SYNOPSIS: Vascular serious adverse events can occur after examining, manipulating, mobilizing, and prescribing exercise for the cervical spine. Patients presenting with neck pain and headache who develop a vascular serious adverse event during or after treatment may have vascular flow limitations that go unrecognized and are aggravated by treatment. Patients with neck pain and headache-the first nonischemic symptoms of arterial dissection-frequently access physical therapists as first-point providers, not all of whom have specialist training in orthopaedic manual physical therapy. All physical therapists, irrespective of their training, who are helping patients manage neck pain, headache, and/or facial symptoms must feel confident to identify potential vascular flow limitations of the neck prior to providing treatment. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2021;51(9):418-421. Epub 10 May 2021. doi:10.2519/jospt.2021.10408.
Objectives Appropriate administration of intraoperative analgesia is an essential factor in care and reasonable recovery times. Inappropriate intraoperative analgesia puts the patient at risk of acute postoperative pain (APOP). The absence of an objective standard for intraoperative nociceptive monitoring complicates pain care. Heart rate (HR) and mean arterial blood pressure (MABP) have been suggested as useful parameters during general anesthesia for nociceptive monitoring. However, studies focusing on whether intraoperative heart rate variability (HRv) and mean arterial blood pressure variability (MABPv) during general anesthesia can accurately monitor nociception in patients have remained inconclusive. The current study aimed to (1) identify the association of intraoperative heart rate and blood pressure variability in patients undergoing low-risk surgery with the incidence of APOP in the immediate postoperative setting and (2) evaluate the associations of clinical demographic factors with the incidence of APOP.
MULTIFILE
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.
