-C2 complex is primarily caused by rotational movements, especially those involving lateral bending and axial rotation [52-54]. With severe neck traumas, especially those with rotation, up to 25% of total lesions can be attributed to ligament injuries of C0-C2 alone. Although some ligament injuries in the C0-C2 region can cause severe neurological impairment, the majority involve sub-failure loads to the facet joints and capsular ligaments, which are the primary source of most chronic pain in post-neck trauma [26, 55].

 

Due to its lack of osseous stability, the upper cervical spine is also vulnerable to injury by high velocity manipulation. The capsular ligaments of the atlanto-axial joint are especially susceptible to injury from rotational thrusts, and thus, may be at risk during mechanically mediated manipulation. The capsular ligaments in the occipto-atlantal joint function as joint stabilizers and can also become injured due to excessive or abnormal forces [46].

 

Excessive tension on the capsular ligaments can cause upper cervical instability and related neck pain [56]. Capsular ligament tension is increased during abnormal postures, causing elongation of the capsular ligaments, with magnitudes increased by up to 70% of normal [57]. Such excessive ligament elongation induces laxity to the facet joints, which puts the cervical spine more at risk for further degenerative changes and instability. Therefore, capsular ligament injury appears to cause upper cervical instability because of laxity in the stabilizing structure of the facet joints [58].

 

Cervical Pain Versus Cervical Radiculopathy

 

According to the International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP), cervical spinal pain is pain perceived as anywhere in the posterior region of the cervical spine, defining it further as pain that is �perceived as arising from anywhere within the region bounded superiorly by the superior nuchal line, inferiorly by an imaginary transverse line through the tip of the first thoracic spinous process, and laterally by sagittal planes tangential to the lateral borders of the neck� [59]. Similarly, cervical pain is divided equally by an imaginary transverse plane into upper cervical pain and lower cervical pain. Suboccipital pain is that pain located between superior nuchal line and an imaginary transverse line through the tip of the second cervical spinous process. Likewise, cervico-occipital pain is perceived as arising in the cervical region and extending over the occipital region of the skull. These sources of pain could be a result of underlying cervical instability.

 

The IASP defines radicular pain as that arising in a limb or the trunk wall, caused either by ectopic activation of nociceptive afferent fibers in a spinal nerve or its roots or by other neuropathic mechanisms, and may be episodic, recurrent, or sudden [59]. Clinically, there is a 30% rate of radicular symptoms during axial rotation in those with rotator instabilities [60]. Thus, radicular pain may also be a result of underlying cervical instability.

 

With capsular ligament laxity, hypertrophic facet joint changes occur (including osteophytosis) as cervical degeneration progresses, causing encroachment on cervical nerve roots as they exit the spine through the neural foramina. This condition is called cervical radiculopathy and manifests as stabbing pain, numbness, and/or tingling down the upper extremity in the area of the affected nerve root.

 

The neural foramina lie between the intervertebral disc and the joints of Luschka (uncovertebral joints) anteriorly and the facet joint posteriorly. Their superior and inferior borders are the pedicles of adjacent vertebral bodies. Cervical nerve roots there are vulnerable to compression or injury by the facet joints posteriorly or by the joints of Luschka and the intervertebral disc anteriorly.

 

Cadaver studies have demonstrated that cervical nerve roots take up as much as 72% of the space in the neural foramina [61]. Normally, this provides ample room for the nerves to function optimally. However, if the cervical spine and capsular ligaments are injured, facet joint hypertrophy and degeneration of the cervical discs can occur. Over time, this causes narrowing of the neural foramina (Fig. ?6) and a decrease in space for the nerve root. In the event of another ligament injury, instability of the hypertrophied bones can occur and further reduce the patency of the neural foramen.

 

Figure 6 Digital Motion X-Ray Demonstrating Multi-Level Cervical Instability

Figure 6: Digital motion X-ray demonstrating multi-level cervical instability. Neural foraminal narrowing is shown at two levels during lateral extension versus lateral flexion.

 

Cervical radiculopathy from a capsular ligament injury typically produces intermittent radicular symptoms which become more noticeable when the neck is moved in a certain direction, such as during rotation, flexion or extension. These movements can cause encroachment on cervical nerve roots and subsequent paresthesia along the pathway therein of the affected nerve and may be why evidence of cervical radiculopathy does not show up on standard MRI or CT scans.

 

When disc herniation is the cause of cervical radiculopathy, it typically presents with acute onset of severe neck and arm pain unrelieved by any position and often results in encroachment on a cervical nerve root. While disc herniation can easily be seen on routine (non-functional) MRI or CT scans, evidence of radiculopathy from cervical instability cannot. Most cases of acute radiculopathy due to disc herniation resolve with non-surgical active or passive therapies, but some patients continue to have clinically significant symptoms, in which case surgical treatments such as anterior cervical decompression with fusion or posterior cervical laminoforaminotomy can be performed [62]. Cervical radiculopathy is also strongly associated with spondylosis, a disease generally attributed to aging that involves an overall degeneration of the cervical spine. The disorder is characterized by degenerative changes in the intervertebral disc, osteophytosis of the vertebral bodies, and hypertrophy of the facet joints and laminar arches. Since more than one cervical spine segment is usually affected in spondylosis, the symptoms of radiculopathy are more diffuse than those typical of unilateral soft disc herniation and present as neck, mid-upper back, and arm pain with paresthesia.

 

Dr Jimenez White Coat

Dr. Alex Jimenez’s Insight

“I was involved in an automobile accident that left me with chronic neck pain. What could be causing my painful and persistent neck pain symptoms?”�Being involved in an automobile accident can be a traumatic experience, resulting in both mental and physical harm. Whiplash-associated injuries are some of the most common diagnosis behind reported cases of chronic neck pain after an auto accident. During a car crash, the force of the impact can abruptly jerk the head back-and-forth, stretching the complex structures around the cervical spine beyond their natural range, causing damage or injury.The following article provides an overview of chronic neck pain, its mechanism of injury and effective treatment methods for neck pain.

 

Cervical Spondylosis: the Instability Connection

 

Spondylosis has previously been described as occurring in three stages: the dysfunctional stage, the unstable stage, and the stabilization stage (Fig. ?7) [63]. Spondylosis begins with repetitive trauma, such as rotational strains or compressive forces to the spine. This causes injury to the facet joints which can compromise the capsular ligaments. The dysfunctional phase is characterized by capsular ligament injuries and subsequent cartilage degeneration and synovitis, ultimately leading to abnormal motion in the cervical spine. Over time, facet joint dysfunction intensifies as capsular laxity occurs. This stretching response can cause cervical instability, marking the unstable stage. During this progression, ongoing degeneration is occurring in the intervertebral discs, along with other parts of the cervical spine. Ankylosis (stiffening of the joints) can also occur at the unstable cervical spine segment, and rarely, causes entrapment of nearby spinal nerves. The stabilization phase occurs with the formation of marginal osteophytes as the body tries to heal the spine. These bridging bony deposits can lead to a natural fusion of the affected vertebrae [64].

 

Figure 7 Cervical OA The 3 Phases of the Degenerative Cascade

Figure 7: Cervical OA: The 3 phases of the degenerative cascade. Used with permission from: Kramer WC, et al. Pathogenetic mechanisms of posttraumatic osteoarthritis: opportunities for early intervention. Int J Clin Exp Me d. 2011; 4(4): 285-298.

 

The degenerative cascade, however, begins long before symptoms become evident. Initially, spondylosis develops silently and is asymptomatic [65]. When symptoms of cervical spondylosis do develop, they are generally nonspecific and include neck pain and stiffness [66]. Only rarely do neurologic symptoms develop (ie, radiculopathy or myelopathy), and most often they occur in people with congenitally narrowed spinal canals [67]. Physical exam findings are often limited to restricted range of neck motion and poorly localized tenderness. Clinical symptoms commonly manifest when a new cervical ligament injury is superimposed on the underlying degeneration. In patients with spondylosis and underlying capsular ligament laxity, cervical radiculopathy is more likely to occur because the neural foramina may already be narrowed from facet joint hypertrophy and disc degeneration, enabling any new injury to more readily pinch on an exiting nerve root.

 

Thus, there are compelling reasons to believe that facet joint/capsular ligament injuries in the cervical spine may be an etiological basis for the degenerative cascade in cervical spondylosis and may be responsible for the attendant cervical instability. Animal models used for initiating disc degeneration in research studies have shown the induction of spinal instability through injury of the facet joints [68, 69]. In similar models, capsular ligament injuries of the facet joints caused multidirectional instability of the cervical spine, greatly increasing axial rotation motion correlating with cervical disc injuries [31, 28, 70, 71]. Using human specimens, surgical procedures such as discectomy have been shown to cause an immediate increase in motion of the segments involved [72]. Stabilization procedures such as neck fusion have been known to create increased pressure on the adjacent cervical spinal segments; this is referred to as adjacent segment disease. This can develop when the loss of motion from cervical fusion causes greater shearing and increased rotation and traction stress on adjacent vertebrae at the facet joints [73-75]. Thus, instability can �travel� up or down from the fused segment, furthering disc degeneration. These findings support the theory that iatrogenic-introduced stress and instability at adjacent spinal segments contribute to the pathogenesis of cervical spondylosis [74].

 

Whiplash Trauma

 

Damage to cervical ligaments from whiplash trauma has been well studied, yet these injuries are still often difficult to diagnose and treat. Standard x-rays often do not reveal present injury to the cervical spine and as a consequence, these injuries go unreported and patients are left without proper treatment for their condition [76]. Part of the difficulty lies in the fact that major injury to the cervical spine may only produce minor symptoms in some patients, whereas minor injury may produce more severe symptoms in others [77]. These symptoms include acute and/or chronic neck pain, headache, dizziness, vertigo and paresthesia in the upper extremities [78, 79].

 

MRI and autopsy studies have both shown an association between chronic symptoms in whiplash patients and injuries to the cervical discs, ligaments and facet joints [42, 80]. Success in relieving neck pain in whiplash patients has been documented by numerous clinical studies using nerve block and radiofrequency ablation of facet joint afferents, including capsular ligament nerves, such that increased interest has developed regarding the relationships between injury to the facet joints and capsular ligaments and post-whiplash dysfunction and related symptoms [36, 81].

 

Multiple studies have implicated the cervical facet joint and its capsule as a primary anatomical site of injury during whiplash exposure to the neck [55, 57, 82, 83]. Others have shown that injury to the cervical facet joints and capsular ligaments are the most common cause of pain in post-whiplash patients [84-86]. Cinephotographic and cineradiographic studies of both cadavers and human subjects show that under the conditions of whiplash, a resultant high impact force occurs in the cervical facet joints, leading to their injury and the possibility of cervical spine instability [84].

 

In whiplash trauma, up to 10 times more force is absorbed in the capsular ligaments versus the intervertebral disc [30]. Unlike the disc, the facet joint has a much smaller area in which to disperse this force. Ultimately, the capsular ligaments become elongated, resulting in abnormal motions in the spinal segments affected [30, 87]. This sequence has been documented with both in vitro and in vivo studies of segmental motion characteristics after torsional loads and resultant disc degeneration [88-90].

 

Injury to the facet joints and capsular ligaments has been further confirmed during simulated whiplash traumas [91]. Maximum capsular ligament strains occur during shear forces, such as when a force is applied while the head is rotated (axial rotation). While capsular ligament injury in the upper cervical spinal region can occur from compressive forces alone, exertion from a combination of shear, compression and bending forces is more likely and usually involves much lower loads to cause injury [92]. However, if the head is turned during whiplash trauma, the peak strain on the cervical facet joints and capsular ligaments can increase by 34% [93]. In one study reporting on an automobile rear-impact simulation, the magnitude of the joint capsule strain was 47% to 196% higher in instances when the head was rotated 60� during impact, compared with those when the head was forward facing [94]. The impact was greatest in the ipsilateral facet joints, such that head rotation to the left caused higher ligament strain at the left facet joint capsule.

 

In other simulations, whiplash trauma has been shown to reduce cervical ligament strength (ie, failure force and average energy absorption capacity) compared with controls or computational models [30, 87]; this is especially true in the case of capsular ligaments, since such trauma causes capsular ligament laxity. One study conclusively demonstrated that whiplash injury to the capsular ligaments resulted in an 85% to 275% increase in ligament elongation (ie, laxity) compared to that of controls [30]. The study also reported evidence that tension of the capsular ligaments is requisite for producing pain from the facet joint.

 

Post-Concussion Syndrome

 

Each year in the United States, approximately 1.7 million people are diagnosed with traumatic brain injury (TBI), although many more go undiagnosed because they do not seek out medical care [95]. Of these, approximately 75% – 90% are diagnosed as having a concussion. A concussion is considered a mild TBI and is defined as any transient neurologic dysfunction resulting from a biomechanical force, usually a sudden or forceful blow to the head which may or may not cause a loss of consciousness. Concussion induces a barrage of ionic, metabolic, and physiologic events [96] and manifests in a composite of symptoms affecting a patient�s physical, cognitive, and emotional states, and his or her sleep cycle, any one of which can be fleeting or long-term in duration [97]. The diagnosis of concussion is made by the presence of any one of the following: (1) any loss of consciousness; (2) any loss of memory for events immediately before or after the injury; (3) any alteration in mental status at the time of the accident; (4) focal neurological deficits that may or may not be transient [98].

 

While most individuals recover from a single concussion, up to one-third of those will continue to suffer from residual effects such as headache, neck pain, dizziness and memory problems one year after injury [99]. Such symptoms characterize a disorder known as post-concussion syndrome (PCS) and are much like those of WAD; both disorders are likely due to cervical instability. According to the International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision (ICD-10), the diagnosis of PCS is made when a person has had a head injury sufficient enough to result in loss of consciousness and develops at least three of eight of the following symptoms within four weeks: headache, dizziness, fatigue, irritability, sleep problems, concentration difficulties, memory issues, and problems tolerating stress [100, 101]. Of those treated for PCS who had mild head injury, 80% report having chronic daily headaches; surprisingly, of those with moderate to severe head injury, only 27% reported having chronic daily headaches [102]. The impact of the brain on the skull is believed to be the cause of the symptoms of both concussion and PCS, although the specific mechanisms underlying neural tissue damage are still being investigated.

 

PCS-associated symptoms also overlap with many symptoms common to WAD. This overlap in symptomology may be due to a common etiology of underlying cervical instability that affects the cervical spine near the neck. Data has revealed that over half of patients with damage to the upper cervical spine from whiplash injury had evidence of concurrent head trauma [103]. It was shown that whiplash can cause minor brain injuries similar to that of concussion if it occurs with such rapid neck movement that there is a collision between the brain and skull. Thus, one may conjecture that concussion involves a whiplash-type injury to the neck.

 

Despite unique differences in the biomechanics of concussion and whiplash, both types of trauma involve an acceleration-deceleration of the head and neck. This impact to the head can not only cause injury to the brain and skull, but can also damage surrounding ligaments of the neck since these tissues undergo the same accelerating-decelerating force. The acceleration-deceleration forces which occur during whiplash injury are staggering. Direct head trauma has been shown to produce forces between 10,000 and 15,000 N on the head and between 1,000 and 1,500 N on the neck, depending on the angle at which the object hits the head [104, 105]. Cervical capsular ligaments can become lax with as little as 5 N of force, although most studies report cervical ligament failure at around 100 N [30, 55, 91, 106]. Even low speed rear impact collisions at as little as 7 mph to 8 mph can cause the head to move roughly 18 inches at a force as great as 7 G in less than a quarter of a second [107]. Numerous experimental studies have suggested that certain features of injury mechanisms including direction and degree of acceleration and deceleration, translation and rotation forces, position and posture of head and neck, and even seat construction may be linked to the extent of cervical spine damage and to the actual structures damaged [23, 27, 35, 50, 61].

 

Debate over the veracity of PCS or WAD symptomology has persisted; however, there is no single explanation for the etiology of these disorders, especially since the onset and duration of symptoms can vary greatly among individuals. Many of the symptoms of PCS and WAD tend to increase over time, especially when those affected are engaged in physical or cognitive activity. Chronic neck pain is often described as a long-term result of both concussion and whiplash, indicating that the most likely structures to become injured during these traumas are the capsular ligaments of the cervical facet joints. In light of this, we propose that the best scientific anatomical explanation is cervical instability in the upper cervical spine, resulting from ligament injury (laxity).

 

Vertebrobasilar Insufficiency

 

The occipito-atlanto-axial complex has a unique anatomical relationship with the vertebral arteries. In the lower cervical spine, the vertebral arteries lie in a relatively straight-forward course as they travel through the transverse foramina from C3-C6. However, in the upper cervical spine the arteries assume a more serpentine-like course. The vertebral artery emerges from the transverse process of C2 and sweeps laterally to pass through the transverse foramen of C1 (atlas). From there it passes around the posterior border of the lateral mass of C1, at which point it is farthest from the midline plane at the level of C1 [108, 109]. This pathway creates extra space which allows for normal head rotation without compromising vertebral artery blood flow.

 

Considering the position of the vertebral arteries in the canals of the transverse processes in the cervical vertebrae, it is possible to see how head positioning can alter vertebral arterial flow. Even normal physiological neck movements (ie, neck rotation) have been shown to cause partial occlusion of up to 20% or 30% in at least one vertebral artery [110]. Studies have shown that contralateral neck rotation is associated with vertebral artery blood flow changes, primarily between the atlas and axis; such changes can also occur when osteophytes are present in the cervical spine [111, 112].

 

Proper blood flow in the vertebral arteries is crucial because these arteries travel up to form the basilar artery at the brainstem and provide circulation to the posterior half of the brain. When this blood supply is insufficient, vertebrobasilar insufficiency (VBI) can develop and cause symptoms, such as neck pain, headaches/migraines, dizziness, drop attacks, vertigo, difficulty swallowing and/or speaking, and auditory and visual disturbances. VBI usually occurs in the presence of atherosclerosis or cervical spondylosis, but symptoms can also arise when there is intermittent vertebral artery occlusion induced by extreme rotation or extension of the head [113, 114]. This mechanical compression of the vertebral arteries can occur along with other anomalies, including cervical osteophytes, fibrous bands, and osseous prominences [115, 116] These anomalies were seen in about half of the cases of vertebral artery injury after cervical manipulation, as reported in a recent review [117].

 

Whiplash injury itself has been shown to reduce vertebral artery blood flow and elicit symptoms of VBI [118, 119]. In one study, the authors concluded that patients with persistent vertigo or dizziness after whiplash injury are likely to have VBI if the injury was traumatic enough to cause a circulation disorder in the vertebrobasilar arterial system [118]. Other researchers have surmised that excessive cervical instability, especially of the upper cervical spine, can cause obstruction of the vertebral artery during neck rotation, thus compromising blood flow and triggering symptoms [120-122].

 

Barr�-Li�ou Syndrome

 

A lesser known, yet relatively common, cause of neck pain is Barr�-Li�ou syndrome. In 1925, Jean Alexandre Barr�, and in 1928, Yong Choen Li�ou, each independently described a syndrome presenting with headache, orbital pressure/pain, vertigo, and vasomotor disturbances and proposed that these symptoms were related to alterations in the posterior cervical sympathetic chain and vertebral artery blood flow in patients who had cervical spine arthritis or other arthritic disorders [123, 124]. Barr�-Li�ou syndrome is also referred to as posterior cervical syndrome or posterior cervical sympathetic syndrome because the condition is now presumed to develop more from disruption of the posterior cervical sympathetic nervous system, which consists of the vertebral nerve and the sympathetic nerve network surrounding it. Symptoms include neck pain, headaches, dizziness, vertigo, visual and auditory disturbances, memory and cognitive impairment, and migraines. It has been surmised that cervical arthritis or injury provokes an irritation of both the vertebral and sympathetic nerves. As a result, current treatment now centers on resolution of cervical instability and its effects on the posterior sympathetic nerves [124]. Other research has found an association between the sympathetic symptoms of Barr�-Li�ou and cervical instability and has documented successful outcomes in case reports when the instability was addressed by various means including prolotherapy [125].

 

Symptoms of Barr�-Li�ou syndrome also appear to develop after trauma. In one study, 87% of patients with a diagnosis of Barr�-Li�ou syndrome reported that they began experiencing symptoms after suffering a cervical injury, primarily in the mid-cervical region [126]; in a related study, this same region was found to exhibit more instability than other spinal segments [127] The various symptoms that characterize Barr�-Li�ou syndrome can also mimic symptoms of PCS or WAD, [128] which can pose a challenge for practitioners in making a definitive diagnosis (Fig. ?8). The diagnosis of Barr�-Li�ou syndrome is made on clinical grounds, as there is yet to be a definitive test to document irritation of the sympathetic nervous system.

 

Figure 8 Overlap in Chronic Symptomology

Figure 8: Overlap in chronic symptomology between atlanto-axial instability, whiplash associated disorder, post-concussion syndrome, vertebrobasilar insufficiency, and Barr�-Li�ou syndrome. There is considerable overlap in symptoms amongst these conditions, possibly because they all appear to be due to cervical instability.

 

Other Sources of Cervical Pain

 

Various tensile forces place strains with differing deformations on a variety of viscoelastic spinal structures, including the ligaments, the annulus and nucleus of the intervertebral disc, and the spinal cord. Further to this, cadaver experiments have shown that the spinal cord and the intervertebral disc components carry considerably lower tensile forces than the spinal ligament column [129, 130]. Encapsulated mechanoreceptors and free nerve endings have been identified in the periarticular tissues of all major joints of the body including those in the spine, and in every articular tissue except cartilage [131]. Any innervated structure that has been injured by trauma is a potential chronic pain generator; this includes the intervertebral discs, facet joints, spinal muscles, tendons and ligaments [132-134].

 

The posterior ligamentous structures of the human spine are innervated by four types of nerve endings: pacinian corpuscles, golgi tendon organs, and ruffini and free nerve endings [40]. These receptors monitor joint excursion and capsular tension, and may initiate protective muscular reflexes that prevent joint degeneration and instability, especially when ligaments, such as the anterior and posterior longitudinal, ligamentum flavum, capsular, interspinous and supraspinous, are under too much tension [131, 135]. Collectively, the cervical region of the spinal column is at risk to sustain deformations at all levels and in all components, and when the threshold crosses a particular level at a particular component, injury is imminent owing to the relative increased flexibility or joint laxity.

 

Other Sources of Trauma

 

As described earlier, the nucleus pulposus is designed to sustain compression loads and the annulus fibrosus that surrounds it, to resist tension, shear and torsion. The stress in the annulus fibers is approximately 4-5 times the applied stress in the nucleus [136, 137]. In addition, annulus fibers elongate by up to 9% during torsional loading, but this is still well below the ultimate elongation at failure of over 25% [138]. Pressure within the nucleus is approximately 1.5 times the externally applied load per unit of disc area. As such, the nucleus is relatively incompressible, which causes the intervertebral disc to be susceptible to injury in that it bulges under loads – approximately 1 mm per physiological load [139]. As the disc degenerates on bulging (herniates), it looses elasticity, further compromising its ability to compress. Shock absorption is no longer spread or absorbed evenly by the surrounding annulus, leading to greater shearing, rotation, and traction stress on the disc and adjacent vertebrae. The severity of disc herniation can range from protrusion and bulging of the disc without rupture of the annulus fibrosus to disc extrusion, in which case, the annulus is perforated, leading to tearing of the structure.

 

Dr Jimenez White Coat

Dr. Alex Jimenez’s Insight

“What type of treatment methods can provide effective relief from my chronic neck pain symptoms?”�The symptoms of chronic neck pain can be debilitating and can ultimately affect any individual’s ability to carry on with their everyday activities. While neck pain is a common symptom in a variety of injuries and/or conditions affecting the cervical spine, there are also a number of treatment methods available to help improve neck pain. However, some treatments also address stabilizing the cervical spine as well as healing damaged or injured tissues. Chiropractic care is a well-known alternative treatment option which has been demonstrated to help cure symptoms of neck pain at the source, according to several research studies.

 

Treatment Options

 

There are a number of treatment modalities for the management of chronic neck pain and cervical instability, including injection therapy, nerve blocks, mobilization, manipulation, alternative medicine, behavioral therapy, fusion, and pharmacologic agents such as NSAIDS and opiates. However, these treatments do not address stabilizing the cervical spine or healing ligament injuries, and thus, do not offer long-term curative options. In fact, cortisone injections are known to inhibit, rather than promote healing. As mentioned earlier in this paper, most treatments have shown limited evidence in their efficacy or are inconsistent in their results. In a systematic review of the literature from January 2000 to July 2012 on physical modalities for acute to chronic neck pain, acupuncture, laser therapy, and intermittent traction were found to provide moderate benefits [5].

 

The literature contains many reports on injection therapy for the treatment of chronic neck pain. Cervical interlaminar epidural injections with or without steroids may provide significant improvement in pain and function for patients with cervical disc herniation and radiculitis [140]. As a follow-up to its one-year results, a randomized, double-blind controlled trial found that the clinical effectiveness of therapeutic cervical medial branch blocks with or without steroids in managing chronic neck pain of facet joint origin provided significant improvement over a period of 2 years [141].

 

However, many other studies have had more nebulous results. In a systematic review of therapeutic cervical facet joint interventions, the evidence for both cervical radiofrequency neurotomy and cervical medial branch blocks is fair, and for cervical intra-articular injections with local anesthetic and steroids, the evidence is limited [142]. In a later corresponding systematic review, the same group of authors concluded that the strength of evidence for diagnostic facet joint nerve blocks is good (?75% pain relief), but stated the evidence is limited for dual blocks (50% to 74% pain relief), as well as for single blocks (50% to 74% pain relief) and (?75% pain relief.) [6]. In another systematic review evaluating cervical interlaminar epidural injections, the evidence indicated that the injection therapy showed significant effects in relieving chronic intractable pain of cervical origin; specific to long-term relief the indicated level of evidence was Level II-1 [143].

 

In the case of manipulative therapy, the results of a randomized trial disputed the hypothesis that supervised home exercises, combined or not with manual therapy, can be of benefit in treating non-specific chronic neck pain, as compared to no treatment [7]. The study found that there were no differences in primary or secondary outcomes among the three groups and that no significant change in health-related quality of life was associated with the preventive phase. Participants in the combined intervention group did not have less pain or disability and fared no better functionally than participants from the two other groups during the preventive phase of the trial. Another randomized clinical trial comparing the effects of applying joint mobilization at symptomatic and asymptomatic cervical levels in patients with chronic nonspecific neck pain was inconclusive in that there was no significant difference in pain intensity immediately after treatment between groups during resting position, painful active movement, or vertebral palpation [8]. Massage therapy had similar inconclusive results. Evidence was reported as �not strong� [144] in one randomized trial comparing groups receiving massage treatment for neck pain versus those reading a self-care book, while another found that cupping massage was no more effective than progressive muscle relaxation in reducing chronic non-specific neck pain [9]. Acupuncture appears to have better results in relieving neck pain but leaves questions as to the effects on the autonomic nervous system, suggesting that acupuncture points per se have different physical effects according to location [145].

 

Cervical disc herniation is a major source of chronic neck and spinal pain and is generally treated by either surgery or epidural injections, but their effectiveness continues to be debatable. In a randomized, double-blind, controlled clinical trial assigning patients to treatment with epidural injections with lidocaine or lidocaine mixed with betamethasone, 72% of patients in the local anesthetic group and 68% of patients in the local anesthetic with steroid group had at least a 50% improvement in pain and disability at 2 years, indicating that either protocol may be beneficial in alleviating chronic pain from cervical disc herniation [146].

 

In a systematic review of pharmacological interventions for neck pain, Peloso, et al. [147] reported that, aside from evidence in one study of a small immediate benefit for the psychotropic agent eperison hydrochloride (a muscle relaxant), most studies had low to very low quality methodologic evidence. Furthermore, they found evidence against a long-term benefit for medial branch block of facet joints with steroids and against a short-term benefit for botulinum toxin-A compared to saline, concluding that there is a lack of evidence for most pharmacological interventions.

 

Collectively, these interventions for the treatment of chronic neck pain may each offer temporary relief, but many fall short of a cure. Aside from these conventional treatment options, there are pain medications and pain patches, but their use is controversial because they offer little restorative value and often lead to dependence. If joint instability is the fundamental problem causing chronic neck pain and its associated autonomic symptoms, prolotherapy may be a treatment approach that meets this challenge.

 

Prolotherapy for Cervical Instability

 

To date, there is no consensus on the diagnosis of cervical spine instability or on traditional treatments that relieve chronic neck pain. In such cases, patients often seek out alternative treatments for pain and symptom relief. Prolotherapy is one such treatment which is intended for acute and chronic musculoskeletal injuries, including those causing chronic neck pain related to underlying joint instability and ligament laxity (Fig. ?9).

 

Figure 9 Stress-Strain Curve for Ligaments and Tendons

Figure 9: Stress-strain curve for ligaments and tendons. Ligaments can withstand forces and revert back to their original position up to Point C. At this point, prolotherapy treatment may succeed in tightening the tissue. Once the force continues past Point C. the ligament becomes permanently elongated or stressed.

 

Chronic neck pain and cervical instability are particularly difficult to treat when capsular ligament laxity is the cause because ligament cartilage is notoriously slow in healing due to a lack of blood supply. Most treatment options do not address this specific problem, and therefore, have limited success in providing a long-term cure.

 

Whiplash is a prime example because it often results in ligament laxity. In a five-part series evaluating the strength of evidence supporting WAD therapies, Teasell, et al. [10, 148-151] report that there is insufficient evidence to support any treatment for subacute WAD, stating that radiofrequency neurotomy may be the most effective treatment for chronic WAD. Furthermore, they state that immobilization with a soft collar is ineffective to the point of impeding recovery, saying that activation-based therapy is recommended instead, a conclusion similar to that of Hauser et al. [40] For chronic WAD, exercise programs were the most effective noninvasive treatment and radiofrequency neurotomy, the most effective of surgical or injection-based interventions, although evidence was not strong enough to establish the efficacy of any one treatment [10].

 

Prolotherapy is referred to as a regenerative injection technique (RIT) because it is based on the premise that the regenerative/reparative healing process consists of three overlapping phases: inflammatory, proliferative with granulation, and remodeling with contraction (Fig. ?10) [152]. The prolotherapy technique involves injecting an irritating solution (usually a dextrose/sugar solution) at painful ligament and tendon attachment sites to produce a mild inflammatory response. Such a response initiates a healing cascade that duplicates the natural healing process of poorly vascularized tissue (ligaments, tendons, and cartilage) [40, 153]. In doing so, tensile strength, elasticity, mass and load-bearing capacity of collagenous connective tissues become increased [152]. This occurs because the increased glucose concentration causes increases in cell protein synthesis, DNA synthesis, cell volume, and proliferation, all of which stimulate ligament size and mass and ligament-bone junction strength, as well as the production of growth factors, which are essential for ligament repair and growth [154].

 

Figure 10 The Biology of Prolotherapy

Figure 10: The biology of prolotherapy.

 

While the most studied type of prolotherapy is the Hackett-Hemwall procedure which uses dextrose as the proliferant, there are multiple other choices that are suitable, such as polidocanol, manganese, human growth hormone, and zinc. In addition to the Hackett-Hemwall procedure, there is another procedure called cellular prolotherapy, which involves the use of a patient�s own cells from blood, bone marrow, or adipose tissue as the proliferant to generate healing.

 

It is important to note that prolotherapy not only involves the treatment of joints, but also the associated tendon and ligament attachments surrounding them; hence, it is a comprehensive and highly effective means of wound healing and pain resolution. The Hackett-Hemwall prolotherapy technique was developed in the 1950s and is being transitioned into mainstream medicine due to an increasing number of studies reporting positive outcomes [155-158].

 

Prolotherapy has a long history of being used for whiplash-type soft tissue injuries of the neck. In separate studies, Hackett and his colleagues early on had remarkably successful outcomes in treating ligament injuries; more than 85% of patients with cervical ligament injury-related symptoms, including those with headache or WAD, reported they had minor to no residual pain or related symptoms after prolotherapy [125, 159, 160]. Similar favorable outcomes for resolving neck pain were reported recently by Hauser, et al. [161]. Hooper, et al. also reported on a case series [162] in which patients with whiplash received intra-articular injections (prolotherapy) into each zygapophysial (facet)

 

joint and attained consistently improved scores in the Neck Disability Index (NDI) at 2, 6 and 12 months post treatment; average change in Neck Disability Index (NDI) was significant (13.77; p < 0.001) at baseline versus 12 months. Specific to cervical instability, Centeno, et al. [163] performed fluoro-scopically guided prolotherapy and reported that stabilization of the cervical spine with prolotherapy correlated with symptom relief, as depicted in blinded pre and post radiographic readings. Prolotherapy has also been found effective for other ligament injuries, including the lower back, [164-166] knee, [167-169] and other peripheral joints, [170-172] as well as congenital systemic ligament laxity conditions [173].

 

Evidence that prolotherapy induces the repair of ligaments and other soft tissue structures has been reported in both animal and human studies. Animal research conducted by Hackett [174] demonstrated that proliferation and strengthening of tendons occurred, while Liu and associates [175] found that prolotherapy injections to rabbit ligaments increased ligamentous mass (44%), thickness (27%), as well as ligament-bone junction strength (28%) over a six-week period. In a study on human subjects, Klein et al. [176] used electron microscopy and found an average increase in ligament diameter from 0.055 �m to 0.087 �m after prolotherapy, as shown in biopsies of posterior sacroi-liac ligaments. They also found a linear ligament orientation similar to what is found in normal ligaments. In a case study, Auburn, et al. [177] documented a 27% increase in iliolum-bar ligament size after prolotherapy, via ultrasound.

 

Studies have also been published on the use of prolotherapy for resolving chronic pain, [152, 178, 179] as well as for conditions specifically related to joint instability in the cervical spine [163, 180] In our own pain clinic, we have used prolotherapy successfully on patients who had chronic pain in the shoulder, elbow, low back, hip, and knee [181-186].

 

Conclusion

 

The capsular ligaments are the main stabilizing structures of the facet joints in the cervical spine and have been implicated as a major source of chronic neck pain. Such pain often reflects a state of instability in the cervical spine and is a symptom common to a number of conditions such as disc herniation, cervical spondylosis, whiplash injury and whiplash associated disorder, postconcussion syndrome, vertebrobasilar insufficiency, and Barr�-Li�ou syndrome.

