Thomas M Kosloff1*�, David Elton1�, Jiang Tao2� and Wade M Bannister2�
Contents
CHIROPRACTIC & MANUAL THERAPIES
Abstract
Background: There is controversy surrounding the risk of manipulation, which is often used by chiropractors, with respect to its association with vertebrobasilar artery system (VBA) stroke. The objective of this study was to compare the associations between chiropractic care and VBA stroke with recent primary care physician (PCP) care and VBA stroke.
Methods: The study design was a case�control study of commercially insured and Medicare Advantage (MA) health plan members in the U.S. population between January 1, 2011 and December 31, 2013. Administrative data were used to identify exposures to chiropractic and PCP care. Separate analyses using conditional logistic regression were conducted for the commercially insured and the MA populations. The analysis of the commercial population was further stratified by age (<45 years; ?45 years). Odds ratios were calculated to measure associations for different hazard periods. A secondary descriptive analysis was conducted to determine the relevance of using chiropractic visits as a proxy for exposure to manipulative treatment.
Results: There were a total of 1,829 VBA stroke cases (1,159 � commercial; 670 � MA). The findings showed no significant association between chiropractic visits and VBA stroke for either population or for samples stratified by age. In both commercial and MA populations, there was a significant association between PCP visits and VBA stroke incidence regardless of length of hazard period. The results were similar for age-stratified samples. The findings of the secondary analysis showed that chiropractic visits did not report the inclusion of manipulation in almost one third of stroke cases in the commercial population and in only 1 of 2 cases of the MA cohort.
Conclusions: We found no significant association between exposure to chiropractic care and the risk of VBA stroke. We conclude that manipulation is an unlikely cause of VBA stroke. The positive association between PCP visits and VBA stroke is most likely due to patient decisions to seek care for the symptoms (headache and neck pain) of arterial dissection. We further conclude that using chiropractic visits as a measure of exposure to manipulation may result in unreliable estimates of the strength of association with the occurrence of VBA stroke.
Keywords: Chiropractic, Primary care, Cervical manipulation, Vertebrobasilar stroke, Adverse events
Background
The burden of neck pain and headache or migraine among adults in the United States is significant. Survey data indicate 13% of adults reported neck pain in the past 3 months [1]. In any given year, neck pain affects 30% to 50% of adults in the general population [2]. Prevalence rates were reportedly greater in more eco- nomically advantaged countries, such as the USA, with a higher incidence of neck pain noted in office and com- puter workers [3]. Similar to neck pain, the prevalence of headache is substantial. During any 3-month time- frame, severe headaches or migraines reportedly affect one in eight adults [1].
Neck pain is a very common reason for seeking health care services. �In 2004, 16.4 million patient visits or 1.5% of all health care visits to hospitals and physician offices, were for neck pain� [4]. Eighty percent (80%) of visits occurred as outpatient care in a physician�s office [4]. The utilization of health care resources for the treatment of headache is also significant. �In 2006, adults made nearly 11 million physician visits with a headache diagno- sis, over 1 million outpatient hospital visits, 3.3 million emergency department visits, and 445 thousand inpatient hospitalizations� [1].
In the United States, chiropractic care is frequently utilized by individuals with neck and/or headache com- plaints. A national survey of chiropractors in 2003 re- ported that neck conditions and headache/facial pain accounted respectively for 18.7% and 12% of the patient chief complaints [5]. Chiropractors routinely employ spinal manipulative treatment (SMT) in the management of patients presenting with neck and/or headache [6], either alone or combined with other treatment approaches [7-10].
While evidence syntheses suggest the benefits of SMT for neck pain [7-9,11-13] and various types of headaches [10,12,14-16], the potential for rare but serious adverse events (AE) following cervical SMT is a concern for researchers [17,18], practitioners [19,20], professional organizations [21-23], policymakers [24,25] and the public [26,27]. In particular, the occurrence of stroke affecting the vertebrobasilar artery system (VBA stroke) has been associated with cervical manipulation. A recent publication [28] assessing the safety of chiropractic care reported, �…the frequency of serious adverse events varied between 5 strokes/ 100,000 manipulations to 1.46 serious adverse events/ 10,000,000 manipulations and 2.68 deaths/10,000,000 manipulations�. These estimates were, however, derived from retrospective anecdotal reports and liability claims data, and do not permit confident conclusions about the actual frequency of neurological complications following spinal manipulation.
Several systematic reviews investigating the association between stroke and chiropractic cervical manipulation�have reported the data are insufficient to produce definitive conclusions about its safety [28-31]. Two case�control studies [32,33] used visits to a chiropractor as a proxy for SMT in their analyses of standardized health system databases for the population of Ontario (Canada). The more recent of these studies [32] also included a case-crossover methodology, which reduced the risk of bias from confounding variables. Both case�control studies reported an increased risk of VBA stroke in association with chiropractic visits for the population under age 45 years old. Cassidy, et al. [32] found, how- ever, the association was similar to visits to a primary care physician (PCP). Consequently, the results of this study suggested the association between chiropractic care and stroke was non-causal. In contrast to these studies, which found a significant association between chiropractic visits and VBA stroke in younger patients (<45 yrs.), the analysis of a population-based case-series suggested that VBA stroke patients who consulted a chiropractor the year before their stroke were older (mean age 57.6 yrs.) than previously documented [34].
The work by Cassidy, et al. [32] has been qualitatively appraised as one of the most robustly designed investigations of the association between chiropractic manipulative treatment and VBA stroke [31]. To the best of our knowledge, this work has not been reproduced in the U.S. population. Thus, the main purpose of this study is to replicate the case�control epidemiological design published by Cassidy, et al. [32] to investigate the association between chiropractic care and VBA stroke; and compare it to the association between recent PCP care and VBA stroke in samples of the U.S. commercial and Medicare Advantage (MA) populations. A secondary aim of this study is to assess the utility of employing chiropractic visits as a proxy measure for exposure to spinal manipulation.
Methods
Study design and population
We developed a case�control study based on the experience of commercially insured and MA health plan members between January 1, 2011 and December 31, 2013. General criteria for membership in a commercial or MA health plan included either residing or working in a region where health care coverage was offered by the in- surer. Individuals must have Medicare Part A and Part B to join a MA plan. The data set included health plan members located in 49 of 50 states. North Dakota was the only State not represented.
Both case and control data were extracted from the same source population, which encompassed national health plan data for 35,726,224 unique commercial and 3,188,825 unique MA members. Since members might be enrolled for more than one year, the average�annual commercial membership was 14.7 million members and the average annual MA membership was 1.4 million members over the three year study period, which is comparable to ~5% of the total US population based on the data available from US Census Bureau [35]. Administrative claims data were used to identify cases, as well as patient characteristics and health service utilization.
The stroke cases included all patients admitted to an acute care hospital with vertebrobasilar (VBA) occlusion and stenosis strokes as defined by ICD-9 codes of 433.0, 433.01, 433.20, and 433.21 during the study period. Pa- tients with more than one admission for a VBA stroke were excluded from the study. For each stroke case, four age and gender matched controls were randomly se- lected from sampled qualified members. Both cases and controls were randomly sorted prior to the matching using a greedy matching algorithm [36].
Exposures
The index date was defined as the date of admission for the VBA stroke. Any encounters with a chiropractor or a primary care physician (PCP) prior to the index date were considered as exposures. To evaluate the impact of chiropractic and PCP treatment, the designated hazard period in this study was zero to 30 days prior to the index date. For the PCP analysis, the index date was excluded from the hazard period since patients might consult PCPs after having a stroke. The standard health plan coverage included a limit of 20 chiropractic visits. In rare circumstances a small employer may have selected a 12-visit limit. An internal analysis (data not shown) revealed that 5% of the combined (commercial and MA) populations reached their chiropractic visit limits. Instances of an employer not covering chiropractic care were estimated to be so rare that it would have had no measurable impact on the analysis. There were no limits on the number of reimbursed PCP visits per year.
Analyses
Two sets of similar analyses were performed, one for the commercially insured population and one for the MA population. In each set of analyses, conditional logistic regression models were used to examine the association between the exposures and VBA strokes. To measure the association, we estimated the odds ratio of having the VBA stroke and the effect of total number of chiropractic visits and PCP visits within the hazard period. The analyses were applied to different hazard periods, including one day, three days, seven days, 14 days and 30 days for both chiropractic and PCP visits. The results of the chiropractic and PCP visit analyses were then compared to find evidence of excess risk of having stroke for patients with chiropractic visits during the
hazard period. Previous research has indicated that most patients who experience a vertebral artery dissection are under the age of 45. Therefore, in order to investigate the impact of exposure on the population at different ages, separate analyses were performed on patients stratified by age (under 45 years and 45 years and up) for the study of the commercial population. The number of visits within the hazard period was entered as a con- tinuous variable in the logistic model. The chi square test was used to analyze the proportion of co-morbidities in cases as compared to controls.
A secondary analysis was performed to evaluate the relevance of using chiropractic visits as a proxy for spinal manipulation. The commercial and MA databases were queried to identify the proportions of cases of VBA stroke and matched controls for which at least one chiropractic spinal manipulative treatment procedural code (CPT 98940 � 98942) was or was not recorded. The analysis also calculated the use of another manual therapy code (CPT 97140), which may be employed by chiropractors as an alternative means of reporting spinal manipulation.
Ethics
The New England Institutional Review Board (NEIRB) determined that this study was exempt from ethics review.
Results
The commercial study sample included 1,159 VBA stroke cases over the three year period and 4,633 age and gender matched controls. The average age of the patients was 65.1 years and 64.8% of the patients were male (Table 1). The prevalence rate of VBA stroke in the commercial population was 0.0032%.
There were a total of 670 stroke cases and 2,680 matched controls included in the MA study. The aver- age patient age was 76.1 years and 58.6% of the patients were male (Table 2). For the MA population, the prevalence rate of VBA stroke was 0.021%.
Claims during a one year period prior to the index date were extracted to identify comorbid disorders. Both the commercial and MA cases had a high percentage of comorbidities, with 71.5% of cases in the commercial study and 88.5% of the cases in the MA study reporting at least one of the comorbid conditions (Table 3). Six comorbid conditions of particular interest were identified, including hypertensive disease (ICD-9 401�404), ischemic�heart disease (ICD-9 410�414), disease of pulmonary circulation (ICD-9 415�417), other forms of heart disease (ICD-9 420�429), pure hypercholesterolemia (ICD-9 272.0) and diseases of other endocrine glands (ICD-9 249�250). There were statistically significant differences (p = <0.05) between groups for most comorbidities. Greater proportions of comorbid disorders (p = <0.0001) were reported in the commercial and MA cases for hyper- tensive disease, heart disease and endocrine disorders (Table 3). The commercial cases also showed a larger proportion of diseases of pulmonary circulation, which was statistically significant (p = 0.0008). There were no significance differences in pure hypercholesterolemia for either the commercial or MA populations. Overall, cases in both the commercial and MA populations were more likely (p = <0.0001) to have at least one co- morbid condition.
Among the commercially insured, 1.6% of stroke cases had visited chiropractors within 30 days of being admit- ted to the hospital, as compared to 1.3% of controls visit- ing chiropractors within 30 days prior to their index date. Of the stroke cases, 18.9% had visited a PCP within 30 days prior to their index date, while only 6.8% of controls had visited a PCP (Table 4). The proportion of exposures for chiropractic visits was lower in the MA sample within the 30-day hazard period (cases = 0.3%; controls = 0.9%). However, the proportion of exposures for PCP visits was higher, with 21.3% of cases having PCP visits as compared to12.9% for controls (Table 5).
The results from the analyses of both the commercial population and the MA population were similar (Tables 6, 7 and 8). There was no association between chiropractic visits and VBA stroke found for the�overall sample, or for samples stratified by age. No estimated odds ratio was significant at the 95% confidence level. MA data were insufficient to calculate statistical measures of association for hazard periods less than 0�14 days for chiropractic visits. When stratified by age, the data were too sparse to calculate measures of association for hazard periods less than 0�30 days in the commercial population. The data were too few to analyze associative risk by headache and/or neck pain diagnoses (data not shown).
These results showed there is an association existing between PCP visits and VBA stroke incidence regardless of age or length of hazard period. A strong association was found for those visits close to the index date (OR 11.56; 95% CI 6.32-21.21) for all patients with a PCP visit within 0�1 day hazard period in the commercial sample. There was an increased risk of VBA stroke associated with each PCP visit within 30-days prior to the index date for MA patients (OR 1.51; 95% CI 1.32-1.73) and commercial patients (OR 2.01; 95% CI 1.77-2.29).
The findings of the secondary analysis showed � that of 1159 stroke cases from commercial population � there were a total of 19 stroke cases associated with chiropractic visits for which 13 (68%) had claims documentation indicating chiropractic SMT was performed. For the control group of the commercial cohort, 62 of 4633 controls had claims of any kind of chiropractic visits and 47 of 4633 controls had claims of SMT. In the commercial control group, 47 of 62 DC visits (76%) included SMT in the claims data. Only 1 of 2 stroke cases in the MA population included SMT in the claims data. For the MA cohort, 21 of 24 control chiropractic visits (88%) included SMT in the claims data (Table 9).
None of the stroke cases in either population included CPT 97140 as a substitute for the more conventionally re- ported chiropractic manipulative treatment procedural codes (98940 � 98942). For the control groups, there were three instances where CPT 97140 was reported without CPT 98940 � 98942 in the commercial population. The CPT code 97140 was not reported in MA control cohort.
Discussion
The primary aim of the present study was to investigate the association between chiropractic manipulative treatment and VBA stroke in a sample of the U.S. population. This study was modeled after a case�control design previously conducted for a Canadian population [32]. Administrative data for enrollees in a large national health care insurer were analyzed to explore the occurrence of VBA stroke across different time periods of exposure to chiropractic care in comparison with PCP care.
Unlike Cassidy et al. [32] and most other case�control studies [33,37,38], our results showed there was no significant association between VBA stroke and chiropractic visits. This was the case for both the commercial and MA populations. In contrast to two earlier case�control studies [32,33], this lack of association was found to be irrespective of age. Although, our results (Table 8) did lend credence to previous reports that VBA stroke occurs more frequently in patients under the age of 45 years. Additionally, the results from the present study did not identify a relevant temporal impact. There was no significant association, when the data were sufficient to calculate estimates, between chiropractic visits and stroke regardless of the hazard period (timing of most recent visit to a chiropractor and the occurrence of stroke).
There are several possible reasons for the variation in results with previous similar case�control studies. The younger (<45 yrs.) commercial cohort that received chiropractic care in our study had noticeably fewer cases. The 0�30 days hazard period included only 2 VBA stroke cases. There were no stroke cases for other hazard periods in this population. In contrast, earlier studies reported sufficient cases to calculate risk estimates for most hazard periods [32,33].
Another factor that potentially influenced the difference in results concerns the accuracy of hospital claims data in the U.S. vs. Ontario, Canada. The source population in the Province of Ontario was identified, in part, from the Discharge Abstract Database (DAD). The DAD includes hospital discharge and emergency visit diagnoses that have undergone a standardized assessment by a medical records coder [39]. To the best of our know- ledge, similar quality management practices were not routinely applied to hospital claims data used in sourcing the population for our study.
An additional reason for the disparity in results may be due to differences in the proportions of chiropractic visits where SMT was reportedly performed. Our study showed that SMT was not reported by chiropractors in more than 30% of commercial cases. It is plausible that a number of the cases in earlier studies also did not�include SMT as an intervention. Differences between studies in the proportion of cases reporting SMT may have affected the calculation of risk estimates.
Also, there were an insufficient number of cases having cervical and/or headache diagnoses in our study. Therefore, our sample population may have included proportionally less cases where cervical manipulation was performed.
Our results were consistent with previous findings [32,33] in showing a significant association between PCP visits and VBA stroke. The odds ratios for any PCP visit increase dramatically from 1�30 days to 1�1 day (Tables 6 and 7). This finding is consistent with the hypothesis that patients are more likely to see a PCP for symptoms related to vertebral artery dissection closer to the index date of their actual stroke. Since it is unlikely that the services provided by PCPs cause VBA strokes, the association�between recent PCP visits and VBA stroke is more likely attributable to the background risk related to the natural history of the condition [32].
A secondary goal of our study was to assess the utility of employing chiropractic visits as a surrogate for SMT. Our findings indicate there is a high risk of bias associated with using this approach, which likely overestimated the strength of association. Less than 70% of stroke cases (commercial and MA) associated with chiropractic care included SMT. A somewhat higher proportion of chiropractic visits included SMT for the control groups (commercial = 76%; MA = 88%).
There are plausible reasons that support these findings. Internal analyses of claims data (not shown) consistently demonstrate that one visit is the most common number associated with a chiropractic episode of care. The single visit may consist of an evaluation without treatment such as SMT. Further; SMT may have been viewed as contraindicated due to signs and symptoms of vertebral artery dissection (VAD) and/or stroke. This might explain the greater proportion of SMT provided to control groups in both the commercial and MA populations.
Overall, our results increase confidence in the findings of a previous study [32], which concluded there was no excess risk of VBA stroke associated chiropractic care compared to primary care. Further, our results indicate there is no significant risk of VBA stroke associated with chiropractic care. Additionally, our findings highlight the potential flaws in using a surrogate variable (chiropractic visits) to estimate the risk of VBA stroke in association with a specific intervention (manipulation).
Our study had a number of strengths and limitations. Both case and control data were extracted from the same source population, which encompassed national health plan data for approximately 36 million�commercial and 3 million MA members. A total of 1,829 cases were identified, making this the largest case� control study to investigate the association between chiropractic manipulation and VBA stroke. Due to the nationwide setting and large sample size, our study likely reduced the risk of bias related to geographic factors. However, there was a risk of selection bias � owing to the data set being from a single health insurer � including income status, workforce participation, and links to health care providers and hospitals.
Our study closely followed a methodological approach that had previously been described [32], thus allowing for more confident comparisons.
The current investigation analyzed data for a number of comorbid conditions that have been identified as potentially modifiable risk factors for a first ischemic stroke [40]. The differences between groups were statistically significant for most comorbidities. Information was not obtainable about behavioral comorbid factors e.g., smoking and body mass. With the exception of hypertensive disease, there are reasons to question the clinical significance of these conditions in the occurrence of ischemic stroke due to vertebral artery dissection. A large multinational case-referent study investigated the association between vascular risk factors (history of vascular disease, hypertension, smoking, hypercholesterolemia, diabetes mellitus, and obesity/overweight) for ischemic stroke and the occurrence of cervical artery dissection [41]. Only hypertension had a positive association (odds ratio 1.67; 95% confidence interval, 1.32 to 2.1; P <0.0001) with cervical artery dissection.
