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.

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The purpose of this study was to quantify risk of stroke after chiropractic spinal manipulation, as compared to evaluation by a primary care physician, for Medicare beneficiaries aged 66 to 99 years with neck pain.
    Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics 01/2015; 33(2). DOI:10.1016/j.jmpt.2014.12.001 · 1.25 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: InhaltTeil 2: Leitlinie Sicherheit in MM-Medizin1. Einleitung2. Kontraindikationen2.1. Direkte Techniken (gegen die Barriere)2.2. Indirekte und reflexbasierte Techniken3. Komplikationen und Nebenwirkungen3.1. Lebensbedrohliche Komplikationen3.2. Ernsthafte Komplikationen3.3. Weniger bedeutsame unerwünschte Wirkungen4. Sicherheit4.1. Risiken der Impulsmanipulationstherapie an der Halswirbelsäule4.2. Risiken der Manipulationstherapie an der Lendenwirbelsäule4.3. Risiken der Manipulationstherapie am Thorax und an den Rippen4.4. Risiken der Manipulationstherapie am Beckenring (Sakroiliakalgelenke)Anhang1. Beispiele für Curricula der postgraduierten Ausbildung1.1. Curriculum der Schweizer Ärztegesellschaft für Manuelle Medizin1.2. Kursbuch der Bundesärztekammer1.3. Syllabus of the Musculoskeletal Medicine by the Australasian Faculty of Musculoskeletal MedicineLiteraturhinweiseTeil 2: Sicherheit in MM-Medizin1. EinleitungIm Allgemeinen sind die Verfahren der MM sicher und effektiv. Sicherhei ...
    Manuelle Medizin 06/2014; 52(3):229-236. DOI:10.1007/s00337-014-1105-5
  • 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

Full-text (2 Sources)

Available from
Jul 16, 2014