 

When the capsular ligaments are injured, they become elongated and exhibit laxity, which causes excessive movement of the cervical vertebrae. In the upper cervical spine (C0-C2), this can cause symptoms such as nerve irritation and vertebrobasilar insufficiency with associated vertigo, tinnitus, dizziness, facial pain, arm pain, and migraine headaches. In the lower cervical spine (C3-C7), this can cause muscle spasms, crepitation, and/or paresthesia in addition to chronic neck pain. In either case, the presence of excessive motion between two adjacent cervical vertebrae and these associated symptoms is described as cervical instability.

 

Therefore, we propose that in many cases of chronic neck pain, the cause may be underlying joint instability due to capsular ligament laxity. Furthermore, we contend that the use of comprehensive Hackett-Hemwall prolotherapy appears to be an effective treatment for chronic neck pain and cervical instability, especially when due to ligament laxity. The technique is safe and relatively non-invasive as well as efficacious in relieving chronic neck pain and its associated symptoms. Additional randomized clinical trials and more research into its use will be needed to verify its potential to reverse ligament laxity and correct the attendant cervical instability.

 

Dr. Jimenez works on patient's back

 

Acknowledgements

 

Declared none.

 

Conflict of Interest

 

Ms. Woldin and Ms. Sawyer have nothing to declare. Dr. Hauser and Ms. Steilen declare that they perform prolotherapy at Caring Medical Rehabilitation Services.

 

Dr Jimenez White Coat

Dr. Alex Jimenez’s Insight

“I was diagnosed with a whiplash-associated disorder after reporting chronic neck pain symptoms following an automobile accident. What form of care can help me manage the persistent symptoms?”�In order to manage chronic neck pain symptoms, not only is it essential for you to seek immediate medical attention from the proper healthcare professional, its also important to understand the mechanism of injury behind your persistent symptoms. Tendons, ligaments and other structures surrounding the cervical spine, such as the facet joints, can become damaged or injured during an auto accident and their care must be consistent to achieve overall recovery. Many healthcare professionals can provide patients with individualized guidelines on the management of their whiplash-associated disorders and chronic neck pain.

 

Facet Joint Kinematics and Injury Mechanisms During Simulated Whiplash

 

Abstract

 

Study Design: Facet joint kinematics and capsular ligament strains were evaluated during simulated whiplash of whole cervical spine specimens with muscle force replication.

 

Objectives: To describe facet joint kinematics, including facet joint compression and facet joint sliding, and quantify peak capsular ligament strain during simulated whiplash.

 

Summary of Background Data: Clinical studies have implicated the facet joint as a source of chronic neck pain in whiplash patients. Prior in vivo and in vitro biomechanical studies have evaluated facet joint compression and excessive capsular ligament strain as potential injury mechanisms. No study has comprehensively evaluated facet joint compression, facet joint sliding, and capsular ligament strain at all cervical levels during multiple whiplash simulation accelerations.

 

Methods: The whole cervical spine specimens with muscle force replication model and a bench-top trauma sled were used in an incremental trauma protocol to simulate whiplash of increasing severity. Peak facet joint compression (displacement of the upper facet surface towards the lower facet surface), facet joint sliding (displacement of the upper facet surface along the lower facet surface), and capsular ligament strains were calculated and compared to the physiologic limits determined during intact flexibility testing.

 

Results: Peak facet joint compression was greatest at C4-C5, reaching a maximum of 2.6 mm during the 5 g simulation. Increases over physiologic limits (P < 0.05) were initially observed during the 3.5 g simulation. In general, peak facet joint sliding and capsular ligament strains were largest in the lower cervical spine and increased with impact acceleration. Capsular ligament strain reached a maximum of 39.9% at C6-C7 during the 8 g simulation.

 

Conclusions: Facet joint components may be at risk for injury due to facet joint compression during rear-impact accelerations of 3.5 g and above. Capsular ligaments are at risk for injury at higher accelerations.

 

The Treatment of Neck Pain-Associated Disorders and Whiplash-Associated Disorders: A Clinical Practice Guideline

 

Abstract

 

Objective: The objective was to develop a clinical practice guideline on the management of neck pain-associated disorders (NADs) and whiplash-associated disorders (WADs). This guideline replaces 2 prior chiropractic guidelines on NADs and WADs.

 

Methods: Pertinent systematic reviews on 6 topic areas (education, multimodal care, exercise, work disability, manual therapy, passive modalities) were assessed using A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) and data extracted from admissible randomized controlled trials. We incorporated risk of bias scores in the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation. Evidence profiles were used to summarize judgments of the evidence quality, detail relative and absolute effects, and link recommendations to the supporting evidence. The guideline panel considered the balance of desirable and undesirable consequences. Consensus was achieved using a modified Delphi. The guideline was peer reviewed by a 10-member multidisciplinary (medical and chiropractic) external committee.

 

Results: For recent-onset (0-3 months) neck pain, we suggest offering multimodal care; manipulation or mobilization; range-of-motion home exercise, or multimodal manual therapy (for grades I-II NAD); supervised graded strengthening exercise (grade III NAD); and multimodal care (grade III WAD). For persistent (>3 months) neck pain, we suggest offering multimodal care or stress self-management; manipulation with soft tissue therapy; high-dose massage; supervised group exercise; supervised yoga; supervised strengthening exercises or home exercises (grades I-II NAD); multimodal care or practitioner’s advice (grades I-III NAD); and supervised exercise with advice or advice alone (grades I-II WAD). For workers with persistent neck and shoulder pain, evidence supports mixed supervised and unsupervised high-intensity strength training or advice alone (grades I-III NAD).

 

Conclusions:�A multimodal approach including manual therapy, self-management advice, and exercise is an effective treatment strategy for both recent-onset and persistent neck pain.

 

Copyright � 2016. Published by Elsevier Inc.

 

Keywords: Chiropractic; Disease Management; Musculoskeletal Disorders; Neck Pain; Practice Guideline; Therapeutic Intervention; Whiplash Injuries

 

In conclusion, chronic neck pain, particularly that resulting from whiplash-associated disorders, can be treated using treatment methods which focus on the rehabilitation of the complex structures surrounding the cervical spine. Furthermore, by understanding chronic neck pain as it relates to cervical instability as well as its impact on capsular ligament laxity, patients can seek the proper treatment for their type of chronic neck pain, including whiplash. Information referenced from the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI). The scope of our information is limited to chiropractic as well as to spinal injuries and conditions. To discuss the subject matter, please feel free to ask Dr. Jimenez or contact us at 915-850-0900 .

 

Curated by Dr. Alex Jimenez

 

Green-Call-Now-Button-24H-150x150-2-3.png

 

Additional Topics: Neck Pain

 

Neck pain is a common complaint which can result due to a variety of injuries and/or conditions. According to statistics, automobile accident injuries and whiplash injuries are some of the most prevalent causes for neck pain among the general population. During an auto accident, the sudden impact from the incident can cause the head and neck to jolt abruptly back-and-forth in any direction, damaging the complex structures surrounding the cervical spine. Trauma to the tendons and ligaments, as well as that of other tissues in the neck, can cause neck pain and radiating symptoms throughout the human body.

 

blog picture of cartoon paperboy big news

 

IMPORTANT TOPIC: EXTRA EXTRA: A Healthier You!

 

 

Blank
References
1. Childs J, Cleland J, Elliott J , et al. Neck pain clinical practice guidelines linked to the international classification of functioning, disability, and health from the orthopaedic section of the American Physical Therapy Association. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2008;38(9): A1�34. [PubMed]
2. C�t� P, Cassidy JD, Carroll LJ, Kristman V. The annual incidence and course of neck pain in the general population a population based cohort study. Pain. 2004;112(3): 267�73. [PubMed]
3. Hogg-Johnson S, van der Velde G, Carroll LJ , et al. The burden and determinants of neck pain in the general population. Eur Spine J. 2008;17(Suppl 1 ): 39�51.
4. Childs JD, Fritz JM, Flynn TW , et al. A clinical prediction rule to identify patients with low back pain most likely to benefit from spinal manipulation a validation study. Ann Intern Med. 2004;141(12): 920�8. [PubMed]
5. Graham N, Gross AR, Carlesso LC , et al. ICON. An ICON overview on physical modalities for neck pain and associated disorders. Open Orthop J. 2013;7(Suppl 4 ): 440�60. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
6. Onyewu O, Manchikanti L, Falco FJE , et al. An update of the appraisal of the accuracy and utility of cervical discography in chronic neck pain. Pain Physician. 2012;15: E777�806. [PubMed]
7. Martel J, Dugas C, Dubois JD, Descarreaux M. A randomised controlled trial of preventive spinal manipulation with and without a home exercise program for patients with chronic neck pain. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2011;12: 41. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
8. Aquino RL, Caires PM, Furtado FC, Loureiro AV, Ferreira PH, Ferreira ML. Applying joint mobilization at different cervical vertebral levels does not influence immediate pain reduction in patients with chronic neck pain a randomized clinical trial. J Manual Manipulative Ther. 2009;17(2): 95�100. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
9. Lauche R, Materdey S, Cramer H , et al. Effectiveness of home-based cupping massage compared to progressive muscle relaxation in patients with chronic neck pain-a randomized controlled trial. PLoS ONE. 2013;8(6): e65378. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
10. Teasell RW, McClure JA, Walton D , et al. A research synthesis of therapeutic interventions for whiplash-associated disorder (WAD): part 1 – overview and summary. Pain Res Manage. 2010;15(5): 287�94. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
11. Murphy DR, Hurwitz EL. Application of a diagnosis-based clinical decision guide in patients with neck pain. Chiropr Manual Ther. 2011;19: 19. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
12. Suzuki F, Fukami T, Tsuji A, Takagi K, Matsuda M. Discrepancies of MRI findings between recumbent and upright positions in atlantoaxial lesion. Report of two cases. Eur Spine J. 2008;17(Suppl 2 ): S304�7. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
13. R�ijezon U, Djupsj�backa M, Bj�rklund M, H�ger-Ross C, Grip H, Liebermann DG. Kinematics of fast cervical rotations in persons with chronic neck pain a cross-sectional and reliability study. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2010;11: 22. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
14. Gelalis ID, Christoforou G, Arnaoutoglou CM, Politis AN, Manoudis G, Xenakis TA. Misdiagnosed bilateral C5-C6 dislocation causing cervical spine instability a case report. Cases J. 2009;2: 6149. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
15. Taylor M, Hipp JA, Gertzbein SD, Gopinath S, Reitman CA. Observer agreement in assessing flexion-extension X-rays of the cervical spine, with and without the use of quantitative measurements of intervertebral motion. Spine J. 2007;7(6): 654�8. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
16. Windsor RE. Cervical spine anatomy. http: //emedicine.medscape. com/article/1948797-overview#a30 [Accessed April 14. 2014.
17. Driscoll DR. Anatomical and biomechanical characteristics of upper cervical ligamentous structures a review. J Manipulative and Physiol Ther. 1987;10(3): 107�10. [PubMed]
18. Cusick JF, Yoganandan N. Biomechanics of the cervical spine part 4: major injuries. Clin Biomech. 2002;17(1): 1�20. [PubMed]
19. Nachemson A. The influence of spinal movements of the lumbar intradiscal pressure on the tensile stresses in the annulus fibrosus. Acta Orthop Scan. 1963;33: 183�207. [PubMed]
20. Zak M, Pezowicz C. Spinal sections and regional variations in the mechanical properties of the annulus fibrosus subjected to tensile loading. Acta Bioeng Biomech. 2013;15(1): 51�9. [PubMed]
21. Mercer S, Bogduk N. The ligaments and annulus fibrosus of human adult cervical intervertebral discs. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1999;24(7): 619�28. [PubMed]
22. Kuri J, Stapleton E. The spine at trial practical medicolegal concepts about the spine. http: //books.google.com/books?id=Gi6w jdftC7cC&pg=PA12&lpg=PA12&dq=cervical+spine+transverse+processes&source=bl&ots=tboGEQAnuB&sig=Vi4bIDA24bLxGWWEivgAmmlETFo&hl=en&sa=X&ei=YETZUteXHMTAyAGNkICIBQ&ved=0CDYQ6AEwAjgK#v=onepage&q=cervical%20spine%20transverse%20processes&f=false [Accessed April 14. 2014.
23. Jaumard N, Welch WC, Winkelstein BA. Spinal facet joint biomechanics and mechanotransduction in normal, injury, and degenerative conditions. J Biomech Eng. 2011;133(7): 071010. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
24. Volle E. Functional magnetic resonance imaging video diagnosis of soft-tissue trauma to the craniocervical joints and ligaments. Int Tinnitus J. 2000;6(2): 134�9. [PubMed]
25. Pal GP, Routal RV, Saggu KG. The orientation of the articular facets of the zygapophyseal joints at the cervical and upper thoracic region. J Anat. 2001;198(Pt 4): 431�41. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
26. Quinn KP, Lee KE, Ahaghotu CC, Winkelstein BA. Structural changes in the cervical facet capsular ligament potential contributions to pain following subfailure loading. Stapp Car Crash J. 2007;51: 169�87. [PubMed]
27. Panjabi MM, Bibu K, Cholewicki J. Whiplash injuries and the potential for mechanical instability. Eur Spine J. 1998;7: 484�92. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
28. Zdeblick TA, Abitbol JJ, Kunz DN, McCabe RP, Garfin S. Cervical stability after sequential capsule resection. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1993;18: 2005�8. [PubMed]
29. Rasoulinejad P, McLachlin SD, Bailey SI, Gurr KR, Bailey CS, Dunning CE. The importance of the posterior osteoligamentous complex to subaxial cervical spine stability in relation to a unilateral facet injury. Spine J. 2012;12(7): 590�5. [PubMed]
30. Ivancic PC, Coe MP, Ndu AB , et al. Dynamic mechanical properties of intact human cervical spine ligaments. Spine J. 2007;7(6): 659�65. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
31. DeVries NA, Gandhi AA, Fredericks DC, Grosland NM, Smucker JD. Biomechanical analysis of the intact and destabilized sheep cervical spine. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2012;37(16): E957�63. [PubMed]
32. Crisco JJ, 3rd, Oda T, Panjabi MM, Bueff HU, Dvor�k J, Grob D. Transections of the C1-C2 joint capsular ligaments in the cadaveric spine. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1991;16: S474�9. [PubMed]
33. Nadeau M, McLachlin SD, Bailey SI, Gurr KR, Dunning CE, Bailey CS. A biomechanical assessment of soft-tissue damage in the cervical spine following a unilateral facet injury. J Bone Joint Surg. 2012;94(21): e156. [PubMed]
34. Frank CB. Ligament structure, physiology, and function. J Musculoskelet Neuronal Interact. 2004;4(2): 199�201. [PubMed]
35. Chen HB, Yang KH, Wang ZG. Biomechanics of whiplash injury. Chin J Traumatol. 2009;12(5): 305�14. [PubMed]
36. Boswell MV, Colson JD, Sehgal N, Dunbar EE, Epter R. A systematic review of therapeutic facet joint interventions in chronic spinal pain. Pain Physician. 2007;10(1): 229�53. [PubMed]
37. Aprill C, Bogduk N. The prevalence of cervical zygapophyseal joint pain a first approximation. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1992;17: 744�7. [PubMed]
38. Barnsley L, Lord SM, Wallis BJ, Bogduk N. The prevalence of cervical zygapophaseal joint pain after whiplash. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1995;20: 20�5. [PubMed]
39. McLain RF. Mechanoreceptor endings in human cervical facet joints. Iowa Orthop J. 1993;13: 149�54. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
40. Hauser RA, Dolan EE, Phillips HJ, Newlin AC, Moore RE Woldin BA. Ligament injury and healing a review of current clinical diagnostics and therapeutics. Open Rehabil J. 2013;6: 1�20.
41. Bergmann TF, Peterson DH. Chiropractic technique principles and procedures, 3rd ed. New York Mobby Inc. 1993
42. J�nsson H , Jr, Bring G, Rauschning W, Sahlstedt B. Hidden cervical spine injuries in traffic accident victims with skull fractures. J Spinal Disord. 1991;4(3): 251�63. [PubMed]
43. van Mameren H, Drukker J, Sanches H, Beursgens J. Cervical spine motion in the sagittal plane (I) range of motion of actually performed movements, an x-ray cinematographic study. Eur J Morphol. 1990;28(1): 47�68. [PubMed]
44. van Mameren H, Sanches H, Beursgens J, Drukker J. Cervical spine motion in the sagittal plane II positions of segmental averaged instantaneous centers of rotation-a cineradiographic study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1992;17(5): 467�74. [PubMed]
45. Bogduk N, Mercer S. Biomechanics of the cervical spine 1: normal kinematics. Clin Biomech. 2000;15(9): 633�48. [PubMed]
46. Radcliff K, Kepler C, Reitman C, Harrop J, Vaccaro A. CT and MRI-based diagnosis of craniocervical dislocations the role of the occipitoatlantal ligament. Clin Orthop Rel Res. 2012;70(6): 1602�13. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
47. Hino H, Abumi K, Kanayama M, Kaneda K. Dynamic motion analysis of normal and unstable cervical spines using cineradiography.an in vivo study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1999;24(2): 163�8. [PubMed]
48. Dvorak J, Penning L, Hayek J, Panjabi MM, Grob D, Zehnder R. Functional diagnostics of the cervical spine using computer tomography. Neuroradiology. 1988;30: 132�7. [PubMed]
49. Antinnes J, Dvorak J, Hayek J, Panjabi MM, Grob D. The value of functional computed tomography in the evaluation of soft-tissue injury in the upper cervical spine. Eur Spine J. 1994;3: 98�101. [PubMed]
50. Wilberger JE, Maroon JC. Occult posttraumatic cervical ligamentous instability. J Spinal Disord. 1990;(2): 156�61. [PubMed]
51. Levine A, Edwards CC. Traumatic lesions of the occipitoatlantoaxial complex. Clin Orthop Rel Res. 1989;239: 53�68. [PubMed]
52. Chang H, Gilbertson LG, Goel VK, Winterbottom JM, Clark CR, Patwardhan A. Dynamic response of the occipito-atlanto-axial (C0-C1-C2):complex in right axial rotation. J Orthop Res. 1992;10(3): 446�53. [PubMed]
53. Goel VK, Winterbottom JM, Schulte KR, Chang H , et al. Ligamentous laxity across C0-C1-C2 complex.Axial torque-rotation characteristics until failure. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1990;5(10): 990�6. [PubMed]
54. Goel VK, Clark CR, Gallaes K, Liu YK. Moment-rotation relationships of the ligamentous occipito-atlanto-axial complex. J Biomech. 1988;21(8): 673�80. [PubMed]
55. Quinn KP, Winkelstein BA. Cervical facet capsular ligament yield defines the threshold for injury and persistent joint-mediated neck pain. J Biomech. 2007;40(10): 2299�306. [PubMed]
56. Winkelstein BA, Santos DG. An intact facet capsular ligament modulates behavioral sensitivity and spinal glial activation produced by cervical facet joint tension. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2008;33(8): 856�62. [PubMed]
57. Stemper BD, Yoganandan N, Pintar FA. Effects of abnormal posture on capsular ligament elongations in a computational model subjected to whiplash loading. J Biomech Eng. 2005;38(6): 1313�23. [PubMed]
58. Ivancic PC, Ito S, Tominaga Y , et al. Whiplash causes increased laxity of cervical capsular ligament. Clin Biomech. 2008;23(2): 159�65. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
59. IASP Spinal pain, section 1: spinal and radicular pain syndromes. http: //www.iasp-pain.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Classification _of_Chronic_Pain&Template=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=16268. Accessed Nov 25. 2013.
60. Argenson C, Lovet J, Sanouiller JL, de Peretti F. Traumatic rotatory displacement of the lower cervical spine. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1988;3(7): 767�73. [PubMed]
61. Tominaga Y, Maak TG, Ivancic PC, Panjabi MM, Cunningham BW. Head-turned rear impact causing dynamic cervical intervertebral foraminal narrowing implications for ganglion and nerve root injury. J Neurosurg Spine. 2006;4: 380�7. [PubMed]
62. Caridi JM, Pumberger M, Hughes AP. Cervical radiculopathy a review. HSS J. 2011;7(3): 265�72. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
63. Kirkaldy-Willis HF, Farfan HF. Instability of the lumbar spine. Clin Orthop Rel Res. 1982;(165): 110�23. [PubMed]
64. Voorhies RM. Cervical spondylosis recognition, differential diagnosis, and management. Ochsner J. 2001;3(2): 78�84. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
65. Binder AI. Cervical spondylosis and neck pain. BMJ. 2007;334: 527�31. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
66. Aker PD, Gross AR, Goldsmith CH, Peloso P. Conservative management of mechanical neck pain systematic overview and meta-analysis. BMJ. 1996;313: 1291�6. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
67. McCormack BM, Weinstein PR. Cervical spondylosis an update. West J Med. 1996;165: 43�51. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
68. Peng BG, Hou SX, Shi Q, Jia LS. The relationship between cartilage end-plate calcification and disc degeneration an experimental study. Chin Med J. 2001;114: 308�12. [PubMed]
69. Mauro A, Eisenstein SM, Little C , et al. Are animal models useful for studying human disc disorders/degeneration?. Eur Spine J. 2008;17: 2�19. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
70. Oxland TR, Panjabi MM, Southern EP, Duranceau JS. An anatomic basis for spinal instability a porcine trauma model. J Orthop Res. 1991;9(3): 452�62. [PubMed]
71. Wang JY, Shi Q, Lu WW , et al. Cervical intervertebral disc degeneration induced by unbalanced dynamic and static forces a novel in vivo rat model. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2006;Jun 15; 31: 1532�38. [PubMed]
72. Schulte K, Clark CR, Goel VK. Kinematics of the cervical spine following discectomy and stabilization. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1989;(10): 1116�21. [PubMed]
73. Kelly MP, Mok JM, Frisch RF, Tay BK. Adjacent segment motion after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion versus prodisc-c cervical total disk arthroplasty analysis from a randomized, controlled trial. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2011; 36(15): 1171�9. [PubMed]
74. Bydon M, Xu R, Macki M , et al. Adjacent segment disease after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion in a large series. Neurosurgery. 2014;74: 139�46. [PubMed]
75. Song JS, Choi BW, Song KJ. Risk factors for the development of adjacent segment disease following anterior cervical arthrodesis for degenerative cervical disease comparison between fusion methods. J Clin Neurosci. 2014;21(5): 794�8. [PubMed]
76. Johansson BH. Whiplash injuries can be visible by functional magnetic resonance imaging. Pain Res Manage. 2006;11(3): 197�9. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
77. Swinkels RA, Oostendorp RA. Upper cervical instability fact or fiction. J Manip Physiol Ther. 1996;19(3): 185�94. [PubMed]
78. Barnsley L, Lord S, Bogduk N. Whiplash injury. Pain. 1994;58: 283�307. [PubMed]
79. Spitzer WO, Skovron ML, Salmi LR , et al. Scientific monograph of the Quebec task force on whiplash-associated disorders redefining “whiplash” and its management. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1995;20(8) Suppl : 1S�73. [PubMed]
80. Kaale BR, Krakenes J, Albrektsen G, Wester K. Head position and impact direction in whiplash injuries associations with MRI-verified lesions of ligaments and membranes in the upper cervical spine. J Neurotrauma. 2005;22(11): 1294�302. [PubMed]
81. Falco FJ, Erhart S, Wargo BW , et al. Systematic review of diagnostic utility and therapeutic effectiveness of cervical facet joint interventions. Pain Physician. 2009;12(2): 323�44. [PubMed]
82. Winkelstein BA, Nightingale RW, Richardson WJ, Myers BS, editors. Proceedings of the 43rd Stapp Car Crash Conference. Saniego CA.: 1999. Cervical facet joint mechanics its application to whiplash injury.
83. Lee DJ, Winkelstein BA. The failure response of the human cervical facet capsular ligament during facet joint retraction. J Biomech. 2012;45(14): 2325�9. [PubMed]
84. Bogduk N, Yoganandan N. Biomechanics of the cervical spine part 3: minor injuries. Clin Biomech. 2001;16(4): 267�75. [PubMed]
85. Lord SM, Barnsley L, Wallis BJ, Bogduk N. The prevalence of chronic cervical zygapophysial joint pain after whiplash. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1995;20(1): 20�5. [PubMed]
86. Lee KE, Davis MB, Mejilla RM, Winkelstein BA. In vivo cervical facet capsule distraction mechanical implications for whiplash and neck pain. Stapp Car Crash J. 2004;48: 373�95. [PubMed]
87. Tominaga Y, Ndu AB, Coe MP , et al. Neck ligament strength is decreased following whiplash trauma. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2006;7: 103. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
88. Stokes IA, Frymoyer JW. Segmental motion and instability. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1987;7: 688�91. [PubMed]
89. Stokes IA, Iatridis JC. Mechanical conditions that accelerate intervertebral disc degeneration overload versus immobilization. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2004;29: 2724�32. [PubMed]
90. Veres SP, Robertson PA, Broom ND. The influence of torsion on disc herniation when combined with flexion. Eur Spine J. 2010;19: 1468�78. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
91. Winkelstein BA, Nightingale RW, Richardson WJ, Myers BS. The cervical facet capsule and its role in whiplash injury a biomechanical investigation. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000;25(10): 1238�46. [PubMed]
92. Siegmund GP, Myers BS, Davis MB, Bohnet HF, Winkelstein BA. Mechanical evidence of cervical facet capsule injury during whiplash a cadaveric study using combined shear, compression, and extension loading. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2001;26(19): 2095�101. [PubMed]
93. Siegmund GP, Davis MB, Quinn KP , et al. Head-turned postures increase the risk of cervical facet capsule injury during whiplash. Spine (Phila PA 1976). 2008;33(15): 1643�9. [PubMed]
94. Storvik SG, Stemper BD. Axial head rotation increases facet joint capsular ligament strains in automotive rear impact. Med Bio Eng Comput. 2011;49(2): 153�61. [PubMed]
95. Centers for Disease Control Injury prevention & control traumatic brain injury. http: //www.cdc.gov/TraumaticBrainInjury/statistics. html [Accessed March 4. 2014.
96. Centers for Disease Control Concussion.facts for physicians booklet. http: //www.cdc.gov/concussion/HeadsUp/physicians_too l_kit.html [Accessed March 4. 2014.
97. Giza C, Hovda D. The neurometabolic cascade of concussion. J Athl Train. 2001;36: 228�35. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
98. Cuccurullo S, Elovic E, Baerga E, Cuccurullo S, editors. Demos Medical Publishing: New York; 2004. Mild traumatic brain injury and postconcussive syndrome Physical medicine and rehabilitation board review.
99. Leddy J, Sandhu H, Sodhi V, Baker J, Willer B. Rehabilitation of concussion and post-concussion syndrome. Sports Health. 2012;4(2): 147�54. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
100. ICD-10, International statistical classification of diseases and related health problems 10th revision. World Health Organization. [PubMed]
101. Boake C, McCauley SR, Levin HS , et al. Diagnostic criteria for postconcussional syndrome after mild to moderate traumatic brain injury. J Neuropsych Clin Neurosci. 2005;17: 350�6. [PubMed]
102. Couch Jr, Bears C. Chronic daily headache in the posttrauma syndrome relation to extent of head injury. Headache. 2001;41: 559�64. [PubMed]
103. Barkhoudarian G, Hovda DA, Giza CC. The molecular pathophysiology of concussive brain injury. Clin Sports Med. 2011;30: 33�48. [PubMed]
104. Saari A, Dennison CR, Zhu Q , et al. Compressive follower load influences cervical spine kinematics and kinetics during simulated head-first impact in an in vitro model. J Biomech Eng. 2013;135(11): 111003. [PubMed]
105. Zhou S-W, Guo L-X, Zhang S-Q, Tang C-Y. Study on cervical spine injuries in vehicle side impact. Open Mech Eng J. 2010;4: 29�35.
106. Yoganandan N, Kumaresan S, Pintar FA. Geometric and mechanical properties of human cervical spine ligaments. J Biomech Invest. 2000;122: 623�9. [PubMed]
107. Radanov BP, Sturzenegger M, Distefano G, Schnidrig A, Aljinovic M. Factors influencing recovery from headache after common whiplash. BMJ. 1993;307: 652�5. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
108. Martins J, Pratesi R, Bezerra A. Anatomical relationship between vertebral arteries and cervical vertebrae a computerized tomography study. Int J Morph. 2003;21: 123�9.
109. Cacciola F, Phalke U, Goel A. Vertebral artery in relationship to C1-C2 vertebrae an anatomical study. Neurology India. 2004;52: 178�84. [PubMed]
110. Mitchell JA. Changes in vertebral artery blood flow following normal rotation of the cervical spine. J Manip Physiol Ther. 2003;26: 347�51. [PubMed]
111. Mitchell J. Vertebral artery blood flow velocity changes associated with cervical spine rotation a meta-analysis of the evidence with implications for professional practice. J Man Manip Ther. 2009;17: 46�57. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
112. Haynes M, Hart R, McGeachie J. Vertebral arteries and neck rotation doppler velocimeter interexaminer reliability. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2000;26: 57�62. [PubMed]
113. Kuether TA, Nesbit GM, Clark VM, Barnwell SL. Rotational vertebral artery occlusion a mechanism of vertebrobasilar insufficiency. Neurosurgery. 1997;41: 427�32. [PubMed]
114. Yang PJ, Latack JT, Gabrielsen TO, Knake JE, Gebarski SS, Chandler WF. Rotational vertebral artery occlusion at C1-C2. Am J Neuroradiol. 1985;6: 96�100. [PubMed]
115. Cape RT, Hogan DB. Vertebral-basilar insufficiency. Can Family Physician. 1983;29: 305�8. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
116. Go G, Soon-Hyun H, Park IS, Park H. Rotational vertebral artery compression bow hunter’s syndrome. J Korean Neurosurg Soc. 2013;54: 243�5. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
117. Gordin K, Hauser R. The case for utilizing prolotherapy as a promising stand-alone or adjunctive treatment for over-manipulation syndrome. J Applied Res. 2013;13: 1�28.
118. Endo K, Ichimaru K, Komagata M, Yamamoto K. Cervical vertigo and dizziness after whiplash injury. Eur Spine J. 2006;15: 886�90. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
119. Creighton D, Kondratek M, Krauss J, Huijbregts P, Qu H. Ultrasound analysis of the vertebral artery during non-thrust cervical translatoric spinal manipulation. J Man Manip Ther. 2011;19: 84�90. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
120. Inamasu J, Nakatsukasa M. Rotational vertebral artery occlusion associated with occipitoatlantal assimilation, atlantoaxial subluxation and basilar impression. Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 2013;115: 1520�3. [PubMed]
121. Kim HA, Yi HA, Lee CY, Lee H. Origin of isolated vertigo in rotational vertebral artery syndrome. Neuro Sci. 2011;32: 1203�7. [PubMed]
122. Yacovino DA1, Hain TC. Clinical characteristics of cervicogenic related dizziness and vertigo. Sem Neurol. 2013;33: 244�55. [PubMed]
123. Limousin CA. Foramen arcuale and syndrome of Barr�-Li�ou. Int Orthop. 1980;4(1): 19�23. [PubMed]
124. Pearce J. Barr�-Li�ou �syndrome�. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychol. 2004;75(2): 319. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
125. Hackett GS, Huang TC, Raferty A. Prolotherapy for headache; pain in the head and neck, and neuritis. Headache. 1962:3�11. [PubMed]
126. Tamura T. Cranial symptoms after cervical injury.Aetiology and treatment of the Barr -Li ou syndrome. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1989;71B:282�7. [PubMed]
127. Qian J, Tian Y, Qiu GX, Hu JH. Dynamic radiographic analysis of sympathetic cervical spondylosis instability. Chin Med Sci J. 2009;24: 46�9. [PubMed]
128. Humphreys BK, Peterson C. Comparison of outcomes in neck pain patients with and without dizziness undergoing chiropractic treatment a prospective cohort study with 6 month follow-up. Chiropr Man Ther. 2013;21(1): 3. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
129. Pintar FA, Yoganandan N, Myers T, Elhagediab A, Sances A ., Jr Biomechanical properties of human lumbar spine ligaments. J Biomech. 1992;25: 1351�6. [PubMed]
130. Yoganandan N, Pintar D, Maiman J, Cusick JF, Sances A , Jr, Walsh PR. Human head-neck biomechanics under axial tension. Med Eng Phys. 1996;18: 289�94. [PubMed]
131. Mc Lain R. Mechanoreceptors endings in human cervical facet joints. Iowa Orthop J. 1993;13: 149�54. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
132. Steindler A, Luck J. Differential diagnosis of pain low in the back allocation of the source of pain by the procaine hydrochloride method. JAMA. 1938;110: 106�13.
133. Donelson R, Aprill C, Medcalf R, Grant W. A prospective study of centralization of lumbar and referred pain a predictor of symptomatic discs and anular competence. Diagn Ther. 1997;22: 1115�22. [PubMed]
134. Meleger AL, Krivickas LS. Neck and back pain musculoskeletal disorders. Neurol Clin. 2007;25: 419�38. [PubMed]
135. Silver P. Direct observation of changes in tension in the supraspinous and interspinous ligaments during flexion and extension of the vertebral column in man. J Anat. 1954:550�1.
136. Nachemson A. Lumbar intradiscal pressure.Experimental studies on post-mortem material. Acta Orthop Scand. 1960;43S:1�104. [PubMed]
137. Galante J. Tensile properties of the human lumbar annulus fibrosus. Acta Orthop Scand. 1967;100S:1�91. [PubMed]
138. Stokes IA. Surface strain on human intervertebral discs. J Orthop Res. 1987;5: 348�55. [PubMed]
139. Stokes IA. Bulging of the lumbar intervertebral discs non-contacting measurements of anatomical specimens. J Spinal Disord. 1988;1: 189�93. [PubMed]
140. Manchikanti L, Malla Y, Cash KA, McManus CD, Pampati V. Fluoroscopic cervical interlaminar epidural injections in managing chronic pain of cervical postsurgery syndrome preliminary results of a randomized, double-blind, active control trial. Pain Physician. 2012;15: 13�26. [PubMed]
141. Manchikanti L, Singh V, Falco FJE, Cash KA, Fellows B. Comparative outcomes of a 2-year follow-up of cervical medial branch blocks in management of chronic neck pain a randomized, double-blind controlled trial. Pain Physician. 2010;13: 437�50. [PubMed]
142. Falco FJE, Manchikanti L, Datta S , et al. Systematic review of the therapeutic effectiveness of cervical facet joint interventions an update. Pain Physician. 2012;15: E839�68. [PubMed]
143. Benyamin R, Singh V, Parr AT, Conn A, Diwan S, Abdi S. Systematic review of the effectiveness of cervical epidurals in the management of chronic neck pain. Pain Physician. 2009;12: 137�57. [PubMed]
144. Sherman KJ, Cherkin DC, Hawkes RJ, Miglioretti DL, Deyo RA. Randomized trial of therapeutic massage for chronic neck pain. Clin J Pain. 2009;25(3): 233�8. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
145. Matsubara T, Arai Y-CP, Shiro Y , et al. Comparative effects of acupressure at local and distal acupuncture points on pain conditions and autonomic function in females with chronic neck pain. Evidence-Based Complementary Alternative Med. 2011; 2011: 543921. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
146. Manchikanti L, Cash KA, Pampati V, Wargo BW, Malla Y. A randomized, double-blind, active control trial of fluoroscopic cervical interlaminar epidural injections in chronic pain of cervical disc herniation results of a 2-year follow-up. Pain Physician. 2013;16: 465�78. [PubMed]
147. Peloso PM, Khan M, Gross AR , et al. Pharmacological interventions including medical injections for neck pain an overview as part of the ICON project. Open Orthop J. 2013;7(Suppl 4 M8 ): 473�93. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
148. Teasell RW, McClure JA, Walton D, Pretty J , et al. A research synthesis of therapeutic interventions for whiplash-associated disorder (WAD): part 2 – interventions for acute WAD. Pain Res Manage. 2010;15(5): 295�304. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
149. Teasell RW, McClure JA, Walton D , et al. A research synthesis of therapeutic interventions for whiplash-associated disorder (WAD): part 3 – interventions for subacute WAD. Pain Res Manag. 2010;15(5): 305�12. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
150. Teasell RW, McClure JA, Walton D , et al. A research synthesis of therapeutic interventions for whiplash-associated disorder (WAD): part 4 -noninvasive interventions for chronic WAD. Pain Res Manag. 2010;15(5): 313�22. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
151. Teasell RW, McClure JA, Walton D , et al. A research synthesis of therapeutic interventions for whiplash-associated disorder (WAD): part 5 – surgical and injection-based interventions for chronic WAD. Pain Res Manag. 2010;15(5): 323�34. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
152. Linetsky FS, Manchikanti L. Regenerative injection therapy for axial pain. Tech Reg Anaesh Pain Manag. 2005;9: 40�9.
153. Hackett G, editor. Oak Park IL. 5th ed. 1993. Ligament and tendon relaxation treated by prolotherapy ; pp. 94�6.
154. Goswami A. Prolotherapy. J Pain Palliative Care Pharmacother. 2012;26: 376�8. [PubMed]
155. Hauser RA, Maddela HS, Alderman D , et al. Journal of Prolotherapy international medical editorial board consensus statement on the use of prolotherapy for musculoskeletal pain. J Prolotherapy. 2011;3: 744�6.
156. Kim J. The effect of prolotherapy for osteoarthritis of the knee. J Korean Ac Rehab Med. 2002;26: 445�8.
157. Rabago D, Slattengren A, Zgierska A. Prolotherapy in primary care practice. Primary Care. 2010;37: 65�80. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
158. Distel LM, Best TM. Prolotherapy a clinical review of its role in treating chronic musculoskeletal pain. PMR. 2011;3(6) Suppl1 : S78�81. [PubMed]
159. Hackett G. Prolotherapy in whiplash and low back pain. Postgrad Med. 1960:214�9. [PubMed]
160. Kafetz D. Whiplash injury and other ligamentous headache – its management with prolotherapy. Headache. 1963;3: 21�8. [PubMed]
161. Hauser RA, Hauser MA. Dextrose prolotherapy for unresolved neck pain an observational study of patients with unresolved neck pain who were treated with dextrose prolotherapy at an outpatient charity clinic in rural Illinois. Pract Pain Manage. 2007;10: 56�69.
162. Hooper RA, Frizzell JB, Faris P. Case series on chronic whiplash related neck pain treated with intraarticular zygapophysial joint regeneration injection therapy. Pain Physician. 2007;10: 313�8. [PubMed]
163. Centeno CJ, Elliott J, Elkins WL, Freeman M. Fluoroscopically guided cervical prolotherapy for instability with blinded pre and post radiographic reading. Pain Physician. 2005;8(1): 67�72. [PubMed]
164. Lee J, Lee HG, Jeong CW, Kim CM, Yoon MH. Effects of intraarticular prolotherapy on sacroiliac joint pain. Korean J Pain. 2009:229�33.
165. Cusi M, Saunders J, Hungerford B, Wisbey-Roth T, Lucas P, Wilson S. The use of prolotherapy in the sacroiliac joint. Brit J Sports Med. 2010;44: 100�4. [PubMed]
166. Naeim F, Froetscher L, Hirschberg GG. Treatment of chronic iliolumbar syndrome by infiltration of the iliolumbar ligament. West J Med. 1982;136: 372�4. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
167. Kim J. Effects of prolotherapy on knee joint pain due to ligament laxity. J Korean Pain Soc. 2004;17: 47�5.
168. Reeves K, Hassanein KM. Long-term effects of dextrose prolotherapy for anterior cruciate laxity. Alternative Ther. 2003;9: 58�62. [PubMed]
169. Jo D. Effects of prolotherapy on knee joint pain due to ligament laxity. J Korean Pain Soc. 2004;17: 47�50.
170. Kim S. Effects of prolotherapy on chronic musculoskeletal disease. Korean J Pain. 2002;15: 121�5.
171. Wheaton MT, Jensen N. The ligament injury-osteoarthritis connection the role of prolotherapy in ligament repair and the prevention of osteoarthritis. J Prolotherapy. 2011;3: 790�812.
172. Refai H, Altahhan O, Elsharkawy R. The efficacy of dextrose prolotherapy for temporomandibular joint hypermobility a preliminary prospective, randomized double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2011;69(12): 2962�70. [PubMed]
173. Hauser R, Phillips HJ. Treatment of joint hypermobility syndrome, including Ehlers-Danlos syndrome, with Hackett-Hemwall prolotherapy. J Prolotherapy. 2011;3: 612�29.
174. Hackett G. Joint stabilization an experimental, histologic study with comments on the clinical application in ligament proliferation. Am J Surg. 1955;89: 967�73. [PubMed]
175. Liu Y, Tipton C, Matthes R, Bedford TG, Maynard JA, Walmer HC. An in situ study of the influence of a sclerosing solution in rabbit medial collateral ligaments and its junction strength. Connect Tissue Res. 1983;11: 95�102. [PubMed]
176. Klein R, Dorman T, Johnson C. Proliferant injections for low back pain histologic changes of injected ligaments and objective measurements of lumbar spine mobility before and after treatment. J Neuro Ortho Med Surg. 1989;10: 123�6.
177. Auburn A, Benjamin S, Bechtel R, Matthews S. Increase in cross sectional area of the iliolumbar ligament using prolotherapy agents an ultrasonic case study. J Prolotherapy. 1999;1: 156�62.
178. Linetsky FS, Miguel R, Torres F. Treatment of cervicothoracic pain and cervicogenic headaches with regenerative injection therapy. Curr Pain Headache Rep. 2004;8(1): 41�8. [PubMed]
179. Alderman D. Prolotherapy for knee pain. Pract Pain Manage. 2007;7(6): 70�9.
180. Hooper RA, Yelland M, Fonstad P, Southern D. Prospective case series of litigants and non-litigants with chronic spinal pain treated with dextrose prolotherapy. Int Musculoskelet Med. 2011;33: 15�20.
181. Hauser RA. A retrospective study on Hackett-Hemwall dextrose prolotherapy for chronic shoulder pain at an outpatient charity clinic in rural Illinois. J Prolotherapy. 2009;4: 205�16.
182. Hauser RA, Hauser MA, Holian P. Hackett-Hemwall dextrose prolotherapy for unresolved elbow pain. Pract Pain Manage. 2009:14�26.
183. Hauser RA. Dextrose prolotherapy for unresolved low back pain a retrospective case series study. J Prolotherapy. 2009;3: 145�55.
184. Hauser RA. A retrospective study on Hackett-Hemwall dextrose prolotherapy for chronic hip pain at an outpatient charity clinic in rural Illinois. J Prolotherapy. 2009;(2): 76�88.
185. Hauser RA. A retrospective study on dextrose prolotherapy for unresolved knee pain at an outpatient charity clinic in rural Illinois. J Prolotherapy. 2009;(1): 11�21.
186. Hauser R, Woldin B. Treating osteoarthritic joints using dextrose prolotherapy and direct bone marrow aspirate injection therapy. Open Arthritis J. 2014;7: 1�9.
Close Accordion
Tendinitis vs Tendinosis | Chronic Pain

