Introduction:Major Adverse Events (MAE) following Cervical Spinal Manipulations (CSM) have been described anecdotally and are frequently discussed. Until now, exact incidence rates are unknown. Furthermore, there are doubts concerning the factors which may play a role in the occurrence of MAE.Objectives:Determine incidence rates of CSM following CSM.Inventory of patient and clinician characteristics.Introduce an incidence reporting system that fulfils all proposed criteria.Methods:A twofold prospective cohort study will be performed in The Netherlands. Underreporting is particularly likely to be present in primary care, but also likely to be present in secondary care.For this reason measurements will be done in both primary care (MCM -1 group) and secondary care (MCM – 2 group). Data will be collected from September 2016 to September 2017.Considering the sensitivity of the subject and to gain the participants trust, an independent privacy monitoring board is to be founded.Discussion:This study may be helpful in collecting incidence rates of MAE following CSM, collecting relevant factors that play a role in the occurrence of these MAE, collecting epidemiological data and gain insight in the behavior of health professionals.
DOCUMENT
Cervical spinal manipulations (CSM) are frequently employed techniques to alleviate neck pain and headache. Minor and major complications following CSM have been described, though clear consensus on definition and the classification of the complications had not yet been achieved. As a result, incidence rates may be underestimated. The aim of this study was to develop a consensus-based classification of adverse events following cervical spinal manipulations which has good feasibility in clinical practice and research. Design: A three round Delphi-study. Medical specialists, manual therapists, and patients (n=30) participated in an online survey. In Round 1, participants were invited to select a classification system of adverse events. Potential complications were inventoried and detailed in accordance with the ICF and the ICD-10. In Round 2, panel members categorized the potential complications in their selected classification. During the third round, it was inquired of the participants whether they concurred with the answer of the majority of participants. Results: Thirty four complications were defined. Consensus was achieved for 29 complications for all durations [hours, days, weeks]. For the remaining five complications, consensus was reached for two of the three durations [hours, days, weeks]. Conclusions: A consensus-based classification system of adverse events after cervical spinal manipulation was developed which comprises patients’ and clinicians’ perspectives and has only a small number of categories. The classification system includes a precise description of potential adverse events and is based on international accepted classifications (ICD-10 and ICF). This classification system may be useful for utilization in both clinical practice and research.
DOCUMENT
Cervical spinal manipulation (CSM) and cervical mobilization are frequently used in patients with neck pain and headache. Pre-manipulative cervical instability and arterial integrity tests appear to be unreliable in identifying patients at risk at risk for adverse events. It would be valuable if patients at risk could be identified by specific characteristics during the preliminary screening.
DOCUMENT
BACKGROUND: Orthopaedic Manual Therapy (OMT) is a specialized area of physiotherapy for the management of neuromusculoskeletal conditions. Although rare, adverse events after OMT are reported in literature. In 2020, the International Framework for Examination of the Cervical Region for potential of vascular pathologies of the neck prior to OMT Intervention was presented.OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the knowledge and implementation status of OMT educational programmes regarding the 2020 International IFOMPT Cervical Framework.METHODS: An international survey with closed- and open-ended questions was conducted among all IFOMPT educational programmes using an online survey. Formal informed consent was requested at the beginning of the survey and all data were collected anonymously.RESULTS: Thirty-nine educational programmes filled in the survey. Twenty-four programmes (61.5%) had already implemented the new Framework. Four programmes (10.3%) answered that they will not implement the new Framework in their educational programme. Positional testing will be kept in about 54% of the programmes. Craniovertebral ligament testing will be kept in about 90% of the programmes. A considerable number of educational programmes still teach end range manipulations in the middle and lower cervical spine (33.3%) and upper cervical spine (25.5%).CONCLUSIONS: The dissemination and implementation of the International IFOMPT Cervical Framework among educational programmes has been successful. However, although positional testing and craniovertebral ligament testing are excluded from the Framework, most educational programmes will keep these tests in their curriculum, which raises some concern regarding the success and impact of international consensus frameworks.
DOCUMENT
Cervical spinal manipulation (CSM) and cervical mobilization are frequently used in patients with neck pain and headache. Pre-manipulative cervical instability and arterial integrity tests appear to be unreliable in identifying patients at risk for adverse events. It would be valuable if patients at risk could be identified by specific characteristics during the preliminary screening.Objective was to identify characteristics of 1) patients, 2) practitioners, 3) treatment process and 4) adverse events (AE) occurring after CSM or cervical mobilization.A systematic search was performed in PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Web-of-science, AMED, and ICL (Index Chiropractic Literature) up to December 2014.Of the initial 1043 studies, 144 studies were included, containing 227 cases. 117 cases described male patients with a mean age of 45 (SD 12) and a mean age of 39 (SD 11) for females. Most patients were treated by chiropractors (66%). Manipulation was reported in 95% of the cases, and neck pain was the most frequent indication. Cervical arterial dissection (CAD) was reported in 57% (P = 0.21) of the cases and 45.8% had immediate onset symptoms. The overall distribution of gender for CAD is 55% (n = 71) for female and therefore opposite of the total AE.Patient characteristics were described poorly. No clear patient profile, related to the risk of AE after CSM, could be extracted. However, women seem more at risk for CAD. There seems to be under-reporting of cases. Further research should focus on a more uniform and complete registration of AE using standardized terminology.
