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
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
Of all patients in a hospital environment, trauma patients may be particularly at risk for developing (device-related) pressure ulcers (PUs), because of their traumatic injuries, immobility, and exposure to immobilizing and medical devices. Studies on device-related PUs are scarce. With this study, the incidence and characteristics of PUs and the proportion of PUs that are related to devices in adult trauma patients with suspected spinal injury were described. From January–December 2013, 254 trauma patients were visited every 2 days for skin assessment. The overall incidence of PUs was 28⋅3% (n = 72/254 patients). The incidence of device-related PUs was 20⋅1% (n = 51), and 13% (n = 33) developed solely device-related PUs. We observed 145 PUs in total of which 60⋅7% were related to devices (88/145). Device-related PUs were detected 16 different locations on the front and back of the body. These results show that the incidence of PUs and the proportion of device-related PUs is very high in trauma patients
DOCUMENT
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.
DOCUMENT
