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 objective of this study is to investigate the heart rate (HR) accuracy measured at the wrist with the photoplethysmography (PPG) technique with a Fitbit Charge 2 (Fitbit Inc) in wheelchair users with spinal cord injury, how the activity intensity affects the HR accuracy, and whether this HR accuracy is affected by lesion level.
MULTIFILE
Background: A new selective preventive spinal immobilization (PSI) protocol was introduced in the Netherlands. This may have led to an increase in non-immobilized spinal fractures (NISFs) and consequently adverse patient outcomes. Aim: A pilot study was conducted to describe the adverse patient outcomes in NISF of the PSI protocol change and assess the feasibility of a larger effect study. Methods: Retrospective comparative cohort pilot study including records of trauma patients with a presumed spinal injury who were presented at the emergency department of a level 2 trauma center by the emergency medical service (EMS). The pre-period 2013-2014 (strict PSI protocol), was compared to the post-period 2017-2018 (selective PSI protocol). Primary outcomes were the percentage of records with a NISF who had an adverse patient outcome such as neurological injuries and mortality before and after the protocol change. Secondary outcomes were the sample size calculation for a larger study and the feasibility of data collection. Results: 1,147 records were included; 442 pre-period, and 705 post-period. The NISF-prevalence was 10% (95% CI 7-16, n = 19) and 8% (95% CI 6-11, n = 33), respectively. In both periods, no neurological injuries or mortality due to NISF were found, by which calculating a sample size is impossible. Data collection showed to be feasible. Conclusions: No neurological injuries or mortality due to NISF were found in a strict and a selective PSI protocol. Therefore, a larger study is discouraged. Future studies should focus on which patients really profit from PSI and which patients do not.
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
INTRODUCTION: In patients with cancer, low muscle mass has been associated with a higher risk of fatigue, poorer treatment outcomes, and mortality. To determine body composition with computed tomography (CT), measuring the muscle quantity at the level of lumbar 3 (L3) is suggested. However, in patients with cancer, CT imaging of the L3 level is not always available. Thus far, little is known about the extent to which other vertebra levels could be useful for measuring muscle status. In this study, we aimed to assess the correlation of the muscle quantity and quality between any vertebra level and L3 level in patients with various tumor localizations.METHODS: Two hundred-twenty Positron Emission Tomography (PET)-CT images of patients with four different tumor localizations were included: 1. head and neck ( n = 34), 2. esophagus ( n = 45), 3. lung ( n = 54), and 4. melanoma ( n = 87). From the whole body scan, 24 slices were used, i.e., one for each vertebra level. Two examiners contoured the muscles independently. After contouring, muscle quantity was estimated by calculating skeletal muscle area (SMA) and skeletal muscle index (SMI). Muscle quality was assessed by calculating muscle radiation attenuation (MRA). Pearson correlation coefficient was used to determine whether the other vertebra levels correlate with L3 level. RESULTS: For SMA, strong correlations were found between C1-C3 and L3, and C7-L5 and L3 ( r = 0.72-0.95). For SMI, strong correlations were found between the levels C1-C2, C7-T5, T7-L5, and L3 ( r = 0.70-0.93), respectively. For MRA, strong correlations were found between T1-L5 and L3 ( r = 0.71-0.95). DISCUSSION: For muscle quantity, the correlations between the cervical, thoracic, and lumbar levels are good, except for the cervical levels in patients with esophageal cancer. For muscle quality, the correlations between the other levels and L3 are good, except for the cervical levels in patients with melanoma. If visualization of L3 on the CT scan is absent, the other thoracic and lumbar vertebra levels could serve as a proxy to measure muscle quantity and quality in patients with head and neck, esophageal, lung cancer, and melanoma, whereas the cervical levels may be less reliable as a proxy in some patient groups.
DOCUMENT