While the effect of other unmeasured confounders cannot be discounted, there is reason to suspect the absence of these data was not deleterious to the results. Cassidy, et al. found no significant differences in the results their case-crossover design, which affords better control of unknown confounding variables, and the findings of their case�control study [32].
Our results highlight just how unusual VBA stroke is in the MA cohort (prevalence = 0.021%) and � even more so � for the commercial population (prevalence = 0.0032%). As a result, some limitations of this study re- lated to the rarity of reporting VBA stroke events. Despite the larger number of cases, data were insufficient to calculate estimates and confidence intervals for seven measures of exposure (4 commercial and 3 MA) for chiropractic visits. Additionally, we were not able to compute estimates specifically for headache and neck pain diagnoses due to small numbers. Confidence intervals associated with estimates tended to be wide making the results imprecise [42].
There were limitations related to the use of administrative claims data. �Disadvantages of using secondary data for research purposes include: variations in coding from hospital to hospital or from department to department, errors in coding and incomplete coding, for example in the presence of comorbidities. Random errors in coding and registration of discharge diagnoses may dilute and attenuate estimates of statistical association� [43]. The recordings of unvalidated hospital discharge diagnostic codes for stroke have been shown to be less precise when compared to chart review [44,45] and validated patient registries�[43,46]. Cassidy, et al. [32] conducted a sensitivity analysis to determine the effect of diagnostic misclassification bias. Their conclusions did not change when the effects of misclassification were assumed to be similarly distributed between chiropractic and PCP cases.
A particular limitation in using administrative claims data is the paucity of contextual information surround- ing the clinical encounters between chiropractors/PCPs and their patients. Historical elements describing the occurrence/absence of recent trauma or activities reported in case studies [47-51] as potential risk factors for VBA stroke were not available in claims data. Confidence was low concerning the ability of claims data to provide accurate and complete reporting of other health disorders, which have been described in case�control designs as being associated with the occurrence of VBA stroke e.g., migraine [52] or recent infection [53]. Symptoms and physical examination findings that would have permitted further stratification of cases were not reported in the claims data.
The reporting of clinical procedures using current pro- cedural terminology (CPT) codes presented additional shortcomings concerning the accuracy and interpretation of administrative data. One inherent constraint was the lack of anatomic specificity associated with the use of standardized procedural codes in claims data. Chiropractic manipulative treatment codes (CPT 98940 � 98942) have been formatted to describe the number of spinal regions receiving manipulation. They do not identify the particular spinal regions manipulated.
Also, treatment information describing the type(s) of manipulation was not available. When SMT was re- ported, claims data could not discriminate among the range of techniques including thrust or rotational manipulation, various non-thrust interventions e.g., mechanical instruments, soft tissue mobilizations, muscle energy techniques, manual cervical traction, etc. Many of these techniques do not incorporate the same bio- mechanical stressors associated with the type of manipulation (high velocity low amplitude) that has been investigated as a putative risk factor for VBA stroke [54-56]. It seems plausible that the utility of future VBA stroke research would benefit from explicit descriptions of the particular type of manipulation performed.
Moreover, patient responses to care � including any adverse events suggestive of vertebral artery dissection or stroke-like symptoms � were not obtainable in the data set used for the current study.
In the absence of performing comprehensive clinical chart audits, it is not possible to know from claims data what actually transpired in the clinical encounter. Further, chart notes may themselves be incomplete or otherwise fail to precisely describe the nature of interventions [57]. Therefore, manipulation codes represent surrogate
measures, albeit more direct surrogate measures, than simply using the exposure to chiropractic visits.
Our study was also limited to replication of the case� control design described by Cassidy, et al. [32]. For pragmatic reasons, we did not attempt to conduct a case-crossover design. While the addition of a case- crossover design would have provided better control of confounding variables, Cassidy, et al. [32] showed the results were similar for both the case control and case crossover studies.
The findings of this case�control study and previous retrospective research underscore the need to rethink how to better conduct future investigations. Researchers should seek to avoid the use of surrogate measures or use the least indirect measures available. Instead, the focus should be on capturing data about the types of services and not the type of health care provider.
In alignment with this approach, it is also important for investigators to access contextual data (e.g., from electronic health records), which can be enabled by qualitative data analysis computer programs [58]. The acquisition of the elements of clinical encounters � including history, diagnosis, intervention, and adverse events � can provide the infrastructure for more action- able research. Because of the rarity of VBA stroke, large data sets (e.g., registries) containing these elements will be necessary to achieve adequate statistical power for making confident conclusions.
Until research efforts produce more definitive results, health care policy and clinical practice judgments are best informed by the evidence about the effectiveness of manipulation, plausible treatment options (including non-thrust manual techniques) and individual patient values [20].
Conclusions
Our findings should be viewed in the context of the body of knowledge concerning the risk of VBA stroke. In contrast to several other case�control studies, we found no significant association between exposure to chiropractic care and the risk of VBA stroke. Our secondary analysis clearly showed that manipulation may or may not have been reported at every chiropractic visit. Therefore, the use of chiropractic visits as a proxy for manipulation may not be reliable. Our results add weight to the view that chiropractic care is an unlikely cause of VBA strokes. However, the current study does not exclude cervical manipulation as a possible cause or contributory factor in the occurrence of VBA stroke.
Authors’ Contributions
DE conceived of the study, and participated in its design and coordination. JT participated in the design of the study, performed the statistical analysis and helped to draft the manuscript. TMK participated in the design and coordination of the study, and wrote the initial draft and revisions of the manuscript. WMB participated in the coordination of the study and the statistical analysis, and helped to draft the manuscript. All authors contributed to the interpretation of the data. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Author Details
1Optum Health � Clinical Programs at United Health Group, 11000 Optum Circle, Eden Prairie MN 55344, USA. 2Optum Health � Clinical Analytics at United Health Group, 11000 Optum Circle, Eden Prairie MN 55344, USA.
Received: 14 October 2014 Accepted: 28 April 2015
Published Online: 16 June 2015
References
1. Paulose R, Hertz R. The burden of pain among adults in the United States. In Pfizer Facts. Edited by Pfizer Inc. 2008. [http://www.pfizer.com/files/products/PF_Pain.pdf] Accessed May 14, 2014.
2. Carroll L, Hogg-Johnson S, van der Velde G, Haldeman S, Holm L, Carragee E, et al. Bone and Joint Decade 2000�2010 Task Force on Neck Pain and Its Associated Disorders: Course and prognostic factors for neck pain in the
general population: results of the Bone and Joint Decade 2000�2010 Task Force on Neck Pain and Its Associated Disorders. Spine (Phila Pa 1976).2008;33(4 Suppl):S75�82.
3. Hoy D, Protani M, De R, Buchbinder R. The epidemiology of neck pain. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol. 2010;24(6):783�92.
4. Jacobs J, Andersson G, Bell J, Weinstein S, Dormans J, Gnatz S, et al. Spine: low back and neck pain. In The Burden of Musculoskeletal Diseases in the United States. Chapter 2. Edited by Bone and Joint Decade USA
2002�2011. Rosemont, IL: The American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons; 2008:21�56.
5. Christensen M, Kollasch M, Hyland J, Rosner A. Chapter 8 � Patient Conditions. In Practice Analysis of Chiropractic: A Project Report, Survey Analysis, and Summary of the Practice of Chiropractic Within the United States. Greeley, CO: The National Board of Chiropractic Examiners. 2010:95�120.
6. Christensen M, Kollasch M, Hyland J, Rosner A. Chapter 9 � Professional functions and treatment procedures. In Practice Analysis of Chiropractic: A Project Report, Survey Analysis, and Summary of the Practice of
Chiropractic Within the United States. Greeley, CO: The National Board of Chiropractic Examiners. 2010:121�136.
7. D�Sylva J, Miller J, Gross A, Burnie S, Goldsmith G, Graham N, et al. Manual therapy with or without physical medicine modalities for neck pain: a systematic review. Man Ther. 2010;15(4):415�33.
8. Gross A, Miller J, D�Sylva J, Burnie S, Goldsmith G, Graham N, et al. Manipulation or mobilisation for neck pain: A Cochrane review. Man Ther. 2010;15(4):315�33.
9. Bryans R, Decina P, Descarreaux M, Duranleau M, Marcoux H, Potter B, et al. Evidence-based guidelines for the chiropractic treatment of adults with neck pain. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2014;37(1):42�63.
10. Bryans R, Descarreaux M, Duranleau M, Marcoux H, Potter B, Ruegg R, et al. Evidence-based guidelines for the chiropractic treatment of adults withheadache. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2011;34(5):274�89.
11. Childs J, Cleland J, Elliott J, Teyhen D, Wainner R, Whitman 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�A34.
12. Clar C, Tsertsvadze A, Court R, Hundt G, Clarke A, Sutcliffe P. Clinical effectiveness of manual therapy for the management of musculoskeletal and non-musculoskeletal conditions: systematic review and update of UK
evidence report. Chiropr Man Therap. 2014;22(1):12.
13. Vincent K, Maigne J, Fischhoff C, Lanlo O, Dagenais S. Systematic review of manual therapies for nonspecific neck pain. Joint Bone Spine. 2013;80(5):508�15.
14. Bronfort G, Assendelft W, Evans R, Haas M, Bouter L. Efficacy of spinal manipulation for chronic headache: a systematic review. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2001;24(7):457�66.
15. Chaibi A, Tuchin P, Russell M. Manual therapies for migraine: a systematic review. J Headache Pain. 2011;12(2):127�33.
16. Racicki S, Gerwin S, Diclaudio S, Reinmann S, Donaldson M. Conservative physical therapy management for the treatment of cervicogenic headache: a systematic review. J Man Manip Ther. 2013;21(2):113�24.
17. Cassidy J, Bronfort G, Hartvigsen J. Should we abandon cervical spine manipulation for mechanical neck pain? No BMJ. 2012;344, e3680.
18. Wand B, Heine P, O�Connell N. Should we abandon cervical spine manipulation for mechanical neck pain? Yes BMJ. 2012;344, e3679.
19. Moloo J. What’s the Best Approach for Managing Neck Pain? NEJM Journal Watch 2012. [http://www.jwatch.org/jw201202090000004/2012/02/09/whats-best-approach-managing-neck-pain] Accessed May 14, 2014.
20. Schneider M, Weinstein S, Chimes G. Cervical manipulation for neck pain. PM&R. 2012;4(8):606�12.
21. Biller J, Sacco R, Albuquerque F, Demaerschalk B, Fayad P, Long P, et al. Cervical arterial dissections and association with cervical manipulative therapy:a statement for healthcare professionals from the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association. Stroke 2014, Epub ahead of print.
22. American Chiropractic Association: ACA Response to AHA Statement on Neck Manipulation. 2014 (Aug 7). [http://www.acatoday.org/press_css.cfm? CID=5534] Accessed August 15, 2014.
23. American Physical Therapy Association: APTA responds to American Heart Association cervical manipulation paper. 2014 (Aug 7). [http://www.apta.org/Media/Releases/Consumer/2014/8/7/] Accessed August 15, 2014.
24. Kardys JA. Declaratory ruling regarding informed consent. Connecticut State Board of Chiropractic Examiners � State of Connecticut Department of Public Health. 2010. [http://www.ctchiro.com/upload/news/44_0.pdf]
Accessed May 14, 2014.
25. Wangler M, Fujikawa R, Hestb�k L, Michielsen T, Raven T, Thiel H, et al. Creating European guidelines for Chiropractic Incident Reportingand Learning Systems (CIRLS): relevance and structure. Chiropr Man
Therap. 2011;19:9.
26. Berger S: How safe are the vigorous neck manipulations done by chiropractors? Washington Post 2014 (Jan. 6). [http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/how-safe-are-the-vigorous-neck-manipulationsdone-by-chiropractors/2014/01/06/26870726-5cf7-11e3-bc56-c6ca94801fac_story.html] Accessed January 10, 2014.
27. Group wants provincial ban on some neck manipulation by chiropractors. Winnipeg Free Press 2012 (Oct 4). [http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/Group-wants-provincial-ban-on-some-neck-manipulation-bychiropractors-172692471.htm] Accessed May 14, 2014.
28. Gouveia L, Castanho P, Ferreira J. Safety of chiropractic interventions: a systematic review. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2009;34(11):E405�13.
29. Carlesso L, Gross A, Santaguida P, Burnie S, Voth S, Sadi J. Adverse events associated with the use of cervical manipulation and mobilization for the treatment of neckpain in adults: a systematic review. Man Ther. 2010;15(5):434 44.
30. Chung C, C�t� P, Stern P, L’Esp�rance G. The association between cervical spine manipulation and carotid artery dissection: a systematic review of the literature. J Manipulative Physiol Ther 2014, [Epub ahead of print].
31. Haynes M, Vincent K, Fischhoff C, Bremner A, Lanlo O, Hankey G. Assessing the risk of stroke from neck manipulation: a systematic review. Int J Clin Pract. 2012;66(10):940�7.
32. Cassidy J, Boyle E, Cote P, He Y, Hogg-Johnson S, Silver F, et al. Risk of vertebrobasilar stroke and chiropractic care: results of a population-based case�control and case-crossover study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976).
2008;33 Suppl 4:S176�83.
33. Rothwell D, Bondy S, Williams J. Chiropractic manipulation and stroke: a population-based case�control study. Stroke. 2001;32(5):1054�60.
34. Choi S, Boyle E, C�t� P, Cassidy JD. A population-based case-series of Ontario patients who develop a vertebrobasilar artery stroke after seeing a chiropractor. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2011;34(1):15�22.
35. U.S. Census Bureau: State and County QuickFacts. Data derived from Population Estimates, American Community Survey, Census of Population and Housing, State and County Housing Unit Estimates, County Business
Patterns, Nonemployer Statistics, Economic Census, Survey of Business Owners, Building Permits. 2014 (rev July 8). [http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html] Accessed August 19, 2014.
36. Kosanke J, Bergstralh E. GMatch Macro (SAS program): Mayo Clinic College of Medicine. 2004. [http://www.mayo.edu/research/departments-divisions/department-health-sciences-research/division-biomedical-statisticsinformatics/software/locally-written-sas-macros]Accessed June 6, 2014.
37. Smith W, Johnston S, Skalabrin E, Weaver M, Azari P, Albers G, et al. Spinal manipulative therapy is an independent risk factor for vertebral artery dissection. Neurology. 2003;60(9):1424�8.
38. Engelter S, Grond-Ginsbach C, Metso T, Metso A, Kloss M, Debette S, et al. Cervical Artery Dissection and Ischemic Stroke Patients Study Group: Cervical artery dissection: trauma and other potential mechanical trigger
events. Neurology. 2013;80(21):1950�7.
39. Ardal S, Baigent L, Bains N, Hay C, Lee P, Loomer S: The health analyst�s toolkit. Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care Health Results Team – Information Management. Ontario (CA) 2006 (January) [http://www.health.gov.on.ca/transformation/providers/information/resources/analyst_toolkit.pdf]
Accessed January 12, 2015.
40. Sacco RL, Benjamin EJ, Broderick JP, Dyken M, Easton JD, Feinberg WM, et al. American Heart Association Prevention Conference. IV. Prevention and rehabilitation of stroke. Risk factors. Stroke. 1997;28(7):1507�17.
41. Debette S, Metso T, Pezzini A, Abboud S, Metso A, Leys D, et al. Cervical Artery Dissection and Ischemic Stroke Patients (CADISP) Group: Association of vascular risk factors with cervical artery dissection and ischemic stroke in
young adults. Circulation. 2011;123(14):1537�44.
42. Guyatt G, Oxman A, Kunz R, Brozek J, Alonso-Coello P, Rind D, et al. GRADE guidelines 6. Rating the quality of evidence � imprecision. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64(12):1283�93.
43. Krarup L, Boysen G, Janjua H, Prescott E, Truelsen T. Validity of stroke diagnoses in a National Register of Patients. Neuroepidemiology. 2007;28(3):150�4.
44. Goldstein L. Accuracy of ICD-9-CM coding for the identification of patients with acute ischemic stroke: effect of modifier codes. Stroke. 1998;29(8):1602�4.
45. Liu L, Reeder B, Shuaib A, Mazagri R. Validity of stroke diagnosis on hospital discharge records in Saskatchewan, Canada: implications for stroke surveillance. Cerebrovasc Dis. 1999;9(4):224�30.
46. Ellekjaer H, Holmen J, Kr�ger O, Terent A. Identification of incident stroke in Norway: hospital discharge data compared with a population-based stroke register. Stroke. 1999;30(1):56�60.
47. Braksiak R, Roberts D. Amusement park injuries and deaths. An Emerg Med. 2002;39(1):65�72.
48. Dittrich R, Rohsbach D, Heidbreder A, Heuschmann P, Nassenstein I, Bachmann R, et al. Mild mechanical traumas are possible risk factors for cervical artery dissection. Cerebrovasc Dis. 2007;23(4):275�81.
49. Mas J, Bousser M, Hasboun D, Laplane D. Extracranial vertebral artery dissection: a review of 13 cases. Stroke. 1987;18(6):1037�47.
50. Slankamenac P, Jesic A, Avramov P, Zivanovic Z, Covic S, Till V. Multiple cervical artery dissection in a volleyball player. Arch Neuro. 2010;67(8):1024�5.
51. Weintraub M. Beauty parlor stroke syndrome: report of five cases. JAMA. 1993;269(16):2085�6.
52. Tzourio C, Benslamia L, Guilllon B, A�di S, Bertrand M, Berthet K, et al. Migraine and the risk of cervical artery dissection: a case control study. Neurology. 2002;59(3):435�7.
53. Guillon B, Berthet K, Benslamia L, Bertrand M, Bousser M, Tzourio C. Infection and the risk of cervical artery dissection: a case�control study. Stroke. 2003;34(7):e79�81.
54. Symons B, Leonard TR, Herzog W. Internal forces sustained by the vertebral artery during spinal manipulative therapy. J Manip Physiol Ther.2002;25(8):504�10.
55. Wuest S, Symons B, Leonard T, Herzog W. Preliminary report: biomechanics of vertebral artery segments C1-C6 during cervical spinal manipulation. J Manip Physiol Ther. 2010;33(4):273�8.
56. Herzog W, Leonard TR, Symons B, Tang C, Wuest S. Vertebral artery strains during high-speed, low amplitude cervical spinal manipulation. J Electromyogr Kinesiol. 2012;22(5):747�51.
57. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid: Comprehensive error rate testing (CERT). 2015 (Jan. 15). [http://www.cms.gov/Research-Statistics-Data-and-Systems/Monitoring-Programs/Medicare-FFS-Compliance-Programs/CERT/index.html?redirect=/cert] Accessed February 4, 2015.
58. Welsh E: Dealing with data: using NVivo in the qualitative data analysis process. Forum: Qualitative Social Research 2002, 3(2): Art. 26 [http://nbnresolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs0202260] Accessed February 4, 2015.
This paper explores the relationship between traumatic ligament laxity of the spine and the resultant instability that may occur. Within, there is a discussion of the various spinal ligamentous structures that may be affected by both macro and micro traumatic events, as well as the neurologic and musculoskeletal effects of instability. There is detailed discussion of the diagnosis, quantification, and documentation as well.
Soft tissue cervical and lumbar sprain/strains are the most common injury in motor vehicle collisions, with 28% to 53% of collision victims sustaining this type of injury (Galasko et al., 1993; Quinlan et al., 2000). The annual societal costs of these injuries in the United States are estimated to be between 4.5 and 8 billion dollars (Kleinberger et al., 2000; Zuby et al., 2010). Soft tissue injuries of the spinal column very often become chronic, with the development of long-term symptoms, which can inevitably adversely affect the victim�s quality of life. Research has indicated that 24% of motor vehicle collision victims have symptoms 1 year after an accident and 18% after 2 years (Quinlan et al., 2004). Additionally, it has been found that between 38% and 52% of motor vehicle collision cases involved rear-impact scenarios
It is well known that the major cause of chronic pain due to these injuries is directly related to the laxity of spinal ligamentous structures (Ivancic, et al., 2008). One must fully understand the structure and function of ligaments in order to realize the effects of traumatic ligament laxity. Ligaments are fibrous bands or sheets of connective tissue which link two or more bones, cartilages, or structures together. We know that one or more ligaments provide stability to a joint during rest as well as movement. Excessive movements such as hyper-extension or hyper-flexion, which occur during a traumatic event such as a motor vehicle collision, may be restricted by ligaments, unless these forces are beyond the tensile-strength of these structures; this will be discussed later in this paper.
Contents
Ligament Laxity Spine Injury Background
Three of the more important ligaments in the spine are the ligamentum flavum, the anterior longitudinal ligament, and the posterior longitudinal ligament (Gray�s Anatomy, 40th Edition). The ligamentum flavum forms a cover over the dura mater, which is a layer of tissue that protects the spinal cord. This ligament connects under the facet joints to create a small curtain, so to speak, over the posterior openings between vertebrae (Gray�s Anatomy, 40th edition). The anterior longitudinal ligament attaches to the front (anterior) of each vertebra and runs vertical or longitudinal (Gray�s Anatomy, 40th edition). The posterior longitudinal ligament also runs vertically or longitudinally behind (posterior) the spine and inside the spinal canal (Gray�s Anatomy, 40th Edition). Additional ligaments include facet capsular ligaments, interspinous ligaments, supraspinous ligaments, and intertransverse ligaments. The aforementioned ligaments limit flexion and extension, with the exception of the ligament, which limits lateral flexion. The ligamentum nuchae, which is a fibrous membrane, limits flexion of the cervical spine (Gray�s Anatomy, 40th Edition). The four ligaments of the sacroiliac joints:
(iliolumbar, sacroiliac, sacrospinus, sacrotuberous), provide stability and some motion. The upper cervical spine has its own ligamentous structures or systems; occipitoatlantal ligament complex, occipitoaxial ligament complex, atlantoaxial ligament complex, and the cruciate ligament complex (Gray�s Anatomy, 40th Edition). The upper cervical ligament system is especially important in stabilizing the upper cervical spine from the skull to C2 (axis) (Stanley Hoppenfeld, 1976). It is important to note, that although the cervical vertebrae are the smallest, the neck has the greatest range of motion.
Causes of Ligament Laxity Injuries in the Spine
Ligament laxity may happen as a result of a �macro trauma�, such as a motor vehicle collision, or may develop overtime as a result of repetitive use injuries, or work-related injuries. The cause of this laxity develops through similar mechanisms, which leads to excessive motion of the facet joints, and will cause various degrees of physical impairment. When ligament laxity develops over time, it is defined as �creep� and refers to the elongation of a ligament under a constant or repetitive stress (Frank CB, 2004). Low-level ligament injuries, or those where the ligaments are simply elongated, represent the vast majority of cases and can potentially incapacitate a patient due to disabling pain, vertigo, tinnitus, etc.. Unfortunately, these types of strains may progress to sub-failure tears of ligament fibers, which will lead to instability at the level of facet joints (Chen HB et al., 2009). Traumatic or repetitive causes of ligament laxity will ultimately produce abnormal motion and function between vertebrae under normal physiological loads, inducing irritation to nerves, possible structural deformation, and/or incapacitating pain.
Patients�, who have suffered a motor vehicle collision or perhaps a work-related injury, very often have chronic pain syndromes due to ligament laxity. The ligaments surrounding the facet joints of the spinal column, known as capsular ligaments, are highly innervated mechanoreceptive and nociceptive free nerve endings. Therefore, the facet joint is thought of as the primary source of chronic spinal pain (Boswell MV et al., 2007; Barnsley L et al., 1995). When the mechanoreceptors and nociceptors are injured or even simply irritated the overall joint function of the facet joints are altered (McLain RF, 1993).
One must realize that instability is not similar to hyper-mobility. Instability, in the clinical context, implies a pathological condition with associated symptomatology, whereas joint hypermobility alone, does not. Ligament laxity which produces instability refers to a loss of �motion stiffness�, so to speak, in a particular spinal segment when a force is applied to this segment, which produces a greater displacement than would be observed in a normal motion segment. When instability is present, pain and muscular spasm can be experienced within the patient�s range of motion and not just at the joint�s end-point. In Chiropractic, we understand that there is a �guarding mechanism�, which is triggered after an injury, which is the muscle spasm. These muscle spasms can cause intense pain and are the body�s response to instability, since the spinal supporting structures, the ligamentous structures, act as sensory organs, which initiate a ligament-muscular reflex. This reflex is a �protective reflex� or �guarding mechanism�, produced by the mechanoreceptors of the joint capsule and these nerve impulses are ultimately transmitted to the muscles. Activation of surrounding musculature, or guarding, will help to maintain or preserve joint stability, either directly by muscles crossing the joint or indirectly by muscles that do not cross the joint, but limit joint motion (Hauser RA et al., 2013). This reflex is fundamental to the understanding of traumatic injuries.
This reflex is designed to prevent further injury. However, the continued feedback and reinforcement of pain and muscle spasm, will delay the healing process. The �perpetual loop� may continue for a long period of time, making further injury more likely due to muscle contraction. Disrupting this cycle of pain and inflammation is key to resolution.
When traumatic ligament laxity produces joint instability, with neurologic compromise, it is understood that the joint has sustained considerable damage to its stabilizing structures, which could include the vertebrae themselves. However, research indicates that joints that are hypermobile demonstrate increased segmental mobility, but are still able to maintain their stability and function normally under physiological loads (Bergmann TF et al., 1993).
Clinical Diagnosis
Clinicians classify instability into 3 categories, mild, moderate, and severe. Severe instability is associated with a catastrophic injury, such as a motor vehicle collision. Mild or moderate clinical instability is usually without neurologic injury and is most commonly due to cumulative micro-trauma, such as those associated with repetitive use injuries; prolonged sitting, standing, flexed postures, etc..
In a motor vehicle collision, up to 10 times more force is absorbed in the capsular ligaments versus the intervertebral disc (Ivancic PC et al., 2007). This is true, because unlike the disc, the facet joint has a much smaller area in which to disperse this force. Ultimately, as previously discussed, the capsular ligaments become elongated, resulting in abnormal motion in the affected spinal segments (Ivancic PC et al., 2007; Tominaga Y et al., 2006). This sequence has been clearly documented with both in vitro and in vivo studies of segmental motion characteristics after torsional loads and resultant disc degeneration (Stokes IA et al., 1987; Veres SP et al., 2010). Injury to the facet joints and capsular ligaments has been further confirmed during simulated whiplash traumas (Winkelstein BA et al., 2000).
Maximum 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 spine 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 causes injury (Siegmund GP et al., 2001). If the head is turned during whiplash trauma, the peak strain on the cervical facet joints and capsular ligaments can increase by 34% (Siegmund GP et al., 2008). One research study reported that during 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 degrees during impact compared with those when the head was forward facing (Storvik SG et al., 2011). Head rotation to 60 degrees is similar to an individual turning his/her head to one side while checking for on-coming traffic and suddenly experiences a rear-end collision. 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.
Other research has illustrated that motor vehicle collision trauma has been shown to reduce ligament strength (i.e., failure force and average energy absorption capacity) compared with controls or computational models (Ivancic PC et al., 2007; Tominaga Y et al., 2006). We know that this is particularly true in the case of capsular ligaments, since this type of trauma causes capsular ligament laxity. Interestingly, one research study conclusively demonstrated that whiplash injury to the capsular ligaments resulted in an 85% to 275% increase in ligament elongation (laxity), compared to that of controls (Ivancic PC et al., 2007).
The study also reported evidence that tension of the capsular ligaments due to trauma, requisite for producing pain from the facet joint. Whiplash injuries cause compression injuries to the posterior facet cartilage. This injury also results in trauma to the synovial folds, bleeding, inflammation, and of course pain. Simply stated, this stretching injury to the facet capsular ligaments will result in joint laxity and instability.
Traumatic ligament laxity resulting in instability is a diagnosis based primarily on a patient�s history (symptoms) and physical examination. Subjective findings are the patient�s complaints in their own words, or their perception of pain, sensory changes, motor changes, or range of motion alterations. After the patient presents their subjective complaints to the clinician, these subjective findings, must be correlated and confirmed through a proper and thorough physical examination, including the utilization of imaging diagnostics that explain a particular symptom, pattern, or area of complaint objectively. Without some sort of concrete evidence that explains a patient�s condition, we merely have symptoms with no forensic evidence. Documentation is key, as well as quantifying the patient�s injuries objectively.
In order to adequately quantify the presence of instability due to ligament laxity, the clinician could utilize functional computerized tomography, functional magnetic resonance imaging scans, as well as digital motion x-ray (Radcliff K et al., 2012; Hino H et al., 1999). Studies using functional CT for diagnosing ligamentous injuries have demonstrated the ability of this technique to shoe excess movement during axial rotation of the cervical spine (Dvorak J et al., 1988; Antinnes J et al., 1994).
This is important to realize when patients have the signs and symptoms of instability, but have normal MRI findings in the neutral position. Functional imaging technology, as opposed to static standard films, is necessary for the adequate radiologic depiction of instability because they provide dynamic imaging during movement and are extremely helpful for evaluating the presence and degree of instability.
Although functional imaging maybe superior plain-film radiography is still a powerful diagnostic tool for the evaluation of instability due to ligament laxity. When a patient presents status-post motor vehicle collision, it is common practice to perform a �Davis Series� of the cervical spine. This x-ray series consists of 7 views: anterior-posterior open mouth, anterior-posterior, lateral, oblique views, and flexion-extension views. The lumbar spine is treated in similar fashion. X-ray views will include: anterior-posterior, lateral, oblique views, and flexion-extension views. The flexion-extension views are key in the diagnosis of instability. It is well known, that the dominant motion of the cervical and lumbar spine, where most pathological changes occur, is flexion-extension. Translation of one vertebral segment in relation to the one above and/or below will be most evident on these views. Translation is the total anterior-posterior movement of vertebral segments. After the appropriate views are taken, the images may be evaluated utilizing CRMA or Computed Radiographic Mensuration Analysis. These measurements are taken to determine the presence of ligament laxity. In the cervical spine, a 3.5mm or greater translation of one vertebra on another is an abnormal and ratable finding, indicative of instability (AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment, 6th Edition).
Alteration of Motion Segment Integrity (AOMSI) is extremely crucial as it relates to ligament laxity. The AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment 6th Edition, recognize linear stress views of radiographs, as the best form of diagnosing George�s Line (Yochum & Rowe�s Essentials of Radiology, page 149), which states that if there is a break in George�s Line on a radiograph, this could be a radiographic sign of instability due to ligament laxity.
Discussion
Our discussion of ligament laxity and instability continues with the �Criteria for Rating Impairment Due to Cervical and Lumbar Disorders�, as described in the AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment, 6th Edition. According to the guidelines, a DRE (Diagnosed Related Estimate) Cervical Category IV is considered to be a 25% to 28% impairment of the whole person. Category IV is described as, �alteration of motion segment integrity or bilateral or multilevel radiculopathy; alteration of motion segment integrity is defined from flexion and extension radiographs, as at least 3.5mm of translation of one vertebra on another, or angular motion of more than 11 degrees greater than at each adjacent level; alternatively, the individual may have loss of motion of a motion segment due to a developmental fusion or successful or unsuccessful attempt at surgical arthrodesis; radiculopathy as defined in Cervical Category III need not be present if there is alteration of motion segment integrity; or fractures: (1) more than 50% compression of one vertebral body without residual neural compromise. One can compare a 25% to 28% cervical impairment of the whole person to the 22% to 23% whole person impairment due to an amputation at the level of the thumb at or near the carpometacarpal joint or the distal third of the first metacarpal.
Additionally, according to the guidelines, a DRE (Diagnosed Related Estimate) Lumbar Category IV is considered to be a 20% to 23% impairment of the whole person. Category IV is described as, �loss of motion segment integrity defined from flexion and extension radiographs as at least 4.5mm of translation of one vertebra on another or angular motion greater than 15 degrees at L1-2, L2-3, and L3-4, greater than 20 degrees at L4-5, and greater than 25 degrees at L5-S1; may have complete or near complete loss of motion of a motion segment due to developmental fusion, or successful or unsuccessful attempt at surgical arthrodesis or fractures: (1) greater than 50% compression of one vertebral body without residual neurologic compromise. One can compare a 20% to 23% Lumbar Impairment of the whole person to the 20% whole person impairment due to an amputation of the first metatarsal bone.
Conclusions
After careful interpretation of the AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment, 6th Edition, regarding whole person impairment due to ligament laxity/instability of the cervical and lumbar spine, one can certainly see the severity and degree of disability that occurs. Once ligament laxity is correctly diagnosed, it will objectively quantify a patient�s spinal injury regardless of symptoms, disc lesions, range of motion, reflexes, etc. When we quantify the presence of ligament laxity, we also provide a crucial element with which to demonstrate instabilities in a specific region. Overall, clarification and quantification of traumatic ligament laxity will help the patient legally, objectively, and most importantly, clinically.
The scope of our information is limited to chiropractic and spinal injuries and conditions. To discuss options on the subject matter, please feel free to ask Dr. Jimenez or contact us at 915-850-0900 .�
References
AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment, 6th Edition
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; 98-101. [PubMed]
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]
Bergmann TF, Peterson DH. Chiropractic technique principles and procedures, 3rd ed. New York Mobby Inc. 1993
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]
Chen HB, Yang KH, Wang ZG. Biomechanics of whiplash injury. Chin J Traumatol.2009;12(5): 305-14. [PubMed]
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]
Examination of the Spine and Extremities, Stanley Hoppenfeld, 1976
Frank CB. Ligament structure, physiology, and function. J Musculoskelet Neuronal Interact. 2004;4(2): 199-201. [PubMed]
Galasko, C.S., P.M. Murray, M. Pitcher, H. Chanter, S. Mansfield, M. Madden, et. al Neck sprains after road traffic accidents: a modern epidemic. Injury 24(3): 155-157, 1993
American Medical Association. (2009). Guides to the evaluation of permanent impairment,
6th edition. Chicago, Il:AMA
Antinnes, J., Dvorak, J., Hayek, J., Panjabi, M.M., & grob, D. (1994). The value of functional
Computed tomography in the evaluation of soft tissue injury in the upper cervical
spine. European Spine Journal, 98-101.
Barnsley, L., Lord, S.M., Wallis, B.J., & Bogduk, N. (1995). The prevalence of cervical zygaphaseal
facet capsule and its role in whiplash injury: A biomechanical investigation. Spine,
25(10), 1238-1246.
Additional Topics: Preventing Spinal Degeneration
Spinal degeneration can occur naturally over time as a result of age and the constant wear-and-tear of the vertebrae and other complex structures of the spine, generally developing in people over the ages of 40. On occasion, spinal degeneration can also occur due to spinal damage or injury, which may result in further complications if left untreated. Chiropractic care can help strengthen the structures of the spine, helping to prevent spinal degeneration.
Abstract objective: �To examine the diagnosis and care of a patient suffering from chronic low back pain with associated right leg pain and numbness. ���Diagnostic studies include standing plain film radiographs, lumbar MRI without contrast, chiropractic analysis, range of motion, orthopedic and neurological examination. ���Treatments include both manual and instrument assisted chiropractic adjustments, ice, heat, cold laser, Pettibon wobble chair and repetitive neck traction exercises and non-surgical spinal decompression. ��The patient’s� outcome was very good with significant reduction in pain frequency, pain intensity and abatement of numbness in foot.
Introduction: �A 58 year old, 6�0�, 270 pound male was seen for a chief complaint of lower back pain with radiation into the right leg with right foot numbness. �The pain had started 9 months prior with an insidious onset. ��The patient had first injured his back in high school lifting weights with several episodes of pain over the ensuing years. ��The patient had been treating with Advil and had tried physical therapy, acupuncture, chiropractic and ice with no relief of pain and numbness. ��Walking and standing tend to worsen the problem and lying down did provide some relief. ���A number of activities of daily living were affected at a severe level including standing, walking, bending over, climbing stairs, looking over shoulder, caring for family, grocery shopping, household chores, lifting objects staying asleep and exercising. ��The patient remarked that he �Feels like 100 years old.� �Social history includes three to four beers per week, three diet cokes per day.
The patient�s health history included high blood pressure, several significant shoulder injuries, knee injuries, apnea, hearing loss, weight gain, anxiety and low libido. ���Family history includes Alzheimer�s disease, heart disease, colon cancer and obesity.
Contents
Clinical Findings
Posture analysis revealed a high left shoulder and hip with 2 inches of anterior head projection. Bilateral weight scales revealed a +24 pound differential on the left. ��Weight bearing dysfunction and imbalance suggest that neurological compromise, ligamentous instability and or spinal distortion may be present. �Range of motion in the lumbar spine revealed a 10 degree decrease in both flexion and extension. There was a 5 degree decrease in both right and left lateral bending with sharp pain with right lateral bending.
