Adverse effects of spinal manipulation: a systematic review

Complementary Medicine, Peninsula Medical School, Universities of Exeter & Plymouth, Exeter, UK.
Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine (Impact Factor: 2.02). 08/2007; 100(7):330-8. DOI: 10.1258/jrsm.100.7.330
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT To identify adverse effects of spinal manipulation.
Systematic review of papers published since 2001.
Six electronic databases.
Reports of adverse effects published between January 2001 and June 2006. There were no restrictions according to language of publication or research design of the reports.
The searches identified 32 case reports, four case series, two prospective series, three case-control studies and three surveys. In case reports or case series, more than 200 patients were suspected to have been seriously harmed. The most common serious adverse effects were due to vertebral artery dissections. The two prospective reports suggested that relatively mild adverse effects occur in 30% to 61% of all patients. The case-control studies suggested a causal relationship between spinal manipulation and the adverse effect. The survey data indicated that even serious adverse effects are rarely reported in the medical literature.
Spinal manipulation, particularly when performed on the upper spine, is frequently associated with mild to moderate adverse effects. It can also result in serious complications such as vertebral artery dissection followed by stroke. Currently, the incidence of such events is not known. In the interest of patient safety we should reconsider our policy towards the routine use of spinal manipulation.

Download full-text


Available from: Edzard Ernst, Jul 16, 2014
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Spinal manipulation (SM) is a manual therapy technique frequently applied to treat musculoskeletal disorders because of its analgesic effects. It is defined by a manual procedure involving a directed impulse to move a joint past its physiologic range of movement (ROM). In this sense, to exceed the physiologic ROM of a joint could trigger tissue damage, which might represent an adverse effect associated with spinal manipulation. The present work tries to explore the presence of tissue damage associated with SM through the damage markers analysis. Thirty healthy subjects recruited at the University of Jaén were submitted to a placebo SM (control group; n = 10), a single lower cervical manipulation (cervical group; n = 10), and a thoracic manipulation (n = 10). Before the intervention, blood samples were extracted and centrifuged to obtain plasma and serum. The procedure was repeated right after the intervention and two hours after the intervention. Tissue damage markers creatine phosphokinase (CPK), lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), C-reactive protein (CRP), troponin-I, myoglobin, neuron-specific enolase (NSE), and aldolase were determined in samples. Statistical analysis was performed through a 3 × 3 mixed-model ANOVA. Neither cervical manipulation nor thoracic manipulation did produce significant changes in the CPK, LDH, CRP, troponin-I, myoglobin, NSE, or aldolase blood levels. Our data suggest that the mechanical strain produced by SM seems to be innocuous to the joints and surrounding tissues in healthy subjects.
    Disease markers 12/2014; 2014:815379. DOI:10.1155/2014/815379 · 2.17 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Headache is the common symptom in patients with cervical artery dissection. However, it rarely occurs in isolation, without focal neurological signs, and even more rarely mimics migraine. We present a clinical case of young woman with new severe throbbing unilateral headache which started one week after cervical manipulative therapy. No history of migraine was present. Vertebral artery dissection was diagnosed after duplex ultrasound and CT angiography. Local symptoms and signs were absent, and diffusion-weighted MRI did not show any acute brain ischemic lesions. Throbbing headache gradually resolved in 10 days. Follow-up 5 months later showed near-complete normalization of lumen and flow of dissected vertebral artery. The possibility of extracranial dissection should be considered in patients with first attack of migraine-like hemicrania, especially if cervical manipulations or trauma occurred recently.
    05/2012; 1(1-12):452-454. DOI:10.1016/j.permed.2012.03.010
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Due primarily to its colloquial function, 'manipulation' is a poor term for distinguishing one healthcare intervention from another. With reports continuing to associate serious adverse events with manipulation, particularly relating to its use in the cervical spine, it is essential that the term be used appropriately and in accordance with a valid definition. The purpose of this paper is to identify empirically-derived features that we propose to be necessary and collectively sufficient for the formation of a valid definition for manipulation. A final definition is not offered. However, arguments for and against the inclusion of features are presented. Importantly, these features are explicitly divided into two categories: the 'action' (that which the practitioner does to the recipient) and the 'mechanical response' (that which occurs within the recipient). The proposed features are: 1) A force is applied to the recipient; 2) The line of action of this force is perpendicular to the articular surface of the affected joint; 3) The applied force creates motion at a joint; 4) This joint motion includes articular surface separation; 5) Cavitation occurs within the affected joint.
    Manual therapy 06/2010; 15(3):286-91. DOI:10.1016/j.math.2009.12.009 · 1.76 Impact Factor