DOCUMENT
Although there seems to be no causality between cervical spine (CS) manipulation and major adverse events (MAE), it remains important that manual therapists try to prevent every potential MAE. Although the validity of positional testing for vertebrobasilar insufficiency (VBI) has been questioned, recently, the use of these tests was recommended. However, based on the low sensitivity of the VBI tests, which may result in too many false-negative results, the VBI tests seem to be less valuable in pre-manipulative screening. Moreover, because the VBI tests are unable to consistently produce a decreased blood flow in the contralateral vertebral artery in (healthy people), the underlying mechanism of the test may not be a valid construct. There are numerous cases reporting MAE after a negative VBI test, indicating that the VBI tests do not have a role in assessing the risk of serious neurovascular pathology, such as cervical arterial dissection, the most frequently described MAE after CS manipulation. Symptoms of VBI can be identified in the patient interview and should be considered as red flags or warning signs and require further medical investigation. VBI tests are not able to predict MAE and seem not to have any added value to the patient interview with regard to detecting VBI or another vascular pathology. Furthermore, a negative VBI test can be wrongly interpreted as 'safe to manipulate'. Therefore, the use of VBI tests cannot be recommended and should be abandoned.
DOCUMENT
The authors regret that during a recent review of this work, an erroneous calculation was uncovered. In our discussion we estimated the number of VAD patients annually with recent manipulation in the U.S. If the annual rate of VAD patients in the U.S. population was approximately (318,857,056 × 1.0/100.000) 3188, and of those patients 6.9% received a cervical manipulation, the correct number should be (3188 × 0.069) 220. This had been accidentally calculated as 220,011 instead of 220. Although it does not change the overall conclusions or discussion of the paper, the authors would like to thank dr. Clum for his attentiveness and apologize for any inconvenience caused.
DOCUMENT
DOCUMENT
Calamiteiten na cervicale manipulaties zijn regelmatig onderwerp van gesprek. Exacte incidentiecijfers zijn onbekend maar zware complicaties - calamiteiten - lijken zeldzaam. De beschreven incidentiecijfers variëren van 1 op 3.020 tot 1 op 5,7 miljoen behandelingen met cervicale manipulaties.Cervicale dissecties lijken de meest voorkomende calamiteiten na cervicale manipulatie. Het merendeel van de cervicale dissecties treedt echter spontaan op of als gevolg van een (klein) trauma zonder cervicale manipulatie. Nader onderzoek is dus gewenst.
DOCUMENT
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: High-velocity low-amplitude thrust spinal manipulation (SM) is a recommended and commonly used manual therapy intervention in physiotherapy. Beliefs surrounding the safety and effectiveness of SM have challenged its use, and even advocated for its abandonment. Our study aimed to investigate the knowledge and beliefs surrounding SM by Italian physiotherapists compared with similar practitioners in other countries.METHODS: An online survey with 41 questions was adapted from previous surveys and was distributed via a mailing list of the Italian Physiotherapists Association (March 22-26, 2020). The questionnaire was divided into 4 sections to capture information on participant demographics, utilization, potential barriers, and knowledge about SM. Questions were differentiated between spinal regions. Attitudes towards different spinal regions, attributes associated with beliefs, and the influence of previous educational background were each evaluated.RESULTS: Of the 7398 registered physiotherapists, 575 (7.8%) completed the survey and were included for analysis. The majority of respondents perceived SM as safe and effective when applied to the thoracic (74.1%) and lumbar (72.2%) spines; whereas, a smaller proportion viewed SM to the upper cervical spine (56.8%) as safe and effective. Respondents reported they were less likely to provide and feel comfortable with upper cervical SM (respectively, 27.5% and 48.5%) compared to the thoracic (respectively, 52.2% and 74.8%) and lumbar spines (respectively, 46.3% and 74.3%). Most physiotherapists (70.4%) agreed they would perform additional screening prior to upper cervical SM compared to other spinal regions. Respondents who were aware of clinical prediction rules were more likely to report being comfortable with SM (OR 2.38-3.69) and to perceive it as safe (OR 1.75-3.12). Finally, physiotherapists without musculoskeletal specialization, especially those with a traditional manual therapy background, were more likely to perform additional screening prior to SM, use SM less frequently, report being less comfortable performing SM, and report upper cervical SM as less safe (p < 0.001).DISCUSSION: The beliefs and attitudes of physiotherapists surrounding the use of SM are significantly different when comparing the upper cervical spine to other spinal regions. An educational background in traditional manual therapy significantly influences beliefs and attitudes. We propose an updated framework on evidence-based SM.
DOCUMENT