Cervical range of motion revealed a 30 degree decrease in extension, a 42 and 40 degree decrease in right and left rotation respectively and a 25 degree decrease in both right and left lateral flexion. ��Stability analysis to assess and identify the presence of dynamic instability of the cervical and lumbar spine showed positive in the cervical and lumbar spine and negative for sacroiliac dysfunction. ��Palpatory findings include spinal restrictions at occiput, C5, T5, T10, L4,5 and the sacrum. ��Muscle palpation findings include +2 spasm in the psoas, traps, and all gluteus muscles.
Cervical radiographs reveal significant degenerative changes throughout the cervical spine. This represents phase II of spinal degeneration according the Kirkaldy-Wills degeneration classification. ���Cervical curve is 8 degrees which represents an 83% loss from normal. ��Flexion and extension stress x-rays reveal decreased flexion at occiput through C4 and decreased extension at C2, C4-C7.
Lumbar radiographs reveal significant degenerative changes throughout representing phase II of spinal degeneration according to the Kirkaldy-Willis spinal degeneration classification. ���There is a 9 degree lumbar lordosis which represents a 74% loss from normal. ��There is a 2 mm short right leg and a grade II spondylolisthesis at the L5-S1 level.
Lumbar MRI without contrast was ordered immediately with a 4 mm slice thickness and 1 mm gap in between slices on a Hitachi Oasis 1.2 Telsa machine for optimal visualization of pathology due to the clinical presentation of right L5 nerve root compression.
Lumbar MRI Imaging Results
Significant degenerative changes throughout the lumbar spine including multi-level degenerative disc changes at all levels.
Transverse Annular Fissures at L1-2 (17.3 mm), L2-3 (29.5 mm), L4-5 (14.3 mm) and L5-S1 (30.8 mm) and broad based disc bulging at all levels except L5-S1. ���The fissures at L2-3 and L5-S1 both have radial components extends through to the vertebral endplate.
Facet osteoarthritic changes and facet effusions at all levels.
Grade II spondylitic spondylolisthesis is confirmed at L5-S1 with severe narrowing of the right neural foramen compressing the right exiting L5 nerve root.
Degenerative retrolisthesis at L1-2.
Modic Type II changes at L2 inferior endplate, L3 superior endplate, L4 inferior endplate and L5 inferior endplate.2
There is a 18.9 mm wide Schmorl�s node at the superior endplate of L3.
There is a 5.7 mm wide focal protrusion type disc herniation at L4-5 which impinges on the thecal sac.
T2 sagittal Lumbar Spine MRI:� Note the Modic Type II changes and the L2-3 Schmorls node.
T1 Sagittal Annular fissures at multiple levels and spondylolisthesis at L5S1
T2 Axial L4-5:� Focal Disc Protrusion Type Herniation
Definition �Bulging Disc: A disc in which the contour of the outer annulus extends, or appears to extend, in the horizontal (axial) plane beyond the edges of the disc space, over greater than 50% (180 degrees) of the circumference of the disc and usually less than 3mm beyond the edges of the vertebral body apophyses.3
Definition: Herniation is defined as a localized or focal displacement of disc material beyond the limits of the intervertebral disc space.3
Protrusion Type Herniation: is present if the greatest distance between the edges of the disc material presenting outside the disc space is less than the distance between the edges of the base of that disc material extending outside the disc space.3
Definition: Extrusion Type Herniation: �is present when, in at least one plane, any one distance between the edges of the disc material beyond the disc space is greater than the distance between the edges of the base of the disc material beyond the disc space or when no continuity exists between the disc material beyond the disc space and that within the disc space. 3
Definition: �Annular Fissures: �separations between the annular fibers of separations of the annual fibers from their attachments to the vertebral bone. 4
Definition � Radiculopathy: Sometimes referred to as a pinched nerve, it refers to compression of the nerve root – the part of a nerve between vertebrae. This compression causes pain to be perceived in areas to which the nerve leads.
The patient underwent multimodal treatment regime consisting of 4 months of active chiropractic adjustments, non-surgical spinal decompression with pretreatment spinal warm-up exercises on the Pettibon wobble chair and neck traction and heat. Post spinal decompression with ice and cold laser. ��The patient reported long periods of symptom free activities of daily living with occasional short flare-ups of pain. ��Exacerbations are usually of short duration and much lower frequency. �The only activity of daily living noted as affected severely at the end of care is exercising.
Post care lumbar radiographs revealed a 26 degree lumbar curve a 15 degree (38%) increase
Post care cervical x-rays revealed a 10 mm decrease in anterior head projection and a 2 degree improvement in the cervical lordosis.
Range of Motion
pre
post
increase
Lumbar
flexion
60
60
0
extension
40
40
0
r. lateral flexion
20
25
5
l. lateral flexion
20
25
5
cervical
pre
Post
increase
flexion
50
50
0
extension
30
40
10
r. lateral flexion
20
35
15
l. lateral flexion
20
20
0
r. rotation
38
70
42
l. rotation
40
80
40
Discussion of Results
It is appropriate to immediately order MRI imaging with radicular pain and numbness. ��Previous health providers who did not order advanced imaging with these long term radicular symptoms are at risk of missing important clinical findings that could adversely affect the patient�s health. ��The increasing managed care induced trend to forego taking plain film radiographs is also a risk factor for patients with these problems.
This case is a typical presentation of long standing spinal injuries that over many years have gone through periods of high and low symptoms but continue to get worse functionally and eventually result in a breakdown of spinal tissues leading to neurological compromise and injury.
Chiropractic treatment resulted in a very favorable outcome aided by an accurate diagnosis. �This is also the case where the different treatment modalities all contributed to the success of the protocol. ��The different modalities all focus on different areas of pathology contributing to the patients� disabled condition.
Modality
Therapeutic Goals
Chiropractic adjustment
Manual and instrument assisted forces introduced to the osseous structures that focuses on improving motor segment mobility
Cold laser
Increases speed of tissue repair and decreases inflammation.4
Pettibon
wobble chair
Loading and unloading cycles applied to injured soft tissues and
Pettibon
neck traction
speeds up & improves remodeling of injured tissue as well as rehydrates dehydrated vertebral discs.5
Non-surgical
spinal decompression
Computer assisted, slow and controlled stretching of spine, creating vacuum effect on spinal disc, bringing it back into its proper place in the spine.6,7
Ice
Decrease inflammation through vasoconstriction
Heat
Warm up tissues for mechanical therapy through increasing blood flow.
Posture Correction Hat
Weighted hat that activates righting reflex resetting head posture.8
A major factor in the success of the care plan in this case was an integrative approach to the spine. �John Bland, M.D. in the text Disorders of the Cervical Spine writes
�We tend to divide the examination of the spine into regions: cervical, thoracic and the lumbar spine clinical studies.� This is a mistake.� The three units are closely interrelated structurally and functionally- a whole person with a whole spine.� The cervical spine may be symptomatic because of a thoracic or lumbar spine abnormality, and vice versa!� Sometimes treating a lumbar spine will relieve a cervical spine syndrome, or proper management of cervical spine will relieve low backache.�9
When addressing the spine as an integrative system, and not regionally it has a very strong benefit to the total care results. ��The focus on the restoration of the cervical spine function as well as lumbar spine function is a hallmark of a holistic spine approach that has been a tradition in the chiropractic profession.
The scope of our information is limited to chiropractic and spinal injuries and conditions. To discuss options on the subject matter, please feel free to ask Dr. Jimenez or contact us at 915-850-0900 .�
References:
Kirkaldy-Willis, W.H, Wedge JH, Young-Hing K.J.R. Pathology and pathogenesis of lumbar spondylosis and stenosis. �Spine 1978; 3: 319-328
David F. Fardon, MD, Alan L. Williams, MD, Edward J. Dohring, MD. Lumbar disc nomenclature: version 2.0 Recommendations of the combined task forces of the North American Spine Society, the American Society of Spine Radiology and the American Society of Neuroradiology. The Spine Journal 14 (2014) 2525�2545
Shealy CM, Decompression, Reduction and Stabilization of the Lumbar Spine: A cost effective treatment for lumbosacral pain.�� Pain management 1955, pg 263-265
Shealy, CM, New Concepts of Back Pain Management, Decompression, Reduction and Stabilization.�� Pain Management, a Practical guide for Clinicians.� Boca Raton, St. Lucie Press: 1993 pg 239-251
Bland, John MD, Disorders of the Cervical Spine WB Saunders Company, 1987 pg 84
Additional Topics: Preventing Spinal Degeneration
Spinal degeneration can occur naturally over time as a result of age and the constant wear-and-tear of the vertebrae and other complex structures of the spine, generally developing in people over the ages of 40. On occasion, spinal degeneration can also occur due to spinal damage or injury, which may result in further complications if left untreated. Chiropractic care can help strengthen the structures of the spine, helping to prevent spinal degeneration.
Disclosures can be found in Additional Information at the end of the article
Background
Case reports and case control studies have suggested an association between chiropractic neck manipulation and cervical artery dissection (CAD), but a causal relationship has not been established. We evaluated the evidence related to this topic by performing a systematic review and meta-analysis of published data on chiropractic manipulation and CAD.
Methods
Search terms were entered into standard search engines in a systematic fashion. The articles were reviewed by study authors, graded independently for class of evidence, and combined in a meta-analysis. The total body of evidence was evaluated according to GRADE criteria.
Results
Our search yielded 253 articles. We identified two class II and four class III studies. There were no discrepancies among article ratings (i.e., kappa=1). The meta-analysis revealed a small association between chiropractic care and dissection (OR 1.74, 95% CI 1.26-2.41). The quality of the body of evidence according to GRADE criteria was “very low.”
Conclusions
The quality of the published literature on the relationship between chiropractic manipulation and CAD is very low. Our analysis shows a small association between chiropractic neck manipulation and cervical artery dissection. This relationship may be explained by the high risk of bias and confounding in the available studies, and in particular by the known association of neck pain with CAD and with chiropractic manipulation. There is no convincing evidence to support a causal link between chiropractic manipulation and CAD. Belief in a causal link may have significant negative consequences such as numerous episodes of litigation.
� Copyright 2016
Church et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License CC-BY 3.0., which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
How to cite this article
Church E W, Sieg E P, Zalatimo O, et al. (February 16, 2016) Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Chiropractic Care and Cervical Artery Dissection: No Evidence for Causation. Cureus 8(2): e498. DOI 10.7759/cureus.498
Neck pain is a common complaint in physicians� and chiropractors� offices. Data from the Centers for Disease Control and from national surveys document 10.2 million ambulatory care visits for a neck problem in 2001 and 2002. By comparison, there were 11 million office-based visits for ischemic heart disease [1]. Many patients with neck pain seek chiropractic care and undergo cervical manipulation. As many as 12% of North Americans receive chiropractic care every year, and a majority of these are treated with spinal manipulation [2].
In contrast to the frequency of neck pain and chiropractic treatments, spontaneous cervical artery dissection (CAD) is rare. The annual incidence of internal carotid artery dissection has been estimated at 2.5�3 per 100,000 patients and that of vertebral artery dissection at 1�1.5 per 100,000 [3]. Stroke occurs in a small proportion of those with CAD, and its true incidence is difficult to estimate. Overall, dissection accounts for two percent of all ischemic strokes [4].
Case reports and case series of cervical dissection following manipulation have been published. Despite their rarity, these cases are frequently publicized for several reasons. Patients are often young and otherwise in good health. Dissection accounts for 10�25% of ischemic strokes in young and middle aged patients [4]. If dissection is caused by cervical manipulation it is potentially a preventable condition. Recent reports, including case control studies, have suggested an association between chiropractic neck manipulation and cervical dissection [5- 10]. Notably, a recent study from the American Heart Association evaluated the available evidence and concluded such an association exists [11]. This report did not include a meta- analysis, nor did it seek to classify studies and grade the body of evidence. We sought to examine the strength of evidence related to this question by performing a systematic review, meta-analysis, and evaluation of the body of evidence as a whole.
Materials & Methods
Search terms �chiropract*,� �spinal manipulation,� �carotid artery dissection,� �vertebral artery dissection,� and �stroke� were included in the search. We used the Medline and Cochrane databases. We additionally reviewed references of key articles for completeness. A librarian with expertise in systematic review was consulted throughout the search process.
Two study authors independently reviewed all articles (EC, ES). They selected any applicable studies for evaluation based on pre-specified inclusion and exclusion criteria. We included only human trials examining patients with carotid or vertebrobasilar artery dissection and recent chiropractic neck manipulation. We excluded non-English language studies. The articles were independently graded using the classification of evidence scheme adopted by the American Academy of Neurology [12-14]. A third author (MG) arbitrated any discrepancies in the class- of-evidence ratings for the included studies.
Data from all class II and III studies were included in a meta-analysis. A second meta-analysis excluding class III studies was also performed. The inverse variance method and a fixed effects model were employed. Additionally, we report results using a variable effects model. The analyses were performed using RevMan 5.3 software from the Cochrane Informatics and Knowledge Management Department. We did not compose a protocol for our review, although PRISMA and MOOSE methodologies were used throughout [15-16].
We evaluated the total body of evidence for quality using the GRADE system [17-20]. A final GRADE designation was achieved by consensus after discussions involving all study authors as recommended by GRADE guidelines. This system is designed to assess the total body of evidence rather than individual studies. The criteria include study design, risk of bias, inconsistency, indirectness, imprecision, publication bias, effect size, dose response, and all plausible residual confounding. Four possible final designations are specified: high, moderate,�low, and very low quality.
Results
Results of the systematic review
Our search strategy yielded 253 articles. Seventy-seven were judged by all reviewers to be non- relevant. Four articles were judged to be class III studies, and two were rated class II. There were no discrepancies between the independent ratings (i.e., kappa=1). Studies rated class III or higher are listed in Table 1. Figure 1 outlines our process of selecting studies for inclusion in the meta-analysis.
Meta-Analysis
Combined data from class II and III studies suggests an association between dissection and chiropractic care, OR 1.74, 95% CI 1.26-2.41 (Figure 2). The result was similar using a random effects model, OR 4.05, 95% CI 1.27-12.91. We did not include the study by Rothwell et al. because it describes a subset of patients in the study by Cassidy et al. [5,8]. There was considerable heterogeneity among the studies (I2=84%).
We repeated the meta-analysis excluding class III studies. The combined effect size was again indicative of a small association between dissection and chiropractic care, OR 3.17, 95% CI 1.30-7.74). The result was identical when using a random effects model.
Class II Studies
Smith et al. used a retrospective case control design, combining databases from two academic stroke centers to identify cases of arterial dissection [9]. They found 51 cases and 100 controls. Exposure to spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) was assessed by mail survey. The authors reported an association between SMT and VBA (P = .032). In multivariate analysis, chiropractor care within 30 days was associated with VBA, even when adjusting for neck pain or headache (OR 6.6, 95% CI 1.4-30). While this study controlled for possible confounders such as neck pain, there were several limitations. Head and neck pain as well as chiropractor visit were assessed in a retrospective fashion by mail survey, very possibly introducing both recall and survivor bias. The reason for reporting to the chiropractor (e.g., trauma) was not assessed. Further, there was significant variability among diagnostic procedures, which may reflect increased motivation by physicians to rule out dissection in patients with a history of SMT. Such motivation could result in interviewer bias.
Dittrich et al. compared 47 patients with CAD to a control group with stroke due to etiologies other than dissection [6]. They assessed for risk factors using a face-to-face interview with blinding. These authors found no association between any individual risk factor and CAD, including cervical manipulative therapy. They blame the small sample size for the negative result, and they point out that cumulative analysis of all mechanical risk factors <24 hours prior to symptom onset showed an association (P = .01). This study is subject to recall bias.
Class III Studies
Rothwell et al. used a retrospective case control design to test for an association between chiropractic manipulation and vertebrobasilar accidents (VBA) [8]. They reviewed Ontario hospital records for admissions for VBA from 1993�1998. There were 582 cases and 2328 matching controls. The authors report an association between VBA and visit to a chiropractor within one week (OR 5.03, 95% CI 1.32-43.87), but this was only true for young patients (<45 years). This study represented the first attempt to delineate the association between chiropractic manipulation and extremely rare VBA with controls. Limitations included requisite use of ICD-9 codes to identify cases and associated classification bias, as well as potential unmeasured confounders (e.g., neck pain).
In 2008, Cassidy et al. set out to address the problem of neck pain possibly confounding the association between chiropractic care and VBA [5]. Again using a retrospective case control design, they included all residents of Ontario over a period of 9 years (1993�2002, 109,020,875 person years of observation). They identified 818 VBA strokes resulting in hospitalization and randomly selected age and sex matched controls. Next, they examined ambulatory encounters with chiropractors and primary care physicians (PCPs) in the one year preceding the stroke, limited to cervical manipulation, neck pain, and headache. Associations between chiropractor visit and VBA versus PCP visits and VBA were compared. Indeed, there were associations between both chiropractor visit and VBA (<45yrs OR 1.37, 95% CI 1.04-1.91), and PCP visit and VBA (<45 yrs OR 1.34, 95% CI .94-1.87; >45 yrs and OR 1.53, 95% CI 1.36-1.67). The association for chiropractor visit was not greater than for PCP visit. This data was interpreted as evidence that a confounder such as neck pain may account for the association between chiropractor visit and VBA. This study was subject to many of the same limitations as previous efforts. Canadian health records would not reveal whether a patient with cervical complaints underwent cervical manipulation, and the researchers could not review each chart for imaging confirming dissection. Additionally, the incidence of comorbidities (e.g., hypertension, heart disease,�diabetes) was significantly higher among cases as compared to controls, and we are concerned that these differences were non-random.
In another case control study, Thomas et al. compared the records of 47 patients with confirmed or suspected vertebral or internal carotid artery dissection with 43 controls [10]. They limited their analysis to young patients defined as <55 years. These authors report a significant association between dissection and recent head or neck trauma (OR 23.51, 95% CI 5.71-96.89) as well as neck manual therapy (OR 1.67, 95% CI 1.43-112.0). An inconsistent standard for case ascertainment (a significant number of patients lacked radiographic confirmation of dissection) and lack of blinding weaken this study.
Engelter et al. evaluated data from the Cervical Artery Dissection and Ischemic Stroke Patients (CADISP) consortium, identifying 966 patients with CAD, 651 with stroke attributable to another cause, and 280 healthy controls [7]. The CADISP study involved both prospectively and retrospectively collected data at multiple centers in several countries. They assessed for prior cervical trauma within one month using questionnaires administered during clinic visits. Cervical manipulation therapy was more common for CAD versus stroke from another cause (OR 12.1, CI 4.37-33.2). The report notes that an association between any trauma and CAD was present even when restricting the analysis to prospectively recruited patients. However, in patients to whom the questionnaire was administered after dissection, recall bias may have been at work whether or not the patient was enrolled prospectively. Indeed, the frequency of prior cervical trauma in this study was substantially higher than previous reports (40% versus 12-34%). Additional weaknesses include a highly heterogeneous standard for case definition and no clear masking procedures.