Tendinitis vs Tendinosis | Chronic Pain

My doctor told me I have tendinosis, I’ve heard of tendinitis, what is the difference?

Dr. Jimenez considers this dilemma of similar words that cause confusion to patients. Below is an explanation of clinical presentations and anatomical disorders that shed light on the similarities and differences between tendinosis and tendinitis.

Tendons are the tough, white, cords that connect muscles to bones, and are the least elastic of the collagen-based soft tissues (LIGAMENTS, MUSCLES & FASCIA) I work with on a day-to-day basis. How common are tendon problems? Government statistics tell us that overuse injuries of tendons are a leading reason for doctor visits. And although most of these tendon problems are referred to generically as tendinitis, in the vast majority of cases, tendinitis is actually an incorrect and outdated term.

Over the past decade, medical research has conclusively shown that the major cause of tendinopathies is not inflammation (aka “itis”), which even a decade ago was nothing new. For decades, the scientific community has been concluding that wile the immune system mediators we collectively refer to as “INFLAMMATION” are probably present in tendinopathies; inflammation itself is rarely the cause. So, if inflammation is not the primary cause of most tendon problems, what is? Follow along as I show you from peer-review, that since the early 1980’s, research has shown the primary culprit in most tendinopathies is something called “osis”. Thus the name, “tendon � osis” (tendinosis). But what the heck is osis?

The suffix “osis” indicates that there is a derangement and subsequent deterioration of the collagen fibers that make up the tendon. The truth is, even though doctors still use the term “tendinitis” with their patients, their AMA-mandated Diagnosis Codes almost always indicates the problem is “tendinosis” or “tendinopathy” (HERE). Is this differentiation between tendinitis and tendinosis really that important, or am I splitting hairs and making a big deal out of nothing — making a mountain out of a molehill, semantically speaking? Instead of answering that question myself, I will let two of the world�s preeminent tendon researchers — renowned orthopedic surgeons — answer it for me.

“Tendinosis, sometimes called tendinitis, or tendinopathy, is damage to a tendon at a cellular level (the suffix �osis� implies a pathology of chronic degeneration without inflammation). It is thought to be caused by micro-tears in the connective tissue in and around the tendon, leading to an increased number of tendon repair cells. This may lead to reduced tensile strength, thus increasing the chance of repetitive injury or even tendon rupture. Tendinosis is often misdiagnosed as tendinitis due to the limited understanding of tendinopathies by the medical community.” Tendon researcher and orthopedic surgeon, Dr. GA Murrell from a piece called, �Understanding Tendinopathies� in the December 2002 issue of The British Journal of Sports Medicine.

“Tendinitis such as that of the Achilles, lateral elbow, and rotator cuff tendons is a common presentation to family practitioners and various medical specialists.1 Most currently practicing general practitioners were taught, and many still believe, that patients who present with overuse tendinitis have a largely inflammatory condition and will benefit from anti-inflammatory medication. Unfortunately this dogma is deeply entrenched. Ten of 11 readily available sports medicine texts specifically recommend non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for treating painful conditions like Achilles and patellar tendinitis despite the lack of a biological rationale or clinical evidence for this approach. Instead of adhering to the myths above, physicians should acknowledge that painful overuse tendon conditions have a non-inflammatory pathology.” Karim Khan, MD, PhD, FACSP, FACSM, and his group of researchers at the Department of Family Medicine & School of Human Kinetics at the University of British Columbia, from the March 2002 edition of the BMJ (British Medical Journal).

The information in the preceding paragraphs (which was not new when they were published over a decade and a half ago) is so important as to be considered revolutionary for those of you who have spent time on the MEDICAL MERRY-GO-ROUND with tendon problems. Why? Because, as stated by Dr. Murrell above, most medical professionals have, “a limited understanding of tendinopathies”. Why is this? Why do more doctors not grasp what is going on with the majority of Tendinopathies? Why does such a big portion of the medical community continue to ignore their own profession�s scientific conclusions, while continuing to treat tendinopathies with drugs and surgery? Of course there’s always the issue of money. There is also the fact that if you have tendon problems, you are probably being treated using a model that is at least 25-30 years behind the times as far as the medical research is concerned (HERE). If you think I’m being harsh, read what Dr. Warren Hammer, a board certified Chiropractic Orthopedist in practice since the late 1950?s, had to say about Tendinosis in a 1992 issue of Dynamic Chiropractic.

“The American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons has provided a new classification of tendon injuries�. In the microtraumatic tendon injury the main histologic features represent a degenerative tendinopathy thought to be due to an hypoxic [diminished oxygen] degenerative process. The similarity to the histology [study of the cells] of an acute wound repair with inflammatory cell infiltration as in macrotrauma seems to be absent. A new classification of tendon injury called �tendinosis� is now accepted. �Tendinosis� is a term referring to tendinous degeneration due to atrophy (aging, microtrauma, vascular compromise). Histologically there is a non-inflammatory tendinous degeneration due to atrophy (aging, microtrauma, vascular compromise), as well as a non-inflammatory intratendinous collagen degeneration with fiber disorientation, hypocelluarity, scattered vascular ingrowth, and occasional local necrosis or calcification.”

If your doctor is still treating you for tendinitis and not tendinosis, they are caught in a time warp. According to what the American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons said over two and a half decades ago, tendinosis is not an inflammatory condition (itis)! It is a degenerative condition (osis)! Not only is there some debate over whether or not tendinitis actually exists at all, but as you will see in a moment, the anti-inflammation medications and corticosteroid injections that your doctor has been prescribing you are actually creating more degeneration. Track & Field athletes make it a point to keep up with the cutting edge diagnosis and treatment of tendinous SPORTS INJURIES. See what their official medical team has to say on the subject of Tendinosis and Tendinopathy……..

“The relatively new term ‘Tendinopathy’ has been adopted as a general clinical descriptor of tendon injuries in sports. In overuse clinical conditions in and around tendons, frank inflammation is infrequent and if seen, is associated mostly with tendon ruptures. Tendinosis implies tendon degeneration without clinical or histological signs of intratendinous inflammation, and is not necessarily symptomatic. The term ‘Tendonitis’ is used in a clinical context and does not refer to a specific histological entity. [The term] Tendonitis is commonly used for conditions that are truly Tendinosis, however, and leads athletes and coaches to underestimate that proven chronicity of this condition……. Most articles describing the surgical management of partial tears of a given tendon in reality deal with degenerative tendinopathies [Tendinosis].” From an official document found on the website of the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) — the official governing body of professional Track and Field

The Science:

“Tendinosis is a medical term used to describe the tearing and progressive degradation of a tendon. Tendons are structural components of the human body that ensure muscles remain bound to the correct bone during normal daily activities. Tendinosis differs from tendonitis in that the affected tendon is not inflamed.” Rachel Amhed from a July 2010 article for Lance Armstrong’s ‘Livestrong Website’ called Tendinosis Symptoms.

“Based on the information of various lines of investigation of tendinopathy, we can summarize some major points which must be considered in the formulation of a unified theory of pathogenesis in our model of tendinopathy….. The primary results of pathology are the progressive collagenolytic [Collagen-Destroying] injuries co-existing with a failed healing response, thus both degenerative changes and active healing are observed in the pathological tissues….. These pathological tissues may aggravate the nociceptive responses [PAIN] by various pathways which are no longer responsive to conventional treatment such as inhibition of prostaglandin synthesis [NSAIDS & Cortcosteroids]; otherwise the insidious mechanical deterioration without pain may render increased risk of tendon rupture.

For example, overuse is a major etiological factor but there are tendinopathy patients without obvious history of repetitive injuries. It is possible that non-overuse tendon injuries may also be exposed to risk factors for failed healing. Overuse induces collagenolytic [DEGENERATIVE] tendon injuries and it also imposes repetitive mechanical strain which may be unfavorable for normal healing. Stress-deprivation also induces MMP expression [Matrix Metallo Proteinase — an enzyme which breaks down Connective Tissues], and whether over- or under-stimulation is still an active debate. It is possible that tenocytes [tendon cells] are responsive to both over- and under-stimulation, both tensile and compressive loading….. By proposing a process of failed healing to translate tendon injuries into tendinopathy, other extrinsic and intrinsic factors would probably enter the play at this stage, such as genetic predisposition, age, xenobiotics (NSAIDs and corticosteroids) and mechanical loading on the tendons….. Classical characteristics of “tendinosis” include degenerative changes in the collagenous matrix, hypercellularity, hypervascularity and a lack of inflammatory cells which has challenged the original misnomer “tendinitis”.” Cherry-picked quotes from a comprehensive collaboration by teams from the Department of Orthopaedics & Traumatology at Prince of Wales Hospital, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, and the Department of Orthopaedic Surgery at Huddinge University Hospital in Stockholm. The study was published in a 2010 issue of Sports Medicine Arthroscopy & Rehabilitation Therapy Technology.

“Rotator Cuff Tendinosis is a degenerative (genetic, age or activity related) change that occurs in our rotator cuff tendons over time. Rotator cuff tendinosis is exceptionally common. Many, many people have tendinosis of the rotator cuff and do not even know it. Why rotator cuff tendinosis bothers some people and doesn�t bothers others is currently a question the orthopedic surgery community can not answer. Rotator cuff tendinosis is just as likely to be found in a professional body builder as it is likely to be found in a true couch potato.” From an August 2011 online article / newsletter by Dr. Howard Luks, an Orthopedic Surgeon and Associate Professor of Orthopedic Surgery at New York Medical College as well as being Chief of Sports Medicine and Arthroscopy at Westchester Medical Center.

“The gross pathology of Angiofibroblastic Tendinosis is [that] there are no inflammatory cells in this tissue. Therefore the term “Tendinosis” is much better [than Tendinitis]. The pathological tissue is instead characterized by very immature tissue and nonfunctional vascular elements.” Loosely quoted from a YouTube video of famed tendon researcher / surgeon Dr. Robert P. Nirschl’s (Nirchl Orthopedics) presentation to the American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons annual meeting (2012).

“The more commonly used term of tendinitis has since been proven to be a misnomer for several reasons. The first of which is that there is a lack of inflammatory cells in conditions that were typically called a tendonitis…. The other two findings present in tendinosis, increased cellularity and neovascularization has been termed angiofribroblastic hyperplasia by Nirschl…… These are cells that represent a degenerative condition. Neovascularization [the creation of abnormally large numbers of new blood vessels] found in tendinosis has been described as a haphazard arrangement of new blood vessels, and Kraushaar et al. even mention that the vascular structures do not function as blood vessels. Vessels have even been found to form perpendicular to the orientation of the collagen fibers. They then concluded that the increased vascularity present in tendinosis is not associated with increased healing. Take Home Points: Chronic tendon injuries are degenerative in nature and NOT inflammatory. Anti-inflammatory medications (NSAIDs) and/or corticosteroid injections can actually accelerate the degenerative process and make the tendon more susceptible to further injury, longer recovery time and may increase likelihood of rupture.” Quotes cherry-picked from a recent online article called ‘Tendonosis vs. Tendonitis’ by Dr. Murray Heber, DC, BSc(Kin), CSCS, CCSS(C), Head Chiropractor for Canada’s Bobsleigh / Skeleton Team.

“The data clearly indicates that painful, overuse tendon injury is due to tendinosis�the histologic entity of collagen disarray, increased ground substance, neovascularization, and increased prominence of myofibroblasts. [It is] the only clinically relevant chronic tendon lesion, although minor histopathologic variations may exist in different anatomical sites. The finding that the clinical tendon conditions in sportspeople are due to tendinosis is not new. Writing about the tendinopathies in 1986, Perugia et al noted the ‘remarkable discrepancy between the terminology generally adopted for these conditions (which are obviously inflammatory because the ending ��-itis�� is used) and their histopathologic substratum, which is largely degenerative” Dr. Khan once more showing that tendon problems are not caused by inflammation.

“Overuse tendinopathies are common in primary care. Numerous investigators worldwide have shown that the pathology underlying these conditions is tendinosis or collagen degeneration. This applies equally in the Achilles, patellar, medial and lateral elbow, and rotator cuff tendons. If physicians acknowledge that overuse tendinopathies are due to tendinosis, as distinct from tendinitis, they must modify patient management in at least eight areas.” Dr. Karim Kahn M.D / Ph.D and his research team from University of British Columbia’s School of Kinesiology in an article published in the May 2000 issue of The Physician and Sportsmedicine called “Overuse Tendinosis, Not Tendinitis”.

Eight areas? Wow! And that quote is almost two decades old. Now, take a look at something that came from a Medical Textbook that was published over three decades ago in Italy. The medical community knew back then that most overuse tendon problems were not inflammatory (itis), but instead degenerative (osis).

“[There is a] remarkable discrepancy between the terminology generally adopted for these conditions (which are obviously inflammatory since the ending ‘itis’ is used) and their histopathologic substratum, which is largely degenerative.” From an Italian medical text called, “The Tendons: Biology, Pathology, Clinical Aspects” (1986).

Tendinosis Overview:

The truth is that I could go on and on and on and on with quotes from similar studies. Hopefully you get the point! You should be starting to see that most of what you thought about chronic tendon problems needs to be flushed down the toilet or thrown out with the weekly trash. That’s because there’s a new model in town. Tendinosis is it’s name; and if you want any hope of a solution to your tendon problem, you will have to step outside of the medical “box” and start thinking of your problem in terms of “osis” instead of “itis”. Failure to grasp the new model leaves you vulnerable to treatments which, while possibly bringing some temporary relief, will ultimately make you worse — possibly much worse! By the way, the following points are observations that you yourself will understand if you read the above quotes.

  • Tendinosis is a Degenerative Condition without inflammation. Scratch that. Science has recently shown us that there is inflammation in tendinosis — there should be, at least in the initial phase of healing. However, it’s the SYSTEMIC INFLAMMATION that’s been shown to be the biggest problem. Bottom line, this doesn’t really affect anything I’m telling you in this post, other than to reinforce your need to address systemic inflammation (hint: it can’t be done with drugs).
  • Tendinosis is the proper model for understanding the majority of Tendinopathies. As a model for understanding
  • Tendinopathies, Tendinitis has been retired for at least two and a half decades.
  • Tendinosis is both misunderstood and mismanaged by the majority of the Medical Community.
  • Traditional Therapies / Interventions for Tendinopathies significantly increase one’s chance of Tendon Rupture.
  • Most Coaches and Athletes do not understand the difference between Tendinitis and Tendinosis.
  • If it does exist, Tendinitis (Inflammation of the Tendon) is rare, short lived, and mostly associated with Tendon Tears or Ruptures.
  • Tendinosis is caused by both overuse and under-use.
  • Tendinosis is often times Asymptomatic (no symptoms), until it becomes a painful and potentially debilitating problem.
  • Drugs; particularly NSAIDS & CORTICOSTEROIDS, as well as CERTAIN ANTIBIOTICS actually cause Tendinosis — and Tendon Rupture. They also slow down (or reverse) the healing process.

Best Treatment: Tendinosis & Tendonopathies

Anti-Inflammatory Medication

tendinosis

“I knew then and there I was in the wrong place.” Thoughts running through the mind of a new patient who had recently visited an Orthopedic Specialist’s office for a tendon problem and asked him about the difference between Tendinitis and Tendinosis. The doctor answered, “There is no difference between Tendinitis and Tendinosis. They are one and the same —- two different names for the same problem.”
Even though medical research has conclusively shown us for over three decades that tendinopathies have as their primary cause of pain and dysfunction tissue derangement and degeneration, anti-inflammation drugs continue to be the medical profession�s go-to method of treatment. It�s not difficult to see why this is not working:

Although there is undoubtedly a certain amount of SYSTEMIC INFLAMMATION present with tendinosis, research has conclusively shown that tendon problems are not primarily problems of inflammation, but of degeneration.
Scientific studies have actually shown that non-steroidal anti-inflammatory medications (NSAID�s) such as Aspirin, Tylenol, Nuprin, Ibuprofen, Naproxen, Celebrex, Vioxx (oops � one of the #1 drugs in America for 10 years running was taken off the market because it was found to be a huge cause of chronic illness and death), & numerous others, actually cause injured collagen-based tissues like tendons, ligaments, muscles, fascia, etc, to heal up to 33% weaker, with as much as 40% less tissue elasticity.

Corticosteroid Injections are even worse. Medicine’s dirty little secret of treating connective tissue injuries with steroids is that they actually deteriorate or ‘eat’ the collagen foundation. This is why they deteriorate ever tissue in the joint, including bone. This is bad news considering collagen is the tissue that is deranged — the very tissue that needs to heal the most. This is why corticosteroids are a known cause of DEGENERATIVE ARTHRITIS and OSTEOPOROSIS, not to mention a whole host of easily-verified systemic side effects. The fact that steroid injections are ridiculously degenerative is why doctors ration or limit the number of steroid injections a person can receive � even if they seem to be working. And understand; it’s not that drugs don’t sometimes do what they claim to do. It’s that they never reverse the underlying pathophysiology (HERE). They simply cover symptoms.

Years ago, the Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery reported that corticosteroids are so degenerative that if you have more than one injection in the same joint over the course of your lifetime; your chance of premature degeneration in the injected joint is (gulp) 100%! Ultimately, the problem of corticosteroids (or NSAID�s for that matter) being used to treat tendons or other collagen-based tissues, is that short term relief is being traded for long term (and often permanent) damage. In other words, tomorrow is being traded for today. Kind of reminds you of our government�s short-sighted fiscal policies, doesn�t it? It is also another in a long line of evidences that the gap between medical research and medical practice is growing (HERE).

Collagen is the building block of all connective tissues, including tendons (you probably learned a great deal about collagen on our FASCIAL ADHESION PAGE as well as our COLLAGEN SUPER-PAGE). If one looks at normal collagen fibers from tendons or other connective tissues under a microscope, each individual cell lines up parallel to the surrounding cells. This allows for maximum tissue flexibility (sort of like well-combed hair).

With tendinopathies (whether TRAUMATIC OR REPETITIVE � yes, trauma can cause tendinosis), the tissue uniformity becomes disrupted and unorganized, causing restriction and a severe loss of function. This in turn causes a loss of flexibility, tissue weakness, tissue fraying, increased rigidity, and stiffness (sort of like KNOTTED HAIR OR A HAIRBALL — or gristle in a bite of steak). This leads to a loss of strength and function, which ultimately means that you end up with pain and dysfunction of the affected joint or body part. As I will soon show you, loss of normal function is one of just a few known causes of joint degeneration. This is why anyone who has suffered through Chronic Tendinosis knows how debilitating it can really be.

Normal Tendons Vs Tendinosis

Tendons are one of the Elastic, Collagen-Based Connective Tissues that are Made up of
Three Individual Collagen Fibers Braided Together into Wavy Sheets or Bands

tendinosis

Photo by User Vossman

COLLAGEN is a wavy protein. The waves are what give it the ability to stretch and elast. And although Tendons are said to be the least flexible and stretchy of the Elastic, Collagen-Based Connective Tissues (Muscles, Ligaments, & Fascia are all more elastic), they have to have at least a bit of give. The waves in the individual collagen fibers are what allow for this stretching to take place. Tendinosis occurs most often where the muscle meets the tendon. This is due to an especially dense amount of Collagen at this “Transition Zone”.

Tendinosis Looks Like:

NORMAL TENDON
Uniform, Organized, & Parallel

tendinosis

Normal, healthy Tendons are like these ropes. Not only are the fibers all running uniformly in the same direction, there is little or no fraying. This gives the tendon the ability to stretch and elast. Photo by Procsilas Moscas

FRAYED TENDON (TENDINOSIS)
Unorganized, Tangled, & Random

tendinosis

Tendinosis is characterized by incredible fraying, fragmenting, tangling, and twisting, of the tendon. This causes weakness and inelasticity that can not only painfully debilitating, it can lead to Tendon Rupture. Photo by Martyn Gorman

NOTICE THE FRAYED & TORN APPEARANCE.
THIS IS WHAT CHARACTERIZES TENDINOSIS

tendinosis

Photo by Andrjusgeo

NORMAL HEALTHY TENDON

NOTICE THE COLLAGEN WAVES

tendinosis

Photo by Nephron

SCAR TISSUE & ADHESION
(Note the Complete Lack of Uniformity in the Tissue Fibers)

Scar Tissue / Fibrosis

tendinosis

DRDoubleB

Tendinosis Looks Like Tangled Fishing Line

tendinosis

Photo by Daplaza

Tendinosis is characterized by Collagen Fibers that have disrupted alignment. It also shows fraying of the individual fibers. This is why most tendinopathies are now classified as Tendinosis and considered to be degenerative (osis = degeneration), as opposed to Tendinitis (itis = inflammation). The problem is, most of the medical community does not seem to grasp this yet.

Areas Most Affected By Tendinosis

Sometimes Tendionosis is clinically impossible to distinguish from FASCIAL ADHESIONS and microscopic scar tissue. Often times they are present together. The bottom line is that whether the adhesions are in fascia or whether they are tendon DOESN’T REALLY MATTER — they must both be broken. Sometimes there is a great excess of calcium built up at the point where the tendon anchors to the bone. This must be broken up as well. Because the models for understanding various soft tissues are virtually identical; the models for treating said tissues are likewise very similar. As you might imagine, this is fantastic news for the patient. Bear in mind that I have not included each and every specific area you can develop tendinopathy because it can attack anywhere that you have a tendon. The following list happens to be the areas that I treat most frequently in my clinic.

IMPORTANT: Please note that some muscles only cross one joint. However, many muscles cross two joints. Muscles that act on more than one joint have a greater propensity for problems. It also means that one muscle has the potential to give you problems (including tendinosis) at two different joints. Also note that Tendinosis is usually a bit tougher to deal with than Fascial Adhesions.

  • ROTATOR CUFF TENDINOSIS: The Rotator Cuff is made up of four muscles that surround the shoulder.
  • SUPRASPINATUS TENDINOSIS: The Supraspinatus Tendon is not only the most commonly injured of the Rotator Cuff Muscles, it is the most common to find tendinopathy in as well.
  • TRICEP TENDINOSIS: Tricep Tendinosis is rare. About the only people I ever find it in is carpenters (hammering) and weightlifters. However, here is the webpage.
  • BICEPS TENDINOSIS: Because both heads of the bicep muscle have attachment points in the front of the shoulder, Biceps Tendinosis is frequently mistaken for Bursitis or a Rotator Cuff problem.
  • LATERAL EPICONDYLITIS (Tennis Elbow): Although I have never seen anyone who got this problem playing tennis, it is nonetheless extremely common.
  • MEDIAL EPICONDYLITIS (Golfer�s Elbow): Not quite as common as Tennis Elbow above.
  • WRIST / FOREARM FLEXOR TENDINOSIS: This is tendinopathy on the palm side of the forearm and wrist.
  • WRIST / FOREARM EXTENSOR TENDINOSIS: This is tendinopathy on the backhand side of the forearm and wrist.
  • THUMB TENDINOSIS / DeQUERVAIN’S SYNDROME: This extremely common problem can be debilitating. You will frequently hear Thumb Tendinosis referred to as DeQuervain�s Syndrome.
  • GROIN (Hip Adductor) TENDINOSIS: I have included Tendinosis of the Groin under �Hip Flexor Tendinosis� below.
  • HIP FLEXOR TENDINOSIS: Hip Flexor Tendinosis will manifest in the upper front thigh or groin area. This is incredibly common in athletes — particularly soccer players.
  • PIRIFORMIS TENDINOSIS: This problem is related to PIRIFORMIS SYNDROME, and causes pain in the butt (sometimes with sciatica as well).
  • SPINAL TENDINOSIS: Although most people never think of it, the potential for developing Spinal Tendinosis is greater than you ever imagined possible.
  • KNEE TENDINOSIS: This is arguably the single most common reason that people visit a Sports Physician.
  • QUADRICEPS / PATELLAR TENDINOSIS: A form of Knee Tendinosis
  • HAMSTRING TENDINOSIS: Hamstring Tendinosis can cause knee, hip, and buttock problems.
  • ACHILLES TENDINOSIS: Achilles Tendinosis is found in the large tendon in the very back of the lower leg / ankle.
  • ANKLE TENDINOSIS: This common Tendinosis can typically be dealt with by following a few simple procedures.
  • TIBIALIS ANTERIOR TENDINOSIS: This is related to the category above, and is typically found in the front of the ankle.
  • POSTERIOR TIBIAL TENDINOSIS: This is related to the category above, and is typically found near the bony knob on the inside of the ankle.
  • APONEUROSIS / APONEUROTICA TENDINOSIS: Although you have probably never heard the word before, �Aponeurosis� are flattened out tendons. They are almost always referred to as fascia, but technically this is incorrect. They are most often associated with SKULL PAIN.

Effectively Dealing With Tendinosis

Let me begin by saying that I cannot help everyone�s Tendinopathy. And yes, I am very aware that there are thousands of websites out there giving all sorts of free, do-it-yourself advice on how to fix these problems without going to a doctor. Most of this advice concerns common sense treatments that everyone should try before seeking any sort of professional care. These lists frequently include things like STRETCHING / SPECIAL EXERCISES, ICING, resting, EATING AN ANTI-INFLAMMATORY DIET, drinking plenty of water, SPECIAL SUPPLEMENTS FOR CONNECTIVE TISSUES, etc. All of these are great, and highly recommended by me. The truth is, advice like this is going to save a lot of people a lot of time and money by helping the biggest portion of the population get over minor Tendinopathies / Tendinosis on their own, without jumping on the MEDICAL MERRY GO ROUND.

There is a significant portion of the tendinosis-suffering population who have tried all of these things. Every type of pill imaginable, including ANTIBIOTICS (believe it or not, I have seen this used numerous times � some of which, like CIPRO, actually cause tendon weakness and rupture), TENS Units, braces & supports of all kinds, PLATELET INJECTION THERAPY, high powered ultrasound (a form of litho-tripsy called arthro-tripsy), prolotherapy (sugar water injections), all sorts of surgeries, and heaven only knows what else. And this doesn’t even start touching on many of the common drugs, which I’ve already dealt with.