Body Of Evidence Quality (GRADE Rating)
Having performed a systematic review and rated articles according to their individual strengths and weaknesses, we graded the overall body of evidence using the system proposed by Guyatt et al. [17-20]. The GRADE approach to rating quality of evidence proposes four categories that are applied to a body of evidence: high, moderate, low, and very low. In the setting of systematic review, a particular rating reflects the extent of confidence that the estimates of effect are correct. The GRADE approach begins with study design and sequentially examines features with the potential to enhance or diminish confidence in the meta-analytic estimate of effect size.
Our final assessment of the quality of the body of evidence using these criteria was very low. The initial rating based on study design was low (observational studies). Given the controversial nature of this topic and the legal ramifications of results, there is certainly potential for bias (-1 serious). However, blinding in the Class II studies mitigated this risk to some extent. Inconsistency and imprecision did not lower our rating. Because the body of evidence is derived from measures of association, the rating was lowered for indirectness (-1 serious). Publication bias is less likely because of the impact of a negative result in this case. The funnel plot from our meta-analysis was inconclusive with regard to possible publication bias because of the small number of studies included but suggested a deficit in the publication of small negative trials. There was not a large effect size, and currently there is no evidence for a dose response gradient. Moreover, the most worrisome potential confounder (neck pain) would increase rather than reduce the hypothesized effect.
Discussion
The results of our systematic review and meta-analysis suggest a small association between chiropractic care and CAD. There are no class I studies addressing this issue, and this conclusion is based on five class II and III studies. Scrutiny of the quality of the body of data�using the GRADE criteria revealed that it fell within the �very low� category. We found no evidence for a causal link between chiropractic care and CAD. This is a significant finding because belief in a causal link is not uncommon, and such a belief may have significant adverse effects such as numerous episodes of litigation.
The studies included in our meta-analysis share several common weaknesses. Two of the five studies used health administrative databases, and since conclusions depend on accurate ICD coding, this technique for case ascertainment may introduce misclassification bias. It is not possible to account for the type of spinal manipulation that may have been used. Retrospective collection of data is also a potential weakness and may introduce recall bias when a survey or interview was used. Moreover, patients arriving at a hospital complaining of neck pain and describing a recent visit to a chiropractor may be subject to a more rigorous evaluation for CAD (interviewer bias). Another potential source of interviewer bias was lack of blinding in the class III studies. Further, we noted substantial variability among diagnostic procedures performed. All of these weaknesses affect the reliability of the available evidence and are not �corrected� by performing a meta-analysis.
Perhaps the greatest threat to the reliability of any conclusions drawn from these data is that together they describe a correlation but not a causal relationship, and any unmeasured variable is a potential confounder. The most likely potential confounder in this case is neck pain. Patients with neck pain are more likely to have CAD (80% of patients with CAD report neck pain or headache) [21], and they are more likely to visit a chiropractor than patients without neck pain (Figure 3). Several of the studies identified in our systematic review provide suggestive evidence that neck pain is a confounder of the apparent association between chiropractic neck manipulation and CAD. For example, in Engelter et al. patients with CAD and prior cervical trauma (e.g., cervical manipulation therapy) were more likely to present with neck pain but less often with stroke than those with CAD and no prior cervical trauma (58% vs. 43% for trauma and 61% vs. 69% for stroke) [7]. If patients with CAD without neurological symptoms came to medical attention, it was probably because of pain. Patients with neck pain would also be more likely to visit a chiropractor than those without neck pain.
Cassidy et al. hypothesized that, although an association between chiropractor visits and vertebrobasilar artery stroke is present, it may be fully explained by neck pain and headache [5]. These authors reviewed 818 patients with vertebrobasilar artery strokes hospitalized in a population of 100 million person-years. They compared chiropractor and PCP visits in this population and reported no significant difference between these associations. For patients under 45 years of age, each chiropractor visit in the previous month increased the risk of stroke (OR 1.37, 95% CI 1.04-1.91), but each PCP visit in the previous month increased the risk in a nearly identical manner (<45 yrs OR 1.34, 95% CI .94-1.87; >45 yrs and OR 1.53, 95% CI 1.36- 1.67). The authors conclude that, since patients with vertebrobasilar stroke were as likely to visit a PCP as they were to visit a chiropractor, these visits were likely due to pain from an existing dissection.
Cervical artery dissection is a rare event, creating a significant challenge for those who wish to understand it. A prospective, randomized study design is best suited to control for confounders, but given the infrequency of dissection, performing such a study would be logistically and also ethically challenging. Sir Austin Bradford Hill famously addressed the problem of assigning causation to an association with the application of nine tests [22]. These criteria include strength, consistency, specificity, temporality, biological gradient, plausibility, coherence, experimental evidence, and analogy. The specific tests and our assessment for the association between cervical manipulation and CAD are summarized in Table 2. In our appraisal, this association clearly passes only one test, it fails four, and the remaining four are equivocal due to absence of relevant data [23]. Further, a 2013 assessment of the quality of reports of cervical arterial dissection following cervical spinal manipulation similarly found lacking data to support a causal relationship [24].
In spite of the very weak data supporting an association between chiropractic neck manipulation and CAD, and even more modest data supporting a causal association, such a relationship is assumed by many clinicians. In fact, this idea seems to enjoy the status of medical dogma. Excellent peer reviewed publications frequently contain statements asserting a causal relationship between cervical manipulation and CAD [4,25,26]. We suggest that physicians should exercise caution in ascribing causation to associations in the absence of adequate and reliable data. Medical history offers many examples of relationships that were initially falsely assumed to be causal [27], and the relationship between CAD and chiropractic neck manipulation may need to be added to this list.
Conclusions
Our systematic review revealed that the quality of the published literature on the relationship between chiropractic manipulation and CAD is very low. A meta-analysis of available data shows a small association between chiropractic neck manipulation and CAD. We uncovered evidence for considerable risk of bias and confounding in the available studies. In particular, the known association of neck pain both with cervical artery dissection and with chiropractic manipulation may explain the relationship between manipulation and CAD. There is no convincing evidence to support a causal link, and unfounded belief in causation may have dire consequences.
Additional Information
Disclosures
Conflicts of interest: The authors have declared that no conflicts of interest exist.
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank Elaine Dean, MLS, of the Penn State Hershey Medical Center George T. Harrell Health Sciences Library, for her assistance with the systematic review.
References
1. Riddle DL, Schappert SM: Volume and characteristics of inpatient and ambulatory medical care for neck pain in the United States: data from three national surveys. Spine. 2007, 32:132�140.
2. Hurwitz EL, Chiang LM: A comparative analysis of chiropractic and general practitioner patients in North America: findings from the joint Canada/United States survey of health, 2002-03. BMC Health Serv Res. 2006, 6:49. 10.1186/1472-6963-6-49
3. Micheli S, Paciaroni M, Corea F, et al.: Cervical artery dissection: emerging risk factors . Open Neurol J. 2010, 4:50�55. 10.2174/1874205X01004010050
4. Schievink WI: Spontaneous dissection of the carotid and vertebral arteries . N Engl J Med. 2001, 344:898�906. 10.1056/NEJM200103223441206
5. Cassidy JD, Boyle E, C�t� PDC, et al.: Risk of vertebrobasilar stroke and chiropractic care: results of a population-based case-control and case-crossover study. Spine. 2008, 33:176�183.10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181644600
6. Dittrich R, Rohsbach D, Heidbreder A, et al.: Mild mechanical traumas are possible risk factors for cervical artery dissection. Cerebrovasc Dis. 2007, 23:275�281. 10.1159/000098327
7. Engelter ST, Grond-Ginsbach C, Metso TM, et al.: Cervical artery dissection: trauma and other potential mechanical trigger events. Neurology. 2013, 80:1950�1957.10.1212/WNL.0b013e318293e2eb
8. Rothwell DM, Bondy SJ, Williams JI: Chiropractic manipulation and stroke: a population based case-control study. Stroke. 2001, 32:1054-1060.
9. Smith WS, Johnston SC, Skalabrin EJ, et al.: Spinal manipulative therapy is an independent risk factor for vertebral artery dissection. Neurology. 2003, 60:1424-1428.10. Thomas LC, Rivett DA, Attia JR, et al.: Risk factors and clinical features of craniocervical arterial dissection. Man Ther. 2011, 16:351�356. 10.1016/j.math.2010.12.008
11. Biller J, Sacco RL, Albuquerque FC, et al.: Cervical arterial dissections and association with cervical manipulative therapy: a statement for healthcare professionals from the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association. Stroke. 2014, 45:3155�3174.10.1161/STR.0000000000000016
12. AAN (American Academy of Neurology): Clinical Practice Guideline Process Manual. Gronseth GS, Woodroffe LM, Getchius TSD (ed): AAN (American Academy of Neurology), St Paul, MN; 2011.
13. French J, Gronseth G: Lost in a jungle of evidence: we need a compass . Neurology. 2008, 71:1634�1638. 10.1212/01.wnl.0000336533.19610.1b 2016 Church et al. Cureus 8(2): e498. DOI 10.7759/cureus.498 10 of 11
14. Gross RA, Johnston KC: Levels of evidence: taking Neurology� to the next level . Neurology. 2009, 72:8�10. 10.1212/01.wnl.0000342200.58823.6a
15. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, et al.: Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009, 6:e1000097. Accessed: January 23, 2016: http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097. 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097
16. Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC, et al.: Meta-analysis of observational studies inepidemiology: a proposal for reporting. Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology (MOOSE) group. JAMA. 2000, 283:2008-2012.
17. Guyatt G, Oxman AD, Akl EA, et al.: GRADE guidelines: 1. Introduction-GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011, 64:383�394. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.04.026
18. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R, et al.: GRADE guidelines: 2. Framing the question and deciding on important outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011, 64:395�400. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.09.012
19. Balshem H, Helfand M, Sch�nemann HJ, et al.: GRADE guidelines: 3. Rating the quality of evidence. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011, 64:401�406. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.07.015
20. The Cochrane Collaboration: Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (Version 5.1.0). Higgins JPT, Green S (ed): The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011.
21. Lee VH, Brown RD Jr, Mandrekar JN, et al.: Incidence and outcome of cervical artery dissection: a population-based study. Neurology. 2006, 67:1809-1812.
22. Hill AB: The environment and disease: association or causation?. Proc R Soc Med. 1965, 58:295�300.
23. Herzog W, Leonard TR, Symons B, et al.: Vertebral artery strains during high-speed, low amplitude cervical spinal manipulation. J Electromyogr Kinesiol. 2012, 22:740�746. 10.1016/j.jelekin.2012.03.005
24. Wynd S, Estaway M, Vohra S, Kawchuk G: The quality of reports on cervical arterial dissection following cervical spinal manipulation. PLOS ONE. 2013, 8:e59170. Accessed: February 8, 2016: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0059170. 10.1371/journal.pone.0059170
25. Albuquerque FC, Hu YC, Dashti SR, et al.: Craniocervical arterial dissections as sequelae of chiropractic manipulation: patterns of injury and management. J Neurosurg. 2011, 115:1197�1205. 10.3171/2011.8.JNS111212
26. Debette S, Leys D: Cervical-artery dissections: predisposing factors, diagnosis, and outcome . Lancet Neurol. 2009, 8:668�678. 10.1016/S1474-4422(09)70084-5
27. Artenstein AW: The discovery of viruses: advancing science and medicine by challenging dogma. Int J Infect Dis. 2012, 16:e470�e473. 10.1016/j.ijid.2012.03.005
Ephraim W. Church 1 , Emily P. Sieg 1 , Omar Zalatimo 1 , Namath S. Hussain 1 , Michael Glantz 1 , Robert E. Harbaugh 1
1. Department of Neurosurgery, Penn State Hershey Medical Center
Corresponding author: Ephraim W. Church, echurch@hmc.psu.edu
Results Of A Population-Based Case-Control & Case-Crossover Study
J. David Cassidy, DC, PhD, DrMedSc,*�� Eleanor Boyle, PhD,* Pierre Co�te ?, DC, PhD,*��� Yaohua He, MD, PhD,* Sheilah Hogg-Johnson, PhD,�� Frank L. Silver, MD, FRCPC, and Susan J. Bondy, PhD�
SPINE Volume 33, Number 4S, pp S176 �S183 �2008, Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
Neck pain is a common problem associated with consid- erable comorbidity, disability, and cost to society.1�5 In North America, the clinical management of back pain is provided mainly by medical physicians, physi- cal therapists and chiropractors.6 Approximately 12% of American and Canadian adults seek chiropractic care annually and 80% of these visits result in spinal manipulation.7,8 When compared to those seeking medical care for back pain, Canadian chiropractic pa- tients tend to be younger and have higher socioeco- nomic status and fewer health problems.6,8 In On- tario, the average number of chiropractic visits per episode of care was 10 (median 6) in 1985 through 1991.7 Several systematic reviews and our best- evidence synthesis suggest that manual therapy can benefit neck pain, but the trials are too small to eval- uate the risk of rare complications.9 �13
Two deaths in Canada from vertebral artery dissection and stroke following chiropractic care in the 1990s attracted much media attention and a call by some neurologists to avoid neck manipulation for acute neck pain.14 There have been many published case reports linking neck manipulation to vertebral artery dissection15�and stroke.�The prevailing theory is that extension�and/or rotation of the neck can damage the vertebral artery, particularly within the foramen transversarium at the C1�C2 level. Activities leading to sudden or sustained rotation and extension of the neck have been implicated, included motor vehicle collision, shoulder checking while driving, sports, lifting, working over- head, falls, sneezing, and coughing.16 However, most cases of extracranial vertebral arterial dissection are thought to occur spontaneously, and other factors such as connective tissue disorders, migraine, hyper- tension, infection, levels of plasma homocysteine, vessel abnormalities, atherosclerosis, central venous�catherization, cervical spine surgery, cervical percutaneous nerve blocks, radiation therapy and diagnostic cerebral angiography have been identified as possible risk factors.17�21
The true incidence of vertebrobasilar dissection is un- known, since many cases are probably asymptomatic, or the dissection produces mild symptoms.22 Confirming the diagnosis requires a high index of suspicion and good vascular imaging. The cases that are most likely to be diagnosed are those that result in stroke.19,22 Ischemic stroke occurs when a thrombus develops intraluminally and embolizes to more distal arteries, or less commonly, when the dissection extends distally into the intracranial vertebral artery, obliterating branching vessels.22 The best incidence estimate comes from Olmstead county, where vertebral artery dissection causing stroke affected 0.97 residents per 100,000 population between 1987 and 2003.23
To date there have been two case-control studies of stroke following neck manipulation. Rothwell et al used Ontario health data to compare 582 cases of VBA stroke to 2328 age and sex-matched controls.24 For those aged 45 years, cases were five times more likely than con- trols to have visited a chiropractor within 1 week of VBA stroke. Smith et al studied 51 patients with cervical ar- tery dissection and ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA) and compared them to 100 control patients suffering from other strokes not caused by dissections.25 Cases and controls came from two academic stroke cen- ters in the United States and were matched on age and sex. They found no significant association between neck manipulation and ischemic stroke or TIA. However, a subgroup analysis showed that the 25 cases with verte- bral artery dissection were six times more likely to have consulted a chiropractor within 30 days before their stroke than the controls.
Finally, because patients with vertebrobasilar artery dissection commonly present with headache and neck pain,23 it is possible that patients seek chiropractic care for these symptoms and that the subsequent VBA stroke occurs spontaneously, implying that the associ- ation between chiropractic care and VBA stroke is not causal.23,26 Since patients also seek medical care for headache and neck pain, any association between pri- mary care physician (PCP) visits and VBA stroke could be attributed to seeking care for the symptoms of verte- bral artery dissection.
The purpose of this study is to investigate the association between chiropractic care and VBA stroke and compare it to the association between recent PCP care and VBA stroke using two epidemiological designs. Evidence that chiropractic care increases the risk of VBA stroke would be present if the measured association between chiropractic visits and VBA stroke exceeds the association between PCP visits and VBA strokes.
Study Design
We undertook population-based case-control and case- crossover studies. Both designs use the same cases. In the case- control design, we sampled independent control subjects from the same source population as the cases. In the case-crossover design, cases served as their own controls, by sampling control periods before the study exposures.27 This design is most appropriate when a brief exposure (e.g., chiropractic care) causes a transient change in risk (i.e., hazard period) of a rare-onset disease (e.g., VBA stroke). It is well suited to our research questions, since within person comparisons control for unmeasured risk factors by design, rather than by statistical modeling.28 �30 Thus the advantage over the case control design is better control of confounding.
Source Population
The source population included all residents of Ontario (109,020,875 person-years of observation over 9 years) covered by the publicly funded Ontario Health Insurance Plan (OHIP). Available utilization data included hospitalizations with diagnostic coding, and practitioner (physician and chiropractic) utilization as documented by fee-for-service billings accompanied by diagnostic coding. We used two data sources: (1) the Discharge Abstract Database (DAD) from the Canadian Institute for Health Information, which captures hospital separations and ICD codes, and (2) the OHIP Databases for services provided by physicians and chiropractors. These data- bases can be linked from April 1992 onward.
Cases
We included all incident vertebrobasilar occlusion and stenosis strokes (ICD-9433.0 and 433.2) resulting in an acute care hospital admission from April 1, 1993 to March 31, 2002. Codes were chosen in consultation with stroke experts and an epidemiologist who participated in a similar past study (SB).24 Cases that had an acute care hospital admission for any type of stroke (ICD-9433.0, 433.2, 434, 436, 433.1, 433.3, 433.8, 433.9, 430, 431, 432, and 437.1), transient cerebral ischemia (ICD- 9435) or late effects of cerebrovascular diseases (ICD-9438) before their VBA stroke admission or since April 1, 1991 were excluded. Cases residing in long-term care facilities were also excluded. The index date was defined as the hospital admission date for the VBA stroke.
Controls
For the case-control study, four age and sex-matched controls were randomly selected from the Registered Persons Database, which contains a listing of all health card numbers for Ontario. Controls were excluded if they previously had a stroke or were residing in a long-term care facility.