The bottom line is that if your pain is being caused by adhesions, restrictions, and microscopic scarring in the collagen fibers that make up the affected tendon (or the fascial membranes that attach to the tendon), you are going to have a hard time dealing with it using the standard fare found in your average medical clinic. Although their various treatments may cover the symptoms for awhile, you are already becoming painfully aware (no pun intended) that standard medical therapies such as those listed earlier, are not likely to help with Tendinosis over the long haul. And although stretching and specific exercise can be of tremendous benefit, most clinicians tend to put the cart in front of the horse. Those things will not be effective until after the tissue adhesion has been removed (broken), except in minor cases.

Be aware that because of its microscopic nature, the collagen derangement associated with Tendinopathies will rarely if ever show up with even advanced diagnostic imaging (this is true even for MRI, unless your doctor is using a brand new machine with an extra large magnet, or your problem is especially severe). And whether it shows on the MRI or not, will not really change the way that your doctor treats the problem.

Effectively Treat Tendinosis At The Source

If tendinopathies do not show up well with the diagnostic tests that are commonly run by your doctor, how in the world can a chiropractor practicing in tiny town determine whether or not this micro-derangement of a tendon�s collagen fibers is present and potentially causing your pain and dysfunction? I use one of the newer forms of SCAR TISSUE REMODELING. Although this has only been around for three decades in its present form, the Chinese have used something similar for several thousand years. Be aware that breaking these adhesions / restrictions sometimes causes some BRUISING, depending on where it’s at.

Conclusion: Systemic Tendinosis

Not all cases of Tendinosis are rooted in purely biomechanical causes. There are all sorts of things that can create an environment within the body that leads to multiple Tendinopathies. As you might imagine, bilateral Tendinosis, or Tendinosis at multiple sites begins to raise some red flags for me concerning this issue. Not that it is always the case, but when I see people who have several areas of Tendinosis, I began to question whether there might be a deeper problem at work.

If it is not caused by Fluoroquinolone Antibiotics, very frequently, this underlying problem turns out to be some sort of poorly understood or difficult-to-detect AUTOIMMUNE DISEASE. If for whatever reason, your body is making antibodies to attack it’s own tendons or connective tissues, you have a serious problem on your hands — a problem that will not respond to the Scar Tissue Remodeling Treatments that I do, and a problem whose cause likely won’t show up on standard medical tests.

Destroy Chronic Pain / Doctor Russell Schierling

Sherry McAllister, DC, MS (Ed), CCSP Recommends Chiropractic

McKenzie Therapy for Acute Non-Specific Low Back Pain

McKenzie Therapy for Acute Non-Specific Low Back Pain

Have you ever experienced low back pain? If you haven’t already, there’s a high probability you will present at least one case of back pain sometime during your lifetime. Back pain is one of the most prevalent spine health issues reported among the population of the United States, affecting up to 80 percent of Americans at some point in their lives. Back pain is not a specific disease, rather it is a symptom which may develop as a result of a variety of injuries and/or conditions.�Although most cases typically resolve on their own, the effective treatment of acute low back pain is essential towards preventing chronic low back pain.

 

Chiropractors and physical therapists frequently utilize a similar series of treatment methods, such as spinal adjustments and manual manipulations as well as massage and physical therapy, to help treat symptoms of back and low back pain. Many healthcare professionals, however, have started using the McKenzie method to manage acute back pain. The purpose of the following article is to educate patients on the effectiveness of the McKenzie method for acute non-specific low back pain.

 

The McKenzie Method for the Management of Acute Non-Specific Low Back Pain: Design of a Randomised Controlled Trial

 

Abstract

 

Background

 

Low back pain (LBP) is a major health problem. Effective treatment of acute LBP is important because it prevents patients from developing chronic LBP, the stage of LBP that requires costly and more complex treatment.

 

Physiotherapists commonly use a system of diagnosis and exercise prescription called the McKenzie Method to manage patients with LBP. However, there is insufficient evidence to support the use of the McKenzie Method for these patients. We have designed a randomised controlled trial to evaluate whether the addition of the McKenzie Method to general practitioner care results in better outcomes than general practitioner care alone for patients with acute LBP.

 

Methods/Design

 

This paper describes the protocol for a trial examining the effects of the McKenzie Method in the treatment of acute non-specific LBP. One hundred and forty eight participants who present to general medical practitioners with a new episode of acute non-specific LBP will be randomised to receive general practitioner care or general practitioner care plus a program of care based on the McKenzie Method. The primary outcomes are average pain during week 1, pain at week 1 and 3 and global perceived effect at week 3.

 

Discussion

 

This trial will provide the first rigorous test of the effectiveness of the McKenzie Method for acute non-specific LBP.

 

Background

 

In Australia, low back pain (LBP) is the most frequently seen musculoskeletal condition in general practice and the seventh most frequent reason for consulting a physician[1,2]. According to the Australian National Health Survey, 21% of Australians reported back pain in 2001; additionally, the Australian Bureau of Statistic’s 1998 Survey of Disability, Ageing and Carers estimated that over one million Australians suffer from some form of disability associated with back problems[1].

 

LBP poses an enormous economic burden to society in countries such as the USA, UK and The Netherlands[3]. In the largest state in Australia, New South Wales, back injuries account for 30% of the cost of workplace injuries, with a gross incurred cost of $229 million in 2002/03[4]. It is expected that most people with an acute episode of LBP will improve rapidly, but a proportion of patients will develop persistent lower levels of pain and disability[5,6]. Those patients with chronic complaints are responsible for most of the costs[6]. Effective treatment of acute LBP is important because it prevents patients from developing chronic LBP, the stage of LBP that requires costly and more complex treatment.

 

There is a growing concern about effectiveness of treatments for LBP, as reflected in the large number of systematic reviews published in the last 5 years addressing this issue. [7-12]. Despite the large amount of evidence regarding LBP management, a definitive conclusion on which is the most appropriate intervention is not yet available. A comparison of 11 international clinical practice guidelines for the management of LBP showed that the provision of advice and information, together with analgesics and NSAIDs, is the approach consistently recommended for patients with an acute episode[13]. Most guidelines do not recommend specific exercises for acute LBP because trials to date have concluded that it is not more effective than other active treatments, or than inactive or placebo treatments[8]. However, some authors have suggested that the negative results observed in trials of exercises are a consequence of applying the same exercise therapy to heterogeneous groups of patients. [14-16]. This hypothesis has some support from a recent high-quality randomised trial in which treatment based on a diagnostic classification system led to larger reductions in disability and promoted faster return to work in patients with acute LBP than the therapy recommended by the clinical guidelines[17].

 

In 1981, McKenzie proposed a classification system and a classification-based treatment for LBP labelled Mechanical Diagnosis and Treatment (MDT), or simply McKenzie Method[18]. Of the large number of classification schemes developed in the last 20 years [19-26], the McKenzie Method has the greatest empirical support (e.g. validity, reliability and generalisability) among the systems based on clinical features[27] and therefore seems to be the most promising classification system for implementation in clinical practice.

 

Physiotherapists commonly adopt the McKenzie Method for treating patients with LBP[28,29]. A survey of 293 physiotherapists in 1994 found that 85% of them perceived the McKenzie Method as moderately to very effective[28]. Nevertheless, a recent systematic review concluded that there is insufficient evidence to evaluate the effectiveness of the McKenzie Method for patients with LBP [30]. A critical concern is that most trials to date have not implemented the McKenzie Method appropriately. The most common flaw is that all trial participants are given the same intervention regardless of classification, an approach contradictory to the principles of McKenzie therapy.

 

 

The primary aim of this trial is to evaluate whether the addition of the McKenzie Method to general practitioner (GP) care results in better outcomes than GP care alone for patients with acute non-specific LBP when effect is measured in terms pain, disability, global perceived effect, and persistent symptoms.

 

Methods

 

The University of Sydney Human Research Ethics Committee granted approval for this study.

 

Study Sample

 

One hundred and forty eight participants with a new episode of acute non-specific LBP who present to GPs will be recruited for the study. A new episode of LBP will be defined as an episode of pain lasting longer than 24 hours, preceded by a period of at least one month without LBP and in which the patient did not consult a health care practitioner[31]. Participants will be screened for eligibility at their first appointment with the GP according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria.

 

Inclusion Criteria

 

To be eligible for inclusion, participants must have pain extending in an area between the twelfth rib and buttock crease (this may or may not be accompanied by leg pain); pain of at least 24 hours duration; pain of less than 6 weeks duration; and they need to be eligible for referral to private physiotherapy practice within 48 hours.

 

Exclusion Criteria

 

Participants will be excluded if they have one of the following conditions: nerve root compromise (defined as 2 positive tests out of sensation, power and reflexes for the same spinal nerve root); known or suspected serious spinal pathology; spinal surgery within the preceding 6 months; pregnancy; severe cardiovascular or metabolic disease; or inability to read and understand English.

 

Recruiting GPs will record the number of patients who are invited to participate, the number who decline to participate, and the number of screened patients who are ineligible and their reasons for declining participation or ineligibility. Written consent will be obtained for each participant.

 

Subjects who volunteer to participate and satisfy the eligibility criteria will receive baseline treatment and then be randomly allocated to one of the study groups. To ensure equal-sized treatment groups, random permuted blocks of 4�8 participants will be used[32]. Randomisation will be stratified by Workcover compensation status. The stratified random allocation schedule will be generated by a person not otherwise involved in recruitment, assessment or treatment of subjects and the randomisation sequence will be placed in sequentially numbered, sealed envelopes. The flow of participants through the study is detailed in Figure ?1.

 

Figure 1 Flow of Participants Through the Study

Figure 1: Flow of participants through the study. Legend: GP � General practitioner; NRS � Numeric pain rating scale; PSFS � Patient-specific functional scale; RMQ � Roland-Morris questionnaire; GPE � Global perceived effect; LBP � Low back pain.

 

Dr Jimenez White Coat

Dr. Alex Jimenez’s Insight

In the management of low back pain, the attitudes, beliefs and treatment preferences of chiropractors, as well as that of physical therapists, can determine the most effective outcome measures in the care of patients with different types of spinal health issues. According to the following evidence-based research studies, the McKenzie method has been deemed to be one of the most useful treatment approaches for managing symptoms in patients with back and low back pain. Exercise and physical activity is also one of the most common treatment preferences for improving an individual’s strength, mobility and flexibility. Every healthcare professional varies in respect to their specific treatment preferences. These variations emphasize the need to identify the most effective treatment approach to guarantee proper treatment of LBP.

 

Outcome Measures

 

The McKenzie protocol is thought to promote rapid symptom improvement in patients with LBP[33,34] and this is one of the reasons that therapists choose this therapy. Therefore it is important to focus assessment on short-term outcomes. The primary outcomes will be:

 

  1. Usual pain intensity over last 24 hours recorded each morning in a pain diary over the first week. Pain will be measured on a 0�10 numerical rating scale (NRS). The unit of analysis will be the mean of the 7 measures[35];
  2. Usual pain intensity over last 24 hours (0�10 NRS) recorded at 1 and 3 weeks[35];
  3. Global perceived effect (0�10 GPE) recorded at 3 weeks.

 

The secondary outcomes will be:

 

  1. Global perceived effect (0�10 GPE) recorded at 1 week;
  2. Patient-generated measure of disability (Patient-Specific Functional Scale; PSFS) recorded at 1 and 3 weeks[36];
  3. Condition-specific measure of disability (Roland Morris Questionnaire; RMQ) recorded at 1 and 3 weeks[37];
  4. Number of patients reporting persistent back pain at 3 months.

 

Following the screening consultation in which the inclusion and exclusion criteria are assessed, the GP will supervise the baseline measurement of pain. All patients will then receive an assessment booklet and a pre-paid envelope in which all other self-assessed outcome measures are to be recorded and sealed. One member of the research team will contact patients by telephone within 24 hours of the consultation with the GP in order to give explanations regarding the appropriate form of filling in the assessment booklet. At this time, other baseline outcomes will be recorded and then the patient will be randomised to study groups. The patient will be advised to keep the booklet at home, to seal it into the pre-paid envelope after the final assessment and mail the sealed envelope to the research team. To ensure the proper use of the assessment booklet and to avoid loss of data due to non-returned booklets, a blinded assessor will contact all patients by telephone 9 and 22 days after the consultation with the GP to collect patient’s answers from the 1st week and 3rd week assessments, respectively.

 

The procedure for obtaining outcome data will be followed for all participants, regardless of compliance with trial protocols. At 3 months, data regarding the presence of persistent (chronic) symptoms will be collected by telephone. Participants will be asked to answer the following yes-no question: “During the past 3 months have you ever been completely free of low back pain? By this I mean no low back pain at all and would this pain-free period have lasted for a whole month”. Those answering no will be considered to have persistent LBP. Information on additional treatment and the direct costs with low back pain management will also be collected at 3 months.

 

A secondary analysis will be performed on predictors of response to McKenzie treatment and prediction of chronicity. This will involve the measurement of participants’ expectation about the helpfulness of both treatments under investigation as well as information on the occurrence of the centralisation phenomenon. Expectation will be recorded prior to randomisation according to the procedures described by Kalauokalani et al[38].

 

Treatments

 

All participants will receive GP care as advocated by the NHMRC guideline for the management of acute musculoskeletal pain[2]. Guideline-based GP care consists of providing information on a favourable prognosis of acute LBP and advising patients to stay active, together with the prescription of paracetamol. Patients randomised to the experimental group will be referred to physiotherapy to receive the McKenzie Method. A research assistant not involved in the assessment or treatment of subjects will be responsible for the randomisation process and will contact therapists and patients to arrange the first physiotherapy session. The McKenzie treatment will be delivered by credentialed physiotherapists who will follow the treatment principles described in McKenzie’s text book[18]. All therapists will have completed the four basic courses taught by the McKenzie Institute International. To ensure the appropriate implementation of the McKenzie’s classification algorithm, a training session with a member of McKenzie’s educational program will be conducted prior to the commencement of the study. The treatment frequency will be at the discretion of the therapist with a maximum of 7 sessions over 3 weeks. We chose to restrict the McKenzie treatment to a maximum of 7 sessions based on the study of Werneke and colleagues[39], which concluded that further reductions in pain and function are not expected if favourable changes in pain location are not present until the seventh treatment visit. Treatment procedures from the McKenzie Method are summarised in the Appendix.

 

Participants randomised to the control group will continue their GP care as usual. All participants regardless of intervention group will be advised not to seek other treatments for their low back pain during the treatment period. Physiotherapists will be asked to withhold co-interventions during the course of the trial.

 

Several mechanisms will be used to ensure that the trial protocol is applied consistently. Protocol manuals will be developed and all involved researchers (GPs, physiotherapists, assessor, and statistician) will be trained to ensure that screening, assessment, random allocation and treatment procedures are conducted according to the protocol. A random sample of treatment sessions will be audited to check that treatment is being administered according to the protocol.

 

Dr Jimenez helping man stretch_preview

 

Data Analysis

 

Power was calculated based on the primary outcome measures (pain intensity and global perceived effect). A sample size of 148 participants will provide 80% power to detect a difference of 1 unit (15%) on a 0�10 pain scale (SD = 2.0) between the experimental and control groups, assuming alpha of 0.05. This allows for loss to follow-up of 15%. This sample size also allows the detection of a difference of 1.2 units (12%) on a 0�10 global perceived effect scale (SD = 2.4).

 

Data will be analysed by a research member blinded to group status. The primary analysis will be by intention-to-treat. In order to estimate treatment effects, between-group mean differences (95%CI) will be calculated for all outcome measures. In the primary analysis these will be calculated using linear models that include baseline values of outcome variables as covariates to maximise precision.

 

Discussion

 

We have presented the rationale and design of an RCT evaluating the effects of the McKenzie Method in the treatment of acute non-specific LBP. The results of this trial will be presented as soon as they are available.

 

Competing Interests

 

The author(s) declare that they have no competing interests.

 

Authors’ Contributions

 

LACM, CGM and RDH were responsible for the design of the study. HC was responsible for recruiting McKenzie therapists and she will also participate as a clinician in the trial. LACM and JMc will act as trial coordinators. All authors have read and approved the final manuscript.

 

Appendix

 

Clinical picture and treatment principles according to the McKenzie Method

 

This table summarises the procedures involved in the McKenzie Method (Table 1). For detailed description of all procedures and progressions, refer to McKenzie’s text book. This is particularly important for Derangement syndrome since the treatment is extremely variable and complex and the full description of procedures would not be appropriate for the purposes of this paper.

 

Table 1 Summarized Procedures Involved in the McKenzie Method

 

Pre-Publication History

 

The pre-publication history for this paper can be accessed here: www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2474/6/50/prepub

 

Acknowledgements

 

The authors thank the physiotherapists credentialed in the McKenzie Method for their participation in this project.

 

Managing Low Back Pain: Attitudes & Treatment Preferences of Physical Therapists & Chiropractors

 

Abstract

 

Background and Purpose:�Researchers surveyed physical therapists about their attitudes, beliefs, and treatment preferences in caring for patients with different types of low back pain problems.

 

Subjects and Methods: Questionnaires were mailed to all 71 therapists employed by a large health maintenance organization in western Washington and to a random sample of 331 other therapists licensed in the state of Washington.

 

Results: Responses were received from 293 (74%) of the therapists surveyed, and 186 of these claimed to be practicing in settings in which they treat patients who have back pain. Back pain was estimated to account for 45% of patient visits. The McKenzie method was deemed the most useful approach for managing patients with back pain, and education in body mechanics, stretching, strengthening exercises, and aerobic exercises were among the most common treatment preferences. There were significant variations among therapists in private practice, hospital-operated, and health maintenance organization settings with respect to treatment preferences, willingness to take advantage of the placebo effect, and mean number of visits for patients with back pain.

 

Conclusions and Discussion: These variations emphasize the need for more outcomes research to identify the most effective treatment approaches and to guide clinical practice.

 

In conclusion,�the effective treatment of acute low back pain is essential because it can potentially help prevent the development of chronic low back pain. A growing number of chiropractors and physical therapists, including other healthcare professionals, have utilized the McKenzie method to help manage acute non-specific low back pain in patients. According to the research study, further evidence is required to support the use of the McKenzie method for LBP, however, the outcome measures of the research study regarding the effectiveness of the McKenzie method for low back pain are promising. Information referenced from the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI). The scope of our information is limited to chiropractic as well as to spinal injuries and conditions. To discuss the subject matter, please feel free to ask Dr. Jimenez or contact us at 915-850-0900 .

 

Curated by Dr. Alex Jimenez

 

Green-Call-Now-Button-24H-150x150-2-3.png

 

Additional Topics: Sciatica

 

Sciatica is referred to as a collection of symptoms rather than a single type of injury or condition. The symptoms are characterized as radiating pain, numbness and tingling sensations from the sciatic nerve in the lower back, down the buttocks and thighs and through one or both legs and into the feet. Sciatica is commonly the result of irritation, inflammation or compression of the largest nerve in the human body, generally due to a herniated disc or bone spur.

 

blog picture of cartoon paperboy big news

 

IMPORTANT TOPIC: EXTRA EXTRA: Treating Sciatica Pain

 

 

Blank
References
  • Australian Institute of Health and Welfare . Australia’s health 2004. 1st. Camberra , AIHW; 2004.
  • Australian Acute Musculoskeletal Pain Guidelines Group Evidence-based management of acute musculoskeletal pain. . 2003. www.nhmrc.gov.au
  • Maetzel A, Li L. The economic burden of low back pain: a review of studies published between 1996 and 2001. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol. 2002;16:23�30. doi: 10.1053/berh.2001.0204. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
  • WorkCover Authority NSW . Statistical Bulletin. NSW Workers Compensation 2002/03. Sydney , The WorkCover Authority NSW ; 2003.
  • Pengel LH, Herbert RD, Maher CG, Kathryn RM. Acute low back pain: Systematic review of its prognosis. BMJ. 2003;327:1�5. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Thomas E, Silman AJ, Croft PR, Papageorgiou AC, Jayson M, Macfarlane GJ. Predicting who develops chronic low back pain in primary care: a prospective study. BMJ. 1999;318:1662�1667. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Guzm�n J, Esmail R, Karjalainen K, Malmivaara A, Irvin E, Bombardier C. Multidisciplinary rehabilitation for chronic low back pain: systematic review. BMJ. 2001;322:1511�1516. doi: 10.1136/bmj.322.7301.1511. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
  • van Tulder M, Malmivaara A, Esmail R, Koes B. Exercise therapy for low back pain. A systematic review within the framework of the Cochrane Collaboration Back Review Group. Spine. 2000;25:2784�2796. doi: 10.1097/00007632-200011010-00011. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
  • van Tulder M, Ostelo R, Vlaeyen JWS, Linton SJ, Morley SJ, Assendelft WJJ. Behavioral treatment for chronic low back pain. A systematic review within the framework of the Cochrane Back Review Group. Spine. 2000;25:2688�2699. doi: 10.1097/00007632-200010150-00024. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
  • Jellema P, van Tulder MW, van Poppel MN, Nachemson AL, Bouter LM. Lumbar supports for prevention and treatment of low back pain. A systematic review within the framework of the Cochrane Back Review Group. Spine. 2001;26:377�386. doi: 10.1097/00007632-200102150-00014. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
  • Ferreira ML, Ferreira PH, Latimer J, Herbert RD, Maher CG. Does spinal manipulative therapy help people with chronic low back pain? Aust J Physiother. 2002;48:277�284. [PubMed]
  • Pengel HM, Maher CG, Refshauge KM. Systematic review of conservative interventions for subacute low back pain. Clin Rehabil. 2002;16:811�820. doi: 10.1191/0269215502cr562oa. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
  • Koes BW, van Tulder MW, Ostelo R, Burton K, Waddell G. Clinical guidelines for the management of low back pain in primary care: an international comparison. Spine. 2001;26:2504�2514. doi: 10.1097/00007632-200111150-00022. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
  • Borkan J, Koes B, Reis S, Cherkin DC. A report from the Second International Forum for Primary Care Research on low back pain: reexamining priorities. Spine. 1998;23:1992�1996. doi: 10.1097/00007632-199809150-00016. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
  • Bouter LM, van Tulder MW, Koes BW. Methodologic issues in low back pain research in primary care. Spine. 1998;23:2014�2020. doi: 10.1097/00007632-199809150-00019. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
  • Leboeuf-Yde C, Lauritsen JM, Lauritzen T. Why has the search for causes of low back pain largely been nonconclusive? Spine. 1997;22:877�881. doi: 10.1097/00007632-199704150-00010. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
  • Fritz JM, Delitto A, Erhard RE. Comparison of classification-based physical therapy with therapy based on clinical practice guidelines for patients with acute low back pain. Spine. 2003;28:1363�1372. doi: 10.1097/00007632-200307010-00003. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
  • McKenzie R, May S. The lumbar spine. Mechanical diagnosis & therapy. 2nd. Vol. 1. Waikanae , Spinal Publications New Zealand Ltd; 2003. p. 374.
  • van Dillen LR, Sahrmann SA, Norton BJ, Caldwell CA, McDonnell MK, Bloom NJ. Movement system impairment-based categories for low back pain: stage 1 validation. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2003;33:126�142. [PubMed]
  • BenDebba M, Torgerson WS, Long DM. A validated, practical classification procedure for many persistent low back pain patients. Pain. 2000;87:89�97. doi: 10.1016/S0304-3959(00)00278-5. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
  • Delitto A, Erhard RE, Bowling RW, DeRosa CP, Greathouse DG. A treatment-based classification approach to low back syndrome: identifying and staging patients for conservative treatment. Phys Ther. 1995;75:470�485. [PubMed]
  • Klapow JC, Slater MA, Patterson TL, Doctor JN, Atkinson JH, Garfin SR. An empirical evaluation of multidimensional clinical outcome in chronic low back pain patients. Pain. 1993;55:107�118. doi: 10.1016/0304-3959(93)90190-Z. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
  • Laslett M, van Wijmen P. Low back and referred pain: diagnosis and proposed new system of classification. N Z J Physiother. 1999;27:5�14.
  • Maluf KS, Sahrmann SA, van Dillen LR. Use of a classification system to guide nonsurgical management of a patient with chronic low back pain. Phys Ther. 2000;80:1097�1111. [PubMed]
  • Petersen T, Laslett M, Thorsen H, Manniche C, Ekdahl C, Jacobsen S. Diagnostic classification of non-specific low back pain. A new system integrating patho-anatomic and clinical categories. Physiother Theory Pract. 2003;19:213�237.
  • Stiefel F, deJonge P, Huyse F, al INTERMED – An assessment and classification system for case complexity: Results in patients with low back pain. Spine. 1999;24:378�384. doi: 10.1097/00007632-199902150-00017. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
  • McCarthy CJ, Arnall FA, Strimpakos N, Freemont A, Oldham JA. The biopsychosocial classification of non-specific low back pain: a systematic review. Phys Ther Rev. 2004;9:17�30. doi: 10.1179/108331904225003955. [Cross Ref]
  • Batti� MC, Cherkin DC, Dunn R, Ciol MA, Wheeler KJ. Managing low back pain: attitudes and treatment preferences of physical therapists. Phys Ther. 1994;74:219�226. [PubMed]
  • Li LC, Bombardier C. Physical therapy management of low back pain: An exploratory survey of therapist approaches. Phys Ther. 2001;81:1018�1028. [PubMed]
  • Machado LAC, de Souza MS, Ferreira PH, Ferreira ML. The McKenzie protocol for low back pain: a systematic review of the literature with a meta-analysis approach. Spine (in press) 2005. [PubMed]
  • de Vet HCWPD, Heymans MWMS, Dunn KMMP, Pope DPPD, van der Beek AJPD, Macfarlane GJPD, Bouter LMPD, Croft PRPD. Episodes of Low Back Pain: A Proposal for Uniform Definitions to Be Used in Research. Spine. 2002;27:2409�2416. doi: 10.1097/00007632-200211010-00016. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
  • Pocock SJ. Clinical trials. A practical approach. 1st. Chichester , John Wiley & Sons; 1984.
  • Delitto A, Cibulka MT, Erhard RE, Bowling RW, Tenhula JA. Evidence for use of an extension-mobilization category in acute low back syndrome: A prescriptive validation pilot study. Phys Ther. 1993;73:216�228. [PubMed]
  • Schenk RJ, Jozefczyk C, Kopf A. A randomized trial comparing interventions in patients with lumbar posterior derangement. J Manual Manip Ther. 2003;11:95�102.
  • Farrar J, Young J, LaMoreaux L, al Clinical importance of changes in chronic pain intensity measured on an 11-point numerical pain rating scale. Pain. 2001;94:149�158. doi: 10.1016/S0304-3959(01)00349-9. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
  • Stratford P, Gill C, Westaway M, Binkley J. Assessing disability and change on individual patients: a report of a patient specific measure. Physiother Can. 1995;47:258�263.
  • Roland M, Morris R. A study of the natural history of back pain. Part I: development of a reliable and sensitive measure of disability in low-back pain. Spine. 1983;8:141�144. [PubMed]
  • Kalauokalani D, Cherkin D, Sherman K, Koepsell T, R D. Lessons from a trial of acupuncture and massage for low back pain. Spine. 2001;26:1418�1424. doi: 10.1097/00007632-200107010-00005. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
  • Werneke M, Hart DL, Cook D. A descriptive study of the centralization phenomenon. A prospective analysis. Spine. 1999;24:676�683. doi: 10.1097/00007632-199904010-00012. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
Close Accordion
Chiropractic And Massage Work Hand In Hand

Chiropractic And Massage Work Hand In Hand

Chiropractic and Massage: Duos often create more exciting outcomes. Lewis and Clark, the Lone Ranger and Tonto, and even Batman and Robin functioned more efficiently together than apart. Complementary pairings propel results and enhance efforts.

This is decidedly true with massage therapy and chiropractic care. While each offer considerable benefits on their own, they often mesh well with each other to create a comprehensive treatment plan for many conditions or injuries.

So, sit back and let us show you how massage therapy and chiropractic care are a pain-fighting, mobility-enhancing dynamic duo.

A Combination Of Both: Chiropractic And Massage

Massage Enables A More Effective Chiropractic Visit

Therapeutic massage warms up muscles and relaxes the individual’s entire body, enabling the chiropractor to maximize his or her chiropractic adjustment for optimal results.

Massage brings about a more stable adjustment.

When a chiropractor performs an adjustment to alleviate pain or increase mobility, pre or post massage couples with it to increase the body’s acceptance of the adjustment.

Chiropractic Takes Massage Therapy Further: Includes Joints & Bones

Each treatment offers strong relief and recovery to certain areas of the body. Massage produces relaxation in muscles, relieving tension and toxins. Chiropractic care picks up where massage leaves off and extends the treatment efforts to the body’s tendons, joints, bones and, ultimately, the nervous system.

Works On The Body As A Whole

Both treatments focus on broad rejuvenation and healing techniques for full body health. In a variety of instances, chiropractic care shows significant increases in treating the overall root of the problem when used in combination with massage therapy.

chiropractic and massage

Gets In The Head

Whoever said “it’s all in your head” wasn’t entirely wrong. Individuals sometimes feel stress, dread, or worry over health procedures in general, and chiropractic treatment is no different. Massage therapy serves to relax and de-stress a person, preparing them to go into chiropractic treatments less stressed or tightly wound. A relaxed person’s body tends to respond better to treatment.

Offers Shorter Recovery Times

Blending both treatments into one builds an all-encompassing regimen that works on the condition or injury from multiple points. Tackling health issues this way reduces the time is takes to heal and regain the body’s full mobility.

Decreases Discomfort

Massage therapy aids in warming up muscles, readying them for chiropractic adjustments. This experience is similar to stretching thoroughly before exercising. Pliant muscles offer less resistance to a chiropractor’s regimen, resulting in greater patient comfort. This benefits the entire process, as a painless, comfortable visit increases a person’s openness and commitment to future therapeutic endeavors.

Provides Longer Lasting Results

A relaxed body is more open to treatment. Both massage therapy and chiropractic care serve to attain the goal of healing and recovery, and pain minimization or management. Achieving a synergistic effect is possible when both treatments are employed simultaneously. Chiropractic care is known to work deeper and last longer when paired with massage therapy, especially with chronic, painful health issues.

Patients who seek help with bodily conditions or injuries benefit and see results from chiropractic and�massage therapy separately. Both forms of therapeutic relief used together may create an even more significant, longer last result. Chiropractic care and massage therapy complement each other and offer positive benefits to a variety of painful health issues.

Embark on a treatment plan with this healing, effective dynamic duo! Ask your chiropractor if your specific condition would benefit from both principles of care. Give us a call today!

D.C.’s Can Offer Tips On How To Improve Posture

Organic Diet: 5 Reasons Why

Organic Diet: 5 Reasons Why

Organic Diet: It seems our moms were right; we are what we eat. Unfortunately in today’s marketplace, there are many valid worries about the foods we consume. Antibiotics, pesticides, and foods tainted with dangerous diseases are a top concern for many Americans. In addition, processed and genetically modified foods and artificial ingredients contribute to a number of health issues from obesity to cancer.

Our diet is one of the most important facets of maintaining overall good health for the long term. Farmer’s markets, small grocery stores, and the movement toward organic labeling shows the trend toward making healthier food choices.

If you are thinking about adding a few organic foods to your meal plan, or chucking all processed foods altogether, you are moving toward a healthier, higher performing body with fewer health issues.

Organic Diet: Five Reasons Why

#1: Fewer Chemicals

The practice of using a variety of pesticides in non-organic farming is widespread in the United States. No matter how fastidiously you wash them, foods with these toxins are harmful to your body. A recent article in The Huffington Post stated that toxic pesticides are present in 70% of the food found in grocery stores!

Many large, traditional farms aim to produce as much food as possible, as cheaply as they can. They turn to pesticides and herbicides to make the crops grow faster and last longer. It’s a sad fact, but the American public ends up paying a price anyway. An organic diet offers a respite from these chemically laden foods.

#2: Tastes Better

You may not even realize the taste you DON’T get when eating processed foods. Toxins that make them grow and keep them fresh deplete the taste dramatically.

Growing from properly maintained soil without the presence of pesticides, organic foods deliver a richer, more engaging flavor. Individuals who eat organic often eat less and are better satisfied with their meals because of the increased taste.

#3: More Nutrient Density

According to The Ideal Bite, organic foods contain up to 50% more nutrients than their non-organic counterparts. Depleted soil quality from over farming is a key reason for this situation. This means a person needs to eat less organic food to maintain the necessary dietary vitamins and minerals that ensures good health, offsetting the initial higher cost of choosing organic.

#4: Less Antibiotic Exposure

Large food manufacturing farms often choose to pump their animals full of antibiotics to reduce illness and promote rapid growth. Obviously, these make their way into the end product that we end up eating.

Too much exposure to antibiotics causes everything from early puberty in children to antibiotic resistance. If you become ill and require antibiotic medical treatment, long-term consumption of non-organic meat could literally hinder you from responding.

#5: Supports The Local Economy

In addition to building a strong body and mind, choosing organic contributes to the local community by supporting the small farmer. The small farmer is able to adopt to organic standards with less effort, and is more likely to embrace healthy soil practices and other ethical farming traits in the first place. Seek out local establishments for the widest variety of the freshest, locally grown food.

There are an assortment of reasons to choose an organic diet. In a nutshell, it is proven to offer great benefits to your long-term overall health. If you can’t commit to an entirely organic diet, substitute a few organic choices from your present food selections. Even changing small areas of your diet will provide better taste, greater nutrition, and stronger well-being.

Have more questions? We�re here for you! Simply ask our Doctor of Chiropractic during your next visit how eating organic foods can benefit you.

Good Nutrition & Chiropractic Care Contribute To Overall Well-Being

Shin Splint Sufferers Should Consider Chiropractic

Shin Splint Sufferers Should Consider Chiropractic

Shin Splint: Whether you are an avid exerciser, an exuberant shopper, or a small child chaser, you have probably felt tightening and burning in your shin at one point in your life. Sometimes, the pain stops when the activity ceases, but other times the pain remains. If shin pain continues bothering you, it may be time to face the fact you have shin splints.

The shin is a bone located in the front part of your lower leg. Shin splints commonly occur in athletes who have intensified or changed their training routines. They also show up in regular people who have changed or added activity to their routine.

The shin has a lot of responsibility during exercise, as it absorbs the shock of the steps, raises the toes, and support the arch of the foot.

A few main culprits play a part in shin splints:

  • failing to stretch properly before exercising
  • walking or running on hard surfaces, like pavement
  • wearing the wrong type of shoes during activity
  • over-exerting the body with strenuous activity
  • skipping periods of rest between exercise

Individuals who perform any type of exercise should take appropriate measures to alleviate the above risk factors of shin splints. If you notice pain and soreness in the front part of your lower leg, know how to treat this injury properly.

If rest and ice aren�t doing the job and you’re still suffering pain, it’s time to see a doctor. A thorough exam and possibly an x-ray will diagnose the problem.