For the case crossover study, four control periods were randomly chosen from the year before the VBA stroke date, using a time-stratified approach.31 The year was divided into disjoint strata with 2 week periods between the strata. For the 1 month hazard period, the disjoint strata were separated by 1 month periods and the five remaining control periods were used in the analyses. We randomly sampled disjoint strata because chiropractic care is often delivered in episodes, and this strategy eliminates overlap bias and bias associated with time trends in the exposure.32
Exposures
All reimbursed ambulatory encounters with chiropractors and PCPs were extracted for the one-year period before the index date from the OHIP database. Neck-related chiropractic visits were identified using diagnostic codes: C01�C06, cervical and cervicothoracic subluxation; C13�C15, multiple site subluxation; C30, cervical sprain/strain; C40, cervical neuritis/ neuralgia; C44, arm neuritis/neuralgia; C50, brachial radiculitis; C51, cervical radiculitis; and C60, headache. For PCP visits, we included community medicine physicians if they submitted ambulatory fee codes to OHIP. Fee codes for group therapy and signing forms were excluded. Headache or neck pain- related PCP visits were identified using the diagnostic codes: ICD-9307, tension headaches; 346, migraine headaches; 722, intervertebral disc disorders; 780, headache, except tension headache and migraine; 729, fibrositis, myositis and muscular rheumatism; and 847, whiplash, sprain/strain and other traumas associated with neck (These codes include other diagnoses, and we list only those relevant to neck pain or headache). There is no limit on the number of reimbursed PCP visits per year. However, there are limits chiropractors, but less than 15% of patients surpass them.24
Statistical Analysis
Conditional logistic regression was used to estimate the asso- ciation between VBA stroke after chiropractor and PCP visits. Separate models were built using different a priori specified hazard periods, stratified by age ( 45 years and 45 years) and by visits with or without head and neck pain related diag- nostic codes. For the chiropractic analysis, the index date was included in the hazard period, since chiropractic treatment might cause immediate stroke and patients would not normally consult a chiropractor after having a stroke. However, the in- dex day was excluded from the PCP analysis, since patients might consult these physicians after experiencing a stroke. We tested different hazard periods, including 1 day, 3 days, 1 week, 2 weeks, and 1 month before the index date. Exposure occurred if any chiropractic or PCP visits were recorded during the des- ignated hazard periods.
We also measured the effect of cumulative numbers of chiropractic and PCP visits in the month before the index date by computing the odds ratio for each incremental visit. These estimates were similarly stratified by age and by diagnostic codes related to headache and/or neck pain. Finally, we conducted analyses to determine if our results were sensitive to chiropractic and PCP visits related to neck complaints and headaches. We report our results as odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals. Confidence intervals were estimated by accelerated bias corrected bootstraps with 2000 replications using the variance co-variance method.33 All statistical analyses were per- formed using STATA/SE version 9.2.34
Results
A total of 818 VBA strokes met our inclusion/exclusion criteria over the 9 year inception period. Of the 3272 matched control subjects, 31 were excluded because of prior stroke, one had died before the index date and 76 were receiving long-term care. Thus, 3164 control subjects were matched to the cases. The mean age of cases and controls was 63 years at the index date and 63% were male. Cases had a higher proportion of comorbid conditions (Table 1). Of the 818 stroke cases, 337�(41.2%) were coded as basilar occlusion and stenosis, 443 (54.2%) as vertebral occlusion and stenosis and 38 (4.7%) had both codes.
Overall, 4% of cases and controls had visited a chiropractor within 30 days of the index date, while 53% of cases and 30% of controls had visited a PCP within that time (Table 2). For those under 45 years of age, 8 cases (7.8%) had consulted a chiropractor within 7 days of the index date, compared to 14 (3.4%) of controls. For PCPs, 25 cases (24.5%) under 45 years of age had a consultation within 7 days of the index date, com- pared to 27 (6.6%) of controls. With respect to the number of visits within 1 month of the index date, 7.8% of cases under the age of 45 years had three or more chiropractic visits, whereas 5.9% had three or more PCP visits (Table 2).
The case control and case crossover analyses gave similar results. (Tables 3�7) Age modified the effect of chiropractic visits on the risk of VBA stroke. For those under 45 years of age, there was an increased association between chiropractic visits and VBA stroke regardless of the hazard period. For those 45 years of age and older, there was no association. Each chiropractic visit in the month before the index date was associated with an in- creased risk of VBA stroke in those under 45 years of age (OR 1.37; 95% CI 1.04�1.91 from the case crossover analysis) (Table 7). We were not able to estimate boot- strap confidence intervals in some cases because of sparse data.
Similarly, we found that visiting a PCP in the month before the index date was associated with an increased risk of VBA stroke regardless of the hazard period, or the age of the subject. Each PCP visit in the month before the stroke was associated with an increased risk of VBA stroke both in those under 45 years of age (OR 1.34; 95% CI 0.94 �1.87 from the case crossover analysis) and 45 years and older (OR 1.52; 95% CI 1.36�1.67 from the case crossover analysis) (Table 7).
Our results were sensitive to chiropractic and PCP visits related to neck complaints and headaches, and we observed sharp increases in the associations when restricting the analyses to these visits (Tables 3�7). Overall,�these associations were more pronounced in the PCP analyses. However, the data are sparse, and we were unable to compute bootstrap confidence intervals in many cases.
Discussion
Our study advances knowledge about the association between chiropractic care and VBA stroke in two respects. First, our case control results agree with past case control studies that found an association between chiropractic care and vertebral artery dissection and VBA stroke.24,25 Second, our case crossover results confirm these findings using a stronger research design with better control of confounding variables. The case-crossover design controls for time independent confounding factors, both known and unknown, which could affect the risk of VBA stroke. This is important since smoking, obesity, undiagnosed hypertension, some connective tis- sue disorders and other important risk factors for dissection and VBA stroke are unlikely to be recorded in ad- ministrative databases.
We also found strong associations between PCP visits and subsequent VBA stroke. A plausible explanation for this is that patients with head and neck pain due to vertebral artery dissection seek care for these symptoms, which precede more than 80% of VBA strokes.23 Since it�is unlikely that PCPs cause stroke while caring for these patients, we can assume that the observed association between recent PCP care and VBA stroke represents the background risk associated with patients seeking care for dissection-related symptoms leading to VBA stroke. Be- cause the association between chiropractic visits and VBA stroke is not greater than the association between PCP visits and VBA stroke, there is no excess risk of VBA stroke from chiropractic care.
Our study has several strengths and limitations. The study base includes an entire population over a 9-year period representing 109,020,875 person-years of observation. Despite this, we found only 818 VBA strokes, which limited our ability to compute some estimates and bootstrap confidence intervals. In particular, our age stratified analyses are based on small numbers of ex- posed cases and controls (Table 2). Further stratification by diagnostic codes for headache and neck pain related visits imposed even greater difficulty with these estimates. However, there are few databases that can link�incident VBA strokes with chiropractic and PCP visits in a large enough population to undertake a study of such a rare event.
A major limitation of using health administrative data are misclassification bias, and the possibility of bias in assignment of VBA-related diagnoses, which has previously been raised in this context.24 Liu et al have shown that ICD-9 hospital discharge codes for stroke have a poor positive predictive value when compared to chart review.35 Furthermore, not all VBA strokes are secondary to vertebral artery dissection and administrative databases do not provide the clinical detail to determine the specific cause. To investigate this bias, we did a sensitivity analysis using different positive predictive values for stroke diagnosis (ranging from 0.2 to 0.8). Assuming non differential misclassification of chiropractic and PCP cases, our analysis showed attenuation of the estimates towards the null with lower positive predictive values, but the conclusions did not change (i.e., associations remained positive and significant�data not shown). The�reliability and validity of the codes to classify headache and cervical visits to chiropractors and PCPs is not known.
It is also possible that patients presenting to hospital with neurologic symptoms who have recently seen a chiropractor might be subjected to a more vigorous diagnostic workup focused on VBA stroke (i.e., differential misclassification).36 In this case, the predictive values of the stroke codes would be greater for cases that had seen a chiropractor and our results would underestimate the association between PCP care and VBA stroke.
A major strength of our study is that exposures were measured independently of case definition and handled identically across cases and controls. However, there was some overlap between chiropractic care and PCP care. In the month before their stroke, only 16 (2.0%) of our cases had seen only a chiropractor, while 20 (2.4%) had seen both a chiropractor and PCP, and 417 (51.0%) had�just seen only a PCP. We were not able to run a subgroup analysis on the small number of cases that just saw a chiropractor. However, subgroup analysis on the PCP cases (n 782) that did not visit a chiropractors during the 1 month before their stroke did not change the conclusions (data not shown).
Our results should be interpreted cautiously and placed into clinical perspective. We have not ruled out neck manipulation as a potential cause of some VBA strokes. On the other hand, it is unlikely to be a major cause of these rare events. Our results suggest that the association between chiropractic care and VBA stroke found in previous studies is likely explained by present- ing symptoms attributable to vertebral artery dissection. It might also be possible that chiropractic manipulation, or even simple range of motion examination by any practitioner, could result in a thromboembolic event in a patient with a pre-existing vertebral dissection. Unfortunately, there is no acceptable screening procedure to identify patients with neck pain at risk of VBA stroke.37 These events are so rare and difficult to diagnose that future studies would need to be multi-centered and have unbiased ascertainment of all potential exposures. Given our current state of knowledge, the decision of how to treat patients with neck pain and/or headache should be driven by effectiveness and patient preference.38
Conclusion
Our population-based case-control and case-crossover study shows an association between chiropractic visits and VBA strokes. However, we found a similar association between primary care physician visits and VBA stroke. This suggests that patients with undiagnosed vertebral artery dissection are seeking clinical care for head- ache and neck pain before having a VBA stroke.
Acknowledgments
The authors acknowledge the members of the Decade of the Bone and Joint 2000 �2010 Task Force on Neck Pain and its Associate Disorders for advice about de- signing this study. In particular, they acknowledge the help of Drs. Hal Morgenstern, Eric Hurwitz, Scott Haldeman, Linda Carroll, Gabrielle van der Velde, Lena Holm, Paul Peloso, Margareta Nordin, Jaime Guzman, Eugene Carragee, Rachid Salmi, Alexander Grier, and Mr. Jon Schubert.
References
1. Borghouts JA, Koes BW, Vondeling H, et al. Cost-of-illness of neck pain in The Netherlands in 1996. Pain 1999;80:629�36.
2. Co�te� P, Cassidy JD, Carroll L. The Saskatchewan Health and Back PainSurvey. The prevalence of neck pain and related disability in Saskatchewan adults. Spine 1998;23:1689�98.
3. Co�te� P, Cassidy JD, Carroll L. The factors associated with neck pain and its related disability in the Saskatchewan population. Spine 2000;25:1109�17.
4. Co�te� P, Cassidy JD, Carroll L. Is a lifetime history of neck injury in a trafficcollision associated with prevalent neck pain, headache and depressive symptomatology? Accid Anal Prev 2000;32:151�9.
5. Co�te� P, Cassidy JD, Carroll LJ, et al. The annual incidence and course of neck pain in the general population: a population-based cohort study. Pain 2004; 112:267�73.
6. Co�te� P, Cassidy JD, Carroll L. The treatment of neck and low back pain: who seeks care? who goes where? Med Care 2001;39:956�67.
7. Hurwitz EL, Coulter ID, Adams AH, et al. Use of chiropractic services from 1985 through 1991 in the United States and Canada. Am J Public Health1998;88:771�6.
8. Hurwitz EL, Chiang LM. A comparative analysis of chiropractic and general practitioner patients in North America: findings from the jointCanada/United States Survey of Health, 2002�03. BMC Health Serv Res 2006;6:49.
9. Aker PD, Gross AR, Goldsmith CH, et al. Conservative management of mechanical neck pain: systematic overview and meta-analysis. BMJ 1996; 313:1291�6.
10. Gross AR, Kay T, Hondras M, et al. Manual therapy for mechanical neckdisorders: a systematic review. Man Ther 2002;7:131�49.
11. Hurwitz EL, Aker PD, Adams AH, et al. Manipulation and mobilization of the cervical spine. A systematic review of the literature. Spine 1996;21:1746�59.
12. McClune T, Burton AK, Waddell G. Whiplash associated disorders: a review of the literature to guide patient information and advice. Emerg Med J 2002;19:499�506.
13. Peeters GG, Verhagen AP, de Bie RA, et al. The efficacy of conservative treatment in patients with whiplash injury: a systematic review of clinical trials. Spine 2001;26:E64�E73.
14. Norris JW, Beletsky V, Nadareishvili ZG. Sudden neck movement and cervical artery dissection. The Canadian Stroke Consortium. CMAJ 2000;163:38�40.
15. Ernst E. Manipulation of the cervical spine: a systematic review of case reports of serious adverse events, 1995�2001. Med J Aust 2002;176:376�80.
16. Haldeman S, Kohlbeck FJ, McGregor M. Risk factors and precipitating neckmovements causing vertebrobasilar artery dissection after cervical trauma and spinal manipulation. Spine 1999;24:785�94.
17. Rubinstein SM, Peerdeman SM, van Tulder MW, et al. A systematic reviewof the risk factors for cervical artery dissection. Stroke 2005;36:1575�80.
18. Inamasu J, Guiot BH. Iatrogenic vertebral artery injury. Acta Neurol Scand 2005;112:349�57.
19. Schievink WI. Spontaneous dissection of the carotid and vertebral arteries. N Engl J Med 2001;344:898�906.
20. D�Anglejan-Chatillon J, Ribeiro V, Mas JL, et al. Migraine�a risk factor for dissection of cervical arteries. Headache 1989;29:560�1.
21. Pezzini A, Caso V, Zanferrari C, et al. Arterial hypertension as risk factor for spontaneous cervical artery dissection. A case-control study. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2006;77:95�7.
22. Savitz SI, Caplan LR. Vertebrobasilar disease. N Engl J Med 2005;352: 2618�26.
23. Lee VH, Brown RD Jr, Mandrekar JN, et al. Incidence and outcome of cervical artery dissection: a population-based study. Neurology 2006;67: 1809�12.
24. Rothwell DM, Bondy SJ, Williams JI. Chiropractic manipulation and stroke: a population-based case-control study. Stroke 2001;32:1054�60.
25. Smith WS, Johnston SC, Skalabrin EJ, et al. Spinal manipulative therapy is an independent risk factor for vertebral artery dissection. Neurology 2003;60: 1424�8.
26. Arnold M, Bousser MG, Fahrni G, et al. Vertebral artery dissection: presenting findings and predictors of outcome. Stroke 2006;37:2499�503.
27. Maclure M. The case-crossover design: a method for studying transient effects on the risk of acute events. Am J Epidemiol 1991;133:144�53.
28. Kelman CW, Kortt MA, Becker NG, et al. Deep vein thrombosis and air travel: record linkage study. BMJ 2003;327:1072.
29. Mittleman MA, Maclure M, Tofler GH, et al. Triggering of acute myocardial infarction by heavy physical exertion. Protection against triggering by regular exertion. Determinants of Myocardial Infarction Onset Study Investigators.
N Engl J Med 1993;329:1677�83.
30. Redelmeier DA, Tibshirani RJ. Association between cellular-telephone calls and motor vehicle collisions. N Engl J Med 1997;336:453�8.
31. Janes H, Sheppard L, Lumley T. Overlap bias in the case-crossover design, with application to air pollution exposures. Stat Med 2005;24:285�300.
32. Janes H, Sheppard L, Lumley T. Case-crossover analyses of air pollution exposure data: referent selection strategies and their implications for bias. Epidemiology 2005;16:717�26.
33. Efron B, Tibshirani RJ. An Introduction to the Bootstrap. New York: Chapmanand Hall/CRC, 1993.
34. STATA/SE [computer program]. College Station, Tex: Stata Corp, 2006.
35. Liu L, Reeder B, Shuaib A, et al. Validity of stroke diagnosis on hospital discharge records in Saskatchewan, Canada: implications for stroke surveillance. Cerebrovasc Dis 1999;9:224�30.
36. Boyle E, Co�te� P, Grier AR, et al. Examining vertebrobasilar artery stroke in two Canadian provinces. Spine, in press.
37. Co�te� P, Kreitz BG, Cassidy JD, et al. The validity of the extension-rotation test as a clinical screening procedure before neck manipulation: a secondary analysis. J Manip Physiol Therap 1996;159�64.
38. van der Velde G, Hogg-Johnson S, Bayoumi A, et al. Identifying the best treatment among common non-surgical neck pain treatments: a decision analysis. Spine 2008;33(Suppl):S184�S191.
Key words: vertebrobasilar stroke, case control stud- ies, case crossover studies, chiropractic, primary care, complications, neck pain. Spine 2008;33:S176�S183
From the *Centre of Research Expertise for Improved Disability Outcomes (CREIDO), University Health Network Rehabilitation Solutions, Toronto Western Hospital, and the Division of Heath Care and Outcomes Research, Toronto Western Research Institute, Toronto, ON, Canada; �Department of Public Health Sciences, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; �Department of Health Policy, Management and Evalua- tion, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; �Institute for Work & Health, Toronto, ON, Canada; �University Health Net- work Stroke Program, Toronto Western Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada; and Division of Neurology, Department of Medicine, Fac- ulty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada. Supported by Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-term Care. P.C. is supported by the Canadian Institute of Health Research through a New Investigator Award. S.H.-J. is supported by the Institute for Work & Health and the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board of Ontario. The opinions, results, and conclusions are those of the authors and no endorsement by the Ministry is intended or should be inferred.
The manuscript submitted does not contain information about medical device(s)/drug(s).
University Health Network Research Ethics Board Approval number 05-0533-AE.
Address correspondence and reprint requests to J. David Cassidy, DC, PhD, DrMedSc, Toronto Western Hospital, Fell 4-114, 399 Bathurst Street, Toronto, ON, Canada M5T 2S8; E-mail: dcassidy@uhnresearch.ca
Title: Abatement of radiculopathy clinical signs and symptoms after chiropractic treatment in an older patient with trauma induced posterolateral disc herniation, superimposed on an underlying disc bulge.
Abstract: Objective: To examine the concomitant clinical diagnosis of a lumbar disc bulge and lumbar disc herniation at the same spinal level, in an older traumatically injured patient with radicular symptoms. Diagnostic studies include physical examination, including orthopedic and neurological examination, lumbar MRI without contrast, and plain film x-rays. Treatments included low force instrument adjusting without manual manipulation, diversified chiropractic manipulation, flexion-distraction treatment, intersegmental traction, electric muscle stimulation, ice, heat and massage/trigger point therapy. The patient�s outcome was very good and resulted in complete abatement of initial L5 paresthesia and radiating symptoms into the left leg, although mild lower back pain remained upon discharge from active treatment.
Introduction: A 63 year old, 6� 0�, 193lbs., male was seen for a chief complaint of lower back pain radiating into the left leg with numbness in the dorsum of the left foot which started immediately following a motor vehicle accident with a frontal impact. During the collision, he reported his right knee struck the dashboard and his head struck the ceiling of his vehicle causing him to briefly lose consciousness. The patient additionally reported immediate neck and right knee pain. He was taken via ambulance to the hospital where he was evaluated, x-rayed, given medications and released the same day. He was unable to work as a bailiff in a courthouse due to worsening pain and after 3 days sought treatment in my office.
The patient noted that prior to the accident he did not have any physical limitations and that he played soccer weekly. He was observed to have a trim, fit build. He reported no prior motor vehicle accidents or other serious injury. He reported no previous neck or lower back pain and denied the use of alcohol, tobacco and illicit drugs.
Contents
Clinical Findings After Treatment
Lasague�s, Braggard�s and Kemps orthopedic testing was positive on the left and lumbar motion was decreased approximately 60% collectively. Lasague�s and Braggard�s revealed an increase in radiating pain into the left leg and Kemps was positive bilaterally for pain into the left lower extremity. These orthopedic tests were positive indicating nerve root irritation. Dermatomal evaluation revealed a decreased sensation in the dorsum of the left foot representing the L5 dermatome. Motor evaluation revealed a weakness when attempting to walk on the heel of the left foot and weakness of the left extensor hallicus longus muscle, again indicating possible L5 nerve root compromise. Lumbar x-rays revealed a severe decrease of the normal lumbar lordosis, mild L3-L4 spondylosis (arthritis) and a posterior misalignment of L4 in relation to L5. The patient�s review of systems, surgical and family history were all unremarkable as reported.
Therapeutic Focus and Assessment: A non-contrast lumbar spine MRI was ordered immediately with 2 mm slice thickness and no gap in between slices on a 1.5 Tesla machine for optimal visualization of pathology due to the clinical presentation of left L5 nerve root compression. Lumbar MRI�s revealed a L4-L5 broad-based left posterolateral disc herniation superimposed on an underlying disc bulge with severe left lateral recess narrowing, compressing the descending left L5 nerve root.
Note: the findings of a disc bulge AND disc herniation at the same spinal level do not contradict each other. Patients often have an underlying disc bulge (degenerative thinning of the outer fibers (annulus) of the disc causing �bulging�). When subject to trauma, a focal displacement of disc material through a tear in the annular fibers, disc herniation, then occurs through the thinned annulus of the bulging disc. Further, a bulging disc is actually more likely to herniate with trauma due to the thinning of the annulus than a normal healthy disc.
��������� Definition �Bulging disc: A disc in which the contour of the outer anulus extends, or appears to extend, in the horizontal (axial) plane beyond the edges of the disc space, over greater than 50% (180 degrees) of the circumference of the disc and usually less than 3mm beyond the edges of the vertebral body apophyses. (Ref. 2)
��������� Definition – Herniated disc: Localized displacement of disc material beyond the normal margins of the intervertebral disc space. (Ref. 2)
Again, the key distinction is the localized (aka focal displacement) of disc material that differentiates a herniated disc from a bulging disc. Or stated this way,�The bulging disk is defined as a disk that extends diffusely beyond the adjacent vertebral body margins in all directions� (Ref. 1)
Follow-up and Outcomes After Chiropractic
Upon discovery of a L4-L5 posterolateral disc herniation compressing the left L5 nerve root finding on MRI evaluation, the patient was referred for neurologic consult. The neurologist diagnosed a left L4-L5 radiculopathy after a positive lower extremity EMG/NCV study was performed.
Radiculopathy is a general term used to describe any disease of the nerve roots. In this case, the cause of the radiculopathy was a traumatically induced lumbar posterolateral disc herniation.
Definition � Radiculopathy: Sometimes referred to as a pinched nerve, it refers to compressionof the nerve root – the part of a nerve between vertebrae. This compression causes pain to beperceived in areas to which the nerve leads.(Ref. 3)
The patient underwent approximately 5 months of active chiropractic treatment after which an ordered gap in treatment of approximately 7 weeks occurred. After the gap in treatment, the patient reported they continued to experience no remaining radicular symptoms and re-evaluation showed no remaining clinical findings consistent with radiculopathy. However, the patient did report continuing to experience mild, intermittent lower back pain.
DISCUSSION: It is appropriate to immediately order MRI imaging in patients with a history of trauma leading to sudden onset of obvious clinical signs and symptoms of radiculopathy to ascertain an accurate diagnosis, prognosis and treatment plan. Is it important to understand the difference between herniated and bulging disc findings on MRI evaluation and that herniation can and does occur after a pre-existing disc bulge at the same spinal level. The patient in this case experienced immediate onset of radicular symptoms after trauma and was promptly evaluated with a lumbar MRI. The lumbar MRI confirmed a disc herniation compressing the left L5 nerve root as well as an underlying disc bulge.� EMG testing confirmed the radiculopathy diagnosis at L4-L5 on the left. Chiropractic treatment resulted in a very favorable outcome aided by an accurate diagnosis.
SUMMARY: Lumbar posterolateral disc herniation (interestingly, the most common type of disc herniation � Ref. 4) can affect a lumbar nerve root, causing radiculopathy. Further, �The stress of annulus circumference is higher at the posterolateral region than that of other regions of annulus circumference� � (Ref. 5). I report a case of a healthy 64 year old male who presented with lower back pain radiating into the left leg with no relevant personal or family history or previous trauma, after a front impact collision while driving in which his right knee struck the dashboard. The patient showed immediate clinical signs and symptoms of lumbar disc herniation and left L5 radiculopathy. A lumbar MRI without contrast was ordered immediately and revealed a L4-L5 left posterolateral disc herniation superimposed on an underlying disc bulge, compressing the left L5 nerve root. Subsequent EMG testing confirmed a left L4-L5 radiculopathy. The diagnosis of herniation and disc bulge does not mean the herniation was pre-existing, as bulging discs are a risk factor for disc herniation due to a thinner, weaker annulus. The patient’s history of no previous trauma and sudden onset of lower back pain radiating into the left leg, confirm the traumatic cause of the posterolateral disc herniation. Conservative chiropractic treatment was effective at eliminating all radicular signs and symptoms, even after an approximate 2 month gap in active treatment. Chiropractic care has been shown to be both safe and effective in treating patients with disc herniation and accompanying radicular symptoms. (Ref. 6, 7, 8, that can be reviewed for further study and investigation)
Informed consent: The patient provided a signed informed consent.
Competing Interests: There are no competing interests writing this case report.
De-Identification: All patient related data has been removed from this case report.
The scope of our information is limited to chiropractic and spinal injuries and conditions. To discuss options on the subject matter, please feel free to ask Dr. Jimenez or contact us at 915-850-0900 .�
References:
Milette PC. The proper terminology for reporting lumbar intervertebral disk disorders. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 1997;18:1859-66.
David F. Fardon, MD, Alan L. Williams, MD, Edward J. Dohring, MD. Lumbar disc nomenclature: version 2.0 Recommendations of the combined task forces of the North American Spine Society, the American Society of Spine Radiology and the American Society of Neuroradiology. The Spine Journal 14 (2014) 2525�2545
Gopalakrishnan N1, Nadhamuni K2, Karthikeyan T3 Categorization of Pathology Causing Low Back Pain using Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) J ClinDiagn Res. 2015 Jan;9(1):TC17-20.
Guo LX, Teo EC. Influence prediction of injury and vibration on adjacent components of spine using finite element methods. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2006 Apr;19(2):118-24.
Leeman S., Peterson C., Schmid C., Anklin B., Humphreys B., (2014) Outcomes of Acute and Chronic Patients With Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Confirmed Symptomatic Lumbar Disc Herniations Receiving High-Velocity, Low Amplitude, Spinal Manipulation Therapy: A Prospective Observational Cohort Study With One-Year Follow Up, Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics, 37 (3)155-63
McMorland, G., Suter, E., Casha, S., du Plessis, S. J., & Hurlbert, R. J. (2010). Manipulation or microdiscectomy for sciatica? A propective randomized clinical study. Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics, 33
Whedon, J. M., Mackenzie, T.A., Phillips, R.B., & Lurie, J.D. (2014). Risk of traumatic injury associated with chiropractic spinal manipulation in Medicare Part B beneficiaries aged 66-69. Spine, �(Epub ahead of print) 1-33.
Additional Topics: Chiropractic Helps Patients Avoid Back Surgery
Back pain is a common symptom which affects or will affect a majority of the population at least once throughout their lifetime. While most back pain cases may resolve on their own, some instances of the pain and discomfort can be attributed to more serious spinal conditions. Fortunately, a variety of treatment options are available for patients before considering spinal surgical interventions. Chiropractic care is a safe and effective, alternative treatment option which helps carefully restore the original health of the spine, reducing or eliminating spinal misalignment which may be causing back pain.
Title: The Efficacy of Chiropractic Adjustments in the care of Migraine Headache with patients presenting with cervical disc bulge.
Abstract: Objective: To explore the efficacy of chiropractic adjustments, and non-surgical spinal decompression in the treatment of cervical spine disc conditions presenting as neck pain, migraine headache, dizziness and visual disturbances. Diagnostic studies included physical examination, computer aided range of motion, orthopedic and neurological examinations, plain film x-ray studies, brain MRI, cervical spine MRI examinations.� Treatments included specific spinal adjustments, low level laser therapy and spinal decompression.� The patient�s outcome proved excellent in reduction of neck pain, headache severity and frequency as well as elimination of dizziness and visual disturbances.
Introduction: On 11/19/13 a 37-year-old female presented for examination and treatment of neck pain, migraine headaches with associated dizziness and visual disturbances.� The patient denies and recent injuries.
Contents
Presenting Concerns of Research Study
The patient reports neck pain in the cervical occipital region as a 4 on the Verbal Analog Scale of 0 meaning the complete absence of pain and 10 being unbearable pain.� The duration of the current symptom picture is 2 years and 1 month.� The patient further reports episodic migraine headaches starting at the upper cervical region and progressing into her occipital area.� These episodes are accompanied by dizziness and visual disturbances described as kaleidoscope vision.� At the time of the initial consultation these episodes were occurring 2-3 times per week.� The patient reports being afraid to drive her car due to concerns about headache onset.� The patient reports past consultations with her medical doctor who diagnosed her with vertigo and previous chiropractic care without results.� The records from both consultations were reviewed personally.
Clinical Findings:��The patient presents with complaints of neck pain, headaches, dizziness and visual disturbances of 2 years duration.� The patient is a 37-year-old female who is a mother of 2.� The ages are 16 and 3.
Her vital signs are:
Height – 5 ft. 0 inches
Weight – 130 lbs.
Handedness – R
Blood Pressure – L – 107 systolic and 78 diastolic
Radial Pulse – 75 BPM
The patient�s Review of Systems and Family History were unremarkable.
Palpation/Spasm/Tissue changes:� The patient was evaluated by palpation and observation with the following findings: Bilateral cervical spine spasms rated at +2 in the cervical-occipital region.� Orthopedic testing was unremarkable.� Range of motion examination revealed mildly decreased left lateral flexion, moderately decreased flexion, right lateral flexion and extension. No pain was produced during range of motion examination.
Neurological Examination: Biceps, Triceps and Brachioradialis reflexes were rated at a +2 bilaterally.� Sensory examination revealed normal sensation bilaterally for dermatomes C-5 through T1.� Motor/Muscle testing revealed 5 out of 5 bilaterally for Deltoids, Biceps, and Triceps, Forearm and Intrinsic Hand muscles.
Radiographic findings: reversal of the cervical curve with altered C5/C6 disc space is noted. (Fig. 1, (A) (B) A small osteophyte is observed on the posterior inferior body of C5.� Flexion malposition of C5 is also noted.� (Fig. 1, (B).
Fig. 1,� (A), (B) show loss of the cervical lordosis, flexion malposition of C5, partial collapse of C5/6 anterior disc space.
Fig. 1. (B) shows upon magnification a small posterior-inferior osteophyte.
Fig. 2,� (A), (B) shows in T2 MRI images (A) is Sagittal and (B) is Axial a
C5/6 central disc herniation contacting the ventral cord.
Diagnostic Focus and Assessment:�Diagnoses considered are: Brain Tumor, Cervical Disc Displacement, and Cervical-cranial syndrome.� A brain MRI was ordered and produced normal findings.� Diagnostic reasoning included the C5/C6 disc/osteophyte complex and the encroachment into the ventral aspect of the central canal and contact with the cervical spinal cord. (1)�Peter�J. Tuchin, GradDipChiro, DipOHS, Henry Pollard, GradDipChiro, GradDipAppSc, Rod Bonillo, DC, DO.� Received 29 June 1999.��Another consideration was the treatment schedule because the patient lives 60 miles west of the clinic and 2 treatments was the ordered therapeutic schedule.
Therapeutic Focus and Assessment:��Assessment of the cervical spine MRI both sagittal and axial views of the C5/C6 and C6/C7 segmental levels revealed adequate space between the cervical cord and posterior vertebral elements.� It was determined that conservative management of this patient was appropriate.� Therapeutic focus was reducing the pressure of the C5/C6 disc/osteophyte complex on the ventral cord.� Promoting healing of damaged nerve tissue and restoring more favorable position and motion of vertebral segments C5/C6.� The modalities used to treat this patient were:
1.�����Specific Spinal Adjustments: utilizing a Sigma Precision Adjusting Instrument to introduce a percussive force of 20 lbs. with a maximum of impact number of 50.
2.�����Spinal Decompression: A Hill Spinal Decompression table was utilized with 8 lbs. of pull maximum and a cycle of 5 minute at maximum and 5 minutes at reduction to 50% over a 25 minutes treatment session.� The patient completed 18 sessions in total.
3.�����Low Level Laser Therapy was used to promote healing on a cellular level using a Dynatron Solaris system.� Treatments consisted of 30 seconds of exposure to an 860-nanometer beam at C5/C6 and C6/C7 levels.
Follow-up and Outcomes
The patient�s compliance to the treatment schedule as rated at 9 of 10.� Completion of the recommended 18 treatments required 1 week longer than anticipated.� For personal reasons the patient missed 2 treatment sessions but made them up by adding a week to the estimated completion date. Upon discharge examination the patient reports her neck pain on the Verbal Analog Scale a 2 of 10 with 0 being the complete absence of pain and 10 being the worst pain imaginable. She further reported her headaches as a 1 on the Verbal Analog Scale.� Both symptoms were constant since 10/01/11.� This is duration of 25 months prior to her first visit. Her symptoms of dizziness and visual disturbances have been absent since 12/13/13.
Discussion:�Headaches and Migraine Headaches are a big health problem. It has been estimated that 47% of the adult population have headache at least once within last year in general.��More than 90% of sufferers are unable to work or function normally during their migraine. American employers lose more than $13 billion each year as a result of 113 million lost workdays due to migraine. (2)�Schwartz BS1, Stewart WF, Lipton RB. J Occup Environ Med. 1997 Apr; 39(4): 320-7.
This case report is very limited because it represents the experience and clinical findings for just 1 patient. However a study of the references included with this report as well as reports by care providers as well as testimonials from patients indicates that more study should be invested in the relationship of the cervical spine, its structures and biomechanics during the diagnostic workup on headache and migraine patients.
Informed Consent:�The patient provided a signed informed consent.
Competing Interests:�There are no competing interests writing of this case report.
De-Identification:�All the patient�s related data has been removed from this case report.
The scope of our information is limited to chiropractic and spinal injuries and conditions. To discuss options on the subject matter, please feel free to ask Dr. Jimenez or contact us at 915-850-0900 .�
References:
1. Schwartz BS1, Stewart WF, Lipton RB.
J Occup Environ Med. 1997 Apr; 39(4): 320-7.
Lost workdays and decreased work effectiveness associated with headache in the workplace.
2. Vernon, H., Humphreys, K., & Hagino, C. (2007). Chronic mechanical neck�pain in adults treated by manual therapy: A systematic review of change scores in randomized clinical trials,�Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics, 30(3), 215-227.
3.�Peter J. Tuchin, GradDipChiro, DipOHS, Henry Pollard, GradDipChiro, GradDipAppSc, Rod Bonillo, DC, DO.� Received 29 June 1999
A randomized controlled trial of chiropractic spinal manipulative therapy for migraine?
4.Mark Studin DC, FASBE (C), DAAPM, DAAMLP, William J. Owens DC, DAAMLP Chronic Neck Pain and Chiropractic. A Comparative Study with Massage Therapy.
5.�D�Antoni AV, Croft AC. Prevalence of Herniated Intervertebral Discs of the Cervical Spine in Asymptomatic Subjects Using MRI Scans: A Qualitative Systemic Review. Journal of Whiplash & Related Disorders 2006; 5(1):5-13.
6.��Murphy, D. R., Hurwitz, E. L., & McGovern, E. E. (2009).�A nonsurgical approach to the management of patients with lumbar radiculopathy secondary to herniated disk: A prospective observational cohort study with follow-up.�Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics, 32(9), 723-733.
Additional Topics: Chiropractic Helps Patients Avoid Back Surgery
Back pain is a common symptom which affects or will affect a majority of the population at least once throughout their lifetime. While most back pain cases may resolve on their own, some instances of the pain and discomfort can be attributed to more serious spinal conditions. Fortunately, a variety of treatment options are available for patients before considering spinal surgical interventions. Chiropractic care is a safe and effective, alternative treatment option which helps carefully restore the original health of the spine, reducing or eliminating spinal misalignment which may be causing back pain.
Title: Spinal Adjustments are Safe in the Presence of Herniated disc with the Absence of Cord Compression
Abstract: The objective was to explore the use of MRI to increase the efficacy and safeness of adjusting the cervical spine in the presence of a disc herniation when there is no evidence of cord compression on MRI.
Introduction: A 30 year old male patient presented to the office on 1/8/14 with injuries from a motor vehicle accident. The motor vehicle accident had occurred 3 weeks prior to his first visit. The patient was the restrained front seat passenger. The car he was travelling in struck another car and the patient�s car was flipped over onto its roof. While the car remained on its roof the patient was able to crawl out and awaited medical attention. The patient was taken by ambulance to the hospital where he was examined and testing was ordered. The patient had multiple CT scans of the head and X-rays of the cervical and lumbar. The CT of the head revealed a nasal fracture and the patient underwent immediate surgery to repair his broken nose.
Contents
Safe and Effective Chiropractic Adjustment Study
The patient presented three weeks post-accident with persistent and progressive daily occipital headaches, neck pain into the shoulders bilaterally, upper back pain and lower back pain that radiates into the legs and down into the feet bilaterally. He has swelling at the left anterior knee and bandages around the right elbow and two black eyes.