Chiropractic care is a powerful choice for treating shin splints and reducing their recurrence.

Chiropractic Treatment Benefits Those Suffering From Shin Splint/s:

shin splint

Reduction In Pain

Chiropractic is proven to relieve the pain associated with bodily injuries and medical conditions, including shin splints. Sometimes one visit is enough to relieve the pain, other times the pain decreases over a series of appointments. Being able to diminish a high degree of pain down to a manageable level is possible for shin splint patients through chiropractic.

Full Body Alignment

The premise behind chiropractic is that it treats the body as a whole, and, in doing so, promotes healing and health to the injured or diseased areas. A chiropractor may work on your neck to help your calf. With shin splints, he or she may align your spine and joints to lessen the impact of activity on your shins. Again, the entire body is treated in order to create the best environment for health restoration.

Healing Through Adjustments

Treating shin splints is a common procedure for chiropractors. Common practice is to adjust the calf, ankle, and foot to stretch and increase blood flow to the area.

Drug Free Treatment Option

A primary benefit of chiropractic care is it requires no over-the-counter or prescription drugs. Individuals who suffer from stomach issues, or simply prefer to avoid drugs, find chiropractic visits a productive alternative to manage pain and promote healing.

Strengthening Exercises

Chiropractors don’t just treat the spine. Your Doctor of Chiropractic will set an overall plan of attack for optimal recovery when dealing with shin splints.

It’s routine for chiropractic treatment of shin splints to include a series of stretching and strengthening exercises the individual performs at home between visits. These exercises further expand on the positive effects of the chiropractic therapy.

If you are one of the many people dealing with shin splints, don’t despair! Consider chiropractic care as your main treatment option or in conjunction with other modes of treatment. Within a few visits, you will experience pain reduction, and enjoy a decreased risk of ever dealing with painful shin splints again.

Athletic TIPS

McKenzie Therapy and Endurance Exercises for Low Back Pain

McKenzie Therapy and Endurance Exercises for Low Back Pain

Low back pain is a common complaint that generally goes away on its own, however, what should a person do if their LBP becomes chronic and/or persistent? How is an individual’s quality of life affected and how does their pain intensity impact their physical capacity? Is there any type of treatment which can help improve low back pain? Many different types of treatment options can be used to safely and effectively treat low back pain. The purpose of the following research study is to determine the influence of the McKenzie method and endurance exercises on low back pain. The article demonstrates evidence-based information on the improvement of the quality of life of patients with LBP after receiving the treatment protocol mentioned below.

 

Influence of Mckenzie Protocol and Two Modes of Endurance Exercises on Health-Related Quality of Life of Patients with Long-Term Mechanical Low Back Pain

 

Abstract

 

Introduction

 

Long-term Mechanical Low-Back Pain (LMLBP) negatively impacts on patients� physical capacity and quality of life. This study investigated the relationship between Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQoL) and pain intensity, and the influence of static and dynamic back extensors� endurance exercises on HRQoL in Nigerian patients with LMLBP treated with the McKenzie Protocol (MP).

 

Methods

 

A single-blind controlled trial involving 84 patients who received treatment thrice weekly for eight weeks was conducted. Participants were assigned to the MP Group (MPG), MP plus Static Back Endurance Exercise Group (MPSBEEG) or MP plus Dynamic Endurance Exercise Group (MPDBEEG) using permuted randomization. HRQoL and pain was assessed using the Short-Form (SF-36) questionnaire and Quadruple Visual Analogue Scale respectively.

 

Results

 

Sixty seven participants aged 51.8 � 7.35 years completed the study. A total drop-out rate of 20.2% was observed in the study. Within-group comparison across weeks 0-4, 4-8 and 0-8 of the study revealed significant differences in HRQoL scores (p < 0.05). Treatment Effect Scores (TES) across the groups were significantly different (p = 0.001). MPSBEEG and MPDBEEG were comparable in TES on General Health Perception (GHP) at week 4; and GHP and Physical Functioning at week 8 respectively (p > 0.05). However, MPDEEG had significantly higher TES in the other domains of the SF-36 (p = 0.001).

 

Conclusion

 

HRQoL in patients with LMLBP decreases with pain severity. Each of MP, static and dynamic back extensors endurance exercises significantly improved HRQoL in LMLBP. However, the addition of dynamic back extensors endurance exercise to MP led to greater improvement in HRQoL.

 

Keywords: Mckenzie protocol, endurance exercises, quality of life, back pain

 

Background

 

Low-Back Pain (LBP) is described as the constellation of symptoms of pain or discomfort originating from impairments in the structures in the low back [1�2]. LBP is one of the most common ailments afflicting mankind [3]. It is a complicated condition which affects the physiological and psychosocial aspects of the patient [4, 5]. Epidemiological reports indicate that 70 to 85% of all people have LBP at some time in their life [1, 6]. The World Health Organization predicted that the greatest increases in LBP prevalence in the next decade will be in developing nations [7]. In line with this, a systematic review by Louw et al [8] concluded that the global burden and prevalence of LBP among Africans is rising.

 

It is estimated that 80-90% of patients with LBP will recover within six weeks, regardless of treatment [9]. However, 5-15% of all people that have LBP will develop long-term LBP (i.e. LBP of 12 weeks and longer) [10, 11]. The patient subgroup with long-term LBP accounts for 75-90% of the socioeconomic cost of LBP [12] and over 30% of these patients with long-term LBP seek healthcare for their back complaints. Long-term LBP significantly impacts on patients� physical [13], psychological and social functioning [14] and can affect well-being and quality of life [15]. Reduced quality of life in patients with long-term LBP is associated with poor prognosis [16], intermittent or recurrent episodes of LBP [17], disability [18] and psychosocial dysfunction [19, 20].

 

Assessment of Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQoL) in relation to LBP has been recommended in LBP management [21, 22]. Several HRQoL instruments have been developed to assess self-perceived general health status [21, 22]. The SF-36 Health Status Questionnaire, though a generic instrument, has been recommended in the assessment of HRQoL of patients with long-term LBP [22] and it assesses eight domains such as physical functioning, role limitations due to physical problems, bodily pain, general health perceptions, vitality, social functioning, role limitation due to emotional problems and general mental health [23, 24].

 

Consequent to the foregoing, treatment intervention that may help improve the HRQoL of patients with long-term LBP has been advocated. Although, physiotherapy plays an important role in the management of patients with LBP, the traditional approach based on biomedical model, which is centered on the treatment of impairments and patho-physiological variables, may not fully addressed the wider range of factors including psychosocial impairments associated with long-term LBP [25, 26]. However, long-term LBP is considered to be a multi-factorial bio-psychosocial problem which has an impact on both social life [27, 28] and quality of life [29] and thus requires a multi-dimensional approach based on a bio-psychosocial model (a model that includes physical, psychological and social elements) in its assessment and treatment [30, 31].

 

 

Based on empirical recommendations from research, recent decades have witnessed tremendous advances in preventive, pharmacological and physiotherapy management for a limited number of patients with LBP especially in developed countries. However, the improvement in health outcomes observed in most Western countries over the past few decades has not been achieved in Africa [32] and therefore, the health of Africans is of global concern [8]. Compared with Australians [33], Europeans [34] and North Americans [35], the use of exercise as medicine in Africans is poor. Exercise is the central element in the physical therapy management of patients with long-term LBP [9, 36]. Exercise often does not require expensive instruments and probably the cheapest intervention and one in which the patient has some measure of direct control [37]. Nonetheless, it remains inconclusive which exercise regimen will significantly influence the quality of life of patients with long-term LBP. The McKenzie Protocol (MP) is one of the most commonly used physical therapy interventions in long-term mechanical LBP with documented effectiveness [38�41]. However, there is a dearth of studies that have investigated the influence of the MP on HRQoL in patients with long-term mechanical LBP. Therefore, this study was intended to answer the following questions: (1). Will pain intensity significantly influence HRQoL? (2) Will static and dynamic back extensors� endurance exercises significantly influence HRQoL in Nigerian patients with long-term mechanical LBP (LMLBP) treated with the MP?

 

Methods

 

Eighty four patients with LMLBP participated in this single-blind randomized trial. The participants were consecutively recruited from the physiotherapy department, Obafemi Awolowo University (OAU) Teaching Hospitals Complex and the OAU Health Centre, Ile-Ife, Nigeria. The McKenzie Institute’s Lumbar Spine Assessment Format (MILSAF) [3] was used to determine eligibility to participate in the study. Based on the MILSAF, patients who demonstrated Directional Preference (DP) for extension only were recruited to ensure homogeneity of samples. DP is described as the posture or movement that reduces or centralizes radiating pain that emanates from the spine. Exclusion criteria were red flags indicative of serious spinal pathology with signs and symptoms of nerve root compromise (with at least two of dermatomal sensory loss, myotomal muscle weakness and reduced lower limb reflexes), individuals with any obvious spinal deformity or neurological disease; pregnancy; previous spinal surgery; previous experience of static and dynamic endurance exercise and having DP for flexion, lateral or no DP. Long-term low-back pain was defined as a history of LBP of not less than 3 months [42].

 

Personal Trainer Encouraging Patient to Engage in Endurance Exercises

 

Based on the sample size table by Cohen [43] with alpha level set at 0.05, degree of freedom at 2, effect size at 0.25, and power at 80, the study found a minimum sample size of 52. However, in order to accommodate for possible attrition or loss during the study, a total of 75 patients (25 per group) was included. The participants were randomly assigned to one of three treatment groups using permuted block randomization; the McKenzie Protocol (MP) Group (MPG) (n = 29), MP plus Static Back Endurance Exercise Group (MPSBEEG) (n = 27) and MP plus Dynamic Back Endurance Exercise Group (MPDBEEG) (n = 28). Sixty seven (32 males (47.8%) and 35 females (52.2%) participants completed the eight week study. Twenty five participants completed the study in MPG, 22 in MPSBEEG and 20 in MPDBEEG. A total drop-out rate of 20.2% was observed in the study. Fourteen percent of participants in MPG were lost to follow-up. Nineteen percent of the participants in MPSBEEG dropped out (out of these, 40% were lost to follow-up while 60% absconded due to improvement in their health condition). In the MPDBEEG, 28.6% of the participants dropped out (37.5% were lost to follow-up while 62.5% absconded due to improvement in their health condition).

 

Treatment was given thrice weekly for eight weeks and outcomes were assessed at the end of the fourth and eighth week of study. Ethics and Research Committee of the Obafemi Awolowo University Teaching Hospitals Complex and the joint University of Ibadan /University College Hospital Institutional Review Committee respectively gave approval for the study.

 

Instruments

 

A height meter calibrated from 0-200cm was used to measure the height of each participant to the nearest 0.1cm. A weighing scale was used to measure the body weight of participants in kilograms to the nearest 1.0Kg. It is calibrated from 0 – 120kg. A metronome (Wittner Metronom system Maelzel, Made in Germany) was used to set a uniform tempo for dynamic back endurance muscles endurance test, which involves repeated contraction or movements over a period of time performed synchronously to the metronome beat. Patients lay on a plinth for the MP, static and dynamic back endurance exercise respectively.

 

General Health Status Questionnaire – Short Form -36 (SF-36) was used to assess the quality of life of the participants. The SF-36 has been recommended in the assessment of patients with long-term LBP [24, 44, 45]. A Yoruba translated version of the Health Status Questionnaire (SF-36) was used for participants who were literate in the Yoruba language and preferred the Yoruba version. The translation was done at the department of linguistics and African languages of Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile Ife. Pearson product moment correlation coefficient (r) of 0.84 was obtained for the criterion validity of the back translation of the Yoruba version. Quadruple Visual Analogue Scale (QVAS) was used to assess pain intensity of participants. QVAS is a reliable and valid method for pain measurement [46, 47]. A Yoruba translated version of the QVAS was used for participants who were literate in the Yoruba language and prefers the Yoruba version. The translation was done at the department of linguistics and African languages of Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile Ife. Pearson product moment correlation coefficient (r) of 0.88 was obtained for the criterion validity of the back translation of the Yoruba version.

 

Treatment

 

Treatment for the different groups (MPG, MPSBEEG and MPDBEEG) comprised three phases including warm up, main exercise and cool down. Prior to treatment, the participants were instructed in details on the study procedures. This was followed by a low intensity warm-up phase of five minutes duration comprising active stretching of the upper extremities and low back and strolling at self-determined pace around the research venue. Treatment also ended with a cool-down phase comprising of the same low intensity exercise as the warm-up for about five minutes.

 

Trainer Demonstrating Examples of Endurance Exercises

 

Elderly Man does Band Exercises with Mike_01_preview

 

The McKenzie Protocol (MP) involved a course of specific lumbosacral repeated movements in extension that cause the symptoms to centralize, decrease or abolish. The determination of the direction preference for extension was followed by the main MP activities including �Extension lying prone�, �Extension In Prone� and �Extension in standing�. The MP also included a set of back care education instructions which comprised a 9 item instructional guide on standing, sitting, lifting and other activities of daily living for home exercise for all the participants (Appendix).

 

Woman Performing the McKenzie Method on a Patient

 

In addition to completing the MP (i.e., back extension exercises plus the back care education), static back extensors endurance exercise which included five different static exercises differentiated by the alteration of the positions of the upper and lower limbs with the patient in prone lying on a plinth was carried out [48]. The participants began the exercise training programme with the first exercise position, but progressed to the next exercises at their own pace when they could hold a given position for 10 seconds. On reaching the fifth progression, they continued with the fifth progression until the end of the exercise programme [48, 49]. The following were the five exercise progressions:

 

  1. Participant lay in prone position with both arms by the sides of the body and lifting the head and trunk off the plinth from neutral to extension;
  2. Participant lay in prone position with the hands interlocked at the occiput so that shoulders were abducted to 90� and the elbows flexed, and lifting the head and trunk off the plinth from neutral to extension;
  3. Participant lay in prone position with both arms elevated forwards, and lifting the head, trunk and elevated arms off the plinth from neutral to extension;
  4. Participant lay in prone position and lifting the head, trunk and contralateral arm and leg off the plinth from neutral to extension; and
  5. Participant lay in prone position with both shoulders abducted and elbows flexed to 90�, and lifting the head, trunk and both legs (with knees extended) off the plinth.

 

If pain was aggravated during the exercise, the participant was asked to stop. If the pain diminished within 5 minutes after the exercise, he/she was asked to continue the exercise but to hold the exercise position for only 5 seconds. The participant was asked to progress to 10 seconds if there was no adverse response. Each exercise was repeated 9 times. After 10 repetitions, the participant was instructed to rest for between 30 seconds to 1 minute. Static holding time in the exercise position was gradually increased to 20 seconds to provide a greater training stimulus [50, 51]. The dosage of series of 10 repetitions was adopted from a previous protocol for participants with sub-acute LBP [52].

 

In addition to completing the MP, dynamic back extensors endurance exercise which included five different isokinetic exercises differentiated by the alteration of the positions of the upper and lower limbs with the patient in prone lying on a plinth was carried out. The dynamic back endurance exercise was an exact replica of the static back extensors endurance exercise protocol in terms of exercise positions, progressions and duration. However, instead of static posturing of the trunk in the prone lying position and holding the positions of the upper and lower limbs suspended in the air during all the five exercise progressions for the 10 seconds, the participant was asked to move the trunk and the suspended limbs 10 times.

 

If pain was aggravated during the exercise, participant was asked to stop. If the pain diminished within 5 minutes after the exercise, the participant was asked to continue the exercise but to carry out only 5 movements in the exercise position. The participant was asked to progress to 10 movements if there is no adverse response. Each exercise was repeated 9 times. After 10 repetitions, the participants were instructed to rest for between 30 seconds to 1 minute. The number of movements of the trunk in the exercise position was gradually increased to 20 seconds to provide a greater training stimulus.

 

In order to achieve adequate training effect based on recommendation of previous studies, a 30 to 45 minute exercise duration, thrice weekly and eight weeks exercise; and training load of 10 seconds static hold or 10 repetitions per exercise position was adopted [53, 54].

 

The researchers (CEM and OA) were credentialed in the McKenzie method and supervised the exercises. The researchers were blinded to the recruitment, randomization and assessment procedures which were carried out by an assistant who was blinded to the treatment protocols of the different groups. The research assistant was also credentialed in McKenzie method. The questionnaires used in this study were self- administered.

 

Data Analysis

 

Data were analyzed using descriptive of mean and standard deviation; and inferential statistics. One-way ANOVA was used to compare the participants� general characteristics and pain intensity by treatment groups. Pearson’s Product Moment Correlation Analysis was used to test the relationship between HRQoL and intensity of pain. The Kruskal Wallis test was used to compare the treatment outcomes (mean change) on HRQoL across group at week four and eight of the study respectively. Friedman’s ANOVA and Wilcoxon signed ranked tests for multiple comparisons were used to compare within group changes in across the three study time points Alpha level was set at p = 0.05. The data analyses were carried out using SPSS 13.0 version software (SPSS Inc., Chicago, Illinois, USA).

 

Dr Jimenez White Coat

Dr. Alex Jimenez’s Insight

How can the McKenzie method improve an individual’s quality of life? With years of experience working alongside patients to help them recover from a variety of spinal health issues, I’ve seen how debilitating low back pain can be if left untreated for an increased amount of time. Although spinal adjustments and manual manipulations can efficiently help improve symptoms of low back pain, other alternative treatment options may help patients recover faster. The McKenzie method and endurance exercises are used by many healthcare professionals to safely and effectively rehabilitate patients with LBP. The results of the research study ultimately demonstrate how the treatment protocol can help improve an individual’s quality of life.

 

Results

 

The mean age, height, weight and BMI of all the participants was 51.8 � 7.35 years, 1.66 � 0.04m, 76.2�11.2 Kg and 27.2 � 4.43 kg/m2 respectively. Comparison of the participants� general characteristics by treatment groups revealed that the participants in the different groups were comparable in their general characteristics (p > 0.05) (Table 1).

 

Table 1 One Way ANOVA Comparison of the Participants' Information

Table 1: One-way ANOVA comparison of the participants� general characteristics and pain intensity by treatment groups

 

The mean pain intensity score (VAS) reported by the participants was 6.55 � 1.75. The relationship between each of the eight domains of HRQoL and intensity of pain (VAS score) is presented in Table 2.

 

Table 2 Relationship Between Health-Related Quality of Life and Intensity of Pain

Table 2: Relationship between Health-Related Quality of Life and intensity of pain (VAS score) (n = 67)

 

From the result, correlation co-efficient (r) ranged between-0.603 to-0.878 at p = 0.001. Table 3 shows the comparison of the participants� baseline measure of HRQoL.

 

Table 3 Kruskal Wallis Comparison of the Participants' Information

Table 3: Kruskal Wallis comparison of the participants� baseline assessment of HRQoL

 

The results indicate that the participants in the different treatment groups were comparable in all the domains of HRQoL (p > 0.05). Within-group comparison of HRQoL in MPG, MPSBEEG and MPDBEEG across the 3 time points (weeks 0-4, 4-8 and 0-8) of the study showed that there were significant improvements (p < 0.05) (Table 4). Comparison of treatment outcomes (mean change score (MCS)) at week four and eight of the study are presented in Table 5. There were significant differences in SF-36 scores across the group (p > 0.05) at the end of the 4th and 8th week of the study respectively. The Tukey multiple comparisons post-hoc analysis was used to elucidate where the differences within between groups lie. The result indicated that MPSBEEG and MPDBEEG had significantly higher MCS on all domains of SF-36 compared with MPG at week four and eight respectively (p < 0.05). There was no significant difference between the MPSBEEG and MPDBEEG in the MCS of General Health Perception domain of SF-36 at week four; and on General Health Perception and Physical Functioning Domains of SF-36 at week eight respectively. However, MPDBEE had significantly higher treatment effects on other domains of HRQoL (p = 0.001).

 

Table 4 Friedman's ANOVA and Wilcoxon Signed Ranked Test Multiple Comparisons

Table 4: Friedman’s ANOVA and Wilcoxon signed ranked test multiple comparisons of HRQoL among MPG, MPSBEEG and MPDBEEG across the 3 time points of the study.

 

Table 5 Kruskal Wallis Comparison of the Participants' Treatment Outcomes

Table 5: Kruskal Wallis comparison of the participants� treatment outcomes (mean change) at week four of the study.

 

Discussion

 

This study evaluated the relationship between HRQoL and pain intensity, and the influence of static and dynamic back extensors� endurance exercises on HRQoL in Nigerian patients with LMLBP treated with the MP. The mean age of the patients in this study was 51.8 � 7.35 years. This age falls within the age bracket during which LBP is reported to be a more common problem [55]. From the result of this study, no significant difference in physical characteristics and pain intensity was found in the different treatment groups at baseline. Baseline characteristics are believed to be predictors of response to treatment in clinical trials for LBP [56]. Comparability in baseline measure in clinical trials is reported to reduce the chances of co-founders other than the intervention in predicting outcomes. Therefore, it is implied that the results obtained at different point in the course of this study could have been largely due to the effects of the various treatment regimens.

 

This study investigated the relationship between HRQoL and the intensity of pain. From the result, significant moderate to high inverse relationships were found between pain intensity and the different domains of HRQoL. General health perception showed the least correlation (r = -0.603; p = 0.001) while social functioning had the highest correlation with pain intensity (r = -0.878; p = 0.001). It is inferred from the study’s result that HRQoL of patients with long-term LBP decreases with severity of pain. Previous studies have reported an association between LBP and psychosocial factors [26, 57]. Specifically, significant inverse correlation has been reported between severity of pain and quality of life in patients with chronic LBP [57�59]. Pain is believed to have a profound effect on HRQoL [59] and the degree, to which the patients believe that they are disabled by it, is a powerful factor in the extent of their quality of life impairments [60]. Therefore, quality of life is an indicator of the level of endurance of people to pain [61].

 

Dr. Jimenez helps a PushasRx client_01 BW_preview

 

Within-group comparison of each of MP, MP plus Static Back Endurance Exercise (MPSBEE) and MP plus Dynamic Back Endurance Exercise (MPDBEE) across the 3 time-points (weeks 0-4, 4-8 and 0-8) of the study revealed that each treatment regimen led to significant improvement in HRQoL. Patients in this study displayed baseline values of the SF-36 comparable to those described in other studies on chronic LBP [62]. The baseline values of all domains of the SF-36 observed in this study were lower than those of adult normative data reported by Jenkinson et al [63] leaving room for any improvement accruable to treatment regimens to be assessed. From this study, all the eight domains of the SF-36 significantly improved at the 4th and 8th week assessment. However, on the final assessment, social functioning, general health perception and bodily pain improved more than the other domains of SF-36 in the MPG. General health perception, physical functioning, social functioning, bodily pain and energy vitality improved more than the other domains of SF-36 in the MPSBEEG while general health perception, physical functioning, social functioning, bodily pain and energy vitality improved more than the other domains of SF-36 in the MPDBEEG. Role physical, role emotional and mental health were the least improved domains of the SF-36 among the treatment groups. Though significant improvements were observed in the different domains by treatment groups on final assessment, the values were still lower than the adult normative data for general health status assessed using the SF-36 questionnaire [63]. A previous study by Smeets and colleagues [64] found that active physical therapy regimen primarily designed to improve physiological aspects of LBP such as aerobic fitness level, low back muscle strength and endurance can also reduce the impact of psychosocial factors that it did not deliberately target. In view of current evidence, Hill and Fritz [57] suggest that it may not necessarily follow that a psychologist is better placed to improve treatment outcomes than a physical therapist, even when a goal of treatment is the mediation of a psychosocial factor. Hill and Fritz [57] also argue that psychosocial factors including fear of movement, anxiety, a faulty coping strategy and quality of life have a strong influence on the success of treatment for patients with back pain at a group level. Literature suggests that exercise generally has a potential benefit on psychosocial aspect of patient with long-term LBP. Long-term LBP leads to deconditioning [65] and many problems associated with deconditioning are believed to be reversible through general and specific exercise regimens [66]. Harding and Watson [66] note that improvement in overall physical function is linked with improvement in psychosocial function. Unfortunately, there is a dearth of studies on the effect of the MP and back extensors endurance exercises on HRQoL in patients with long-term mechanical LBP.

 

From the result of this study, comparison of the different treatment regimens indicate that MPSBEE and MPDBEE had significantly higher treatment effect on all domains of HRQoL compared with MP at week four and eight respectively. MPSBEE and MPDBEE were comparable in their effect on general health perception domain at week four; and on health perception and physical functioning domains of the HRQoL at week eight. However, MPDBEE had significantly higher treatment effects on other domains of HRQoL. Generally, exercise seems to leads to improved wellness and quality of life. Still, there does not appear to be a consensus of opinion on the most effective programme designed to maintain exercise benefits. The McKenzie method is a popular and promising classification-based treatment for LBP among physical therapists [3] in addition to delivering theoretical information in order to educate patients about their condition, so that patients are better able to understand their condition and how to change their behaviour towards an episode of LBP [67]. However, few studies have investigated the effect of the MP on HRQoL in patients with LMLBP. Udermann et al [68] found significant improvements in HRQoL measures in chronic LBP patients treated with MP but reported that the addition of resistance training for the lumbar extensors provided no additional benefit. In recent times, endurance training of the low-back extensors aimed at improving physical performance and psychosocial health in patients with LBP has increased in popularity [69, 48, 52, 70], yet their effectiveness in enhancing quality of life remains unclear [71].

 

The observed efficacy of the MP, MPSBEE and MPDBEE in this study could be as a result of the fact that each of the regimen contained active exercise carried out in extension positions. Active exercise can be described as functional exercise performed by the patient or client. Previous studies have shown that active exercise, irrespective of the type is more effective in the management of patients with long-term LBP than passive therapy [72, 73]. The MP utilizes a system of patient self generated force to mobilize or manipulate the spine through a series of active repeated movements or static positioning and it is based on the patient’s pain response to certain movements and postures during assessment [3]. Similarly, endurance exercises are active exercises that require static posturing or repeated movements in order to initiate overload stimuli on the musculature. The different treatment regimen in this study had movement components, either from the MP which is the baseline treatment for all the groups or from the back extensors endurance exercise protocols. It is postulated from the results of this study that the significant higher treatment outcome of MPDBEE might be due to the combined effects of movements and overload stimulus on the back extensor muscles. MPDBEE seems to contain movement ingredients, firstly, from the MP which is the baseline treatment for this group and it involved a series of active repeated movements. Secondly, the dynamic back extensors endurance exercise also involved repeated movements of the trunk and limbs in the sagittal plane. It seems that extension exercise with movement elements carried out in patterns similar to the daily tasks motions might help to improve psychosocial aspects of long-term LBP as observed in this study.

 

Limitations of the Study

 

The generalizability of the findings of this study is limited by the fact that a generic quality of life tool was employed because of the scarcity of standard HRQoL tools with documented psychometric properties specific for patients with LBP. Theoretically, specific HRQoL measures are opined to be more responsive than generic HRQL measures [74]. Like all other self-reported assessment, it is possible that the patients in this study might have given exaggerated responses or overestimated the effect of exercise on their HRQoL. Furthermore, individuals� perception of psychosocial construct such as HRQoL is believed to be influenced by subjective interpretation and cultural bias [75, 76]. The high drop-out rate observed in this study is also a potential limitation and source of bias which may limit the interpretation and generalizability of study results. Finally, the treatment outcomes of the different regimens were only measured over such a short period of time of eight weeks.

 

Conclusion

 

Health-related quality of life of patients with long-term LBP decreases with severity of pain. The McKenzie Protocol, static and dynamic back extensors endurance exercises had significant therapeutic effect on HRQoL in patients with LMLBP. However, the addition of dynamic back extensors endurance exercise to MP led to higher improvement on HRQoL. It is recommended that static or dynamic endurance exercise be combined with MP in patients with LMLBP to derive maximum improvement in general health status.

 

Acknowledgements

 

This research was funded by an African Doctoral Dissertation Research Fellowship award offered by the African Population and Health Research Center (APHRC) in partnership with the International Development Research Centre (IDRC). We would like to thank the management and clinicians of the department of physiotherapy OAUTHC, Ile-Ife, Nigeria for their support in carrying out the study. We will also like to thank all the patients who participated in this study.

 

Competing Interests

 

The authors declare no competing interests.

 

Authors� Contributions

 

All the authors have contributed in this study in ways that comply to the ICMJE authorship criteria. All the authors have read and approved the final version of the manuscript.

 

In conclusion,�the quality of life of patients with chronic and/or persistent low back pain improved and the pain intensity of the symptoms of LBP appeared to decrease with the use of McKenzie therapy and endurance exercises, according to the study. Furthermore, under the McKenzie treatment protocol, static and dynamic back extensor endurance exercises were recorded to significantly improve symptoms as compared to endurance exercises alone. Information referenced from the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI). The scope of our information is limited to chiropractic as well as to spinal injuries and conditions. To discuss the subject matter, please feel free to ask Dr. Jimenez or contact us at 915-850-0900 .

 

Curated by Dr. Alex Jimenez

 

Green-Call-Now-Button-24H-150x150-2-3.png

 

Additional Topics: Sciatica

 

Sciatica is referred to as a collection of symptoms rather than a single type of injury or condition. The symptoms are characterized as radiating pain, numbness and tingling sensations from the sciatic nerve in the lower back, down the buttocks and thighs and through one or both legs and into the feet. Sciatica is commonly the result of irritation, inflammation or compression of the largest nerve in the human body, generally due to a herniated disc or bone spur.

 

blog picture of cartoon paperboy big news

 

IMPORTANT TOPIC: EXTRA EXTRA: Treating Sciatica Pain

 

 

Blank
References
1. Waddell G. London: Churchill Livingstone; 1998. The back pain revolution.
2. Burton AK, Balague F, Cardon G, Eriksen HR, Henrotin Y, Lahad A, et al. On behalf of the COST B13 Working Group on Guidelines for Prevention in Low Back Pain. European guidelines for prevention in low back pain – November 2004. Eur Spine J. 2006;15:s136�168. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
3. Mckenzie RA. Waikanae, New Zealand: Spinal Publication Limited; 1990. Treat Your Own Back. Spinal Publication. Pu.
4. Sikorski JM, Stampfer HG, Cole RM, Wheatley AE. Psychological aspects of chronic low back pain. Aust N Zeal J Surg. 1996;66(5):294�7. [PubMed]
5. Filho IT, Simmonds MJ, Protas EJ, Jones S. Back pain, physical function, and estimates of aerobic capacity: what are the relationships among methods and measures? Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2002;81(12):913�20. [PubMed]
6. Anderson GBJ. Epidemiologic features of chronic low-back pain. Lancet. 1999;354(9178):581�585. [PubMed]
7. World Health Organization (WHO) Scientific Group on the Burden of Musculoskeletal Conditions of the Start of the New Millennium. Geneva: WHO; 2003. The burden of musculoskeletal conditions at the start of the new millennium. [PubMed]
8. Louw QA, Morris LD, Grimmer-Somers K. The prevalence of low back pain in Africa: a systematic review. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2007;8:105. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
9. van Tulder MW, Koes BW, Bouter LM. Conservative treatment of acute and chronic nonspecific low back pain. A systematic review of randomized controlled trials of the most common interventions. Spine. 1997;22(18):2128�56. [PubMed]
10. Quittan M. Management of Back Pain. Disabil Rehabil. 2002;24(8):423�34. [PubMed]
11. Bigos SJ, McKee J, Holland JP, Holland CL, Hildebrandt J. Back pain; the uncomfortable truth-assurance and activity paradigm. Der Schmertz. 2001;15(6):430�434. [PubMed]
12. Deyo RA, Tsui-Wu YJ. Functional disability due to low-back pain: a population-based study indicating the importance of socioeconomic factors. Arthritis Rheum. 1987;30(11):1247�1253. [PubMed]
13. Coste J, Delecoeuillerie G, Cohen de Lara A, Le Parc JM, Paolaggi JB. Clinical course and prognostic factors of acute low-back pain: an inception cohort study in primary care practice. BMJ. 1994;308(6928):577�80. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
14. Picavet HS, Schouten JS. Musculoskeletal pain in the Netherlands: prevalences; consequences and risk groups; the DMC 3-study. Pain. 2003;102(1-2):167�78. [PubMed]
15. Tuzun EH. Quality of life in chronic musculoskeletal pain. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol. 2007;21(3):567�579. [PubMed]
16. Last AR, Hulbert K. Chronic Low Back Pain: Evaluation and Management. Am Fam Physician. 2009 www.vertebrologi.ru/biblio/chronic_back.pdf. Accessed 4th December 2013. [PubMed]
17. Linton SJ. A review of psychological risk factors in back and neck pain. Spine. 2000;25(9):1148�56. [PubMed]
18. Scholich SL, Hallner D, Wittenberg RH, Hasenbring MI, Rusu AC. The relationship between pain, disability, quality of life and cognitive-behavioural factors in chronic back pain. Disabil Rehabil. 2012;34(23):1993�2000. [PubMed]
19. Geisser ME, Robinson ME, Miller QL, Bade SM. Psychosocial factors and functional capacity evaluation among persons with chronic pain. J Occup Rehabil. 2003;13(4):259�76. [PubMed]
20. Lam� IE, Peters ML, Vlaeyen JW, Kleef M, Patijn J. Quality of life in chronic pain is more associated with beliefs about pain, than with pain intensity. Eur J Pain. 2005;9(1):15�24. [PubMed]
21. Deyo RA, Andersson G, Bombardier C, Cherkin DC, Keller RB, Lee CK, et al. Outcome measures for studying patients with low back pain. Spine. 1994;19(Suppl 18):2032S�6. [PubMed]
22. Bombardier C. Outcome assessments in the evaluation of treatment of spinal disorders. Spine. 2000;25(24):3100�3. [PubMed]
23. Ware JE, Snow KK, Kosinski M, Gandek B. SF-36 Health Survey – Manual and Interpretation Guide. Boston: The Health Institute; New England Medical Center. 1993;4:3.
24. Ware JE, Jr, Sherbourne CD. The MOS 36-item shortform health survey (SF-36) I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care. 1992;30(6):473�483. [PubMed]
25. Main CJ, George SZ. Psychosocial Influences on Low Back Pain: Why Should You Care? Phys Ther. 2011;91(5):609�13. [PubMed]
26. Vlaeyenm JWS, Kole-Snijders AM, Boeren RG, van Eek H. Fear of movement/(re)injury in chronic low back pain and its relation to behavioral performance. Pain. 1995;62:363�372. [PubMed]
27. Gatchel RJ, Polatin PB, Mayer TG. The dominant role of psychosocial risk factors in the development of chronic low back pain disability. Spine. 1995;20(24):2702�2709. [PubMed]
28. George SZ, Joel E Bialosky, Julie M Fritz. Beliefs Acute Low Back Pain and Elevated Fear-Avoidance Physical Therapist Management of a Patient With. Phys Ther. 2004;84(6):538�549. [PubMed]
29. H�gg O, Burckhardt C, Fritzell C, Nordwall A. Quality of Life in Chronic Low Back Pain: A Comparison with Fibromyalgia and the General Population. J Muscoskel Pain. 2003;11(1):31�38.
30. Woby SR, Watson PJ, Roach NK, Urmston M. Are changes in fear-avoidance beliefs, catastrophizing, and appraisals of control, predictive of changes in chronic low back pain and disability? Eur J Pain. 2004;8(3):201�210. [PubMed]
31. Weiner BK. Spine Update – The Biopsychosocial Model and Spine Care. Spine. 2008;33(2):219�223. [PubMed]
32. Lopez A, Mathers C, Ezzati M, Jamison D, Murray J. Global and regional burden of disease and risk factors, : Systematic analysis of population health data 2001. Lancet. 2006;367(9524):1747�57. [PubMed]
33. Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) Canberra: ABS; 2006. Physical activity in Australia: a snapshot, 2004-05. ABS cat. no. 4835.0.55.001.
34. Cavill N, Kahlmeier S, Racioppi F. Physical activity and health in Europe: evidence for action. www.euro.who.int/en/publications/abstracts/physical-activity-and-health-in-europe-evidence-for-action. Accessed 22/12/2012.
35. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDCP) Exercise or Physical Activity. 2013 www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/exercise.htm Accessed 12th January 2013.
36. Hayden JA, van Tulder MW, Tomlinson G. Systematic Review: Strategies for using exercise therapy to improve outcomes in chronic low-back pain. Ann Int Med. 2005;142(9):776�785. [PubMed]
37. Brukner P, Khan K. Sydney: McGraw-Hill; 1993. Clinical Sports Medicine.
38. Cherkin DC, Deyo RA, Battla MC, Street JH, Hund M, Barlow W. A comparison of Physical therapy chiropractice manipulation or an educational booklet for the treatment of low back pain. New Eng J Med. 1998;339(15):1021�1029. [PubMed]
39. McKenzie R, May S. Mechanical diagnosis & therapy. 2nd edition. Vol. 1. Waikanae, New Zealand: Spinal Publications New Zealand Ltd.; 2003. The lumbar spine.
40. Machado LA, de Souza MS, Ferreira PH, Ferreira ML. The McKenzie method for low back pain: a systematic review of the literature with a meta-analysis approach. Spine. 2006;31:254�262. [PubMed]
41. Ayanniyi O, Lasisi OT, Adegoke BOA, Oni-Orisan MO. Management of low back pain: Attitudes and treatment preferences of physiotherapists in Nigeria. Afr J Biomed Res. 2007;10(1):41�49.
42. Mbada CE, Ayanniyi O, Ogunlade SO. Effect of static and dynamic back extensor muscles endurance exercise on pain intensity, activity limitation and participation restriction in patients with long-term mechanical low-back pain. Med Rehabil. 2011;15(3):11�20.
43. Cohen J. In Statistical Power Analyses for Behavioural Sceinces 2nd Ed Chapter 8. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1988. The analysis of variance and covariance: Sample size tables.
44. Bronfort G, Bouter LM. Responsiveness of general health status in chronic low back pain: a comparison of the COOP charts and the SF-36. Pain. 1999;83(2):201�9. [PubMed]
45. Taylor SJ, Taylor AE, Foy MA, Fogg AJB. Responsiveness of common outcome measures for patients with low back pain. Spine. 2001;24(17):1805�1812. [PubMed]
46. Jensen MP, McFarland CA. Increasing the reliability and validity of pain intensity measurement in chronic pain patients. Pain. 1993;55(2):195�203. [PubMed]
47. Von Korff M, Deyo RA, Cherkin D, Barlow SF. Back pain in primary care: Outcomes at 1 year. Spine. 1993:55�862. [PubMed]
48. Moffroid MT, Haugh LD, Haig AJ, Henry SM, Pope MH. Endurance training of trunk extensor muscles. Phys Ther. 1993;73:10�17. [PubMed]
49. Adegoke BOA, Babatunde FO. Effect of an exercise protocol on the endurance of trunk extensor muscles: a RCT. Hong Kong Physiother J. 2007;25:2�9.
50. Petrofsky JS, Lind AR. Aging, isometric strength and endurance; and cardiovascular responses to static effort. J Appl Physiol. 1975;38(1):91�95. [PubMed]
51. Bonde-Petersen F, Mork AL, Nielsen E. Local muscle blood flow and sustained contractions of human arm and back muscles. Eur J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol. 1975;34(1):43�50. [PubMed]
52. Chok B, Lee R, Latimer J, Beng Tan S. Endurance training of the trunk extensor muscles in people with sub acute low back pain. Phys Ther. 1999;79(11):1032�1042. [PubMed]
53. Fox EL, Bowers RW, Foss ML. 4th Ed. Philadelphia: Saunders College; 1988. The physiological basis of physical education and athletics.
54. Liddle SD, Baxter GD, Gracey JH. Exercise and chronic low back pain – what works? Pain. 2004;107(1-2):176�190. [PubMed]
55. Leboeuf-Yde C, Kyvik KO. At what age does low back pain become a common problem? A study of 29;4 24 individuals aged 12-41 years. Spine. 1998;23(2):228�34. [PubMed]
56. Underwood MR, Morton V, Farrin A, UK BEAM trial team Do baseline characteristics predict response to treatment for low back pain? Secondary analysis of the UK BEAM dataset. Rheumatology. 2007;46(8):1297�1302. [PubMed]
57. Hill JC, Fritz JM. Psychosocial influences on low back pain; disability; and response to treatment. Phys Ther. 2011;91(5):712�21. [PubMed]
58. Sengul Y, Kara B, Arda MN. The relationship between health locus of control and quality of life in patients with chronic low back pain. Turk Neurosurg. 2010;20(2):180�185. [PubMed]
59. Tavafian SS, Eftekhar H, Mohammad K, Jamshidi AR, Montazeri A, Shojaeezadeh D, Ghofranipour F. Quality of Life in Women with Different Intensity of Low Back Pain. Iran J Public Health. 2005;34(2):36�39.
60. Turner JA, Jensen MP, Romano JM. Do beliefs, coping, and catastrophizing independently predict functioning in patients with chronic pain. Pain. 2000;85(1-2):115�25. [PubMed]
61. Lyons RA, Lo SV, Littlepage BNC. Comparative health status of patients with 11 common illnesses in Wales. J Epidemiol Community Health. 1994;48(4):388�390. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
62. Lurie J. A review of generic health status measures in patients with low back pain. Spine. 2000;25(24):3125�9. [PubMed]
63. Jenkinson C, Coulter A, Wright L. Short form 36 (SF 36) health survey questionnaire: normative data for adults ofworking age. BMJ. 1993;306(6890):143740. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
64. Smeets RJ, Vlaeyen JW, Kester AD, Knottnerus JA. Reduction of pain catastrophizing mediates the outcome of both physical and cognitive-behavioral treatment in chronic low back pain. J Pain. 2006;7:261�271. [PubMed]
65. Verbunt JA, Seelen HA, Vlaeyen JW, van de Heijden GJ, Heuts PH, Pons K, Knottnerus JA. Disuse and deconditioning in chronic low back pain: concepts and hypotheses on contributing mechanisms. Eur J Pain. 2003;7(1):9�21. [PubMed]
66. Harding VR, Watson PJ. Increasing Activity & Improving Function In Chronic Pain Management. Physiotherapy. 2000;86(12):619�630.
67. Garcia AN, Gondo FLB, Costa RA, Cyrillo FN, Silva TM, Costa LCM, Costa LOP. Effectiveness of the back school and McKenzie techniques in patients with chronic non-specific low back pain: a protocol of a randomised controlled trial. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2011;12:179. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
68. Udermann BE, Mayer JM, Donelson RG, Graves JE, Murray SR. Combining lumbar extension training with McKenzie therapy: Effects on pain; disability; and psychosocial functioning in chronic low back pain patients. GLMJ. 2004;3(2):7�12.
69. Kovascs FM, Abraira V, Zamora J, Fernandez C. The transition from acute to subacute and chronic low back pain: A study based on determinants of quality of life and prediction of chronic disability. Spine. 2005;30:1786�1792. [PubMed]
70. Johnson OE, Adegoke BOA, Ogunlade SO. Comparison of four physiotherapy regimens in the treatment of long-term mechanical low back pain. JJPTA. 2010;13(1):9�16. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
71. Shaughnessy M, Caulfield B. A pilot study to investigate the effect of lumbar stabilisation exercise training on functional ability and quality of life in patients with chronic low back pain. Int J Rehabil Res. 2004;27(4):297�301. [PubMed]
72. Kank��np�� M, Taimela S, Airaksien OJ, Hannnien O. The efficacy of active rehabilitation in chronic low back pain. Effect on pain intensity; self-experienced disability and lumbar fatigability. Spine. 1999;24(10):1034�42. [PubMed]
73. Rainville J, Hartigan C, Martinez E, Limke J, Jouve C, Finno M. Exercise as a treatment for chronic low back pain. Spine J. 2004;4(1):106�115. [PubMed]
74. Guyatt Gordon. Insights and Limitations from Health-Related Quality-of-Life Research. Gen Intern Med. 1997;12(11):720�721. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
75. Kleinman A, Eisenberg L, Good B. Culture, illness and care: clinical lessons from anthropologic and cross-cultural research. Ann Intern Med. 1978;88:251�258. [PubMed]
76. Carr AJ, Higginson IJ. Are quality of life measures patient centred? BMJ. 2001;322(7298):1357�1360. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
Close Accordion
Whiplash Injuries Explained

Whiplash Injuries Explained

Whiplash Injuries Explained: Whiplash Associated Disorders

  • Approximately 15 to 40% of those injured in automobile accidents will struggle with chronic pain for the rest of their life. Journal of the American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons, 2007
  • Whiplash injuries not only increase your chances of chronic neck and shoulder pain, they also increase the probability of other seemingly unrelated health problems. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 2001
  • Chronic Pain does bad things to people. According to standardized assessment tests, 100% of those struggling with chronic pain caused by whiplash injuries have abnormal psychological profiles. The only way to resolve these abnormal psychological profiles is to relieve / remove the chronic back pain, neck pain and headaches. Counseling / Psychiatry has not been shown to improve the pain nor the psychological profiles of people suffering from the effects of their automobile accident. Pain, 1997
  • The longest-running study ever done on whiplash patients looked at the overall health of whiplash patients almost twenty years after their automobile accident. Nearly two decades after their accident, 55% of those patients still deal with chronic pain. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 2002
  • Unless you have a fracture or specific ligament tear, Cervical Collars are no longer recommended for treating patients with whiplash injuries. When cervical collars are used as a whiplash injury treatment, there is a 90% probability that you will still have chronic neck pain in six months. Spine, 2000
  • One in one hundred people around the world (1% of the population, or just over 70 million people) suffer from ongoing chronic neck pain due to an automobile-induced whiplash injury. Injury, 2005
  • One in fifty people injured in Whiplash-like accident deal with chronic pain severe enough to need diagnostic testing, medications, and doctor visits, on an ongoing basis —– nearly eight years after the accident occured. Pain, 1994

“Statistically, every American can expect to be in a motor vehicle collision once every ten years. Motor vehicle collisions have been the number one cause of death of our children for decades. Since 9/11 (September 11, 2001), about 3,000 Americans have died as a consequence of terrorism; about 360,000 Americans have died in motor vehicle crashes. Since the start of the American Revolution in 1775, about a million Americans have died in our wars. Since Henry Ford introduced the mass-produced motorcar in 1913, more than 2.5 million Americans have met their deaths on the road. And millions of Americans who did not die from motor vehicle collisions were injured.” Orthopedist and one of the world’s foremost experts on whiplash, Dr. Dan Murphy. There are 3,000,000 new cases of whiplash in the US every year.

Whiplash Injuries Explained

The word �whiplash� is a layperson�s term —- and although it is typically associated with Car Crashes, crashes are certainly not the only way to get a whiplash injury. Whiplash Associated Disorders (WAD) are typically referred to in the medico-legal literature as �Acceleration / Deceleration� injuries, or “Hyperflexion / Hyperextension” injuries. And, as many of you have come to understand the hard way, they can be incredibly violent � even in seemingly minor accidents that had surprisingly little vehicular damage. With over three million new cases of Acceleration / Deceleration injuries occurring each year, and over 50% of those progressing to at least some degree of unresolved or �chronic� symptoms, it is clear that Whiplash Associated Disorders are taking a massive toll on our country financially, physically, and emotionally.

When people think of �whiplash� they tend to think of motor vehicle accidents (MVA�s). Although MVA is probably the single most common cause of the symptoms most frequently associated with and experienced by those suffering with Whiplash Associated Disorders (neck pain, upper back pain, shoulder pain, fuzzy thinking, numbness, tingling and / or weakness of the hands, dizziness, etc), whiplash can occur in about a thousand and one different ways. And while there are certain symptoms that we see over and over and over in our clinic (neck pain and headaches, for instance), whiplash can seemingly cause about a thousand and one different symptoms as well. Some of the most common causes of WAD that I see in my office include sports injuries, work injuries (think logging here), spousal abuse, fights, horse accidents (falls), and almost anything else that has the capacity to �snap� your head suddenly and violently.

Although the most common problems associated with Whiplash Associated Disorders are related to the neck (neck pain, numb hands, headaches), scientific research shows that Acceleration / Deceleration injuries routinely cause all sorts of other injuries as well. For instance, I commonly see people whose low back pain started with an MVA. I even see people whose FIBROMYALGIA was brought on by the emotional and physical stress of an MVA! One of the most shocking conclusions concerning Whiplash Associated Disorders, was written by a pair of the most well known whiplash researchers on the planet � medical researchers, not chiropractic researchers. Drs. Gargan & Bannister stated in a study that was done in the 1990?s, that whiplash-like injuries frequently result in a whole host of, �bizarre and seemingly unrelated symptoms�. Although there are plenty of malingerers, fakers, scam artists, money-grubbers, and drug seekers out there; far too many people are lumped into these categories simply because their problems do not show up on traditional medical tests such as MRI / CT.

Even though there are literally scores of scientific studies concluding that Whiplash Associated Disorders are difficult (often to the point of being impossible) to image on x-rays, CT’s, or MRI�s, these are still the chief method the medical community is using to determine whether or not you were injured, and just how serious this injury might be. The problem is, if the vast majority of soft-tissue injuries (injuries to LIGAMENTS, TENDONS, MUSCLES, FASCIA, etc) do not image well with advanced imaging techniques, and imaging is the medical community�s chief method of diagnosis; unless you have a herniated disc, you will invariably be treated like nothing is really wrong with you � like you are a scam artist trying to extort a huge settlement from an insurance company. Stop and think for a moment about how problematic that fascia, arguably the single most pain-sensitive tissue in your entire body, will not show up on any tests —- including MRI.

When you are taken the the ER, you will have some tests run and the doctor will look at you and say, �Thank God Mrs. Smith. Nothing is broken! Now, go home and rest, and call your family doctor tomorrow. In the mean time, wear this collar, and take these Anti-Inflammatory Medications, pain pills, and muscle relaxers. Oh, and don�t forget to use a heat pack as well.� Is this good advice? Sure it is � if you own a medical clinic! Follow this advice and you are certain to become a lifetime ARTHRITIC! The truth is, when it comes to the evaluation and treatment of injuries to fascia and other elastic, collagen-based connective tissues, all of our hi-tech equipment with its bells and whistles is simply not helping diagnose or help most injured people. You are reading a page on whiplash —- my guess is that you completely understand this concept because you have been there, and done that! The Old Model of tissue injury evaluation and treatment went out the door about 25 years ago. It just seems like no one has remembered to tell treating physicians about the NEW MODEL.

Brain Based Injury

Your short drive to work was no different than any other day —- until you began slowing down for the school bus stopping in front of you. Just as you’re coming to a complete stop, BAM; your world explodes as someone plows into your car from behind, knocking you into the bus. Turns out the kid driving the full-sized crew cab pickup truck that hit you was texting, and never even hit his brakes. You’re having a hard time remembering exactly what happened. You remember a flash of light and your head being slammed backwards over the top of your headrest. You vaguely recall that your head rocketed forward as you hit the bus — almost hitting the windshield. You step out of your 1997 Toyota Camry to take stock of the situation. There is no blood or guts. In fact, you don’t even have a bruise to show for your trouble. But by the time the State Troopers arrive to work the accident, you not only have a neck pain unlike anything you have ever felt before, you have a banging headache as well. You’re having trouble putting the pieces in order for them. They ask if you need an ambulance, but you do not want to go to the Emergency Room. But a few weeks later, you’re still having trouble with your memory. Work is not going well because on top of the pain and exhaustion (yeah, since the accident you can’t sleep either), everything seems fuzzy, foggy, and hazy. Who would have thought that whiplash could cause these sorts of symptoms —– particularly without any overt / obvious injuries?

Whiplash Injuries are particularly dangerous because they are a common cause of MTBI (Mild Traumatic Brain Injury). MTBI results from the brain bouncing off the inside of the skull during the hyperextension / hyperflexion of the neck. As you can imagine, this damages / destroys nerve cells. Depending on which part of the brain is injured, a person might have problems in some of the following areas…

  • Walking / Moving
  • Balance
  • Coordination
  • Strength / Endurance
  • Ability to Communicate
  • Ability to Understand
  • Ability to Think
  • Memory
  • Strange or Unexplainable Pain Patterns or Symptoms (these are some of the “bizarre and seemingly unrelated symptoms” talked about by whiplash researchers Gargan and Bannister.)
  • Altered Psychological Profiles

Because these symptoms are often subtle, not very specific, and do not show up on standard medical tests such as x-rays or MRI’s, it�s common for patients with MTBI not to complain about them — at least initially. For many people it can be embarrassing “complaining” to the chiropractor or doctor about these vague and difficult-to-describe symptoms that have no external findings to relate them to (bruising, abrasions, broken bones, etc). Believe it or not, many patients are relieved to find out that there is a physiological reason that they feel the way they do, and that it is not “all in their head”. The good news is that with the correct kind of care, most of the patients who are struggling with these injuries will recover within a year’s time. But unfortunately, not all do. It is for this group of people that the term MTBI or “Post Concussive Syndrome” is used.

Factors That Worsen Whiplash Injury

The �old� model of whiplash said that WAD was simply caused by stretched or torn tissue, which was solely the result of the head flying around upon impact. That model simply did not explain the injuries being reported in low-speed collisions (15 mph and under). The most current whiplash models shows that a wave is �shot� through the spine upon impact —- quite similar to the wave you create to move the garden hose a couple of feet to the left. This wave, which occurs in a fraction of a second, can tear both connective tissue and nerve tissue microscopically. It also momentarily induces a tremendous amount of pressure in the smallest blood vessels (capillaries) which is known as �blood hammer�. Blood Hammer, FASCIAL TEARING, and subsequent Neurological Damage, helps to explain some of these “bizarre and seemingly unrelated symptoms” that are almost epidemic in those who have suffered whiplash injuries due to MVA’s.

What Can Make Whiplash Injury Worse?

FACTORS THAT POTENTIALLY INCREASE WHIPLASH SEVERITY

  • Unaware of approaching impact
  • Being Female (less muscle mass)
  • Incorrectly positioned headrest (too low)
  • Wet, Icy, or Slick roads (or gravel)
  • Automatic Transmission
  • Your vehicle is small and light or struck by a larger vehicle
  • Elderly or arthritic spine (or history of previous whiplash injury)
  • Head turned at impact
  • Angled or side-impact accidents (rear-enders are particularly bad)

FACTORS THAT POTENTIALLY DECREASE WHIPLASH SEVERITY

  • Aware of approaching impact
  • Being Male (more muscle mass)
  • Headrest positioned at mid-ear
  • Dry Pavement
  • Manual Transmission
  • Your vehicle is large, heavy, or struck by a much smaller vehicle
  • Younger or more flexible and healthy spine (no previous injury)
  • Head facing forward at impact
  • Straight impacts

Relationship: Severity Of Injury & Amount Of Vehicle Damage

statistics

“Different parts of the human body have different inertial masses. The mechanism of injury from a rear-end motor vehicle collision, is, as a rule, an inertial injury. This means the injury does not occur as a consequence of direct contact of vehicle parts to the patient�s body; rather, injury occurs as a consequence of different inertial masses moving independently from one another.” Dr. Daniel Murphy, Board Certified Orthopedist and Leading Expert in Whiplash Diagnosis and Treatment

In 1687, famed astronomer / mathematician / physicist / philosopher / and theologian, Sir Issac Newton, wrote his still-renowned Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathmatica (now referred to as Principia or simply “Principles”), that is still considered to be the greatest scientific textbook in human history.

In Principia, Newton laid out his three Laws of Motion. These laws are able to explain whiplash and the subsequent injury that follows better than anything else I have seen thus far. For understanding whiplash injuries and their relationship to vehicle damage, Newton’s first law is the most important —- The Law of Inertia. Channel your 8th grade science class and stay with me here as we take a brief science / physics review. Newton’s First Law: Objects at rest remain at rest unless they are acted on by an outside force. Likewise, objects in motion stay in motion unless they are acted on by an outside force. And remember this; Like Dr. Murphy described above, whiplash injuries occur because different parts of your body can and will have different inertias — sometimes very different inertias.

Let’s say that you are sitting at a stoplight and minding your own business. You’re humming along to Manfred Mann’s Blinded by the Light, when all of a sudden —- BAM! You are slammed from behind and launched across the intersection like you were shot from a cannon! You are not sure what happened, but you feel like you just got knocked into next week. PHYSICS LESSON: When your vehicle was struck from behind, it shot forward. Much of this had to do with the fact that you were driving a 1992 Toyota Corolla, and the kid that hit you (he was texting of course) was headed to the sale barn for his dad, driving a F-350 Supercab, and pulling a stock trailer loaded with eight steers. When he hit you, there was a huge instantaneous change in momentum. In a fraction of a second, your Corolla was accelerated from zero to over 50 mph. Let’s look at this event in frame-by-frame fashion.

As the Corolla shot forward, so did your torso that was sitting in the seat. Follow me, because here is the precise point where whiplash occurs. As your body was accelerated forward, your head (at least in the initial milliseconds) did not move. The head is much smaller (and lighter) than your torso, and attached by a thin column of muscles, tissues, and tiny vertebrate we call the neck or Cervical Spine. Because of the weight difference between the head and the body, as well as the fact that the connector between them (the neck) is stretchy and relatively thin; the head has a completely different inertia than the body. This was magnified by the fact that the seat back kept your torso from moving very far backwards, but did nothing to stop your neck — and unfortunately, your head restraint was not adjusted to the proper height. In other words, your body was essentially driven out from under your head; then a fraction of a second later, your head not only caught up with your body, it actually accelerated to a greater velocity than your body, and overshot it as your head slammed forward.

Let’s review: As the vehicle, the seat, and your body rocketed forward with the explosive energy and momentum shift from the impact, your head remained stationary for a split second. Your body was essentially driven out from under your head, making it appear that your head slammed backwards. As your head’s momentum began catch up to that of your body, the tissues in your neck began to stretch and deform. Unfortunately, when the force of the accident is greater than the forces holding your tissues together, these tissues begin to tear —- at least on a microscopic basis (remember, most of the time this tearing and SCAR TISSUE will not show up on an MRI). The result was a whiplash injury —- an inertial injury to the SPINAL LIGAMENTS, SPINAL DISCS, FASCIA, TENDONS, and other soft tissues of the neck and upper back. In fact, there are studies showing that even though they are too small to be effectively imaged with current MRI technology, there are often (usually) microscopic fractures of the FACET JOINTS present with intense whiplash injuries. Frequently, there is also sub-clinical brain injury as well.

Interestingly enough, one of the things that make muscles contract with greater intensity is to maximally stretch them (think of the windup and cocked arm of a baseball pitcher here). When the neck is stretched to such a great degree, it’s muscles contract to an equally intense degree. When coupled with the acceleration and subsequent deceleration of the vehicle, this causes the neck to slam forward causing still more tissue tearing in the neck and upper back. And the most important thing to grasp is that your neck and head never hit anything throughout the entire process. The injury to the neck itself (which happened in a matter of milliseconds) occurred because of a huge momentary shift in momentum, energy, and inertia between your body and your head —- just like what you see in Shaken Baby Syndrome.

Although you are slightly dazed, you get out of your Corolla and begin to appraise the situation. You look at your limbs. They look intact. You can move. You are breathing. There’s no blood. Nothing looks bruised or feels broken. In fact, you do not have as much as a scratch on you. You do not want to go to the Emergency Room, but the State Trooper working the accident talks you in to it. You have several spinal x-rays and a CT of your neck. Everything is negative. The ER doctor comes in, pokes you, prods you a couple times, and has you move a bit. He then delivers a short monologue — one he has delivered hundreds of times previously, “Wow Mr. Jones. Sounds like you were born under a lucky star. Thank God nothing is broken. Neurologically you check out fine. You’ll be sore, but just go see your family doctor tomorrow. You’ll get some PAIN PILLS, NSAIDS, CORTICOSTEROIDS, and MUSCLE RELAXERS. Don’t worry. You’ll be just fine.”

But that’s just it. You saw your doctor, and as the weeks go by, you’re not fine. Far from it. You are in pain, and it’s getting worse. But you have nothing to show for it. Like I said, there were no broken bones and no bruises. Heck, there was not even a cut or scratch. There is nothing that would alert anyone (let alone a doctor who is not up on the most current research) that you are in pain —- and that it’s getting worse. And on top of that, the damage to the rear end of your Corolla looked surprisingly light compared to how hard you were hit and the way that you feel (for Pete’s sake, the car is actually drivable). The other fellow’s insurance company paid you $2,000 for your Toyota, which was over double the Kelly Blue Book value. They took care of the ambulance ride and Emergency Room visit, and even offered you $1,500 for pain and suffering. You hired an attorney, but he acts like he does not really believe how much you hurt either. What’s going on here?

Almost half a century ago (1964), the prestigious medical journal, American Journal of Orthopedics revealed a still well-concealed fact — that there is no relationship (none, nada, zilch, zero) between the damage done to the vehicle and the amount of injury to the vehicle’s occupants. Since that time, the medical and scientific communities have proved this fact over and over and over again via research. It is a fact that I have heard verified over and over and over again by the Law Enforcement Officers and Paramedics that I adjust on a regular basis. Although most of the time, Insurance Companies and the Attorneys that represent them would have you believe just the opposite (there was not enough vehicle damage to have an injury), it’s just not true. Decades worth of scientific studies tell us that the severity of the vehicle damage cannot predict….

  • If patients will suffer whiplash injuries.
  • How severe those injuries might be.
  • How long it will take to effectively treat / heal the injury — or whether they will ever really heal at all.
  • Whether or not the injured party will end up with Chronic Pain and / or Arthritis as a direct result of the accident.

Dozens upon dozens of studies on Motor Vehicle Accidents have shown that vehicles that do not crumple upon impact will be accelerated with a far greater force and momentum. The faster that your vehicle is accelerated upon impact, the greater the inertial stresses to the neck and upper back. This is why today’s vehicles are made with “crumple zones”. You are much better off if the force of impact is absorbed by vehicular deformation, than by deformation of your body, particularly the soft tissues and discs of your neck. The larger the inertial stresses to the neck and upper back, the greater the damage to the soft tissues of the cervical spine / neck.

So, it stands to reason that harder impacts and greater amounts of vehicle damage lead to greater amounts of bodily injury. Not only is this not true, but most of the medical research on whiplash injuries today is being done on the effects of low speed impacts (those under 15 mph). Here are a few of the Scientific / Medical / Legal profession’s journals saying that there is no relationship between the amount of vehicular damage and the amount of injury to the vehicle’s occupants.

  • The Spine, 1982
  • Orthopedic Clinics of North America, 1988
  • Society of Automotive Engineers, 1990
  • Injury, 1993
  • Trial Talk, 1993
  • Injury, 1994
  • American Journal of Pain Management, 1994
  • Society of Automotive Engineers, 1995
  • Society of Automotive Engineers, 1997
  • Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 1998
  • Journal Of Whiplash & Related Disorders, 2002
  • Spine, 2004
  • Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery, and Psychiatry, 2005
  • Spine, 2005
  • Whiplash Injuries, 2006

One of the problems, however, with whiplash injuries is that they frequently end up causing DEGENERATIVE ARTHRITIS. This has to do with the fact that these inertial injuries damage tissues in ways that cannot be imaged using even the most advanced technologies. Because most doctors are not up on current whiplash research, and feel you are looking for a big settlement, they frequently treat you like a malingerer (faker). However, these injuries cause the microscopic fibrosis that causes abnormal joint motion over time. This leads to arthritis so frequently, that I can often predict with a great deal of accuracy when a person’s injury occurred — just by looking at a current x-ray of their neck.

Arthritis After An Automobile Accident

  • X-rays taken an average of seven years after a whiplash injury revealed that arthritis in the neck’s spinal discs in almost 40% of the patients. The study’s uninjured group showed only a 6% rate of arthritis. What did the authors conclude? �Thus, it appeared that the injury had started the slow process of disc degeneration.� The Cervical Spine Research Society, 1989
  • Whiplash patients who already had degenerative arthritis of their cervical spine (neck), showed evidence of degenerative arthritis at previously non-arthritic discs and vertebrates in 55% of cases. The Cervical Spine Research Society, 1989
  • Compared to the necks of uninjured patients, a single incidence of whiplash increases the occurance of neck arthritis by 10 years. The Journal of Orthopedic Medicine, 1997
  • Pre-exisiting arthritis of the neck / Cervical Spine, greatly worsens the effects of a whiplash injury. Numerous studies show how this slows recovery times and increases the probability of ending up with Chronic Pain and even more arthritis than you started with. British Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, 1983; The American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons, 1987; Orthopedic Clinics of North America, 1988; Spine, 1994; British Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, 1996
  • A great example of Inertia Injuries involves the sport of soccer. Soccer players who regularly “head” soccer balls, speed up degenerative arthritis of the neck by as much as twenty years. European Spine Journal, 2004 This is not new information, however. I wrote a newspaper column on the subject clear back in 1993. We saw that professional soccer players had double the amount of neck arthritis as their non-soccer playing peer group.

Whiplash Disorders: Difficult To Diagnose Despite Advanced Imaging

WAD is difficult to properly diagnose or evaluate using standard medical tests. X-rays do not ever show soft connective tissues, and dozens of studies show that MRIs, contrary to popular belief, do a poor job of imaging injured soft tissues — ESPECIALLY FASCIA. This is why you might feel like you are �dying�, but all of the tests are negative. People go through this experience over and over. They are then sent home from the E.R. or doctor�s office with pain killers, muscle-relaxers, and anti-inflammation drugs which can actually cause injured tissue to heal approximately 1/3 weaker and less elastic than it otherwise would, and told that in time it will heal. Just like a broken arm that is cocked off at a funny angle but never set or put in a cast; it will heal�.. It just won�t heal the right way or with the proper amount of joint function / motion.

So just how should a problem like this be addressed? The key to a functional recovery is controlled motion. CHIROPRACTIC ADJUSTMENTS, specific stretches, and strengthening exercises are the number one way to accomplish this! Because FASCIAL ADHESIONS are usually part of the whiplash equation, you will probably need to undergo some form of Tissue Remodeling as well. Restoring movement, function, and strength (both to individual joints or vertebrate, and to the spine or limb as a whole) is the only proven method that is effective in truly reducing the symptoms of whiplash. Contrary to popular belief, using drugs to simply cover symptoms, is never a good option.

If the only treatment you receive for your whiplash injury is palliative (meaning covering symptoms with drugs, without addressing the underlying cause of those symptoms), then any relief achieved is temporary, and the end product of this process will likely be dysfunction, degeneration, and chronic pain!

Doctor/s Cannot Find Anything Wrong: What To Do

whiplash injuries explained

I would seriously consider getting a new doctor. As you have already read, whiplash is frequently a “clinical” diagnosis. This simply means that it is not going to show up well on standard imaging tests such as x-rays, CT, and even MRI. If your doctor is not up on the most current whiplash research, you lose — in more ways than one. Let me show you the results of one study that wanted to determine if the effects of whiplash were real (“organic”) or in the patient’s head (“psychometric”). By the way, this study comes from a 1997 issue of one of the planet’s most prestigious medical journals, The Journal of Orthopedic Medicine. They compared a large control group to a large whiplash group, ten years after the accident. Not only does this give us a long-term look at the effects of whiplash, it also removes the potential effects of litigation on the research as any legal issues would have been long settled.

NON-WHIPLASH INJURED GROUP

  • Neck Pain
  • Headaches
  • Numbness, Tingling, Pain, Paresthesia in Arms / Hands
  • Combined Back and Neck Pain
  • Neck Degeneration as Seen on X-rays

WHIPLASH INJURED GROUP

  • Eight Times more Neck Pain
  • Eleven Times more Headaches
  • Sixteen Times more Numbness, Tingling, Pain, Paresthesia in Arms / Hands
  • Thirty Two Times more Combined Back and Neck Pain
  • Neck Degeneration was Ten Years Advanced when Compared to the Control Group

Hyperflexion/Hyperextension Of The Cervical Spine

whiplash injuries explained

Hyperflexion

whiplash injuries explained

Hyperextension

whiplash injuries explained

With Hyperflexion, the spine goes forward, which drives the Nucleus of the disc to the back. This is why Herniated Discs are a frequent result of Whiplash Injuries. In Hyperextension, the spine is slammed backward. Although this rarely if ever results in frontal Disc Herniations, it jams the facets (the two little joints to the rear and on either side of the disc). This can lead to a degenerative condition called Facet Syndrome.

Notice in this Flexion / Extension X-ray that there is Spinal Degeneration occurring at the level of the C5-C6 Spinal Disc. This means that either this X-ray is being taken years (maybe decades) after an injury, or that this person had pre-existing degeneration (bone spurs, thin discs, and calcium deposits) prior to this latest injury. Either way, the individual being X-rayed had a Flexion / Extension injury of some sort probably 20 years ago or so. How can we predict this. Although there is a certain degree of “guesswork” that goes into knowing this, we know that DEGENERATIVE ARTHRITIS occurs due to loss of joint motion over time, and that whiplash tends to strike worst at C5-C6.

Soft Tissue Injuries?: How Long Do They Take To Heal?

That the spine and its supporting Connective Tissues can take up to two years to heal is not really new information. It can be found at least as far back as a 1986 issue of the Canadian Family Physician. More recent studies showing these longer healing times include a 1994 issue of the journal Pain, a 1994 issue of the journal Spine, and a 2005 issue of the medical journal Injury. In fact, the 1994 issue of Spine said that appropriately treated whiplash patients took an average time of over seven months to heal. This means that for every person who took 4-6 weeks to heal from their injuries, someone else is taking well over a year.

For people injured in Automobile Accidents, falls, Horse Accidents, Motorcycle Crashes, or any number of other ways that people end up with “Whiplash Injuries”, this is a commonly-asked question.� But it’s also a commonly asked question for those whose soft tissue injury was not traumatic, but was due to chronic, repeated, sub-maximal loading.� It’s more than understandable.� No matter how the injury occurred or what it is, everyone wants to know how long it is going to take to get better.� Just bear in mind that healing takes time.� And although you will often hear “6-8 weeks” bantered around, this is only partially true.� If you will notice the chart below, you can see that after about 3-4 weeks, the only thing going on is “Maturation and Remodeling”.� Do not be fooled!� This phase is not only critical, but far too often ignored by those who have a financial interest in your injury.

Tissue Repair & Healing Phases

STAGE I (Inflammatory Phase): This phase lasts from 12-72 hours, and is characterized by a release of inflammatory chemicals by injured cells. When cells are injured and die, they rupture and release their contents into the extracellular fluid (WHAT IS INFLAMMATION). These �Inflammatory Chemicals� that are released from ruptured cells are a necessary and vital component of the healing process. However, in excessive amounts, they can cause a great deal of pain. They also promote excessive microscopic scarring. Be aware that if you visit your doctor for a soft tissue injury, you will be given anti-inflammatory medications. These have serious side-effects (heart, liver, kidneys, etc). However, the real kick in the teeth is the fact that this class of drug has been scientifically proven to cause injured connective tissues to heal significantly weaker and with less elasticity than they otherwise would. Nowhere is this more true tha with Corticosteroids. Do a quick search of the Medico-Scientific Literature on Corticosteroids and soft tissue injuries. You will see over and over again that they are detrimental to the healing process and should play no part in the treatment of these injuries (HERE is an example from the field of Sports Injuries).

STAGE II (Passive Congestion): In this phase that begins by the 2nd to 4th day, we begin to see swelling (sometimes we do not see it, because it is not on the body�s surface). Remember; �inflammation� is not synonymous with swelling. Inflammatory Chemicals released by dying cells attract the fluid that causes swelling. This is why using cold therapy (ice) to control both inflammation and swelling is such an important part of the healing process � particularly in its earliest stages. However, the best method for moving out this “Congestive Swelling” is via controlled motion if possible. Oh, and your doctor may tell you to use heat during these initial two phases of soft tissue healing; don’t do it. Use ICE to control the inflammation!

STAGE III (Regeneration & Repair Phase): The Repair Phase is where new collagen fibers are made by fibroblasts. The body then uses these collagen fibers as a sort of soft tissue �patch�. Just like with your old blue jeans, a patch is not ideal. But once those old Levis tear or rip, what else are you going to do? In the body, this collagen patch (scar tissue) tends to be different than the tissue around it in a number of ways. Scar Tissue is weaker, less elastic, MUCH MORE PAIN SENSITIVE, has SEVERELY DIMINISHED PROPRIOCEPTIVE ABILITIES, etc). Be aware that the Repair Phase of tissue healing only lasts about 6 weeks, with the majority being completed in half that time. WARNING: This 3rd stage of healing is where many of the so-called �experts� want you to believe the process of Tissue Healing & Repair ends because this phase ends within a month of injury. But that’s not where the story ends. Dr. Dan Murphy uses dozens of studies to, “document that the best management of soft tissue injuries during this phase of healing is early, persistent, controlled mobilization. In contrast, immobilization is harmful, leading to increased risk of slowed healing and chronicity”.

STAGE IV (Maturation / Remodeling Phase): Not only is it the longest, but the Remodeling Phase is by far the most critical of the four stages of Connective Tissue healing. Yet it is the phase that most often gets overlooked. It is also where people most often get duped (sometimes inadvertently, but more often than not, purposefully) by doctors, insurance companies, and attorneys. Many of you reading this know exactly what I am talking about. The most current research shows that in case of serious Connective Tissue Injury, the Remodeling Phase can last up to two years; making the old �6-8 weeks� sound ridiculous (gulp)! The Remodeling Phase is characterized by a �realignment� (REMODELING) of the individual fibers that make up the injured tissue (the collagen �patch� that we call Scar Tissue). What is interesting is that each study that comes out on this topic, seems to be saying that this phase of healing lasts longer than what the study that came out before it said. This is a good thing. However, bear in mind that if you have not improved within 90 days after injury, standard forms of treatment become much less likely to help you. Phase IV can also be risky because although a person’s pain may have dissipated, the injury itself has not completely healed and is vulnerable to re-injury.

As Controlled Loading / Tensile Loading is applied to the healing tissues via CHIROPRACTIC ADJUSTMENTS, Scar Tissue Remodeling, STRETCHING and strengthening exercises, Proprioceptive Re-education, Massage Therapy, TRIGGER POINT THERAPY, PNF, etc; the individual tissue fibers move from a more random, tangled, and twisted wad of unorganized collagen fibrils; to a tissue that is much more organized, parallel, and orderly as far as its microscopic configuration is concerned. Again, this takes time! Although our Scar Tissue Remodeling Therapy can frequently bring immediate relief (just look at our VIDEO TESTIMONIALS), it is obvious from the medical literature that there is a healing processes that cannot be bypassed. Because numerous Scientific Studies have proved Cold Laser Therapy to be effective in regenerating Collagen (SEE HERE), we highly recommend it for our more seriously injured patients as well.

Everyone has heard the old cliche that is still used by doctors, “You�d have been better off to break the bone than to tear the ligaments”. Knowing what we know about the healing of the Collagen-Based, Elastic Connective Tissues; this statement makes a lot of sense! Soft tissues heal much slower than other tissues (including bones). Do not let anyone try and convince you otherwise! This is why following the complete stretching and strengthening protocol that goes hand-in-hand with our �Tissue Remodeling� treatment, is the one and only way that it will work properly over the long haul. By the way, we have dealt extensively with the fact that whiplash injuries heal best with forms of therapy that employ controlled motion such as does chiropractic. Now I want to explore what the scientific literature says about using medications for whiplash injuries explained.

Whiplash Injuries Explained: Relationship Of Inflammation To Pain & Scar Tissue

In 2007, the renowned pain researcher Dr. Sota Omoigui, published an article in the medical journal Medical Hypothesis called, “The Biochemical Origin of Pain: The Origin of All Pain is Inflammation and the Inflammatory Response”. In it, he showed the relationship between pain, inflammation, and fibrosis (Scar Tissue). Most people tend to think of Inflammation as a “local” phenomenon. You know; sprain an ankle, and it swells — sometimes a whole bunch. But it is critical to remember that the terms “swelling” and “inflammation” are in no ways synonymous. When cells of soft tissues are seriously injured (like in Whiplash Injuries), they die. These dead then rupture their contents into the surrounding extra-cellular fluid. In response to this, the Immune System makes a group of chemicals that we collectively refer to as “Inflammation”, which in small amounts, are normal and good. Their local presence is indicated by five well known signs and symptoms. The classical names for the various signs of Local Inflammation come from Latin and include:

  • Dolar (Pain)
  • Calor (Heat)
  • Rubor (Redness)
  • Tumor (Swelling) Chemicals we collectively call “Inflammation” are not synonymous with swelling, but they attract swelling.
  • Functio Laesa (Loss of Function)

Although these chemicals can remain in a local area (I stub my toe, the toe gets red and inflamed), they can invade the blood stream and have a systemic (whole body) effect as well. But inflammation does not end there. These immune system chemicals that we refer to collectively as “inflammation” (prostaglandins, leukotrienes, thromboxanes, cytokines, chemokines, certain enzymes, kinnins, histamines, eicosanoids, substance P, and dozens of others) are being touted by the medical community as the primary cause of a whole host of physical ailments, when there are too many of them in the body. Some of the other problems that Inflammation is known to cause includes;

  • Disc Injuries, Slipped Disc, Disc Herniation, and Disc Rupture
  • Heart Disease and virtually all forms of Cardiovascular Problems
  • Skin conditions including Eczema and Psoriasis
  • Arthritis & Fibromyalgia
  • Asthma
  • ADD, ADHD, Depression, and various forms of Dementia
  • Neurological Conditions
  • Female Issues
  • Cancer
  • Inflammatory Bowel Disease / Leaky Gut Syndrome
  • Diabetes, Insulin Resistance, Hypoglycemia, and other Blood Sugar Regulation Problems
  • Obesity

Inflammation causes pain, ill health, and eventually, death. But this list is not the thrust of this section. To understand is the way that inflammation is related to Scar Tissue, Adhesion, and Fibrosis.

Born in 1904, Dr. James Cyriax, a Cambridge-educated M.D. widely known as the “The Einstein of Physical Medicine” wrote his Magnum Opus, Orthopaedic Medicine, Diagnosis of Soft Tissue Lesions, in 1982 shortly before he passed away. Cyriax is still considered one of the brilliant pioneers of soft tissue research. One of Dr. Cyriax’ groundbreaking discoveries is that Scar Tissue / Fibrosis can and will generate an Inflammatory Response long after the Fourth Stage of Healing (Maturation & Remodeling) is over. Pay attention to what Cyriax wrote over three decades ago.

�Fibrous tissue appears capable of maintaining an inflammation, originally traumatic, as the result of a habit continuing long after the cause has ceased to operate…… It seems that the inflammatory reaction at the injured fibers continues, not merely during the period of healing, but for an indefinite period of time afterwards, maintained by the normal stresses to which such tissues are subject.�

Why would what Cyriax refers to as “normal mechanical stresses” cause an “indefinite period” of inflammation? This one is easy. Scar Tissue and Fibrosis are so dramatically different from normal tissue. One of the most obvious ways that this can be seen is by looking at any good Pathology Textbook. Scar Tissue and Fibrosis is far weaker and much less elastic than normal Connective Tissue. What does this mean? Only that it is easily re-injured. This starts the whole vicious cycle over again. Injury —-> Inflammation —> Pain —> Fibrosis & Scar Tissue Formation —> Re-injury —> Repeat indefinitely. Just remember that the end result of this cycle is degeneration of the affected bones and spinal discs!

whiplash injuries explained

HEALTHY CONNECTIVE TISSUE

whiplash injuries explained

SCAR TISSUE & FIBROSIS

Notice how the Connective Tissue on the left is uniformly wavy. This is due to the collagen fibrils that provide stretchiness and elasticity. Now notice how the cells of the Scar Tissue and Fibrosis run and swirl in many different ways. This decreases both elasticity and strength of the Scar Tissue.

Scar Tissue & Fibrosis: Different From Normal Tissue, 3 Ways

SCAR TISSUE IS WEAKER

Repaired soft tissues are weaker than the body’s undamaged soft tissues. The diameter of the collagen fibers of scar tissue are smaller than those of normal tissue. Also, as you can see from the pictures above, the structure has been physically changed. This weakness leads to a viscous cycle of instability, re-injury, and degeneration.

SCAR TISSUE IS LESS ELASTIC

Repaired soft tissues are always less elastic and “stiffer” than the body’s undamaged soft tissues. This has to do with the fact that the individual collagen fibers will never identically align themselves quite like the original uninjured soft tissue. This is all easy to see because range of motion testing on injured individuals will always show areas of decreased ranges of motion.

SCAR TISSUE IS MORE PAIN-SENSITIVE

Repaired soft tissues have a strong tendency to be more pain-sensitive than their uninjured counterparts. In fact, for reasons that are not completely understood, Scar Tissue has the neurological capability of going into something called “super-sensitivity”, and can end up 1,000 times more sensitive to pain than normal tissue.

Relationship: Inflammation, Pain, & Fibrosis/Scar Tissue

Dr. Soto Omoigui had this to say about the relationship between pain, inflammation, and fibrosis, “The origin of all pain is inflammation and the inflammatory response…. Irrespective of the type of pain, whether it is acute or chronic pain, peripheral or central pain, nociceptive or neuropathic pain, sharp, dull, aching, burning, stabbing, numbing or tingling, the underlying origin is inflammation and the inflammatory response.” Fellow pain researcher Doctor Manjo stated in the “Chronic Inflammation” chapter of his 2004 pathology textbook that (slightly paraphrased for patients), “After a day or two of acute inflammation, the connective tissue�in which the inflammatory reaction is unfolding�begins to react, producing more fibroblasts, more capillaries, more cells�more tissue, but it cannot be mistaken for normal connective tissue. Fibrosis means an excess of fibrous connective tissue. It implies an excess of collagen fibers. When fibrosis develops in the course of inflammation it may contribute to the healing process. By contrast, an excessive or inappropriate stimulus can produce severe fibrosis and impair function. Why does fibrosis develop? In most cases the beginning clearly involves chronic inflammation. Fibrosis is largely secondary to inflammation.”

It is not difficult to connect the dots! Chronic Inflammation of a whiplash injury leads to Scar Tissue Formation, and Scar Tissue Formation leads to even more pain. And like I mentioned earlier, the whole mess leads to Spinal Degeneration. How can you break free? Dr. Cyriax goes on to say in his book that immobilization of injured soft tissues is a bad thing, and mobilization of injured soft tissues is not only good, but necessary for proper healing to take place. But under the umbrella of America’s PHARMACEUTICAL DRUG CULTURE, functional restoration frequently takes a back seat to different kinds of medicines. Don’t get me wrong; if you need something for the pain after a whiplash injury, there is no dishonor in doing something on a short-term basis. However, this is never the solution. It is masking symptoms to get you through a rough place. As long as you understand this, OK. However, there is one class of drugs that should play no part in the healing of your Whiplash Injury…

Inflammation Medications For Whiplash & Soft Tissue Injuries

  • The most prestigious medical school on the planet, John’s Hopkins proved that 1,000 200 mg capsules of Tylenol consumed over the course of a person’s lifetime doubles that person’s chances of dialysis. Furthermore, 5,000 pills increase kidney failure by nearly nine times. New England Journal of Medicine, 1994
  • Regular use of Tylenol and other similar medications is a top cause of liver disease / liver failure. New England Journal of Medicine, 1997
  • NSAID’s (Non-Steroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs) used by arthritis sufferers causes 16,500 Americans to die of bleeding ulcers each year. Fatal GI bleeds are the 15th most common cause of death in America. New England Journal of Medicine, 1999
  • Gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity caused by NSAID use is one of the most commonly seen and serious drug side effects in modern cultures. Spine, 2003 & Surgical Neurology, 2006
    Regular use of Tylenol doubles one’s chances of developing high blood pressure. Hypertension, 2005
    All NSAIDs (Non-Steroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs) increase chances of Myocardial Infarction (heart attack) by about 40%. This risk starts the first day the drug is consumed. European Heart Journal, 2006
  • Celebrex increases your chances of intestinal bleeding by four times (nearly 400%). Vioxx increases your chances of bleeding ulcers and other GI Bleeds by over three times (nearly 330%). Medications taken for pain increase your chances of GI Bleeds by nearly 140%. Drug Safety, 2009
  • Vioxx was removed from the market in 2004 because it increased one’s chances of a heart attack by 230% (exponentially more if you already had a congestive heart). Celebrex increased the risk of heart attack by 44%. Pain Medications, on average, increase your chances of a heart attack by nearly half 50%. While Vioxx was pulled from the market, the others are considered to be “acceptably safe” and they were allowed to stay on the market. Drug Safety, 2009
  • Those who took the greatest amounts of NSAID pain medications increased their chances of all types of dementia —– Alzheimer�s included. The increase was a whopping 2/3 (66%). Neurology, 2009

So, what is a person supposed to do? Despite decades of research saying that NSAID’s are not “therapeutic” (actually helps you get better), but are instead, “palliative” (makes you feel better without any therapeutic benefits), the medical community continues to hand these and other dangerous drugs out almost like candy. Just remember that any pain relief achieved without addressing the underlying components of the Whiplash Injury, are temporary. And that’s not all. When joints and tissues heal in RESTRICTED FASHION, they always end up with copious amounts of decay, degeneration, and deterioration. And the final kick in the teeth for those of you who have been on this MEDICAL MERRY-GO-ROUND is that much of this research is at least two decades old. As I have said for a very long time, much of the medical community is caught in a time warp. They are treating whiplash injuries using outdated models, often times very outdated models.

Chiropractic Benefits: Whiplash, Neck/Back Pain

  • Over 70 years ago, the best available research said that soft tissue injuries require early and regular joint motion in order to heal properly. American Journal of Anatomy, 1940
  • Over 50 years ago, research pointed out that the most effective treatment for whiplash injury does not involve medication, but instead needs mobilization, manipulation and traction to heal. The best results for patients with whiplash injuries require early and regular joint mobilization. Furthermore, it must be done by someone expertly trained in rehabilitation of injured joints. Journal of the American Medical Association, 1958
  • For injured soft tissues to heal properly requires joint movement / motion. Joint immobilization should be avoided. Textbook of Orthopedic Medicine, 1982 & Continuous Passive Motion, 1993
  • Chiropractic spinal adjustments fix over 4/5 of disabled patients suffering from chronic low back and sciatica. This is true despite the failure of other approaches. Canadian Family Physician, 1985
  • Chiropractic spinal adjustments have been proven superior in the treatment of chronic and acute low back pain, when compared to hospital outpatient treatment. These benefits of chiropractic adjustments were still seen 3 years post-treatment. British Medical Journal, 1991
  • Chiropractic spinal adjustments have been shown to be more effective than physical therapy mobilizations and manipulations. Lancet, 1991
  • 93% of those struggling with chronic pain due to whiplash injury —- who have already failed medical care and physical therapy —- improve significantly under chiropractic care. Injury, 1996
  • When it comes to chronic neck pain, manual manipulation of the neck has been shown to be significantly better than pain meds and exercise. Annals of Internal Medicine, 2002
  • Chiropractic spinal adjustments have been clinically proven to be over five times more effective than NSAID’s (Non-steroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs) for chronic neck and low back pain. In this study, the chiropractic group suffered from no adverse reactions, but the the NSAID group had more patients reporting adverse drug reactions than were actually helped. Half the NSAIDS used in the study are now off the market. Spine, 2003
  • For chronic neck and back pain, chiropractic spinal adjustments proved significantly better than both acupuncture and pain medicines. Furthermore, chiropractic adjustments were the only treatment studied that showed therapeutic benefit one year post-treatment. Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics, 2005
  • In patients with chronic pain from DEGENERATIVE ARTHRITIS, 59% can eliminate their pain meds by taking omega-3 fatty acids found in fish oil (EPA & DHA). Surgical Neurology, 2006
  • In the recent medical publication called, �A Review of the Evidence for the American Pain Society and the American College of Physicians Clinical Practice Guideline�, only spinal manipulation was touted as effective for the treatment of both acute and chronic low back pain. Annals of Internal Medicine, 2007
  • A joint research effort from the University of California, San Francisco, and Harvard Medical School, showed that �Chiropractic care is more effective than other modalities for treating low back and neck pain�. Do Chiropractic Services for the Treatment of Low Back and Neck Pain Improve the Value of Health Benefits Plans? An Evidence-Based Assessment of Incremental Impact on Population Health and Total Health Care Spending, 2009

Long Term Prognosis: Whiplash

Despite the fact that you can see from the current scientific literature how successful chiropractic care is at helping people with severe, debilitating, whiplash injuries; not everyone injured in an MVA will recover. Unfortunately, many will never recover —- even after several decades. It seems that whiplash caused by Motor Vehicle Accidents is the portal whereby numerous people enter into the realm of Chronic Pain and dysfunction. The truth is that there is a great deal of scientific research done of this particular topic. And furthermore, as you can see from the small comments in red made by the authors of each individual study, litigation seems to have little or no effect on clinical outcomes.

  • The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery published research in 1964 showing that of 145 patients involved in a study of whiplash injuries; as many as 83% of the injured patients continued to suffer from pain two years after the accident. The study’s authors said this, “If the symptoms resulting from an extension-acceleration injury of the neck are purely the result of litigation neurosis, it is difficult to explain why [at least] 45%of the patients should still have symptoms two years or more after settlement of their court action.”
  • A 1989 issue of Neuro-Orthopedics published a study was carried out on patients suffering with whiplash for well over a decade. Despite the length of time involved, nearly two thirds still struggled with moderate to severe pain symptoms due to their accident. The study’s authors said this, “If symptoms were largely due to impending litigation it might be expected that symptoms would improve after settlement of the claim. Our results would seem to discount this theory, with the long-term outcome seeming to be determined before the settlement of compensation.”
  • A 7-year study on whiplash-injured patients published in a 2000 issue of the Journal of Clinical Epidemiology showed that 40% of those suffering an accident-induced whiplash injury continued to suffer from neck and shoulder pain seven years post-accident.
  • A 2005 research project published in the medical journal Injury, showed that over 20% of those injured in a whiplash injury struggled with Chronic Pain nearly 8 years post-injury. Furthermore, almost half of those in the study suffered from “Nuisance Pain” during the same time frame.
  • An 11 year study published in a 1990 issue of the British Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery showed 40% of the whiplash patients struggling with Chronic Pain over a decade after the fact. 40% of the remainder of the study’s people dealt with “Nuisance Pain” during the same period. The study’s authors said this, “The fact that symptoms do not resolve even after a mean 10 years supports the conclusion that litigation does not prolong symptoms.”
  • A fifteen and a half year study published in a 1996 issue of the British Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery reported that well over 40% of whiplash-injured patients struggled with Chronic Pain from the accident over a decade and a half after the fact. Almost 30% of the rest dealt with “Nuisance Pain” over the course of the study. The study’s authors said this, “Symptoms did not improve after settlement of litigation, which is consistent with previous published studies”.
  • The European Spine Journal published a nearly two decade long study on whiplash-injured patients in 2002. Well over half (55%) of those studied had pain seventeen years post-accident. One quarter of these dealt with daily neck pain, and almost one quarter had radiating arm pain on a daily basis. The study’s authors said this, “It is not likely that the patients exposed to motor vehicle accidents would over-report or simulate their neck complaint at follow-up 17 years after the accident, as all compensation claims will have been settled.”
  • In one of the longest studies done to date on whiplash injured patients, a 2006 issue of the British Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery looked at whiplash-injured patients three decades after their initial injury. 15% of these patients struggled with daily pain severe enough to require treatment. Four out of ten of the remainder dealt with “Nuisance Pain” over the same time frame.

Attorney’s, Insurance, Fees & Medical Pay

After 20 years of practice, I can almost say that I have seen it all. Almost. One thing that I have not seen is an improvement in the way that the financial responsibility for Motor Vehicle Accidents (MVA) is handled by insurance companies. This is a big part of the reason that I do not accept automobile insurance (yours or the other party�s) for the treatment of injuries sustained in MVA�s. Attorneys tend to get involved, and I have found that in most cases, attorneys don’t really work for you, they work for themselves.

WHERE DOES THIS ALL LEAD?

Although, I do not treat huge numbers of MVA cases acutely (they tend to go wherever their attorney sends them usually whoever can run up the highest bills), I treat scores of MVA victims once they have reached the chronic stage. After their attorney reaches a settlement for their injured client, any treatment they were receiving typically ends. As you can tell from both our Patient Testimonial Page, as well as our Blog Post called the WEEKLY TREATMENT DIARY, the treatment frequently ends without ever effectively dealing with the underlying scar tissue and Fibrotic Adhesions that leave so many people in Chronic Pain, long after they have settled their injury claim.

These folks enter the miserable world of CHRONIC NECK / BACK PAIN and HEADACHES, and then wonder what the heck they are going to do because their $3,000 settlement check is long gone. The patient is then left with a choice. They can climb back on the Medical Merry-Go-Round and continue to spin in circles. Tests, blood work, MRI�s, CT scans, drugs, drugs, and more drugs; and therapy � more of the same (expensive) stuff you went through before you settled your case, with more of the same crappy results. Or they can do something different.

Prevent Whiplash Injuries & Lessen The Effects

whiplash injuries explained

There are several ways to go about preventing or at the very least, lessening the potential effects of a whiplash-like accident / injury. one of the most effective would be driving a vehicle that is highly rated in crash tests. What is the safest vehicle on the road today? Without a doubt, the Volvo and Saab brands have out-performed every other auto maker in the market today as far as safety is concerned. However, there are a number of things you can do to protect yourself besides trading your Chevy in for a Volvo.

  • DRIVE A SAFE VEHICLE: Make sure that the vehicle you drive is highly rated by the organizations that rank automobile safety. This information can be found HERE.
  • DRIVE SAFELY AND DEFENSIVELY: This is common sense. Because I rode a motorcycle for many years, I learned how to drive defensively. I always thought that by paying attention and trying to think one step ahead of everything going on around me, crashes with other vehicles could be avoided. That was until I hit a drunk who ran a stop sign (I was in a full-sized Chevy Silverado). Things happen quickly, that you have no control over. However, driving your automobile in an unsafe manner definitely puts you at a higher risk for suffering a Whiplash Injury.
  • WEAR YOUR SEAT BELTS: The simple truth of the matter is that seat belts will probably not lessen the “Whiplash” component of an Automobile Accident. In fact, by holding your body in place while your head flies around, they can potentially worsen a neck injury to the soft tissues. However, seat belts will help to keep you alive.
  • MAKE SURE YOUR HEAD RESTRAINT IS ADJUSTED PROPERLY: This is by far the most important thing you can do diminish your chances of Whiplash Injury should you end up in an MVA. The truth is, most of us refer to these things that stick out of the top of our seats as “Head Rests” instead of “Head Restraints”, and actually have them adjusted improperly (all the way down). The purpose of these devices is not to “rest” your head because you are tired, it is to “restrain” your head from flying backwards during a rear-ender accident. The top of the Head Restraint should be level with the top of your head, and the gap between the two should not be more than about two inches. For the record; if you recline your seat more than 20 degrees, all bets are off. A serious rear-ender will cause you to ramp up in your seat rendering the Head Restraint useless.

2018 Destroy Chronic Pain / Doctor Russell Schierling

Assessment and Treatment of Sternocleidomastoid (SCM)

Assessment and Treatment of Sternocleidomastoid (SCM)

These assessment and treatment recommendations represent a synthesis of information derived from personal clinical experience and from the numerous sources which are cited, or are based on the work of researchers, clinicians and therapists who are named (Basmajian 1974, Cailliet 1962, Dvorak & Dvorak 1984, Fryette 1954, Greenman 1989, 1996, Janda 1983, Lewit 1992, 1999, Mennell 1964, Rolf 1977, Williams 1965).

 

Clinical Application of Neuromuscular Techniques: Sternocleidomastoid (SCM)

 

Assessment for Shortness of Sternocleidomastoid�(see also Box 4.10)

 

Assessment for SCM is as for the scalenes � there is no absolute test for shortness but observation of posture (hyperlordotic neck, chin poked forward) and palpation of the degree of induration, fibrosis and trigger point activity can all alert to probable shortness of SCM. This is an accessory breathing muscle and, like the scalenes, will be shortened by inappropriate breathing patterns which have become habitual. Observation is an accurate assessment tool.

 

Box 4.10 Notes on Sternocleidomastoid

 

  • Sternocleidomastoid (SCM) is a prominent muscle of the anterior neck and is closely associated with the trapezius. SCM often acts as postural compensator for head tilt associated with postural distortions found elsewhere (spinal, pelvic or lower extremity functional or structural inadequacies, for instance) although they seldom cause restriction of neck movement.
  • SCM is synergistic with anterior neck muscles for flexion of the head and flexion of the cervical column on the thoracic column, when the cervical column is already flattened by the prevertebral muscles. However, when the head is placed in extension and SCM contracts, it accentuates lordosis of the cervical column, flexes the cervical column on the thoracic column, and adds to extension of the head. In this way, SCM is both synergist and antagonist to the prevertebral muscles (Kapandji 1974).
  • SCM trigger points are activated by forward head positioning, �whiplash� injury, positioning of the head to look upwardly for extended periods of time and structural compensations. The two heads of SCM each have their own patterns of trigger point referral which include (among others) into the ear, top of head, into the temporomandibular joint, over the brow, into the throat, and those which cause proprioceptive disturbances, disequilibrium, nausea and dizziness. Tenderness in SCM may be associated with trigger points in the digastric muscle and digastric trigger points may be satellites of SCM trigger points (Simons et al 1998).
  • Simons et al (1998) report: When objects of equal weight are held in the hands, the patient with unilateral trigger point [TrP] involvement of the clavicular division [of SCM] may exhibit an abnormal Weight Test. When asked to judge which is heaviest of two objects of the same weight that look alike but may not be the same weight (two vapocoolant dispensers, one of which may have been used) the patient will [give] evidence [of] dysmetria by underestimating the weight of the object held in the hand on the same side as the affected sternocleidomastoid muscle. Inactivation of the responsible sternocleidomastoid TrPs promptly restores weight appreciation by this test. Apparently, the afferent discharges from these TrPs disturb central processing of proprioceptive information from the upper limb muscles as well as vestibular function related to neck muscles.
  • Lymph nodes lie superficially along the medial aspect of the SCM and may be palpated, especially when enlarged. These nodes may be indicative of chronic cranial infections stemming from a throat infection, dental abscess, sinusitis or tumour. Likewise, trigger points in SCM may be perpetuated by some of these conditions (Simons et al 1998).
  • Lewit (1999) points out that tenderness noted at the medial end of the clavicle and/or at the transverse process of the atlas is often an indication of SCM hypertonicity. This will commonly accompany a forward head position and/or tendency to upper chest breathing, and will almost inevitably be associated with hypertonicity, shortening and trigger point evolution in associated musculature, including scalenes, upper trapezius and levator scapula (see crossed syndrome notes in Ch. 2).

 

Since SCM is only just observable when normal, if the clavicular insertion is easily visible, or any part of the muscle is prominent, this can be taken as a clear sign of tightness of the muscle.�If the patient�s posture involves the head being held forward of the body, often accompanied by cervical lordosis and dorsal kyphosis (see notes on upper crossed syndrome in Ch. 2), weakness of the deep neck flexors and tightness of SCM is suspected.

 

Functional SCM Test (see Fig. 5.14A, B)

 

The supine patient is asked to �very slowly raise your head and touch your chin to your chest�. The practitioner stands to the side with his head at the same level as the patient. At the beginning of the movement of the head, as the patient lifts this from the table, the practitioner would (if SCM were short) note that the chin was lifted first, allowing it to jut forwards, rather than the forehead leading the arc-like progression of the movement. In marked shortness of SCM the chin pokes forward in a jerk as the head is lifted. If the reading of this sign is unclear then Janda (1988) suggests that a slight resistance pressure be applied to the forehead as the patient makes the �chin to chest� attempt. If SCM is short this will ensure the jutting of the chin at the outset.

 

MET Treatment of Shortened SCM (Fig. 4.35)

 

The patient is supine with the head supported in a neutral position by one of the practitioner�s hands. The shoulders rest on a cushion or folded towel, so that when the head is placed on the table it will be in slight extension. The patient�s contralateral hand rests on the upper aspect of the sternum to act as a cushion when pressure is applied during the stretch phase of the operation (as in scalene and pectoral treatment). The patient�s head is fully but comfortably rotated, contralaterally.

 

 

Figure 4.35 MET of sternocleidomastoid on the right.

 

The patient is asked to lift the fully rotated head a small degree towards the ceiling, and to hold the breath. When the head is raised there is no need for the practitioner to apply resistance as gravity effectively provides this.

 

After 7�10 seconds of isometric contraction (ideally with breath held), the patient is asked to slowly release the effort (and the breath) and to place the head (still in rotation) on the table, so that a small degree of extension occurs.

 

The practitioner�s hand covers the patient�s �cushion� hand (which rests on the sternum) in order to apply oblique pressure/stretch to the sternum, to ease it away from the head and towards the feet.

 

The hand not involved in stretching the sternum caudally should gently restrain the tendency the head will have to follow this stretch, but should not under any circumstances apply pressure to stretch the head/neck while it is in this vulnerable position of rotation and slight extension.

 

The degree of extension of the neck should be slight, 10�15� at most.

 

This stretch, which is applied as the patient exhales, is maintained for not less than 20 seconds to begin the release/stretch of hypertonic and fibrotic structures. Repeat at least once. The other side should then be treated in the same manner.

 

CAUTION: Care is required, especially with middle aged and elderly patients, in applying this useful stretching procedure. Appropriate tests should be carried out to evaluate cerebral circulation problems. The presence of such problems indicates that this particular MET method should be avoided.

 

Dr. Alex Jimenez offers an additional assessment and treatment of the hip flexors as a part of a referenced clinical application of neuromuscular techniques by Leon Chaitow and Judith Walker DeLany. The scope of our information is limited to chiropractic and spinal injuries and conditions. To discuss the subject matter, please feel free to ask Dr. Jimenez or contact us at 915-850-0900 .

 

By Dr. Alex Jimenez

 

Green-Call-Now-Button-24H-150x150-2-3.png

 

Additional Topics: Wellness

 

Overall health and wellness are essential towards maintaining the proper mental and physical balance in the body. From eating a balanced nutrition as well as exercising and participating in physical activities, to sleeping a healthy amount of time on a regular basis, following the best health and wellness tips can ultimately help maintain overall well-being. Eating plenty of fruits and vegetables can go a long way towards helping people become healthy.

 

blog picture of cartoon paperboy big news

 

WELLNESS TOPIC: EXTRA EXTRA: Managing Workplace Stress

 

 

Impact of the McKenzie Method with METs for Low Back Pain

Impact of the McKenzie Method with METs for Low Back Pain

Muscular energy techniques, or METs, are considered to be some of the most valuable tools any healthcare professional can have and there are several reasons for it. METs have a wide application range and essential modifications can be made for each of them for a variety of injuries and/or conditions. Muscular energy techniques also represent an important aspect of rehabilitation. Furthermore, METs are both gentle and effective. But most importantly, METs actively involve the patient in the recovery process. Unlike other types of treatment therapies, the patient is involved in every step, contracting at the appropriate time, relaxing at the appropriate time, engaging in eye movement, and even breathing when instructed by the healthcare professional.

 

Muscular energy techniques have been used with other treatment modalities, such as the McKenzie method, to improve the outcome measures of injuries or conditions. The following research study demonstrates clinical and experimental evidence on the impact of the McKenzie method with METs for low back pain, one of the most common complaints affecting spine health. The purpose of the article is to educate and advice patients with low back pain on the use of METs with the McKenzie method.

 

Impact of McKenzie Method Therapy Enriched by Muscular Energy Techniques on Subjective and Objective Parameters Related to Spine Function in Patients with Chronic Low Back Pain

 

Abstract

 

  • Background: The high incidence and inconsistencies in diagnostic and therapeutic process of low back pain (LBP) stimulate the continuing search for more efficient treatment modalities. Integration of the information obtained with various therapeutic methods and a holistic approach to the patient seem to be associated with positive outcomes.The aim of this study was to analyze the efficacy of combined treatment with McKenzie method and Muscle Energy Technique (MET), and to compare it with the outcomes of treatment with McKenzie method or standard physiotherapy in specific chronic lumbar pain.
  • Material/Methods: The study included 60 men and women with LBP (mean age 44 years). The patients were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 therapeutic groups, which were further treated with: 1) McKenzie method and MET, 2) McKenzie method alone, or 3) standard physiotherapy for 10 days. The extent of spinal movements (electrogoniometry), level of experienced pain (Visual Analogue Scale and Revised Oswestry Pain Questionnaire), and structure of the spinal discs (MRI) were examined prior to the intervention, immediately thereafter, and 3 months after the intervention.
  • Results: McKenzie method enriched with MET had the best therapeutic outcomes. The mobility of cervical, thoracic, and lumbar spine normalized at levels corresponding to 87.1%, 66.7%, and 95% of respective average normative values. Implementation of McKenzie method, both alone and combined with MET, was associated with a significant decrease in Oswestry Disability Index, significant alleviation of pain (VAS), and significantly reduced size of spinal disc herniation.
  • Conclusions: The combined method can be effectively used in the treatment of chronic LBP.
  • MeSH Keywords: Low Back Pain, Manipulation, Chiropractic, Manipulation, Spinal

 

Background

 

Low back pain (LBP) is the most prevalent form of musculoskeletal disorder. According to published statistical data, 70�85% of people experience LBP at some stage of their lives [1�7]. Only 39�76% of the patients recover completely after an acute episode of pain, suggesting that a considerable fraction of them develop a chronic condition [8].

 

The goals of physiotherapy in patients with chronic LBP include elimination of pain, restoration of the lost extent of movements, functional improvement, and improvement of the quality of life. These objectives are achieved by various protocols of exercise, manipulation, massage, relaxation techniques, and counselling. Although numerous previously published studies have dealt with various therapeutic modalities of LBP, the evidence of their efficacy is highly inconclusive [9�12]. At present the management of chronic LBP still raises many controversies. Inconsistency of established diagnoses and implemented protocols of management points to the importance of the problem in question. Despite extensive research, the issue of spinal pain management still constitutes a challenge for physicians, physiotherapists, and researchers [8,13].

 

 

McKenzie method is 1 of many treatment modalities of LBP. It is a system of mechanical diagnosis and management of spinal pain syndromes, based on comprehensive and reproducible evaluation, knowledge of symptoms patterns, directional preference, and centralization phenomenon. This method is focused on the spinal disc disorders [14]. McKenzie method is based on the phenomenon of movement of the nucleus pulposus inside the intervertebral disc, depending on the adopted position and the direction of the movements of the spine. The nucleus pulposus that is exposed to the pressure from both surfaces of the vertebral bodies takes the shape of a spherical joint. This means that it has the ability to perform 3 rotary movements in all directions and has 6 degrees of freedom of movement. The nucleus pulposus performs the movements of flexion, extension, lateral bend (left and right), rotation (right and left), linear displacement (slip) along the sagittal axis, linear displacement along the transverse axis and the separation or approximation along the vertical axis [15].Numerous studies have shown that during forward bend of the spine it is possible to observe extension of the rear surface of the fibrous ring, compressing of the front part of the intervertebral disc and the shift of nucleus pulposus to the dorsal side. When stretching, the mechanism is the opposite [16].

 

The musculoskeletal system is vital for the maintenance of the balanced tension of the body. Musculofascial disorders can be associated with various problems, pain, or even loss of some motor function. Muscle Energy Techniques (MET) are among the most popular therapeutic modalities aimed at the improvement of elasticity in contractile and non-contractile tissues [17].

 

High incidence, inconsistencies in diagnostic and therapeutic process, and huge costs associated with the management of chronic spinal disorders stimulate the continuing search for more efficient treatment modalities. This requires the knowledge of neurophysiological processes, proper interpretation of pain, identification of unfavorable motor and postural patterns, holistic approach to the patient, and integration of the information obtained with various therapeutic methods [18].

 

Impact of the McKenzie Method with METs for Low Back Pain | El Paso, TX Chiropractor

 

The aim of this study was to analyze the efficacy of combined treatment with McKenzie method and MET, and to compare it with the outcomes of treatment with McKenzie method or standard physiotherapy in chronic lumbar pain. We evaluated the effect exerted by each of the interventions on the extent of movements, level of experienced pain, and structure of the spinal discs as assessed by means of magnetic resonance imaging.

 

Material and Methods

 

Patients

 

The randomized study included 60 men and women with mean age of 44 years. All individuals were diagnosed by a specialist physician and referred for rehabilitation. The protocol of the study was approved by the Local Bioethical Committee of the Poznan University of Medical Sciences (decision no. 368/0). All patients were diagnosed with chronic spinal pain persisting for longer than 1 year. The inclusion criteria of the study were: 1) documented magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the spine, 2) confirmed protrusion or bulging in the lumbosacral spine, 3) intermittent lumbosacral pain, 4) projection of pain to the buttock or thigh, 5) unilateral character of the symptoms. The exclusion criteria were: 1) confirmed extrusion or sequestration of nucleus pulposus of the spinal disc, 2) symptoms manifesting below the knee, 3) history of spinal surgery, 4) structural disorders of spinal discs in more than 2 spinal segments, 5) evident stenosis of the spinal canal, 6) focal lesions of the spinal cord, and 7) spondylolisthesis.

 

Patients showed great interest and all completed the study.

 

Protocol

 

The following tests were used to determine the baseline (i.e. pre-intervention) parameters of the studied patients: 1) electrogoniometric determination of the extent of movement in all spinal segments and angular values of physiological curvatures, 2) Oswestry questionnaire, and 3) Visual Analogue Scale (VAS). Subsequently, the patients were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 therapeutic groups (20 persons each), which were further treated with: 1) McKenzie method and MET, 2) McKenzie method alone, 3) standard physiotherapy. Each of the 3 therapeutic protocols included 10 daily sessions, performed during 5 consecutive weekdays. 24 hours following the last therapeutic session, the same parameters as at the baseline were determined by the investigator blinded to the treatment assignment. Moreover, all patients were subjected to repeated magnetic resonance.

 

Therapeutic Intervention

 

McKenzie group One session lasted 30 minutes. On the basis of the McKenzie spinal pain classification, the derangement syndrome was diagnosed in all patients [14]. The therapy included hyperextension techniques, hyperextension with self-pressure or pressure by the therapist, and hyperextensive mobilization. These techniques were applied in the sagittal plane, following the rule of force progression [14]. Moreover, the patients were asked to self-perform the therapeutic procedure at home (5 cycles per day with 2-hour intervals, 15 repetitions each).

 

McKenzie + MET group The classic McKenzie method enriched with Muscle Energy Technique was implemented. McKenzie protocol in both groups (McKenzie McKenzie + MET) was the same. All patients in this therapeutic group were also diagnosed with the derangement syndrome. A technique of post-isometric relaxation was used at the end of each therapeutic session. It was characterized by the following parameters: 1) time of contraction equal to 7�10 seconds, 2) intensity of contraction corresponding to 20�35%, 3) beginning in the intermediate extent of movement for a given patient, 4) 3 seconds of interval between consecutive contraction phases, 5) 3 repetitions, 6) contraction of antagonist muscle at the terminal phase of the procedure, 7) passive return to the baseline position. The procedure involved relaxation of the erector spinae muscle group and was performed in a sitting position. The exercise was performed in an anterior and lateral flexion, and in rotation. The therapy involved bilateral parts of the erector spinae so as to balance the muscular tension [17]. The duration of 1 combined session was 40 minutes. Patients treated with the combined method were also asked to exercise at home (5 cycles per day with 2-hour intervals, 15 repetitions each).

 

Standard treatment group Individuals randomized to this therapeutic group were treated with classical massage, laser therapy, and transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) applied to the lumbosacral region. Additionally, the patients were asked to perform general exercises strengthening spinal and abdominal muscles (once a day at home). The exercises were to be performed for 15 minutes, in a prone, supine, and lateral position. The aim of the training was to strengthen the muscles stabilizing the pelvic girdle, i.e. the erector spinae, quadratus lumborum, rectus abdominis, oblique abdominal, gluteal, and iliopsoas muscles. The classical massage lasted 20 minutes. The laser therapy was conducted with a contact technique with Lasertronic LT-2S device. The duration of laser therapy was 80 seconds (2�40 s). The treatment was applied on both sides of the spinous processes of the lumbar spine. The parameters of the procedure were as follows: energy 32 J, power of radiation 400 mW, wavelength 810 nm, continuous mode. TENS electrotherapy was performed with Diatronic DT-10B device. The electrodes were placed on both sides of the lumbosacral spine. The parameters of the TENS procedure were as follows: duration 15 minutes, frequency 50 Hz, current 20�30 mA (subjectively adjusted), duration of a single impulse 50 microseconds. The total time per session=36 min 20 sec + 15 min as home exercises once a day.

 

Evaluation of Therapeutic Effect

 

Electrogoniometry The extent of movements and the angles of spinal curvatures were determined with tensiometric Penny & Giles electrogoniometer in Boocok�s modification [19], which prevents potential measurement bias associated with shifting skin and soft tissues in relation to bones. The electrogoniometer enables linear measurement with a bias no greater than 1�. The measurements were taken according to Lewandowski�s methodology [20]. The reliability of these measurements was previously verified by Szulc et al.21 The reference values used in our study were calculated on the basis of Lewandowski�s measurements taken in a group of about 20 000 individuals [20].

 

Revised Oswestry pain questionnaire The degree to which the dysfunction of the lumbar spine limited the performance of the activities of daily living was determined with the Revised Oswestry Pain Questionnaire [22,23]. We used the revised version of the questionnaire as it is the only variant of this instrument which examines the changes in the level of lumbar pain. The survey was conducted twice, prior to and after the therapy.

 

Visual analogue scale (VAS) To verify the efficacy of the therapy, the participants were examined with the visual analogue scale (VAS) at the baseline (prior to the intervention) and 24 hours after completing the treatment [24].

 

Magnetic resonance imaging The degree of degeneration of the spinal discs and the therapeutic outcome were verified on magnetic resonance imaging performed prior to and after the intervention, at the same time of the day. The examination was conducted in sagittal and axial planes, and used T1- and T2-weighted images. The displacement of the nucleus pulposus was expressed in mm. The methodology of examination was described previously by Fazey et al. [25].

 

Statistical Analysis

 

Statistical analysis was conducted with Statistica 10.0 software. Bivariate analysis of variance (AVOVA) with 1 intergroup factor (type of intervention) and 1 intragroup factor (measurement prior to intervention, 24 hours and 3 months after the intervention) was used to analyze the differences in studied parameters resulting from the type of the implemented therapy, and to verify the efficacy of various therapeutic protocols. The significance of differences in multiple comparisons was verified with the Scheff�s post-hoc test.

 

Dr. Alex Jimenez’s Insight

Low back pain is a common symptom that can be treated in a number of ways. Chiropractic care is one of the most common alternative treatment options for LBP, however, healthcare professionals have started using other treatment modalities to help improve symptoms of low back pain. Physical therapy and exercise have commonly been used together, alongside well-known treatment modalities, to help speed up the patient’s recovery process. The research study aims to determine how the McKenzie method and muscular energy techniques can improve low back pain and promote overall health and wellness. As a doctor of chiropractic, the positive effects of physical therapy and exercise is reflected on the recovery of patients.

 

Results

 

The significant effects of bivariate interaction (method � time) suggest that the implemented therapeutic methods exerted variable time-dependent effect on the functional parameters of the spine, Oswestry questionnaire scores, values of visual analog scale, and the results of magnetic resonance imaging in patients with chronic low back pain.

 

Data on the mobility of various spinal segments prior to the intervention, and 24 hours and 3 months after the intervention suggests that the implementation of McKenzie method enriched with MET was reflected by better therapeutic outcome compared to classical McKenzie method and standard physiotherapy. Mobility of various spinal segments in all axes and planes improved significantly as a result of the therapy with McKenzie method enriched in MET. In contrast, the least pronounced improvement of spinal mobility was documented in the case of standard physiotherapy (Tables 1?�3).

 

Table 1 Basic Statistical Characteristics and Significance of Differences Between the Angular Values of the Cervical Spine Mobility | El Paso, TX Chiropractor

Table 1: Basic statistical characteristics and significance of differences between the angular values of the cervical spine mobility depending on the phase of the study and type of implemented therapeutic method.

 

Table 2 Basic Statistical Characteristics and Significance of Differences Between the Angular Values of the Thoracic Spine Mobility | El Paso, TX Chiropractor

Table 2: Basic statistical characteristics and significance of differences between the angular values of the thoracic spine mobility depending on the phase of the study and type of implemented therapeutic method.

 

Table 3 Basic Statistical Characteristics and Significance of Differences Between the Angular Values of the Lumbar Spine Mobility | El Paso, TX Chiropractor

Table 3: Basic statistical characteristics and significance of differences between the angular values of the lumbar spine mobility depending on the phase of the study and type of implemented therapeutic method.

 

The analysis of the anterior flexion of the cervical spine revealed that the improvement of mobility was most pronounced in McKenzie + MET group (?%=42.02). The lack of significant difference between the measurement taken immediately after the intervention and 3 months thereafter suggests that the therapeutic effect was persistent. Less pronounced, albeit significant, improvement of the mobility was also documented in the case of McKenzie method alone (?%=14.79); also this effect persisted after 3 months. In contrast, no significant changes in the extent of anterior flexion of the cervical spine were documented in the group subjected to standard physiotherapy (Figure 1).

 

Figure 1 Mean Angular Values of the Anterior Flexion of the Cervical Spine Determined at Various Phases of the Study | El Paso, TX Chiropractor

Figure 1: Mean angular values of the anterior flexion of the cervical spine determined at various phases of the study in patients treated with three different therapeutic methods (McKenzie method + MET, McKenzie method alone, standard physiotherapy).

 

Also, the analysis of changes in the degree of thoracic and lumbar spine anterior flexion revealed variability in the outcomes of the studied methods (Figures 2, ?3).

 

Figure 2 Mean Angular Values of the Anterior Flexion of the Thoracic Spine Determined at Various Phases of the Study | El Paso, TX Chiropractor

Figure 2: Mean angular values of the anterior flexion of the thoracic spine determined at various phases of the study in patients treated with three different therapeutic methods (McKenzie method + MET, McKenzie method alone, standard physiotherapy).

 

Figure 3 Mean Angular Values of the Anterior Flexion of the Lumbar Spine Determined at Various Phases of the Study | El Paso, TX Chiropractor

Figure 3: Mean angular values of the anterior flexion of the lumbar spine determined at various phases of the study in patients treated with three different therapeutic methods (McKenzie method + MET, McKenzie method alone, standard physiotherapy).

 

The greatest improvement of the mobility, equal to ?%=80.34 and ?%=40.43 in the thoracic and lumbar segment, respectively, was documented in the McKenzie + MET group. The lack of significant difference between the measurements of both the segments taken immediately after the intervention and 3 months thereafter suggests that the therapeutic effect was persistent (Tables 2, ?3). The changes in the remaining functional spinal parameters followed a similar pattern and are summarized in Tables 1?�3.

 

The degree of mobility in various spinal segments observed after implementation of studied therapeutic methods was compared with respective average normative values published by Lewandowski [20[ (Figures 4?�6). Implementation of McKenzie method enriched with MET was reflected by the most pronounced improvement in the spinal mobility, which fit within the respective normative ranges. The functional parameters of cervical, thoracic, and lumbar spine normalized at levels corresponding to 87.1%, 66.7%, and 95% of respective average normative values.

 

Figure 4 Functional Parameters of the Cervical Spine | El Paso, TX Chiropractor

Figure 4: Functional parameters of the cervical spine (CL � cervical lordosis; CAF � cervical anterior flexion; CPF � cervical posterior flexion; CRF � cervical right flexion; CLF � cervical left flexion; CRR � cervical right rotation; CLR � cervical left rotation) � comparison between values determined in patients treated with three different therapeutic methods and respective normative values published by Lewandowski.

 

Figure 5 Functional Parameters of the Thoracic Spine | El Paso, TX Chiropractor

Figure 5: Functional parameters of the thoracic spine (ThK � thoracic kyphosis; ThAF � thoracic anterior flexion; ThPF � thoracic posterior flexion; ThRF � thoracic right flexion; ThLF � thoracic left flexion; ThRR � thoracic right rotation; ThLR � thoracic left rotation) � comparison between values determined in patients treated with three different therapeutic methods and respective normative values published by Lewandowski.

 

Figure 6 Functional Parameters of the Lumbar Spine | El Paso, TX Chiropractor

Figure 6: Functional parameters of the lumbar spine (LL � lumbar lordosis; LAF � lumbar anterior flexion; LPF � lumbar posterior flexion; LRF � lumbar right flexion; LLF � lumbar left flexion; LRR � lumbar right rotation; LLR � lumbar left rotation) � comparison between values determined in patients treated with three different therapeutic methods and respective normative values published by Lewandowski.

 

Irrespective of the therapeutic method and timing of measurement, the angular values of all spinal curvatures fit within the respective normative values and no significant inter- and intragroup differences were documented (Table 4).

 

Table 4 Basic Statistical Characteristics and Significance of Differences Between the Angular Values of the Physiological Spinal Curvatures | El Paso, TX Chiropractor

Table 4: Basic statistical characteristics and significance of differences between the angular values of the physiological spinal curvatures depending on the phase of the study and type of implemented therapeutic method.

 

The scores of Oswestry questionnaire also differed depending on the type of implemented intervention. Implementation of McKenzie method, both alone and combined with MET, was reflected by a significant decrease in Oswestry Disability Index. No significant differences were documented between the outcomes of these 2 methods. In contrast, standard physiotherapy had the least pronounced effect on the Oswestry Disability Index (Table 5).

 

Table 5 | El Paso, TX Chiropractor

Table 5: Basic statistical characteristics and significance of differences between the Oswestry questionnaire scores, values of visual analogue scale, and magnetic resonance imaging findings depending on the phase of the study and type of implemented therapeutic method.

 

The analysis of visual analogue scale values suggests that both McKenzie method enriched with MET and classical McKenzie method produced the strongest therapeutic effects, i.e. alleviation of pain. Implementation of both these methods was reflected by marked augmentation of experienced pain, without any significant intergroup differences. In contrast, standard physiotherapy reduced pain to a minimal extent, and no significant differences were observed between VAS scores obtained prior to and after this intervention (Table 5).

 

Magnetic resonance imaging performed prior to and after the intervention confirmed that McKenzie method enriched with MET produced the best therapeutic outcome manifested by a reduced size of spinal disc herniation. Smaller, albeit significant, improvement of this parameter was also documented in the case of classical McKenzie method. These 2 therapeutic methods did not differ significantly in terms of the post-intervention size of the spinal disc herniation. In contrast, no reduction in the size of the spinal disc herniation was documented after implementation of standard physiotherapy (Table 5).

 

Discussion

 

The number of studies validating the efficacy of combined therapeutic methods and techniques is sparse [3,21,26,27]. Wilson et al. [26] concluded that MET is an optimal adjunct technique for other therapeutic modalities [26].

 

Many studies confirmed the positive effects of McKenzie method [28�36]. Similarly, a body of evidence confirms the therapeutic value of MET [37�44]. Moreover, positive outcomes of both these techniques were documented in patients with spinal pain, including LBP [45,46]. However, to the best of our knowledge, none of the previous studies verified whether the combination of these methods improves the therapeutic outcome.

 

Noticeably, both the therapies are based on different concepts and involve different therapeutic techniques. The McKenzie method is oriented at the management of all structural abnormalities of the spinal discs. The aim of this therapy is to eliminate pain and normalize function of the affected spinal segment [14]. Therefore, McKenzie method focuses on the treatment of spinal disc pathologies as the principal cause of pain. Takasaki et al. [35] documented positive changes in the spinal disc, i.e. the resolution of herniation, in patient treated with McKenzie method.

 

However, various injuries and other medical conditions, as well as repetitive negative motor pattern, are also reflected by the disorders of the musculofascial system. This can be reflected by the development of certain compensatory mechanisms, accumulation of muscular tension, motor limitation, and functional disorders [17,40,42]. In contrast, the treatment of the musculofascial system is not included in the concept of McKenzie method. Therefore, the aim of including the muscle energy techniques in the proposed protocol of combined therapy was to potentiate its therapeutic effect through the relaxation and stretching of contracted musculature, strengthening of weakened muscles, reduction of passive muscular tension, improvement of joint mobility, and normalization of motor function [26,43].

 

The differences observed with regards to the mobility of various spinal segments prior to and after the intervention point to better therapeutic outcome of the combined methods. Noticeably, improved mobility was documented not only in the lumbar spine but also in the cervical and thoracic segment. Therefore, the implementation of MET improved the scope of the combined method (McKenzie + MET) as compared to the classical McKenzie method. Our findings suggest that musculofascial disorders may to a large extent be responsible for limited spinal mobility in patients with chronic LBP. In their papers on the therapeutic effects of manual therapy, Pool et al. [12] and Zaproudina et al. [47] emphasize the importance of limitations in spinal mobility as a sensitive marker of pathological changes.

 

The magnetic resonance findings documented in patients treated with combined McKenzie method and MET suggest that this combination has no negative effect on the size of spinal disc herniation (Figure 7). This confirms the safety of MET and plausibility of its application in patients with spinal disc pathologies [26]. Of note, relatively large subjective and objective improvements were achieved despite the short duration of the treatment, which included only 10 sessions throughout a 2-week period.

 

Figure 7 Magnetic Resonance Images of the Structural Changes of the L5 - S1 Spinal Disc | El Paso, TX Chiropractor

Figure 7: Magnetic resonance images of the structural changes of the L5�S1 spinal disc: (A) prior to, and (B) after the combined therapy (McKenzie method + MET).

 

Furthermore, control electrogoniometry conducted 3 months after the intervention confirmed the persistent effect of the combined treatment. Moreover, a slight improvement was documented in the case of some functional parameters examined immediately after the intervention and 3 months thereafter. Perhaps, this phenomenon reflected proper education of our patients and further prophylactic self-exercising according to McKenzie method.

 

Chronic low back pain (CLBP) has a multifactorial etiology [18], and as such requires multimodal treatment. The evidence of therapeutic effects should not be limited to the diagnostic imaging, but mostly be reflected by functionality of a patient, level of experienced pain, extent of movements, and normalization of motor function.

 

Conclusions

 

The following conclusions can be formulated on the basis of our findings:

 

  1. Comparison of the subjective and objective outcomes of 3 therapeutic methods � standard physiotherapy, McKenzie method alone, and McKenzie method combined with MET � in patients with chronic low back pain suggests that the combined method is the most effective.
  2. The use of the combined method (McKenzie + MET) exerts a positive effect on structural (resolution of spinal disc herniation documented on MRI) and functional parameters (improved mobility of various spinal segments), improves the quality of life, and reduces the level of experienced pain.

 

Acknowledgements

 

The study was conducted under the auspices of the University School of Physical Education in Poznan. The authors express their gratitude to the owners of the Private Rehabilitation Practice �Antidotum� for consent to perform the study in their facility.

 

Footnotes

 

  • Source of support: The study was supported by the resources from the Ministry of Science and Higher Education for the statutory activity of the Department of Anatomy of the University School of Physical Education in Poznan
  • Conflict of interest: None declared.

 

In conclusion, the research study demonstrating clinical and experimental evidence on the impact of the McKenzie method with METs for low back pain, one of the most common complaints affecting spine health, concluded that the combined treatment modalities were effectively used in the improvement of chronic low back pain. The purpose of the article was to educate and advice patients with low back pain on the use of METs with the McKenzie method. Furthermore, the use of the combined treatment modalities demonstrated a positive effect on structural and functional parameters, improving the patient’s quality of life and reducing the level of pain they experienced. Information referenced from the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI). The scope of our information is limited to chiropractic as well as to spinal injuries and conditions. To discuss the subject matter, please feel free to ask Dr. Jimenez or contact us at 915-850-0900 .

 

Curated by Dr. Alex Jimenez

 

[accordions title=”References”]
[accordion title=”References” load=”hide”]1. Drozda K, Lewandowski J, G�rski P. Back pain in lower and upper secondary school pupils living in urban areas of Poland. The case of Poznan. Ortopedia, Traumatologia, Rehabilitacja. 2011;13(5(6)):489�503. [PubMed]
2. Drozda K, Lewandowski J. Epidemiology of back pain among secondary school pupils in Poznan. Fizjoterapia Polska. 2011;4(1):31�40.
3. Dunsford A, Kumar S, Clarke S. Integrating evidence into practice: use of McKenzie-based treatment for mechanical low back pain. J Multidiscip Healthc. 2011;4:393�402. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
4. Joud A, Petersson IF, Englund M. Low back pain: epidemiology of consultations. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) 2012;64:b1084�88. [PubMed]
5. Lewandowski J, Szulc P, Boch-Kmieciak J, et al. Epidemiology of low back pain in students of physical education and physiotherapy. Studies in Physical Culture and Tourism. 2011;18(3):265�69.
6. Pereira LM, Obara K, Dias JM, et al. Comparing the Pilates method with no exercise or lumbar stabilization for pain and functionality in patients with chronic low back pain: systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Rehabil. 2012;26:10�20. [PubMed]
7. Werneke MW, Hart D, Oliver D, et al. Prevalence of classification methods for patients with lumbar impairments using the McKenzie syndromes, pain pattern, manipulation, and stabilization clinical prediction rules. J Man Manip Ther. 2010;18:197�204. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
8. da C Menezes Costa L, Maher CG, Hancock MJ, et al. The prognosis of acute and persistent low-back pain: a meta-analysis. CMAJ. 2012;184:E613�24. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
9. Borges TP, Greve JM, Monteiro AP, et al. Massage application for occupational low back pain in nursing staff. Rev Lat Am Enfermagem. 2012;20:511�19. [PubMed]
10. Cherkin DC, Sherman KJ, Kahn J, et al. A comparison of the effects of 2 types of massage and usual care on chronic low back pain: a randomized, controlled trial. Ann Intern Med. 2011;155:1�9. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
11. Kilpikoski S, Al�n M, Paatelma M, et al. Outcome comparison among working adults with centralizing low back pain: Secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial with 1-year follow-up. Adv Physiother. 2009;11:210�17.
12. Pool JJ, Ostelo RW, Knol DL, et al. Is a behavioral graded activity program more effective than manual therapy in patients with subacute neck pain? Results of a randomized clinical trial. Spine. 2010;35:1017�24. [PubMed]
13. Frankel BS, Moffett JK, Keen S, et al. Guidelines for low back pain: changes in GP management. Fam Pract. 1999;16:216�22. [PubMed]
14. McKenzie R, May S. The lumbar spine: mechanical diagnosis and therapy. 2nd ed. Waikanae: Spinal Publications; 2003.
15. Kanpandji AI. Anatomia funkcjonalna staw�w. Tom 3.6 ed. Wroc?aw: Elsevier Urban & Partners; 2010. [in Polish]
16. Alexander LA, Hancock E, Agouris I, et al. The response of the nucleus pulposus of the lumbar intervertebral discs to functionally loaded positions. Spine. 2007;32(14):1508�12. [PubMed]
17. Chaitow L. Muscle energy techniques. 3rd ed. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone; 2006.
18. O�Sullivan P. It�s time for change with the management of non-specific chronic low back pain. Br J Sports Med. 2012;46:224�27. [PubMed]
19. Boocock MG, Jackson JA, Burton AK, et al. Continuous measurement of lumbar posture using flexible electrogoniometers. Ergonomics. 1994;37:175�85. [PubMed]
20. Lewandowski J. Formation of physiological curvatures and segmental mobility of the human spine aged from 3 to 25 years in electrogoniometric studies. 1st ed. Poznan: AWF Poznan; 2006.
21. Szulc P, Lewandowski J, Marecki B. Verification of selected anatomic landmarks used as reference points for universal goniometer positioning during knee joints mobility range measurements. Med Sci Monit. 2001;7:312�15. [PubMed]
22. Fairbank JC, Pynsent PB. The Oswestry disability index. Spine. 2000;25:2940�52. [PubMed]
23. Hicks GE, Manal TJ. Psychometric properties of commonly used low back disability questionnaires: are they useful for older adults with low back pain? Pain Med. 2009;10:85�94. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
24. Mudgalkar N, Bele SD, Valsangkar S, et al. Utility of numerical and visual analog scales for evaluating the post-operative pain in rural patients. Indian J Anaesth. 2012;56:553�57. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
25. Fazey PJ, Takasaki H, Singer KP. Nucleus pulposus deformation in response to lumbar spine lateral flexion: an in vivo MRI investigation. Eur Spine J. 2010;19(11):1115�20. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
26. Wilson E, Payton O, Donegan-Shoaf L, et al. Muscle energy technique in patients with acute low back pain: a pilot clinical trial. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2003;33:502�12. [PubMed]
27. Bronfort G, Goldsmith CH, Nelson CF, et al. Trunk exercise combined with spinal manipulative or NSAID therapy for chronic low back pain: a randomized, observer-blinded clinical trial. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 1996;19:570�82. [PubMed]
28. Bybee RF, Olsen DL, Cantu-Boncser G, et al. Centralization of symptoms and lumbar range of motion in patients with low back pain. Physiother Theory Pract. 2009;25:257�67. [PubMed]
29. Chen J, Phillips A, Ramsey M, et al. A case study examining the effectiveness of mechanical diagnosis and therapy in a patient who met the clinical prediction rule for spinal manipulation. J Man Manip Ther. 2009;17:216�20. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
30. Garcia AN, Gondo FL, Costa RA, et al. Effects of two physical therapy interventions in patients with chronic non-specific low back pain: feasibility of a randomized controlled trial. Rev Bras Fisioter. 2011;15:420�27. [PubMed]
31. Hosseinifar M, Akbari M, Behtash H, et al. The effects of stabilization and Mckenzie exerciseson transverse abdominis and multifidus muscle thickness, pain, and disability: A randomized controlled trial in nonspecific chronic low back pain. J Phys Ther Sci. 2012;25:1541�45. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
32. Mbada CE, Ayanniyi O, Ogunlade SO, et al. Influence of Mckenzie protocol and two modes of endurance exercises on health-related quality of life of patients with long-term mechanical low-back pain. Pan Afr Med J. 2014;17(Supp 1):5. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
33. Garcia AN, da Cunha Menezes Costa L, Hancock MJ, et al. Efficacy of the McKenzie method in patients with chronic nonspecific low back pain: a protocol of randomized placebo-controlled trial. Phys Ther. 2015;95:267�73. [PubMed]
34. Schenk RJ, Jozefczyk C, Kopf A. A randomized trial comparing interventions in patients with lumbar posterior derangement. J Man Manip Ther. 2003;11:95�102.
35. Takasaki H, May S, Fazey PJ, et al. Nucleus pulposus deformation following application of mechanical diagnosis and therapy: a single case report with magnetic resonance imaging. J Man Manip Ther. 2010;18:153�58. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
36. Williams B, Vaughn D, Holwerda T. A mechanical diagnosis and treatment (MDT) approach for a patient with discogenic low back pain and a relevant lateral component: a case report. J Man Manip Ther. 2011;19:113�18. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
37. Chugh R, Kalra S, Sharma N, et al. Effects of muscle energy techniques and its comparison to self stretch of bilateral ankle plantarflexors on performance of balance scores in healthy elderly subjects. Physiother Occup Ther J. 2011;4:61�71.
38. Fryer G, Ruszkowski W. The influence of contraction duration in muscle energy technique applied to the atlanto-axial joint. J Osteopath Med. 2004;7:79�84.
39. Fryer G, Pearce AJ. The effect of muscle energy technique on corticospinal and spinal reflex excitability in asymptomatic participants. J Bodyw Mov Ther. 2013;17(4):440�47. [PubMed]
40. Gugliotti M. The use of mobilization, muscle energy technique, and soft tissue mobilization following a modified radical neck dissection of a patient with head and neck cancer. Rehabil Oncol. 2011;29:3�8.
41. K???k?en S, Yilmaz H, Sall? A, U?urlu H. Muscle energy technique versus corticosteroid injection for management of chronic lateral epicondylitis: Randomized controlled trial with 1-year follow-up. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2013;94:2068�74. [PubMed]
42. Moore SD, Laudner KG, McLoda TA, et al. The immediate effects of muscle energy technique on posterior shoulder tightness: a randomized controlled trial. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2011;41:400�7. [PubMed]
43. Rajadurai V. The effect of muscle energy technique on temporomandibular joint dysfunction: a randomized clinical trail. Asian J Sci Res. 2011;4:71�77.
44. Shadmehr A, Hadian MR, Naiemi SS, et al. Hamstring flexibility in young women following passive stretch and muscle energy technique. J Back Musculoskelet Rehabil. 2009;22:143�48. [PubMed]
45. Day JM, McKeon P, Nitz A. The efficacy of cervical/thoracic active range of motion for detecting changes associated with individuals receiving muscle energy techniques. Phys Ther Rev. 2010;15:453�61.
46. Day JM, Nitz AJ. The effect of muscle energy techniques on disability and pain scores in individuals with low back pain. J Sport Rehabil. 2012;21:194�98. [PubMed]
47. Zaproudina N, Hietikko T, Hanninen OO, et al. Effectiveness of traditional bone setting in treating chronic low back pain: a randomised pilot trial. Complement Ther Med. 2009;17:23�28. [PubMed][/accordion]
[/accordions]

 

Green-Call-Now-Button-24H-150x150-2-3.png

 

Additional Topics: Sciatica

 

Sciatica is referred to as a collection of symptoms rather than a single type of injury or condition. The symptoms are characterized as radiating pain, numbness and tingling sensations from the sciatic nerve in the lower back, down the buttocks and thighs and through one or both legs and into the feet. Sciatica is commonly the result of irritation, inflammation or compression of the largest nerve in the human body, generally due to a herniated disc or bone spur.

 

blog picture of cartoon paperboy big news

 

IMPORTANT TOPIC: EXTRA EXTRA: Treating Sciatica Pain