The patient states that he was having difficulty with regular activities of daily living including walking for more than 15-20 minutes, long periods of standing, more than an hour of sitting, any bending or lifting and any regular daily chores. The patient also states he was having difficulty getting a restful night�s sleep due to the pain. The patient�s visual analog scale rating was 10 out of 10.
History: The patient denied any prior history of neck or back pain. No reported prior injuries or traumas.
Objective Findings: An examination was performed and revealed the following:
Range of Motion:
Cervical Motion Studies:
Flexion: Normal=60 Exam- 25 with pain with spasm
Extension: Normal=50 Exam- 20 with pain with spasm
Left Rotation: Normal=80 Exam- 35 with pain with spasm
Right Rotation: Normal=80 Exam- 35 with pain with spasm
Left Lat. Flex: Norma=-40 Exam- 15 with pain with spasm
Right Lat. Flex: Normal=40 Exam- 15 with pain with spasm
Dorsal-Lumbar Motion Studies:
Flexion: Normal=90 Exam- 35 with pain with spasm
Extension: Normal=30 Exam- 10 with pain with spasm
Left Rotation: Normal=30 Exam- 10 with pain with spasm
Right Rotation: Normal=30 Exam- 5 with pain with spasm
Left Lat. Flex: Normal=20 Exam- 5 with pain with spasm
Right Lat. Flex: Normal=20 Exam- 5 with pain with spasm
Orthopedic Testing
The orthopedic testing revealed the following positive orthopedic tests in the cervical spine: Valsalva�s indicating the presence of a disc at L4-S1 and the lower cervical region, foraminal compression indicating radicular pain in the lower cervical region, Jackson�s compression , shoulder depressor and cervical distraction all indicating pain in the lower cervical region. The lumbar testing revealed a positive Soto-Hall with pain at the L4-S1 level, Kemps positive with pain from L4-S1, Straight Leg raiser with pain at 60 degrees, Milgram�s with pain at the L5-S1 level, Lewin�s with pain at L5-S1, and Nachlas eliciting pain in the L5-S1 region.
Neurological Testing
The neurological exam revealed bilateral upper extremity tingling and numbness into the shoulder on the left and down the right arm into the hand. The lower extremity revealed tingling and numbness into the gluteal�s bilaterally with left sided radicular pain in to the leg into left foot. The pinwheel revealed hypoesthesia at C7 bilaterally and L5 bilaterally dermatome level. The patient was unable to perform the heel-toe walk
The chiropractic motion palpation and static palpation exam revealed findings at C 1,2 , 5, 6, 7 and T 2,3,4,9, 10 and L 3,4,5 as well as the sacrum.
X-Ray Result Study
The hospital had cervical x-rays and a CT of the head on the day of the accident. Thoracic and lumbar studies were needed as a result of the positive testing and the patients history and complaints The x-ray studies revealed a reversed cervical curve and misalignment of the C1,2,5,6,7 and the lumbar studies revealed a mild IVF encroachment at L5-S1 with rotations at L3,4,5.
The results of the exam were reviewed. The patient�s positive orthopedic testing, neurological deficits coupled with the decreased range of motion and positive chiropractic motion and static palpation indicated the necessity to order both cervical[1]and lumbar[2] MRI�s4.
MRI Results
The MRI images were personally reviewed. The cervical MRI revealed a right paracentral disc herniation at the level of C5-6 with impingement on the anterior thecal sac. There is also a C6-7 disc bulge impinging on the anterior thecal sac. The lumbar MRI revealed an L5-S1 disc herniation. There are disc bulges at from L2-L4.
CERVICAL MRI STUDIES
LUMBAR MRI IMAGES
Safe and Effective Treatment Plan
After reviewing the history, examination, prior testing, x-rays, MRI�s and DOBI care paths3 it was determined that chiropractic adjustments6 wereclinically indicated
The patient was placed on a treatment plan of spinal manipulation with modalities including intersegmental traction, electric muscle stimulation and moist heat. Diversified technique was used to adjust the subluxation diagnosed levels of C1,2,5,6,7 and L3,4,5. Although there were herniated and bulging discs present in the cervical and lumbar spine there was no cord compression. Therefore; there was no contraindication to performing a spinal adjustment. As long as there is enough space between the cord and the herniation or bulge then it is generally safe to adjust.5
The patient responded quite favorably to the spinal adjustments and therapies over the course of 6 months of treatments. Initially, the patient was seen three times a week for the first 90 days. The patient demonstrated subjective and objective improvement and his care plan was adjusted accordingly and reduced to two visits per week for the next 90 days of care. His range of motion returned to 90% of normal:
Range of Motion:
Cervical Motion Studies:
Flexion: Normal=60 Exam- 55 with no pain
Extension: Normal=50 Exam- 40 with mild tenderness
Left Rotation: Normal=80 Exam- 75 with mild tenderness
Right Rotation: Normal=80 Exam- 75 with mild tenderness
Left Lat. Flex: Norma=-40 Exam- 35 with no pain
Right Lat. Flex: Normal=40 Exam- 35 with no pain
Dorsal-Lumbar Motion Studies:
Flexion: Normal=90 Exam- 80 with tenderness
Extension: Normal=30 Exam- 25 with tenderness
Left Rotation: Normal=30 Exam- 25 with no pain
Right Rotation: Normal=30 Exam- 25 with no pain
Left Lat. Flex: Normal=20 Exam- 20 with no pain
Right Lat. Flex: Normal=20 Exam- 20 with no pain
The patient had decreased spasm, decreased pain, increased ability to perform ADL�s and his sleep had returned to normal. The patient states that he was no longer having the same difficulties with regular activities of daily living. He was now able to walk for 45 minutes to 1 hour before the lower back pain flared up, he is able to stand for 1-2 hours before the lower back pain begins, he is able to sit for an hour or more before the lower back pain flares up. When the patient bends or lifts he has learned to use his core and lifts less than 20-30 pounds to avoid exacerbating his low back. The patient also states he was no longer having difficulty getting a restful night�s sleep. The patient�s visual analog scale rating was 3 out of 10.
Conclusion
The patient presented 3 weeks post trauma with cervical and lumbar pain as well as headaches. The symptoms were progressing and the pain was radiating into the upper and lower extremities. The history and exam indicated the presence of a herniated disc in the lower lumbar and cervical region. Cervical and lumbar MRI�s were ordered to identify the presence of the herniated disc as well as to determine whether or not the patient should be adjusted. The MRI results of both the cervical and lumbar MRI revealed herniated discs, however, because these discs were not causing cord compression it was safe to adjust the cervical and lumbar spine5.
Competing Interests: There are no competing interests in the writing of this case report.
De-Identification: All of the patient�s data has been removed from this case.
The scope of our information is limited to chiropractic and spinal injuries and conditions. To discuss options on the subject matter, please feel free to ask Dr. Jimenez or contact us at 915-850-0900 .
References
New England Journal of Medicine; Cervical MRI, July 28, 2005, Carette S. and Fehlings M.G.,N Engl J Med 2005; 353:392-399MRI for the lumbar disc, March 14 2013, el Barzouhi A., Vleggeert-Lankamp C.L.A.M., Lycklama � Nijeholt G.J., et al., N Engl J Med 2013; 368:999-1000 http://www.state.nj.us/dobi/pipinfo/carepat1.htm -16.7KB
New England Journal of Medicine; Cervical-Disk HerniationN Engl J Med 1998; 339:852-853September 17, 1998DOI: 10.1056/NEJM199809173391219
Is It Safe to Adjust the Cervical Spine in the Presence of a Herniated Disc? By Donald Murphy, DC, DACAN, Dynamic Chiropractic, June 12, 2000, Vol. 18, Issue 13
Treatment Options for a Herniated Disc; Spine-Health, Article written by:John P. Revord, MD
Additional Topics: Chiropractic Helps Patients Avoid Back Surgery
Back pain is a common symptom which affects or will affect a majority of the population at least once throughout their lifetime. While most back pain cases may resolve on their own, some instances of the pain and discomfort can be attributed to more serious spinal conditions. Fortunately, a variety of treatment options are available for patients before considering spinal surgical interventions. Chiropractic care is a safe and effective, alternative treatment option which helps carefully restore the original health of the spine, reducing or eliminating spinal misalignment which may be causing back pain.
A chiropractor is a doctor who specializes in musculoskeletal and nervous system problems. It is the belief of the chiropractic community that problems in these areas can cause adverse health issues, including lowered resistance to disease, illness, and injury.
Chiropractors manipulate the spine to realign spinal joints in their patients. By doing so, patients are expected to experience optimum health without the assistance of drugs or surgery. Instead, chiropractors expect the body will heal itself once the spine and spinal joints are in proper alignment. Additionally, chiropractors consider and address other lifestyle factors which are commonly recognized as significantly affecting health such as diet, rest, exercise, heredity, and environmental factors. They also make other recommendations for changes which are expected to improve the patient�s overall health.
Chiropractors perform many of the same tasks as other general and specialty doctors. Patient health histories are gathered, physical, neurological, and orthopedic examinations are performed, and various laboratory tests, x-rays, and diagnostic imaging tools are used to diagnose and analyze the patient�s condition. Other forms of treatment may be used or recommended by the chiropractor including ultrasound, massage, heat, water, acupuncture, or electric currents. Prescription drugs and surgery are not part of the services provided by chiropractors. Chiropractors may recommend patients to see other doctors or specialists to address health issues or concerns outside of their area of expertise. Some chiropractors choose to specialize in a certain type of practice, such as orthopedics, neurology, sports injuries, internal disorders, diagnostic imaging, or pediatrics.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics predicts a job growth increase of 17% in the chiropractic field over the next seven years. An increasing public interest in alternative healthcare methods is beneficial to the chiropractic field. The public is seeking healthy living options which do not include prescription medicines or surgery; instead, a substantial number of people are searching for solutions which emphasize healthy lifestyles. The non-invasive procedures provided by chiropractors in answer to their patients health issues and concerns appeals to the segment of the public looking for these types of answers.
SELECTING THE RIGHT CHIROPRACTIC COLLEGE
Chiropractor students should select a college which offers a strong science degree or pre-medical program. Some colleges may have an affiliation with chiropractic training schools, which all future chiropractors must successfully complete. Research chiropractic schools to determine which one you are most interested in attending; this will help you to determine if the school is linked to any of the colleges you are considering. Courses in biology, chemistry, and physics will be important to individuals looking to work in a medical field. Electives may be concentrated in health, fitness, and nutrition. Students should, if given the opportunity, study topics and courses related to kinesiology and sports medicine. Courses in psychology and sociology will also help students to gain a more comprehensive understanding of people and society, better preparing them to serve the public. Additionally, business courses ensure that future professionals understand how to successfully manage a business in the complex healthcare field, as medical professionals must understand finances, medical insurance processing, business laws, business practices, business ethics, and medical records maintenance.
CHIROPRACTIC SCHOOLS
Students must attend chiropractic college in order to enter the profession. Upon completion of the program, students will have earned a doctorate in chiropractic medicine. The Council on Chiropractic Education, or CCE, is the nationally recognized accrediting agency by the United States Secretary of Education which regulates the quality of the curriculum offered at chiropractic colleges. Currently there are 15 CCE accredited chiropractic institutions in the United States. These include, as listed on the CCE website:
Students attend chiropractic college for four years. During this time, students are taught the scientific and academic skills and knowledge required to become experts in the field of chiropractic medicine. The final year is spent in practice, performing the functions of a chiropractic doctor under the supervision of an experienced professional. The curriculum includes intensive study of neuromusculoskeletal conditions, nutritional and holistic health, specialized and focused curriculum in areas of acupuncture and oriental medicine, applied nutrition, and various other disciplines. Students will complete extensive course hours in diagnosis, biochemistry, anatomy, chiropractic technique, and philosophy and ancillary therapeutic procedures.
TAKING THE NATIONAL BOARD EXAM
The National Board Exam for chiropractors is administered by the NBCE. The test is given twice each year. The exam consists of three parts. Part one is 110 multiple choice questions relating to general anatomy, spinal anatomy, physiology, chemistry, pathology, microbiology, and public health. The second part also consists of 110 multiple choice questions, but in the areas of general diagnosis, neuromusculoskeletal diagnosis, diagnostic imaging, and principles of chiropractic, chiropractic practice, and associated clinical sciences. Part three of the test consists of another 110 multiple choice questions and 10 case vignettes covering the areas of diagnosis or clinical impression, clinical laboratory and special studies examination, chiropractic techniques, case management, physical examination, case history, and roentgenologic examination. Each part of the test is timed. Additional specialized testing is offered for applicants who choose to pursue an area of specialization.
LICENSING FOR CHIROPRACTORS
After successful completion of an accredited chiropractic program, graduates will need to obtain a license to practice in their resident state or the state in which they intend to practice. State licensure regulations may vary from state to state. It is important to research your state�s regulations prior to completion of the doctor of chiropractic program to ensure all conditions are met. The Federation of Chiropractic Licensing Boards is a nonprofit organization which provides a link to the licensure information in all states. Locate information for each state through this directory.
The information provided includes licensing fees, renewal requirements, national board testing requirements, security and criminal check requirements, additional certification requirements, continuing education, and malpractice insurance requirements. A link to each state licensing board is also provided.
CONTINUING EDUCATION FOR CHIROPRACTORS
The chiropractic field is experiencing an increase in advancements in technology and knowledge through research and academic exploration. Changing regulations are also an area in which chiropractic doctors will need to remain current. Each state maintains their own continuing education requirements upon which licensing will be contingent. Twenty-four credit hours of continuing education every two years is a common requirement. All programs must be board approved and conducted by approved colleges or chiropractic associations or organizations. Check with your state licensing board to determine if the program has been approved prior to enrollment.
PRACTICING AS A CHIROPRACTOR
After obtaining a doctorate and passing the licensing examination, a new chiropractor has many options ahead of them. Most chiropractors will end up working solo or in a group practice, with about one in three being self-employed. A small group will work in hospitals or physicians� offices. The median pay for Chiropractors in 2016 was $67,520, with the lowest 10 percent earning less than $32,380, and the highest earning more than $141,030. Chiropractors can further increase their salary by building up a strong client base and developing their own practice. Many times, chiropractors will work in the evening or on weekends to accommodate their patients.
DAY TO DAY PRACTICE
Chiropractors will spend a lot of time on their feet as they examine and treat patients. Some of the most important qualities that a chiropractor can have include decision-making, detail-oriented, dexterity, empathy, and interpersonal skills. If the chiropractor is operating his or her own practice, the ability to manage a staff of employees like secretaries and nurses is vital to the success of the practice. An understanding of the current healthcare system is also important, as that will determine what kind of payments a chiropractor may be able to receive, unless they work in a cash-only system. More information can be found in the Occupational Outlook Handbook provided by the BLS.
CHIROPRACTIC SPECIALTIES AND CERTIFICATIONS
Another way for chiropractors to increase their annual earnings or skills would be to specialize in one or more areas. Specializations can help a chiropractor better diagnose and treat chronic illnesses, sports injuries, and/or complex occupational injuries. The American Chiropractic Association and American Board of Chiropractic Specialties (ABCS) lists 14 specialties and provides guidance to maintain standards of chiropractic certification. These include, as listed on the American Chiropractic Association website:
Chiropractic Physiotherapy and Rehabilitation (DACRB) Specialist
Has had extensive postgraduate training in physiologic therapeutics and rehabilitation to better treat injuries that may have resulted from an accident or a sports injury.
Treats a wide variety of health conditions that include all body systems and tissues, and focuses special attention on the relationship between the spine, nervous system, and the meridian system.
Is trained to encourage and promote a more advanced knowledge and use of nutrition in the practice of chiropractic for the maintenance of health and the prevention of disease.
Has special knowledge of both the normal function and diseases of the bones, joints, capsules, discs, muscles, ligaments, and tendons, as well as their complete neurological components, referred organ systems and contiguous tissues, and is able to diagnose and treat the conditions related to them.
Diplomate of the American Board of Forensic Professionals (DABFP)
Performs an orderly analysis, investigation, inquiry, test, inspection, and examination in an attempt to obtain the facts of a case, from which to form an expert opinion.
Is trained in chiropractic sports medicine and exercise science in order to treat sports injuries, enhance athletic performance, and promote physical fitness.
Chiropractic Occupational Health (DACBOH) Specialist
A DC trained in health care diagnosis and treatment choices for workplace neuromusculoskeletal injuries who is able to provide a broad range of work-related injury and illness prevention services for employee populations.
Diplomate in Clinical Chiropractic Pediatrics (DICCP)
Support members who take care of children in their chiropractic practices, and to promote the acceptance and advancement of pediatric chiropractic care.
These specialty �degrees� are given by their corresponding boards, which also maintain the level of expected qualifications and standards of excellency.
IRVING, Texas � Anthony Rotich (Cross Country) was announced as one of the 14 recipients of the Jim Castaneda Postgraduate Scholarship Award, announced by the league office on Tuesday afternoon.
The conference annually awards the $4,000 Postgraduate Scholarships to graduates as selected by the C-USA Faculty Athletics Representatives and approved by the Board of Directors.
Rotich, a civil engineer major and mathematics minor, graduated from UTEP as a three-time C-USA All-American honoree and a four-time C-USA Commissioner�s Academic Honor Roll recipient. The Kenya native was a four-time NCAA Champion and an 11-time Mountain Region Athlete of the Year. He was named the 2014 C-USA Cross Country Athlete of the Year.
Rotich is applying to UTEP�s College of Engineering � Construction Management.
Check Also
Emmanuel Korir has been named a semifinalist for college track and field�s highest individual honor, �
IFM's Find A Practitioner tool is the largest referral network in Functional Medicine, created to help patients locate Functional Medicine practitioners anywhere in the world. IFM Certified Practitioners are listed first in the search results, given their extensive education in Functional Medicine
Among the commercially insured, 1.6% of stroke cases had visited chiropractors within 30 days of being admit- ted to the hospital, as compared to 1.3% of controls visit- ing chiropractors within 30 days prior to their index date. Of the stroke cases, 18.9% had visited a PCP within 30 days prior to their index date, while only 6.8% of controls had visited a PCP (Table 4). The proportion of exposures for chiropractic visits was lower in the MA sample within the 30-day hazard period (cases = 0.3%; controls = 0.9%). However, the proportion of exposures for PCP visits was higher, with 21.3% of cases having PCP visits as compared to12.9% for controls (Table 5).
The results from the analyses of both the commercial population and the MA population were similar (Tables 6, 7 and 8). There was no association between chiropractic visits and VBA stroke found for the�
