US Chiropractic Directory Presents:
Neck Problems
Neck problems are one of the most prevalent issues that people worldwide suffer. Neck pain has been called torticollis, stiff neck and a host of other names, however to the public, it is literally a "pain in the neck." Chiropractic has been safely and effectively helping patents with pain in the neck for over 100 years and The US Chiropractic Directory has create a forum of information combining the entire healthcare and scientific community to bring the public evidenced and researched based answers on how and why chiropractic works to help those with neck pain/problems.
Chiropractic Vertebral Subluxation
By Mark Studin
William J. Owens
Citation: Studin M., Owens W. (2018) Vertebral Subluxation Complex, American Chiropractor, 40 (7) 12, 14-16, 18, 20, 22, 24, 26-27
A report on the scientific literature
INTRODUCTION
Chiropractic was discovered in 1895 by Daniel David Palmer and further developed by his son, Bartlett James Palmer. Together, they helped coin the phrase “vertebral subluxation,” yet to date, there has been little evidence of it in the literature. When we consider neuro-biomechanical pathological lesions that will degenerate (please refer to Wolff’s Law) based upon homeostatic mechanisms in the human body we will better understand and be able to define the chiropractic vertebral subluxation and more specifically, the chiropractic vertebral subluxation complex (VSC). In addition, the literature has provided us with a vast amount of evidence on both the biomechanical dysfunction of the spine as well as the neurological consequence as sequelae to that biomechanical dysfunction.
Despite over a century of reported and literature-based clinical results, detractors both outside and inside the chiropractic profession argue to limit the scope of these spinal lesions because the literature has not yet caught up to the results. Additionally, the lack of contemporary literature has been reflected in “underperforming” chiropractic utilization in the United States for conditions that have been well-documented as responding successfully in outcome studies with chiropractic care.
Murphy, Justice, Paskowski, Perle and Schneider (2011) reported:
Spine-related disorders (SRDs) are among the most common, costly and disabling problems in Western society. For the purpose of this commentary, we define SRDs as the group of conditions that include back pain, neck pain, many types of headache, radiculopathy, and other symptoms directly related to the spine. Virtually 100% of the population is affected by this group of disorders at some time in life. Low back pain (LBP) in the adult population is estimated to have a point prevalence of 28%-37%, a 1-year prevalence of 76% and a lifetime prevalence of 85%. Up to 85% of these individuals seek care from some type of health professional. Two-thirds of adults will experience neck pain some time in their lives, with 22% having neck pain at any given point in time.
The burden of SRDs on individuals and society is huge. Direct costs in the United States (US) are US$102 billion annually and $14 billion in lost wages were estimated for the years 2002-4. (p. 1)
In 2017, based upon Alioth Education, dollars adjusted for inflation equates to $18,141, 895,182.64 in direct costs for spinal-related conditions that fall within the chiropractic treatment category and have proven to outperform other forms of care. When considering outcome assessments for efficacy of chiropractic in a population-based study, both Cifuentes, Willets and Wasiak (2011) and Blanchette, Rivard, Dionne, Hogg-Johnson, and Steenstra (2017) offered evidence that the results are rooted in a “first healthcare provider” or “primary spine care” solution.
Cifuentes et al. (2011) compared different treatments of recurrent or chronic low back pain. They considered any condition recurrent or chronic if there was a recurrent disability episode after a 15-day absence and return to disability. Anyone with less than a 15-day absence of disability was excluded from the study. Please note that we kept disability outcomes for all reported treatment and did not limit this to physical therapy. However, the statistic for physical therapy was significant.
According to the Cifuentes, Willets and Wasiak (2011) study, chiropractic care during the disability episode resulted in:
Cifuentes et al. (2011) started by stating, “Given that chiropractors are proponents of health maintenance care...patients with work-related LBP [low back pain] who are treated by chiropractors would have a lower risk of recurrent disability because that specific approach would be used” (p. 396). The authors concluded by stating, “After controlling for demographic factors and multiple severity indicators, patients suffering nonspecific work-related LBP who received health services mostly or only from a chiropractor had a lower risk of recurrent disability than the risk of any other provider type” (Cifuentes et al., 2011, p. 404).
Blanchette, Rivard, Dionne, Hogg-Johnson and Steenstra (2017) reported:
The type of first healthcare provider was a significant predictor of the duration of the first episode of compensation only during the first 5 months of compensation. When compared with medical doctors, chiropractors were associated with shorter durations of compensation and physiotherapists with longer ones. Physiotherapists were also associated with higher odds of a second episode of financial compensation. (p. 388)
Despite compelling evidence of chiropractic being the best option for primary spine care treatment of injuries related to disabilities and pain based upon outcomes, the reasons why chiropractic works have been elusive. Despite the lack of literature-based evidence, answers are still being sought because positive results are consistently being realized in clinical chiropractic practices. When Keating et al. (2005) wrote an opinion or debate article, they concluded, “Subluxation syndrome is a legitimate, potentially testable, theoretical construct for which there is little experimental evidence” (p. 13).
This statement is one of the most unifying statements that could serve to reduce pain and opiate utilization, prevent premature degeneration and increase bio-neuromechanical function for our society, while significantly increasing our utilization because chiropractic is part of the answer. However, the simple question is, “Why aren’t we doing this specific research because the pieces of what is considered subluxation have been verified in the literature for quite some time?”
DISCUSSION
VSC starts with spinal biomechanics and when considering a pathological model, we need to define the normal functioning of the spine.
Panjabi (2006) reported:
The spinal column, consisting of ligaments (spinal ligaments, discs annulus and facet capsules) and vertebrae, is one of the three subsystems of the spinal stabilizing system. The other two are the spinal muscles and neuromuscular control unit. The spinal column has two functions: structural and transducer. The structural function provides stiffness to the spine. The transducer function provides the information needed to precisely characterize the spinal posture, vertebral motions, spinal loads etc. to the neuromuscular control unit via innumerable mechanoreceptors present in the spinal column ligaments, facet capsules and the disc annulus. These mechanical transducers provide information to the neuromuscular control unit which helps to generate muscular spinal stability via the spinal muscle system and neuromuscular control unit. The criterion used by the neuromuscular unit is hypothesized to be the need for adequate and overall mechanical stability of the spine. If the structural function is compromised, due to injury or degeneration, then the muscular stability is increased to compensate the loss. (p. 669)
Panjabi (2003) also reported:
It has been conceptualized that the overall mechanical stability of the spinal column, especially in dynamic conditions and under heavy loads, is provided by the spinal column and the precisely coordinated surrounding muscles. As a result, the spinal stabilizing system of the spine was conceptualized by Panjabi to consist of three subsystems: spinal column providing intrinsic stability, spinal muscles, surrounding the spinal column, providing dynamic stability, and neural control unit evaluating and determining the requirements for stability and coordinating the muscle response. (p. 372)
In defining spinal clinical instability, Panjabi (1992) previously reported:
Clinical instability is defined as a significant decrease in the capacity of the stabilizing system of the spine to maintain the intervertebral neutral zones within the physiological limits so that there is no neurological dysfunction, no major deformity, and no incapacitating pain. (p. 394)
Anatomically, we are starting with the vertebrate and more specifically, the articular facets indicating that VSC is a “complex” and not a simple problem as the anatomical pathology occurs in opposing facets. When looking at normal vertebral structures,
Cervical spine meniscoids, also referred to as synovial folds or intra-articular inclusions, are folds of synovium that extend between the articular surfaces of the joints of the cervical spine. These structures have been identified within cervical zygapophyseal, lateral atlantoaxial and atlanto-occipital joints, and have been hypothesised to be of clinical significance in neck pain through their mechanical impingement or displacement, as a result of fibrotic changes, or via injury as a result of trauma to the cervical spine. (p. 939)
An understanding of the basic structure of meniscoids is necessary to assess their potential role in cervical spine pathology. As described above, cervical spine meniscoids are folds of synovium that protrude into a joint from its margins. Meniscoids lie between the articular surfaces at the ventral and dorsal poles of their enclosing joint. Their basic structure includes a base, which attaches to the joint capsule, a middle region and an apex that protrudes approximately 1–5 mm into the joint cavity. In sagittal cross section, these structures are triangular in shape, and when viewed superiorly they often appear crescent-shaped or semi-circular. Cervical spine meniscoids are thought to function to improve the congruence of articular structures, and to ensure the lubrication of articular surfaces with synovial fluid. (p. 940)
Should these synovial folds or “plicas” become trapped or “pinched” as described by Evans (2002), it would be the beginning of a “negative neurological cascade.”
Evans (2002) reported:
Intra-articular formations have been identified throughout the vertebral column. Giles and Taylor demonstrated by light and transmission electron microscopy the presence of nerve fibers (0.6 to 1 mm in diameter) coursing through synovial folds, remote from blood vessels, that were most likely nociceptive. They concluded, “Should the synovial folds become pinched between the articulating facet surfaces of the zygapophyseal joint, the small nerves demonstrated in this study may have clinical importance as a source of low back pain.” (p. 252)
Figure 1: Images of meniscoid entrapment on flexion, on attempted extension, involving flexion and gapping and realigned.
Evans (2002) explained the images above as follows:
Meniscoid entrapment. 1) On flexion, the inferior articular process of a zygapophyseal joint moves upward, taking a meniscoid with It. 2) On attempted extension, the inferior articular process returns toward its neutral position, but instead of re-entering the joint cavity, the meniscoid impacts against the edge of the articular cartilage and buckles, forming a space-occupying "lesion" under the capsule. Pain occurs as a result of capsular tension, and extension is inhibited. 3) Manipulation of the joint involving flexion and gapping, reduces the impaction and opens the joint to encourage re-entry of the meniscoid into the joint space (4) [Realignment of the joint.] (p. 253)
Evans (2002) continued:
Bogduk and Jull reviewed the likelihood of intra-articular entrapments within zygapophyseal joints as potential sources of pain…Fibro-adipose meniscoids have also been identified as structures capable of creating a painful situation. Bogduk and Jull reviewed the possible role of fibro-adipose meniscoids causing pain purely by creating a tractioning effect on the zygapophyseal joint capsule, again after intra-articular pinching of tissue(p. 252)
Evans (2002) also noted:
A large number of type III and type IV nerve fibers (nociceptors) have been observed within capsules of zygapophyseal joints. Pain occurs as distension of the joint capsule provides a sufficient stimulus for these nociceptors to depolarize. Muscle spasm would then occur to prevent impaction of the meniscoid. The patient would tend to be more comfortable with the spine maintained in a flexed position, because this will disengage the meniscoid. Extension would therefore tend to be inhibited. This condition has also been termed a “joint lock” or “facet-lock,” the latter of which indicates the involvement of the zygapophyseal joint…
An HVLAT manipulation [chiropractic spinal adjustment CSA], involving gapping of the zygapophyseal joint, reduces the impaction and opens the joint, so encouraging the meniscoid to return to its normal anatomic position in the joint cavity. This ceases the distension of the joint capsule, thus reducing pain. (p. 252-253)
When considering VSC in its entirety, we must consider the etiology as these forces can lead to complex patho-biomechanical components of the spine and supporting tissues. As a result, a neurological cascade can ensue that would further define VSC beyond the inter-articulation entrapments. Panjabi (2006) reported:
Abnormal mechanics of the spinal column has been hypothesized to lead to back pain via nociceptive sensors. The path from abnormal mechanics to nociceptive sensation may go via inflammation, biochemical and nutritional changes, immunological factors, and changes in the structure and material of the endplates and discs, and neural structures, such as nerve ingrowth into diseased intervertebral disc. The abnormal mechanics of the spine may be due to degenerative changes of the spinal column and/or injury of the ligaments. Most likely, the initiating event is some kind of trauma involving the spine. It may be a single trauma due to an accident or microtrauma caused by repetitive motion over a long time. It is also possible that spinal muscles will fire in an uncoordinated way in response to sudden fear of injury, such as when one misjudges the depth of a step. All these events may cause spinal ligament injury. (p.668-669).
Panjabi (2006) goes on to explain what happens when the spinal column is affected by trauma:
The structural function provides stiffness to the spine. The transducer function provides the information needed to precisely characterize the spinal posture, vertebral motions, spinal loads etc. to the neuromuscular control unit via innumerable mechanoreceptors present in the spinal column ligaments, facet capsules and the disc annulus. These mechanical transducers provide information to the neuromuscular control unit which helps to generate muscular spinal stability via the spinal muscle system and neuromuscular control unit. The criterion used by the neuromuscular unit is hypothesized to be the need for adequate and overall mechanical stability of the spine. If the structural function is compromised, due to injury or degeneration, then the muscular stability is increased to compensate the loss. What happens if the transducer function of the ligaments of the spinal column is compromised? This has not been explored. There is evidence from animal studies that the stimulation of the ligaments of the spine (disc and facets, and ligaments) results in spinal muscle firing. (p. 669).
Panjabi (2006) described the mechanism that, coupled with the inter-articulation nociceptor “firing,” further defines the “negative neurological cascade”:
The hypothesis consists of the following sequential steps:
One hallmark of determining vertebral subluxation complex for the chiropractic profession has been ranges of motion of individual motor units. Both hypo- and hypermobility have been clinically associated with muscle spasticity and have offered a piece of clinical history in the practice setting. NOTE: Ranges of motion, like any other findings, are no more than pieces of evidence, all of which must clinically correlate.
Radziminska, Weber-Rajek, Srączyńska and Zukow (2017) reported:
The definition of the neutral zone explains that it as a small range of motion near the zero position of the joint, where no proprioreceptors are stimulated around the joint and osteoligamentous resistance is minimal (lack of centripetal response and, consequently, lack of central muscle stimulation).
Increasing the range of motion of the neutral zone is detrimental to the joint - it can lead to its damage. Delayed proprioceptive information about the current joint position that reaches the central system will give a muscle tone response, but it may turn out to be incompatible with external force acting on the joint. The reduced range of motion of the neutral zone is also unfavorable. If the stimulation of proprioreceptors is too early it will result in an increased muscle tension around the joint. The neutral zone is disturbed by traumas, degenerative processes, and muscle stabilization weakness. (p. 72)
With VSC, the joint that has been misplaced creates abnormal biomechanics and abnormal pressure to the joint. This is called Wolff’s Law, formulated and accepted since the 1800’s, and is explained by Kohata, Itoha, Horiuchia, Yoshiokab and Yamashita (2017):
When mechanical stress is impressed upon bone, an electrical potential is induced; the area of bone under compression develops negative potential, whereas that under tension develops positive potential. This phenomenon is generated by collagen piezoelectricity, and the electrical potential generated in bone by collagen displacement has been well documented. (p. 65)
CONCLUSION
VSC is based upon both the macro- and microtrauma induced motor unit pathology, creating interarticular meniscoid nociceptor entrapment that triggers nociceptors and affects the lateral horn for a local reflex. It then innervates the thalamus through the spinothalamic tracts and periaqueductal grey matter which is then further distributed to various cortical regions to process in the body’s attempt to compensate biomechanically. This, coupled with aberrant motor unit ranges of motion (hypo or hyper), subfailure injuries to the ligaments and the corrupted mechanoreceptors and nociceptor messages that innervate the lateral horn cause a “negative neurological cascade” both reflexively at the cord and the brain. This cascade can cause pain and inflammation and will cause premature degeneration if left uncorrected based upon Wolff’s Law because of improper motor unit biomechanical failure. Should the correction be made after remodelling of the vertebrate, then care changes from corrective to management as the spine can never be perfectly biomechanically balanced as the segments (building blocks for homeostasis) have been permanently remodelled.
The research for VSC exists in its components. However, there needs to be a concise research program that combines all the pieces to further conclude the evidence that exists. Furthermore, we need more conclusive answers as to why chiropractic patients get well, answers that goes beyond pain or aberrant curves.
References
1. Murphy, D. R., Justice, B. D., Paskowski, I. C., Perle, S. M., & Schneider, M. J. (2011). The establishment of a primary spine care practitioner and its benefits to health care reform in the United States. Chiropractic & manual therapies, 19(1), 17.
2. FinanceRef Inflation Calendar, Alioth Finance. (2017). $14,000,000,000 in 2004 → 2017 | Inflation Calculator. Retrieved from http://www.in2013dollars.com/2004-dollars-in-2017?amount=14000000000
3. Cifuentes, M., Willets, J., & Wasiak, R. (2011). Health maintenance care in work-related low back pain and its association with disability recurrence. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 53(4), 396-404.
4. Blanchette, M. A., Rivard, M., Dionne, C. E., Hogg-Johnson, S., & Steenstra, I. (2017). Association between the type of first healthcare provider and the duration of financial compensation for occupational back pain. Journal of occupational rehabilitation, 27(3), 382-392.
5. Keating, J. C., Charlton, K. H., Grod, J. P., Perle, S. M., Sikorski, D., & Winterstein, J. F. (2005). Subluxation: Dogma or science? Chiropractic & Osteopathy, 13(1), 17.
6. Panjabi, M. M. (2006). A hypothesis of chronic back pain: Ligament subfailure injuries lead to muscle control dysfunction. European Spine Journal, 15(5), 668-676.
7. Panjabi, M. M. (1992). The stabilizing system of the spine. Part II. Neutral zone and instability hypothesis. Journal of Spinal Disorders, 5, 390-397
8. Panjabi, M. M. (2003). Clinical spinal instability and low back pain. Journal of Electromyography and Kinesiology, 13(4), 371-379.
9. Farrell, S. F., Osmotherly, P. G., Cornwall, J., Sterling, M., & Rivett, D. A. (2017). Cervical spine meniscoids: an update on their morphological characteristics and potential clinical significance. European Spine Journal, (26) 939-947
10. Evans, D. W. (2002). Mechanisms and effects of spinal high-velocity, low-amplitude thrust manipulation: Previous theories. Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics, 25(4), 251-262.
11. Radziminska, A., Weber-Rajek, M., Strączyńska, A., & Zukow, W. (2017). The stabilizing system of the spine. Journal of Education, Health and Sport, 7(11), 67-76.
12. Kohata, K., Itoh, S., Horiuchi, N., Yoshioka, T., & Yamashita, K. (2017). Influences of osteoarthritis and osteoporosis on the electrical properties of human bones as in vivo electrets produced due to Wolff's law. Bio-Medical Materials and Engineering, 28(1), 65-74.
Efficacy and Adverse Effects of Chiropractic Treatment for Migraines
By Mark Studin
William J. Owens
A report on the scientific literature
When considering care for migraines, there are a myriad of considerations; efficacy of treatment, costs to sufferers and insurers and the socioeconomic impact to individuals, business and families of those who suffer. When considering there are co-morbidities that must be considered in the quest for a “best-outcome,” avoiding any potential side effects, both with pharmacological and non-pharmacological care paths are critical. Chaibi, Benth, Tuchin and Bjorn (2017) reported “Manual-therapy [chiropractic spinal adjustments] is a non-pharmacological prophylactic treatment option that appears to have a similar effect as the drug topiramate on migraine frequency, migraine duration, migraine intensity and medicine consumption.” (pg. 66) Although previous reports indicate that chiropractic was upwards of 57% more effective (see ensuing comments), for this report, we are going to focus on the side effects of treatment, as efficacy has already been established.
Studin and Owens (2011) reported, “Nelson, Suter, Casha, du Plessis and Hurlbert (1998) reported on randomized clinical trials that took place over an 8-week course. The results showed there was minor statistical differences in outcomes for improvement during the trial period for chiropractic care and for amatriptyline and over-the-counter medications for treating migraine headaches. It was also reported that there was no statistical benefit in combining therapies. However, the major factor is that in the post-treatment follow-up period, chiropractic was 57% more effective in the reduction of headaches than drug therapy. In addition, it was reported that, with the drug group, "...58% experienced medication side effects important enough to report them. In the amatriptyline group, 10% of the subjects had to withdraw from the study because of intolerable side effects. Side effects in the SMT (Spinal Manipulative Therapy) group were much more benign, infrequent, mild and transitory. None required withdrawal from the study (Nelson et al., 1998, p. 511).
Using the 57% increased effectiveness that chiropractic has over drug therapy (leaving out the overlap that chiropractic could help without drugs) and the $24,000,000,000 ($24 billion) Americans pay for headaches and migraines, the savings would result in $13,680,000,000. back in the insurers, the public's and the government's pockets. In addition, if chiropractic reduced the necessity for emergency room visits by 57%, then the ED doctors could focus on what their primary purpose is, to save lives in urgent scenarios.”
Retrieved from: http://www.uschirodirectory.com/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=533:headaches-and-migraines-chiropractic-saves-federal-and-private-insurers-13-680-000-000-and-resolves-many-issues-facing-emergency-rooms-today&Itemid=320
Studin and Owens (2011) also reported, “Bryans, et. al. (2011) confirmed Nelson's findings and reported that spinal manipulation (adjusting) is recommended for patients with episodic or chronic migraines with or without aura and patients with cervicogenic headaches. This follow-up study is not a comparison or comment on the use of drugs. It simply demonstrates that chiropractic is a viable solution for many and can save the government and private industry billions in expenditures both in health care coverage, loss of productivity and avoidance of absenteeism in industry creating a new level of cost as sequella to headaches.” Retrieved from: http://www.uschirodirectory.com/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=533:headaches-and-migraines-chiropractic-saves-federal-and-private-insurers-13-680-000-000-and-resolves-many-issues-facing-emergency-rooms-today&Itemid=320
Chaibi, Benth, Tuchin and Bjorn (2017) reported,“The results of the current study and previous CSMT (chiropractic spinal manipulative therapy) studies suggest that AEs are usually mild and transient, and severe and serious AEs (adverse effects) are rare (Tuchin, 2012; Cassidy et al., 2008, 2016). These findings are in accordance with the World Health Organization guidelines on basic training and safety in CSMT, which has considered it to be an efficient and safe treatment modality (WHO, 2005). AEs in migraine prophylactic pharmacological RCTs (random control trials) are common (Jackson et al., 2015). The risk for AEs during manual-therapy appears also, to be substantially lower than the risk accepted in any medical context for both acute and prophylactic migraine medication (Jackson et al., 2015; Ferrari et al., 2001). Non-pharmacological management also has the advantage of no pharmacological interactions/AEs because such therapies are usually mild and have a transient characteristic, whereas pharmacological AEs tend to be continuous.” (pg. 70)
Mackenzie, Phillips, and Lurie (2015) reported on the safety in general for chiropractic patients and based their study on 6,669,603 subjects and after the unqualified subjects had been removed from the study, the total patient number accounted for 24,068,808 office visits. They concluded, “No mechanism by which SM [spinal manipulation] induces injury into normal healthy tissues has been identified”(Whedon et al., 2015, p. 5). This study supersedes all the rhetoric about chiropractic and stroke and renders an outcome assessment to help guide the triage pattern of mechanical spine patients.
When considering the outcomes for chiropractic care vs. drug therapy and the safety for migraine sufferers and all other types of chiropractic patients in a large population study, chiropractic should be considered the first option for both referrals from medical primary care providers and the first treatment option for the public. This validates the common-sense approach to healthcare of “drugless first, drugs second and surgery last.” Too often, society for issues that are not germane to this argument, rely on dogma for healthcare solutions often a large risk to themselves and the results affect the entire socio-economics of that person’s life.
References:
Chiropractic Improves Neck Pain in a Military Veteran Population & Lowers the Need for Opiates
By Mark Studin
William Owens
A Report on the Scientific Literature
According to the American Academy of Pain Medicine, neck pain accounts for 15% of commonly reported pain conditions. Sinnott, Dally, Trafton, Goulet and Wagner (2017) reported:
Neck and back pain problems are pervasive and associated with chronic pain, disability and high healthcare utilization. Among adults 60% to 80% will experience back pain and 20% to 70% will experience neck pain that interferes with their daily activities during their lifetime. At any given time, 15% to 20% of adults will report having back pain and 10% to 20% will report neck pain symptoms. The vast majority of back and neck pain complaints are characterized in the literature as non-specific and self-limiting.” (pg. 1)
The last sentence above describes why back and neck pain has contributed significantly to the opioid crisis and why our population, after decades still suffers from back and neck problems that have perpetuated. Mechanical lesions of the spine are not “self-limiting” and are not “non-specific.” They are well-defined and based upon Wolff’s Law (known since the 1800’s) don’t go away. Allopathy (Medicine) has purely focused on the pain and has vastly ignored the underlying cause of the neuro-bio-mechanical cause of the pain.
Corcoran, Dunn, Green, Formolo and Beehler (2018) reported that musculoskeletal problems as the leading cause of morbidity for female veterans and females are more prone to experience neck pain than men. In addition, there has been a 400% increase in opioid overdoes deaths in females since 1999 compared to 265% for men and as a result, the Veterans Health Administration has utilized chiropractic as a non-pharmacological treatment option for musculoskeletal pain. Neck pain has also comprised of 24.3% of musculoskeletal complaints referred to chiropractors.
Corcoran et. Al. also reported with chiropractic care, based upon a numeric rating scale (NRS) and the Neck Bournemouth Questionnaire (NBQ) scores, the NRS improved by 45% and the NBQ improved by 38%, with approximately 65% exceeding the minimum clinically important difference of 30%. A previous study of male veterans revealed a 42.9% for NSC and a 33.1 improvement for NBQ; statistics similar to female veterans.
Although this is a very positive outcome that has helped many veterans, the percentages do not reflect what the authors have found in their clinical practices. These authors of this article (Studin and Owens) reported that for decades, cervical pain has been eradicated in 90 and 95% of the cases treated in our practices. The question begs itself, why is the population of veterans showing statistics less than half?
Corcoran, et. Al. (2018) reported how the chiropractic treatment was delivered in their study:
The type of manual therapy varied among patients and among visits, but typically included spinal manipulative therapy (SMT), spinal mobilization, flexion – distraction therapy, and or myofascial release. SMT was operatively defined as a manipulative procedure involving the application of a high - velocity, low – ample to thrust the cervical spine. Spinal mobilization was defined as a form of manually assisted passive motion involving repetitive joint oscillations typically at the end of joint playing without application of a high- velocity, low – ample to thrust. Flexion – distraction therapy is a gentle form of a loaded spinal manipulation involving traction components along with manual pressure applied to the neck in a prone position. Myofascial release was defined as manual pressure applied to various muscles on the static state or all undergoing passive lengthening.
The above paragraph explains why the possible disparity in outcomes as Corcoran et. Al do not reflect the ratios of who received high-velocity low-amplitude chiropractic spinal adjustment vs. the other therapies. When considering the other modalities; mobilization, flexion distraction therapy and myofascial release we must equate that to the outcomes physical therapist realize when treating spine as those are their primary reported treatment modalities. The following paragraphs indicate why spine care delivered by physical therapist is inferior to a chiropractic spinal adjustment, which equates to only a portion of the referenced chiropractic treatment modalities cited in the Corcoran Et. Al. The following citations conclude why these modalities provide inferior results compared to the high-velocity, low-amplitude chiropractic spinal adjustment that was exclusively used by the authors and rendered significantly higher positive outcome.
Studin and Owens (2017) reported the following:
Groeneweg et al. (2017) also stated:
This pragmatic RCT [randomized control trial] in 181 patients with non-specific neck pain (>2 weeks and <1 year) found no statistically significant overall differences in primary and secondary outcomes between the MTU (manual Therapy University) group and PT group. The results at 7 weeks and 1 year showed no statistically and clinically significant differences. The assumption was that MTU was more effective based on the theoretical principles of mobilization of the chain of skeletal and movement-related joint functions of the spine, pelvis and extremities, and preferred movement pattern in the execution of a task or action by an individual, but that was not confirmed compared with standard care (PT). (pg. 8)
Mafi, McCarthy and Davis (2013) reported on medical and physical therapy back pain treatment from 1999 through 2010 representing 440,000,000 visits and revealed an increase of opiates from 19% to 29% for low back pain with the continued referral to physical therapy remaining constant. In addition, the costs for managing low back pain patients (not correcting anything, just managing it) has reached $106,000,000,000 ($86,000,000,000 in health care costs and $20,000,000,000 in lost productivity).
Cifuentes et al. (2011) started by stating:
Given that chiropractors are proponents of health maintenance care...patients with work-related LBP [low back pain] who are treated by chiropractors would have a lower risk of recurrent disability because that specific approach would be used. (p. 396). The authors concluded by stating: “After controlling for demographic factors and multiple severity indicators, patients suffering nonspecific work-related LBP who received health services mostly or only from a chiropractor had a lower risk of recurrent disability than the risk of any other provider type” (Cifuentes et al., 2011, p. 404).
Mafi, McCarthy and Davis (2013) stated:
Moreover, spending for these conditions has increased more rapidly than overall health expenditures from 1997 to 2005...In this context, we used nationally representative data on outpatient visits to physicians to evaluate trends in use of diagnostic imaging, physical therapy, referrals to other physicians, and use of medications during the 12-year period from January 1, 1999, through December 26, 2010. We hypothesized that with the additional guidelines released during this period, use of recommended treatments would increase and use of non-recommended treatments would decrease. (p. 1574)
(http://www.uschirodirectory.com/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=822:the-mechanism-of-the-chiropractic-spinal-adjustment-manipulation-chiropractic-vs-physical-therapy-for-spine-part-5-of-a-5-part-series&Itemid=320)
The above paragraph has accurately described the problem with allopathic “politics” and “care-paths who have continued to report medical “dogma” and have ignored the scientific literature results of chiropractic vs. physical therapy.
Mafi, McCarthy and Davis (2013) concluded:
Despite self-reported overwhelming evidence where there were 440,000,000 visits and $106,000,000,000 in failed expenditures, they hypothesized that increased utilization for recommended treatment would increase. The recommended treatment, as outlined in the opening two comments of this article, doesn’t work and physical therapy is a constant verifying a “perpetually failed pathway” for mechanical spine pain. (p. 1574)
(http://www.uschirodirectory.com/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=822:the-mechanism-of-the-chiropractic-spinal-adjustment-manipulation-chiropractic-vs-physical-therapy-for-spine-part-5-of-a-5-part-series&Itemid=320)
Despite the disparity in statistics, the literature is clear chiropractic renders successful out comes for both male and females, and the spine is not discriminatory for veterans versus non-veterans and offers a successful solution in lieu of the utilization of opiates for musculoskeletal spinal issues. In addition, the labels “non-specific” and “self – limiting” are inaccurate and have been placed by providers with no training in the biomechanics of spine care. Chiropractors has been trained in spinal biomechanics for over 100 years and currently there are advanced courses in spinal biomechanical engineering, of which many chiropractors have concluded.
References:
Chiropractic Reduces Opioid Use by 55% in Low Back Pain
By Mark Studin
William J. Owens
A report on the scientific literature
In the United States, of the adults who were prescribed opioids, 59% reported back pain.1 According to Statistia, the percentage of adults in the United States in 2015 with low back pain was 29.1% (https://www.statista.com/statistics/684597/adults-prone-to-selected-symptoms-us/) and in 2017 that number was 49% for all back-pain sufferers reporting symptoms (https://www.statista.com/statistics/188852/adults-in-the-us-with-low-back-pain-since-1997/).
Peterson ET. AL. (2012) reported:
[The] Prevalence of low back pain is stated to be between 15% and 30%, the 1-year period prevalence between 15% and 45%, and a life-time prevalence of 50% to 80%” (pg. 525).
While acute pain is a normal (author’s note: pain is never normal) short-lived unpleasant sensation triggered in the nervous system to alert you to possible injury with a reflexive desire to avoid additional injury, chronic pain is different. Chronic pain persists and fundamentally changes the patient’s interaction with their environment. In chronic pain it is well documented that aberrant signals keep firing in the nervous system for weeks, months, even years. (http://www.ninds.nih.gov/disorders/chronic_pain/chronic_pain.htm)
Baliki Et. AL. (2008) stated
Pain is considered chronic when it lasts longer than 6 months after the healing of the original injury. Chronic pain patients suffer from more than pain, they experience depression, anxiety, sleep disturbances and decision-making abnormalities that also significantly diminish their quality of life (pg. 1398).
Chronic pain patients also have shown to have changes in brain function in sufferers with Alzheimer’ disease, depression, schizophrenia and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder giving further insight into disease states. In addition, chronic pain has a cause and effect on the morphology of the spinal cord and the brain resulting in a process termed “linear shrinkage”, which has been suggested to cause ancillary negative neurological sequella.
Apkarian Et. Al. (2004) reported that “Ten percent of adults suffer from severe chronic pain. Back problems constitute 25% of all disabling occupational injuries and are the fifth most common reason for visits to the clinic; in 85% of such conditions, no definitive diagnosis can be made.” (pg. 10410)
Whedon, Toler, Goel and Kazal (2018) reported the following:
One in 5 patients with noncancer pain or pain related diagnosis is prescribed opioids in office-based setting… primary care clinicians account for 50% of opioid prescriptions (Pg. 1). 1 day of opioid exposure carries a 6% chance of being on opioids 1year later, increasing to 13.5% by 8 days and 29.9% by 31 days. Among drug overdoses in the United States in 2014, 28,647, 61% involved an opioid. Opioids were involved in 75% of pharmaceutical deaths in 2010 and in 2015 over 22,000 deaths involved in prescription opioids were recorded-an increase of 19,000 deaths over the previous year (pg. 2).
Perhaps a portion of this phenomena is related to the training of medical primary care providers regarding musculoskeletal conditions. Studin and Owens reported (2016):
Day Et. Al. (2007) reported that only 26% of fourth year Harvard medical students had a cognitive mastery of physical medicine (pg. 452). Schmale (2005) reported “Incoming interns at the University of Pennsylvania took an exam of musculoskeletal aptitude and competence, which was validated by a survey of more than 100 orthopaedic program chairpersons across the country. Eighty-two percent of students tested failed to show basic competency. Perhaps the poor knowledge base resulted from inadequate and disproportionately low numbers of hours devoted to musculoskeletal medicine education during the undergraduate medical school years. Less than 1⁄2 of 122 US medical schools require a preclinical course in musculoskeletal medicine, less than 1⁄4 require a clinical course, and nearly 1⁄2 have no required preclinical or clinical course. In Canadian medical schools, just more than 2% of curricular time is spent on musculoskeletal medicine, despite the fact that approximately 20% of primary care practice is devoted to the care of patients with musculoskeletal problems. Various authors have described shortcomings in medical student training in fracture care, arthritis and rheumatology, and basic physical examination of the musculoskeletal system (pg. 251).
With continued evidence of lack of musculoskeletal medicine and a subsequent deficiency of training in spine care, particularly of biomechanical orientation, the question becomes which profession has the educational basis, training and clinical competence to manage these cases? Let’s take a closer look at chiropractic education as a comparison. Fundamental to the training of Doctor of Chiropractic according to the American Chiropractic Association is 4,820 hours (compared to 3,398 for physical therapy and 4,670 to medicine) and receive a thorough knowledge of anatomy and physiology. As a result, all accredited Doctor of Chiropractic degree programs focus a significant amount of time in their curricula on these basic science courses. So important to practice are these courses that the Council on Chiropractic Education, the federally recognized accrediting agency for chiropractic education requires a curriculum which enables students to be “proficient in neuromusculoskeletal evaluation, treatment and management.” In addition to multiple courses in anatomy and physiology, the typical curriculum in chiropractic education includes physical diagnosis, spinal analysis, biomechanics, orthopedics and neurology. As a result, students are afforded the opportunity to practice utilizing this basic science information for many hours prior to beginning clinical services in their internship.
Whedon, Toler, Goel and Kazal (2018) continued:
Recently published clinical guidelines from the American College of Physicians recommended nonpharmacological treatment is the first – line approach to treating back pain, with consideration of opioids only is the last treatment option or if other options present substantial harm to the patient. Recent systematic review and meta-analysis found that for treatment of acute low back pain, spinal manipulation provides a clinical benefit equivalent to that of an NSAID’s, with no evidence of serious harm. Spinal manipulation is also shown to be an effective treatment option for chronic low back pain (pg. 2).
A retrospective claims study of 165,569 adults found that utilization of chiropractic services delivered by Doctor of Chiropractic was associated with reduced use of opioids. More recently, it was reported that the supply chiropractors as well as spending on spinal manipulative therapy is inversely correlated with opioid prescriptions in younger Medicare beneficiaries. This finding suggests that increased availability and utilization of services delivered by Doctor of Chiropractic could lead to reductions in opioid prescriptions. It has been reported that services delivered by Doctor of Chiropractic may improve health behaviors and reduced use of prescription drugs… Pain management services provided by Doctor of Chiropractic may allow patients use lower less frequent doses of opioids, leading to lower costs and reduce risk of adverse effects loops getting together (pg. 2).
Although chiropractic has been clinically reporting for over 100 years positive outcomes for a vast array of conditions inclusive of low back pain the American Medical Association (AMA) has been a significant opponent historically. Although the AMA’s position has been well chronicled through lawsuits such as Wilk v. American Medical Association, 895 F.2d 352 (7th Cir. 1990)
(https://openjurist.org/895/f2d/352/wilk-dc-dc-dc-dc-v-american-medical-association-a-wilk-dc-w-dc-b-dc-b-dc), in 2017 it appears they have reversed their position. In the August 2017 Journal of the American Medical Association’s “Clinical Guideline Synopsis for Treatment of Low Back Pain” under the heading MAJOR RECOMMENDATIONS, spinal manipulation is recommended as a first – line therapy, with a strong recommendation. As the AMA did not list Chiropractic specifically and based upon clinical guidelines of other highly regarded medical institutions such as the Cleveland Clinic and the Mayo Clinic, physical therapy is probably high on their list as first-line of referral for spinal manipulation (This is a topic for another article and nomenclature utilized by chiropractic). When considering the treatment of mechanical spine issues comparatively between chiropractic and physical therapy the outcomes are overwhelmingly in chiropractic’s favor as reported by Studin and Owens (2017)
Mafi, McCarthy and Davis (2013) reported on medical and physical therapy back pain treatment from 1999 through 2010 representing 440,000,000 visits and revealed an increase of opiates from 19% to 29% for low back pain with the continued referral to physical therapy remaining constant. In addition, the costs for managing low back pain patients (not correcting anything, just managing it) has reached $106,000,000,000 ($86,000,000,000 in health care costs and $20,000,000,000 in lost productivity).
Mafi, McCarthy and Davis (2013) stated:
Moreover, spending for these conditions has increased more rapidly than overall health expenditures from 1997 to 2005...In this context, we used nationally representative data on outpatient visits to physicians to evaluate trends in use of diagnostic imaging, physical therapy, referrals to other physicians, and use of medications during the 12-year period from January 1, 1999, through December 26, 2010. We hypothesized that with the additional guidelines released during this period, use of recommended treatments would increase and use of non-recommended treatments would decrease. (p. 1574)
The above paragraph has accurately described the problem with allopathic “politics” and “care-paths.” Despite self-reported overwhelming evidence of chiropractic vs. physical therapy outcomes for spine, where there were 440,000,000 visits and $106,000,000,000 in failed expenditures, they hypothesized that increased utilization for recommended treatment would increase. The recommended treatment, as outlined in the opening two comments of this article, doesn’t work and physical therapy is a constant verifying a “perpetually failed pathway” for mechanical spine pain.
http://uschiropracticdirectory.com/index.php?option.com_k2&view=item&id=822:the-mechanism-of-the-chiropractic-spinal-adjustment-manipulation-chiropractic-vs-physical-therapy-for-spine-part-5-of-a-5-part-series&Itemid=320
Whedon, Toler, Goel and Kazal (2018) reported the concluded:
In 2013, average annual charges per person for filling opioid prescriptions were 74% lower among recipients compared with non-recipients (author’s note: recipients are referring to those patients receiving chiropractic care). For clinical services provided at office visits for low back pain, average annual charges per person in 2013 were 78% lower among recipients compared with non-recipients. The authors have similar between – Cohort differences in charges in 2014: annual charges per person were 70% lower with opioid prescriptions and 71% lower for clinical services among recipients compared with nonrecipients. The Adjusted likelihood find prescription for the opiate analgesic in 2014 was 55% lower among recipients compared with nonrecipients.
…the Adjusted likelihood of filling a prescription opioid analgesic was 55% lower for recipients of services provided by Doctor of Chiropractic compared with non-recipients (pg. 4)
The above reports evidenced based outcomes verifying chiropractic must be considered as the first-line of referrals, or Primary Spine Care Providers for mechanical spine diagnosis (no fracture, tumor or infection). The evidence also reveals that chiropractic outcomes exceed those of physical therapy and medicine for mechanical spine diagnosis. Unfortunately, it has taken 10,000’s of opioid related deaths to bring chiropractic to the forefront and start to eradicate the medical dogma against chiropractic and consider chiropractic as the 1st referral option for spine.
References:
Chiropractic and Prescriptive Rights
Should Chiropractors Be Allowed to Prescribe Drugs?
By Mark Studin DC, FASBE(C), DAAPM, DAAMLP
Citation: Studin M. (2018) Chiropractic and Prescriptive Rights; Should Chiropractors be Allowed to Prescribe Drugs? American Chiropractor, 40 (3) 16, 17, 18, 19
As the rhetoric and legislative agendas escalate nationally on chiropractic and pharmaceutical prescriptive rights, as a profession, we need to take pause and consider the long-term effects of our actions. The question is, “Are we responsibly evolving or are we creating a problem that could put chiropractic back decades in utilization?” Please understand that this argument is totally devoid of any philosophy or beliefs in chiropractic principles or results; it is purely focused on increasing the utilization and business of every chiropractic practice in the country for the betterment of our patients.
Based upon an informal, but lengthy poll of many in our profession, one of the core reasons for wanting to add prescriptive rights is to help increase utilization at the practice level. The majority believe that if we could prescribe even non-narcotics, then patients would stay in our offices vs. seeking medical care for pain relief and a pro forma prescription to physical therapy with a resultant decrease in utilization of our offices. Unfortunately, that has been the national trend for far too long.
The question begs, “Are prescriptive rights the solution for both the chiropractic profession and our society? Over the last decade, I have been focused on increasing the level of clinical excellence of the practicing chiropractor, which has nothing to do with technique, philosophy or documentation. The level of clinical excellence has been centered on patient management, including accurately diagnosing, prognosing and triaging patients. The reason, medicine focuses on patient diagnosis and management and chiropractic has historically focused on treatment, too often bypassing rendering a thorough and conclusive diagnosis prior to rendering care. Therefore, my areas of focus are MRI spine interpretation, spinal biomechanical engineering, accident engineering, spinal trauma pathology and diagnosing spinal issues beyond subluxation.
Why concern ourselves with the medical community? The answer, quite simply, is that medical utilization is over 95% nationally and chiropractic is well below 10% and has been eroding steadily over the last decade. IF chiropractic can “tap” into that 95% and have every medical doctor in the nation consider chiropractic as the first choice for mechanical spine issues (excluding fracture tumor or infection), then we will rapidly change the culture of our society and resolve our utilization challenges rapidly. This is called “primary spine care.”
Over the last 10 years, I have been teaching in both chiropractic and medical academia and have cooperatively created courses in chiropractic in the above genres. As a result, the doctors who have taken these courses are getting the exact same level of education as many of our medical counterparts. The results, we are now functioning at a “peer” level that has garnered respect NOT because we get people well without drugs. That respect is because we understand spine at an extremely high level, often more so than our medical counterparts and they find themselves consulting with us on many of their more challenging cases looking for solutions. In turn, they also have been referring us many of their mechanical spine cases to manage because many medical doctors realize they are poorly equipped with nothing but drugs that are often too often addictive or end up with surgery as the only other option.
The primary care medical providers, medical specialists and emergency rooms that we work with nationally have expressed their gratitude for helping these patients by redirecting their care to the properly credentialed chiropractor and preventing further opiate abuse and/or the side effects of non-narcotics as well. The way they thank us is in the form of a perpetual streams of referrals. A case in point was in Cedar Park, Texas, where one of our doctors, 8 years into practice, sat with an orthopedic surgeon and discussed MRI spine interpretation. After a 1-hour conversation, the surgeon said to the doctor, “I love chiropractic; I just couldn’t find a smart enough chiropractor to trust with my referrals until now. Your knowledge of spine and MRI is equal to mine and from here forward, you will get all of my non-surgical referrals!” That doctor left with 8 referrals instantly and 1 year later has had a steady stem of referrals . I could share similar stories from Dayton, Ohio, Buffalo, New York, America Fork, Utah, Denver, Colorado, Fair Lawn, New Jersey and dozens of other locations across the United States. The formula is working; it is reproducible and is purely based upon clinical excellence beyond adjusting!
As a note, many get angry with our chiropractic colleges for not teaching us enough…Remember, our chiropractic colleges are charged with giving us the basics to get started and they do an outstanding job in that role. I applaud them and so should you in the form of donations to their research departments. In medicine, it is no different, they get a basic education and THEN go back to school to become specialized. What you do with YOUR career after graduation is on YOU.
We now have hospital emergency departments nationally reaching out to our doctors purely based upon their curricula vitae’s (CVs) because the doctors in our program are trained in what needs to be on their CVs with the resultant knowledge base behind those credentials. AND…for clarity (unlike my former beliefs), letters after your DC are not as important as the specific citations or credentials in your CV.
Utilization
Having been involved politically at the national and state levels for quite some time, I can say with a great degree of certainty that very little healthcare legislation (chiropractic falls under this category) in this country at either level gets passed without the blessing of the medical community. By attempting to add prescriptive rights to our scope, we will be threatening the utilization of medicine on a national scale and it will potentially close many of those doors that are currently opening at a rapid rate. The medical schools and research departments that have opened their doors to chiropractic (us) have done so primarily as a possible solution to the opiate epidemic in our country and we cannot be “Pollyannaish” and say we only want to prescribe non-narcotics. It has been clearly documented that this is a well-established “gateway” to addictive narcotics as when non-narcotics fail to offer relief, those patients need something else. Chiropractic care is that “something else” for mechanical spine pain, which is in the top 10 diagnoses for both emergency rooms and primary care medical providers who often have no solution other than drugs or surgery. Medicine’s only other historical care path with regards to mechanical spine diagnosis and management is physical therapy, which renders significantly inferior outcomes for spine vs. chiropractic based upon recent literature (a topic for another article) and one where far too many patients have ended up in pain management (narcotics) as the final solution.
Currently, our profession is at a cross-road on the prescriptive rights issue and if taken, could turn out to be a “very slippery slope” that could further erode our utilization and lead to increased iatrogenic issues in our society. I empathize with those doctors clinging to hope for a “quick fix” for their individual practices. However, as outlined above, there are viable solutions for every practice in the nation with none involving “get rich quick” paradigms. As I also consult many medical providers at various levels and I can report that their prescription pads are not making them wealthy, should they practice ethically. Their utilization and income increases as they get better at what they do and in chiropractic, we are no different.
Although our paradigm for increased utilization is working through increasing our clinical excellence, we are just starting to see this happen on a larger scale and the only way to have that upward spiral go faster, is if more chiropractors realize that the only way up is though academia and a strategic plan behind your new level of clinical excellence. So please hurry because your local medical community is waiting for you with that 95% to refer.
Should Chiropractic Follow the
American Chiropractic Association
/ American Board of Internal Medicine’s
Recommendations on X-Ray?
By Mark Studin
William J. Owens
In reviewing the American Chiropractic Associations’ (ACA) position on x-ray and adopting the posture of the American Board of Internal Medicine’s (ABIM) initiative, “Choosing Wisely,” regarding x-ray, we must consider both the far-reaching effects of those recommendations as well as the education of the originators of the recommendations. In addition, the ACA in their 2017 published article Five Things Clinicians and Patients Should Question, they state, “The recommendations are not intended to prohibit any particular treatment in all scenarios or to dictate care decisions. They are also not intended to establish coverage decisions or exclusions” (https://www.acatoday.org/Patients-Choosing-Wisely?utm_campaign=sniply).
The ACA, a highly-regarded chiropractic political organization that has done a great deal in advancing the profession, is adopting the ABIM’s current position and regardless of the wording of the policy which, in the form of a disclaimer, is opining and setting precedent that can be used against individual practitioners or the entire profession. Granted, the underlying tone is to prevent unnecessary exposure to ionizing radiation, but at what cost to patient care?
The scientific evidence has shown, and continues to show, chiropractic as being highly effective for managing and treating non-specific or mechanical spine pain. 2-3-4-5-6-7 In this article, we are only considering acute low back pain treatment to meet the scope of the ACA/ABIM policy and are therefore excluding all other conditions treated within the lawful scope of chiropractic. Mechanical spine pain, pain of non-anatomical origin, is defined as spine pain not originating from fracture, tumor, infection or specifically co-related to an anatomical lesion such as degenerative intervertebral disc disease, intervertebral disc bulge or intervertebral disc herniation. The ACA/ABIM states in the absence of “red flags,” imaging should not be considered for at least 6 weeks of care. Some of these “red flags” are clearly present on physical examination, others may not reveal themselves without radiographic evidence.
The definition of red flags by the American Chiropractic Association (2017):
Red flags include history of cancer, fracture or suspected fracture based on clinical history, progressive neurologic symptoms and infection, as well as conditions that potentially preclude a dynamic thrust to the spine, such as osteopenia, osteoporosis, axial spondyloarthritis and tumors. (https://www.acatoday.org/Patients-Choosing-Wisely?utm_campaign=sniply)
When considering the training of internal medicine physicians, we recognize they are focused on the diagnosis and management of systemic disease. However, when considering musculoskeletal diagnosis, basic medical training for internal medicine residency is quite the opposite. Although it is understandable given the current climate of spine pain management in the United States that the American Board of Internal Medicine would take a stance on spine care, I would consider the opinion of an internal medicine board valuable, but less authoritative than a board comprised of practicing spine specialists that is trained in the diagnosis and management of mechanical spine pain with specific treatment designed to deliver high velocity-low amplitude thrusts (chiropractic spinal adjustments). Interestingly, in this specific case, we have a chiropractic political organization agreeing with a medical board that is specifically trained on the diagnosis of internal medicine disorders with little or no training on the management of acute spine pain.
In an article written by Humphreys, Sulkowski, McIntyre, Kasiban, and Patrick (2007), they stated:
In the United States, approximately 10% to 25% of all visits to primary care medical doctors are for MSK [musculoskeletal] complaints, making it one of the most common reasons for consulting a physician...Specifically, it has been estimated that less than 5% of the undergraduate and graduate medical curriculum in the United States and 2.26% in Canadian medical schools is devoted to MSK medicine. (p. 44)
It should be noted that primary care medical doctors are not spine specialists and are generally comprised of family or internal medicine physicians. Medical school is lacking in musculoskeletal education, particularly in spine. Graduate level medical education including residency and fellowship training, only provides spine specialty training in those boards that are focused on spine care, namely orthopedic surgery and neurosurgery. It should also be noted that both orthopedic and neurosurgery disciplines are focused on the anatomical lesion in the spine as a primary method of determining the medical necessity of intervention.
Research has shown musculoskeletal complaints have a major impact on the healthcare system. Many patients believe that traditional medical providers are highly trained in diagnosis and management of musculoskeletal conditions and trust the referrals they provide to physical therapy as the best care path. A recent publication relating to basic competency have shown otherwise.
Humphreys et al. (2007) state:
A study by Childs et al on the physical therapists’ knowledge in managing MSK conditions found that only 21% of students working on their master’s degree in physical therapy and 25% of students working on their doctorate degree in physical therapy achieved a passing mark on the BCE [Basic Competency Examination]. (p. 45)
Humphreys et al. (2007) continued by reporting a comparative analysis:
The typical chiropractic curriculum consists of 4800 hours of education composed of courses in the biological sciences (i.e., anatomy, embryology, histology, microbiology, pathology, laboratory diagnosis, biochemistry, nutrition, and psychology), chiropractic sciences, and clinical sciences (i.e., clinical diagnosis, neurodiagnosis, orthorheumatology, radiology, and psychology). As the diagnosis, treatment, and management of MSK [musculoskeletal] disorders are the primary focus of the undergraduate curriculum as well as future clinical practice, it seems logical that chiropractic graduates should possess competence in basic MSK medicine. The objective of this study was to examine the cognitive (knowledge) competency of final-year chiropractic students in MSK medicine. (p. 45).
The following results were published in the article by Humphreys et al. (2007) relating to the Basic Competency Examination and evaluating the various professions that are on the “front line” in the diagnosis and treatment of musculoskeletal conditions. Passing grades were attained by 22% of recent medical graduates, 20.7% of medical students, residents, and staff physicians, 33% of osteopathic students, 21% of MSc [masters] level physical therapy students, and 26 % of DPT [doctors of physical therapy] level physical therapy and chiropractic student 64.7%…
This indicates, that unless a “boarded internist” goes back for advanced education in physical medicine, neurology, orthopedics or neurosurgery, his/her basic competency is between 20% and 33% (if a DO) at best and it is the guidelines of that profession’s board that are being adopted by the ACA. In addition, no profession, inclusive of the ACA, is discussing the difference between a diagnosis, prognosis or treatment plan for mechanical spine pain. The only discussion is related to anatomical origins and anatomical spinal pathology. They are only considering the “red flags” of non-mechanical spine pain (to the detriment of the patient with mechanical spine pain), which only drives triage to medical specialists and ignores clinically necessary treatment plans focusing on the mechanical sources of pain found within chiropractic clinics globally.
The ACA/ABIM guidelines are very specific to low back pain and refer to the “routine use of imaging,” which is understood to be x-ray as the article uses the term “ionizing imaging.” However, it is not clear if they are also including CAT scan imaging as well. What their suggested “evidence-based recommendations” omits is the diagnosis of spinal biomechanical pathology and the osseous pathology that is discovered because of a complete clinical evaluation inclusive of spinal biomechanics, which ultimately protects our patients with an accurate spinal diagnosis. That consideration is something that board certified internal medicine practitioners do not have to be concerned with as it is outside of their focus of treatment. Typically, internal medicine physicians have less chance of causing harm to their patients in the short-term with a prescription pad (drug abuse is a topic for a different conversation) vs. a high velocity-low amplitude thrust, the primary treatment modality for the doctor of chiropractic. In this specific case it is the specific type of “treatment” that requires a specific level of diagnosis to be safe.
In the process of concluding an accurate diagnosis, prognosis and treatment plan, an assessment of the structural and biomechanical integrity of the spine is integral to specific treatment recommendations and visual assessment often fails.
Fedorak, Ashworth, Marshall and Paull (2003) reported:
This study has shown that the visual assessment of cervical and lumbar lordosis is unreliable. This tool only has fair intrarater reliability and poor interrater reliability. Visual assessment of spinal posture was previously shown to be inaccurate, and this study has demonstrated that is reliability is poor. (p. 1858)
In contrast, the reliability of x-ray in morphology, measurements and biomechanics has been determined accurate and reproducible.10-11-12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19 In addition, Ohara, Miyamoto, Naganawa, Matsumoto and Shimzu (2006) reported, “Assessment of the sagittal alignment of the spine is important in both clinical and research settings… and it is known that the alignment affects the distribution of the load on the intervertebral discs” (p. 2585).
Assessment of distribution or load of spinal biomechanics, if left aberrant, will result in the initiation of the piezoelectric effect and Wolff’s Law remodeling the spine. This is the basis for the subluxation degeneration theory which historically many have scoffed at as it is not considered to be based on scientific principles. We have now verified it based upon the research, and it is now a current and verifiable event that must be taken into consideration when assigning prognosis to a biomechanically flawed spine.
A very recent and timely study by Scheer et al. (2016) takes the biomechanical assessment of the spine to an entirely different level. This concept was originally presented at the 2015 American Academy of Neurosurgery symposium.
Scheer et al. (2016) state:
Several recent studies have demonstrated that regional spinal alignment and pathology can affect other spinal regions. These studies highlight the importance of considering the entire spine when planning for the surgical correction of ASD [adult spinal deformity/scoliosis]. (p. 109)
Scheer et al. (2016) continue:
Furthermore, the cervical spine plays a pivotal role in influencing adjacent and global spinal alignment as compensatory changes occur to maintain horizontal gaze. (p. 109).
Scheer et al. (2016) also wrote:
There has been a shift from the regional view of the spine to a more global perspective, and recent work has found concomitant spinal deformities in patients. Specifically, there is a high prevalence of CD [cervical deformity/loss of cervical lordosis] among adult patients with thoracolumbar spinal deformity. (p. 109).
Finally, according to Scheer et al. (2016):
Concomitant cervical positive sagittal alignment [loss of cervical curve] in adult patients with thoracolumbar deformity is strongly associated with inferior outcomes and failure to reach MCID [minimal clinically important difference] at 2-year follow-up compared with patients without CD [cervical deformity]. (p. 114)
We are seeing that biomechanical assessment is a critical component of spine care and is a trending topic in spine research. These topics are not addressed in the Board of Internal Medicine’s opinions and should be considered strongly prior to any chiropractic advocacy organization taking a position that would give doctors pause when attempting to fully diagnose their patients, no matter the disclaimers.
When it comes to spinal assessment particularly with stress views, Hammouri, Haimes, Simpson, Alqaqa and Grauer (2007) reported, “A survey questionnaire study recently completed by our laboratory confirmed that 43% of practicing spine surgeons also obtain dynamic flexion-extension views in the initial evaluation of those patients” (p. 2361). They later stated, “These findings led to no change in conservative management and no decision to go to surgery based solely from the dynamic flexion-extension radiographs” (p. 2363).
Hammouri et. al. (2007) also discussed the possible cumulative effects of small doses of radiation as another reason to avoid taking flexion-extension x-rays. This has been a position held by practitioners for years despite the evidence that diagnostic ionizing radiation has been proven to be non-carcinogenic. When examining the evidence, Tubiana, Feinendegen, Yang and Karminski (2009) reported:
Several studies in patients after x-ray–based examinations…have not detected any increase in leukemia or solid tumors. The only positive studies were in girls or young women after repeated chest fluoroscopic procedures for chronic tuberculosis…or scoliosis…Among these patients, excess breast cancer was detected only for cumulative doses greater than about 0.5 Gy. No other excess cancer appeared after cumulative doses up to 1 Gy. There was also no increased cancer after cardiac catheterization…
Several studies stressed the risk of cancer after diagnostic irradiation with x-rays by using the LNT [linear no-threshold] model…However, several investigators…have questioned these estimates because of their doubtful assumptions. An overestimate of the diagnostic radiology risk may deprive patients from adequate treatment. (p. 17)
When considering rendering a diagnosis, prognosis and treatment plan, Hammouri et al. (2007) concluded that flexion-extension x-rays are not a determining factor for spinal surgery. However, chiropractic renders disparate treatment compared to surgeons and medical primary care doctors (family practice and internal medicine).
The authors of this current article recently sent a survey to the chiropractic profession and asked a simple question: Does the clinical use of x-rays change either your diagnosis, prognosis or treatment plan? The question was posed with the understanding that “screening purposes” are not considered clinically necessary and all testing and treatment orders must be consistent with a patient’s presentation and physical examination. The results demonstrated that 98.42% of those surveyed, used x-rays in their clinical practices that changed either the diagnosis, prognosis and/or the treatment plan.
The next question was when should an x-ray or any other type of imaging be considered? Clinically, if the patient has pain with limited range of motion in a spinal region upon either visual evaluation or dual inclinometry testing, the clinician should ask why is there biomechanical failure coupled with pain? In the absence of diagnosing anatomical (osseous or any other space occupying lesion) pathology, the aberrant verified biomechanics indicates failure at the connective tissue level (ligaments and tendons) and the mechanical source/rationale of the ensuing nociceptive, mechanoreceptive and proprioceptive neuro-pathological cascade. This in turn allows the practitioner to conclude an accurate diagnosis, prognosis and/or treatment plan based upon the pathological “listings” visualized. As reflected above with the 98.42% response, it is clear that when considering the biomechanical assessment of the human spine, x-ray analysis outside of simple anatomic pathology can change how a doctor of chiropractic manages and treats their patients.
The following is from a small sampling of responses we received from another survey of doctors nationwide. The instructions were to send over examples of how x-ray had changed their diagnoses, prognoses and/or treatment plans within the last 2-3 months. These responses underscored why chiropractors utilize x-ray and often need it to determine accurate mechanical diagnoses, prognoses and treatment plans prior to rendering care. Please note, the clinical protocols presented and x-ray diagnoses are all taught in CCE accredited chiropractic colleges and underscore the quality of a chiropractic education.
Kentucky:
Male 70-year old. Presented in my office for 2nd opinion after the prior doctor of chiropractic did not take films. Focal sacral pain unchanged by position or movement. Plain lumbar/pelvic films revealed large radiolucency in sacrum. Patient referred out to MD/oncology for follow up. Diagnosis: Metastatic in nature.
North Carolina:
Here is an example of how x-ray helped save a life. I had a patient 6 weeks ago come in with lumbar pain. The patient is 68yr old male with a history of lumbar pain but the pain recently became worse. During the history the patient relayed that they had recently been to their cardiologist for his regular checkup. I completed a thorough physical exam where the only positive findings were limited range of motion with pain in extension and left lateral flexion. I took lumbar x-rays of the patient. While reviewing the x-rays I noticed the outline of an Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm that measured 5cm on my lateral films. I immediately told the patient to go to the emergency room and sent the films with him. The patient stated he did not want to go and he just was at his cardiologist. I insisted and the patient finally listened. The patient had immediate surgery to repair the aneurysm and I received a thank you call from the cardiologist!! More important the patient thanked me for saving his life!!
Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms have a symptom of back pain. I will never touch a patient without being able to x-ray a patient. Who would have been blamed if my patient's aneurysm ruptured??
Michigan:
We had female patient in her thirties present to our office complaining of severe and unrelenting neck pain, with bilateral pain into her shoulders. She did not want an x-ray, however one of the other associates that I worked with convinced her to have two films, AP and lateral cervical. Those films revealed a lyric metastasis of the C5 vertebra, with almost a complete destruction of the vertebral body. Had she been adjusted without the images; the results would have been catastrophic.
Georgia:
54-year old male post MVA, Primary complaint = Low back pain, examination findings revealed positive orthopedic tests in the cervical and lumbar spine with diminished reflexes, upper and lower muscle strength 5/5. Cervical spine x-rays revealed a 3.28 mm anteriorlisthesis of C4 on C5, flexion view revealed an increased displacement to 8.28 mm. Extension view measured 5.48 mm.
Imaging altered treatment plan: Without the x-ray study, the unstable C4 would go undetected and as a result of the x-ray findings the patient was recommended to wear a c-spine collar and have a c-spine MRI. The MRI revealed a 4 x 10 mm left paracentral herniated disc with annular tear compressing the cord by 75% with myelomalacia. It also leaked into the right neural canal compressing the right C4 nerve root. I called my neurosurgeon and he will be in surgery tomorrow. Given the fragmentation of the cord seen on MRI, I shudder to think what would have happened if a high velocity thrust was introduced to his neck!
New York:
A patient presented with mild to moderate low back pain. Images revealed a secondary spondylolesthesis and contraindicated in a lumbar side posture. This has happened many times before and once again, prevented me from hurting my patient.
Ohio
I had a patient that presented with low back pain. The lumbar film showed a 66mm aneurysm. I immediately sent him to the hospital where he was admitted and went into emergency surgery for repair. This could have ended very badly without those x-rays.
California:
36-year old female with acute neck pain, insidious, limited cervical ROM, positive cervical tests, pain worse at night, pain described as "deep, boring, nauseating". AP and lateral cervical x-rays taken in my office revealed complete absence of C5 vertebral body. I immediately referred patient to the local ER with films in hand.
Florida:
Parents brought their 10-year old son for a second opinion to evaluate a mass on the side of his neck. Their pediatrician had sent them home and told them to check back in 3 days if it didn't resolve. I took AP and lateral cervical films. Both showed the mass but particularly concerning was the AP showed the laryngeal shadow deviated laterally from the pressure of the mass. I told them not to wait 3 days but to go directly to the local emergency department. The local hospital immediately put him in an ambulance and sent him to the children's hospital in Miami. Pediatricians at the children's hospital told the parents the next day, he wouldn't have survived the night had they not taken him to the E.D. on my recommendation, based on the x-ray findings.
Pennsylvania:
I had a 22-year old male present to my office complaining of bilateral low back pain and occasional mild numbness and tingling in his left leg for about 4 years following an injury at wrestling practice when he was 17 years old. Even though the complaints were moderate and his injury was 4 years old, I decided to take lumbar x-rays including oblique views. The x-rays revealed bilateral L3 and L4 pars fractures. I then took lumbar flexion/extension views which revealed a 5mm anterior translation of L4 on L5. His MRI evaluation was unremarkable and without these x-rays there would have seemed to be no contraindication to diversified adjustments including side posture. Had I not taken these x-rays, I would likely have delivered a high velocity thrust into an unstable region of the patient’s spine, potentially injuring him further. Instead, I sent him for an immediate surgical consultation.
New York:
Several days ago, a 30-year old female patient presented with a primary complaint of low back pain, neck stiffness and previous diagnosis of ocular migraines by her Neurologist. Radiographs of her Cervical and Lumbar spine were taken to evaluate her spine. A fracture of the vertebral body of C5 was found at the posterior and inferior aspect with an increase in spacing noted at the fracture site on flexion view.
California:
I had a 15-year-old girl present to my office with severe neck pain. She stated that she had no injuries or trauma that she was aware of. She just "woke up with it". The examination revealed that she was not able to turn her head at all -literally zero range of motion in any direction. Something didn't seem right and I decided to take an x-ray. Her X-ray revealed a burst fracture of C1. It turns out that her mother who signed all the consent forms and dropped her off at my office gave her strict instructions not to tell me about the minor fender bender she was in the day before. Also, the daughter explained later that she had landed on the top of her head during volleyball about a year before. After the volleyball accident she had presented to the emergency room but they decided not to take an x-ray and told her she was fine. I sent her to the emergency room. They took an x-ray and sent her home saying there was no fracture. Later the radiologist called her back insisting she return to the hospital immediately. They confirmed the fracture. I think it is quite safe to assume what would've happened if I tried to adjust her.
New Jersey:
I had a patient who was having pain in the mid thoracic region between the spine and the scapula. The patient had been to another chiropractor who did not take x-rays, and who did not get good clinical results. I examined and x-rayed the patient. I saw an abnormal mass in the lung field. I sent the patient to a local radiology center and ordered a plain film chest x-ray, the radiologist confirmed a mass in the right lung.
Based upon the literature, radiation is not cumulative and has rendered no evidence of long term effects. Therefore, the doctor of chiropractic must weigh the risk of treating blindly in the presence of clear biomechanical markers. Treating blindly is often done at the expense of our patients and the malpractice carriers, especially in a scenario where little risk exists. Our concern is the adoption of recommendations or guidelines that are deficient in the published and clinical evidence at hand. There also needs to be a larger clinical and academic conversation interprofessionally, to educate organizations like the ABIM and others who access spine patients, where together we can collaboratively, across professional boundaries, devise care paths to better serve society.
Dr. Mark Studin is an Adjunct Associate Professor of Chiropractic at the University of Bridgeport College of Chiropractic, an Adjunct Professor of Clinical Sciences at Texas Chiropractic College and a clinical presenter for the State of New York at Buffalo, School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences for post-doctoral education, teaching MRI spine interpretation, spinal biomechanical engineering and triaging trauma cases. He is also the president of the Academy of Chiropractic teaching doctors of chiropractic how to interface with the medical and legal communities (www.DoctorsPIProgram.com), teaches MRI interpretation and triaging trauma cases to doctors of all disciplines nationally and studies trends in healthcare on a national scale (www.TeachDoctors.com). He can be reached at DrMark@AcademyOfChiropractic.com or at 631-786-4253.
Dr. Bill Owens is presently in private practice in Buffalo NY and generates the majority of his new patient referrals directly from the primary care medical community. He is an Associate Adjunct Professor at the State University of New York at Buffalo School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, an Adjunct Assistant Professor of Clinical Sciences at the University of Bridgeport, College of Chiropractic and an Adjunct Professor of Clinical Sciences at Texas Chiropractic College. He also works directly with doctors of chiropractic to help them build relationships with medical providers in their community. He can be reached at dr.owens@academyofchiropractic.com or www.mdreferralprogram.com or 716-228-3847
The Mechanism of the Chiropractic
Spinal Adjustment/Manipulation:
Osseous Mechanisms
Part 1 of a 5 Part Series
By: Mark Studin
William J. Owens
Citation: Studin m., Owens W., (2017) The Mechanism of the Chiropractic Spinal Adjustment/Manipulation: Osseous Mechanisms, Part 1 of 5, American Chiropractor 39 (5), pgs. 30, 32, 34, 36-38
A report on the scientific literature
Introduction
There have been many reports in the literature on chiropractic care and its efficacy. However, the reporting is often “muddled” based upon interchangeable terminology utilized to describe what we do. The etiology of the verbiage being used has apparently been part of a movement to gain acceptance within the healthcare community, but this attempt for a change in view by the healthcare community has cost us. Currently, the scientific community has lumped together manipulation performed by physical therapists or osteopaths with chiropractic spinal adjustments because all three professions perform “hands on” manual therapy to the spine. For example, Martínez-Segura, De-la-LLave-Rincón, Ortega-Santiago, Cleland, and Fernández-de-Las-Peñas (2012) discussed how physical therapists commonly use manual therapy interventions directed at the cervical or thoracic spine, and the effectiveness of cervical and thoracic spine thrust manipulation for the management of patients with mechanical, insidious neck pain. Herein lies the root of the confusion when “manipulation” is utilized as a “one-size-fits-all” category of treatment as different professions have different training and procedures to deliver the manipulation, usually applying different treatment methods and realizing different results and goals.
In addition, as discussed by Sung, Kang, and Pickar (2004), the terms “mobilization,” “manipulation” and “adjustment” also are used interchangeably when describing manual therapy to the spine. Some manipulation and virtually all chiropractic adjusting “…involves a high velocity thrust of small amplitude performed at the limit of available movement. However, mobilization involves repetitive passive movement of varying amplitudes at low velocity” (Sung, Kang, & Picker, 2004, p. 115).
To offset confusion between chiropractic and any other profession that involves the performance of some type of manipulation, for the purpose of clarity, we will be referring to any type of spinal therapy performed by a chiropractor as a chiropractic spinal adjustment (CSA) and reserve manipulation for other professions who have not been trained in the delivery of CSA. Until now, the literature has not directly supported the mechanism of the CSA. However, it has supported each component and the supporting literature, herein, will define the neuro-biomechanical process of the CSA and resultant changes.
Components of the Adjustment or Thrust
Both human and animal studies have shown the tri-phasic process of the CSA and the time for the thrust duration of each phase. In addition, the timing at each phase has been shown to be integral in understanding the neurological effect of the CSA. The forces are broken into 3 phases. These are the pre-load force, which takes the tissue close to its paraphysiological limit, the peak force or thrust stage and the resolution stage.
Pickar and Bolton (2012) reported the following:
CSA, referred to in the literature as spinal manual therapy, “…in the cervical region has relatively little pre-load ranging from 0 to 39.5 N. In contrast, the average pre-load forces during [CSA] in the thoracic region (139 ± 46 N, ± SD) and sacroiliac region (mean 88 N ± 78 N) are substantially higher than in the cervical region and are potentially different from each other. From the beginning of the thrust to end of the resolution phase, [CSA] duration varies between 90 and 120 ms. (mean = 102 ms.). The time to peak force during the thrust phase ranges from 30 to 65 ms. (mean = 48 ms.). Peak applied forces range from 99 to 140 N (mean = 118 N, n = 6 treatments). In the same study with [CSA] directed at the thoracic (T4) region and applied to three different patients by the same practitioner, the mean (SD) time to peak force was 150 ± 77 ms. and mean peak force reached 399 ± 119 N. During the resolution phase, force returned to pre-[CSA] levels over durations up to two times longer than that of the thrust phase. When [CSA] was applied to the sacroiliac joint, mean applied peak forces reached 328 ± 78 N, with the thrust and resolution phases having similar durations (∼100ms.). The peak force during manipulation of the lumbar spine measured by Triano and Schultz (1997) tended to be higher than during the thoracic or sacroiliac manipulation measured by Herzog et al. (1994) and the force–time profiles resembled half-sine waves with the time to and from peak taking approximately 200 ms. Peak impulse forces during thoracic manipulation approximated the >400 N peak impulse force measured by Triano and Schultz (1997). (p. 786)
Note. “Spinal Manipulative Therapy and Somatosensory Activation,” by J. G. Pickar and P. S. Bolton, 2012, Journal of Electromyography and Kinesiology,22(5), 787. Copyright 2012 by Elsevier.
Pickar and Bolton (2012) reported that the physical characteristics of an CSA may vary based upon the technique being used and the individual practitioner. However, the above scenario is an illustration and guide to the time and force for of a CSA.
Zygapophysial (Z) joints
Cramer et al. (2002) explained the following:
One component of spinal dysfunction treated by chiropractors has been described as the development of adhesions in the zygapophysial (Z) joints after hypomobility. This hypomobility may be the result of injury, inactivity, or repetitive asymmetrical movements…one beneficial effect of spinal manipulation may be the “breaking up” of putative fibrous adhesions that develop in hypomobile or “fixed” Z joints. Spinal adjusting of the lumbar region is thought to separate or gap the articular surfaces of the Z joints. Theoretically, gapping breaks up adhesions, thus helping the motion segment reestablish a physiologic range of motion. (p. 2459)
Control subject [left] before the CSA and after [right] a CSA. The red arrows depict the increase in the Z-Joint
Note. “The Effects of Side-Posture Positioning and Spinal Adjusting on the Lumbar Z Joints: A Randomized Controlled Trial with Sixty-Four Subjects,” by G. D.Cramer, D. M. Gregerson, J. T. Knudsen, B. B. Hubbard, L. M. Ustas, & J. A., 2002, Spine,27(22), 2462. Copyright 2002 by Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.
Cramer et al. (2002) found the following:
…significant differences between several groups in this study, with the group that received chiropractic adjustments and remained in the side-posture position showing the greatest increase in gapping. This finding is consistent with the hypothesis that chiropractic adjusting gaps the Z joints…The Z joints were found gap during side-posture positioning, although not as much as during side-posture adjusting…The flexion that occurs during the side-posture position and side-posture spinal adjustment may allow for greater gapping during axial rotation and may account for the difference in results between the studies. However, because both the side-posture positioning group and the group that had side-posture adjusting followed by continued side-posture positioning received equal amounts of flexion, the thrust given during the chiropractic procedure had the effect of increasing the gapping of the Z joints. (p. 2464)
The average difference between the control subjects…and the subjects that received a chiropractic adjustment and remained in side-posture position was 1.33 mm…a difference of 0.71 mm was found between the side-posture group…and the group that received an adjustment and remained in the side-posture position…It will be recalled that the Z joints are very small [and this is a considerable gap in a joint as small as the Z joint]…Another important consideration is that the term “residual,” or “left-over” gapping, could be applied to the gapping measured in the adjustment group because it can be logically assumed that the Z joints gap a greater distance during the forceful loading of the manipulative procedure than recorded in this study. The tissues of the spine presumably bring the articular surfaces back toward the pre-adjustment (closed) position as the patient resumes a more typical side-posture position after the thrust of a manipulation. This “residual” gapping is what was seen during the 15- to 20-minute MRI scan taken immediately after the adjustment. (2464-2565)
What makes this significant is the residual time that occurs after the CSA. During this period, and the time that follows is the foundation for biomechanical changes in the adjacent discs and ancillary connective tissue attachments that will be discussed in the next article in the series. However, this is part of the foundation for bio-neuro-mechanical changes to the spine secondary to the CSA.
Meniscoid Entrapment
Evans (2002) reported the following:
…on flexion of the lumbar spine, the inferior articular process of a zygapophyseal joint moves upward, taking a meniscoid with it. On attempted extension, the inferior articular process returns toward its neutral position, but instead of re-entering the joint cavity, the meniscoid impacts against the edge of the articular cartilage and buckles, forming a space-occupying "lesion" under the capsule: a meniscoid entrapment. A large number of type III and type IV nerve fibers (nociceptors) have been observed within capsules of zygapophyseal joints. Pain occurs as distension of the joint capsule provides a sufficient stimulus for these nociceptors to depolarize. Muscle spasm would then occur to prevent impaction of the meniscoid. The patient would tend to be more comfortable with the spine maintained in a flexed position, because this will disengage the meniscoid. Extension would therefore tend to be inhibited. This condition has also been termed a "joint lock" or "facet-lock" the latter of which indicates the involvement of the zygapophyseal joint.
The presence of fibro-adipose meniscoids in the cervical zygapophyseal joints suggests that a similar phenomenon might occur, but in the neck the precipitating movement would be excessive rotation. The clinical features of cervical meniscoid entrapment would be those of an acute torticollis in which attempted derotation would cause impaction and buckling of the entrapped meniscoid and painful capsular strain. Muscle spasm would then occur to prevent impaction of the meniscoid by keeping the neck in a rotated position. Under these circumstances the muscle spasm would not be the primary cause of torticollis but a secondary reaction to the entrapment of the meniscoid.
An HVLAT manipulation, involving gapping of the zygapophyseal joint reduces the impaction and opens the joint, so encouraging the meniscoid lo return to its normal anatomical position in the joint cavity. This ceases the distension of the joint capsule, thus reducing pain. (p. 252-253)
Evans (2002) also explained the following:
Zygapophyseal joint gapping induced during an HVLAT manipulation would further stretch the highly innervated joint capsule, leading to a "protective" reflex muscular contraction, as shown in electromyographic studies. The most important characteristic of a manipulative procedure that will provide joint gapping, before the induction of protective reflex muscular contraction, would be high velocity…the thrusting phase of an HVLAT manipulation required 91 ± 20 ms. to develop the peak force. If this period is compared with the time delay between the onset of the thrusting force and the onset of electromyographic activity, which ranges from 50 to 200 ms., we can see that a force of sufficient magnitude to gap the joint can be applied in a shorter time than that required for the initiation of a mechanoreceptor-mediated muscular reflex. Furthermore, once the muscle is activated (i.e. there is an electromyographic signal), it will take approximately another 40 to 100 ms until the onset of muscular force. It therefore seems unlikely that there are substantial muscular forces resisting the thrusting phase of HVLAT manipulation. Thus, HVLAT manipulation would again appear to be the treatment of choice for a meniscoid entrapment.
The cavitation event may not be a prerequisite for a "successful" HVLAT manipulation in the case of a meniscoid entrapment and may be an incidental side effect of high-velocity zygapophyseal joint gapping (which would be a prerequisite for success). Audible indication of successful joint gapping may, however, be regarded as desirable in itself as a clinical measure of "success." A clinician's perception of the occurrence of cavitation during an HVLAT manipulation has been shown to be very accurate and would therefore be a reliable measure of a '"successful" joint gapping. (p. 253-254)
Meniscoid entrapment. A) On flexion, the inferior articular process of a zygapophyseal joint moves upward, taking a meniscoid with It. B) On attempted extension, the inferior articular process returns upward to its neutral position, hut instead of re-entering the joint cavity, the meniscoid impacts against the edge of the articular cartilage and buckles, forming a space-occupying "lesion" under the capsule. Pain occurs as a result of capsular tension, and extension is inhibited. C) CSA (Manipulation) of the joint involving flexion and gapping, reduces the impaction and opens the joint to encourage re-entry of the meniscoid into the joint space (D) Realignment of the joint.
Note. “Mechanisms and Effects of Spinal High-Velocity, Low-Amplitude Thrust Manipulation: Previous Theories,” by D. W. Evans, 2002, Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics, 25(4), 253. Copyright 2002 by Elsevier.
This first part of a 5-part series covers the osseous mechanics of what the chiropractic spinal adjustment is comprised of. Part 2 will cover the ligamentous involvement from a supportive and neurological perspective. The topic of part 3 will be spinal biomechanics and its neurological components. Part 4 will be an in-depth contemporary comparative analysis of the chiropractic spinal adjustment vs. physical therapy joint mobilization. The final part will be a concise overview of the chiropractic spinal adjustment.
References:
1. Martínez-Segura, R., De-la-LLave-Rincón, A. I., Ortega-Santiago, R., Cleland J. A., Fernández-de-Las-Peñas, C. (2012). Immediate changes in widespread pressure pain sensitivity, neck pain, and cervical range of motion after cervical or thoracic thrust manipulation in patients with bilateral chronic mechanical neck pain: A randomized clinical trial. Journal of Orthopedics & Sports Physical Therapy, 42(9), 806-814.
2. Sung, P. S., Kang, Y. M., & Pickar, J. G. (2004). Effect of spinal manipulation duration on low threshold mechanoreceptors in lumbar paraspinal muscles: A preliminary report. Spine, 30(1), 115-122.
3. Pickar, J. G., & Bolton, P. S. (2012). Spinal manipulative therapy and somatosensory activation.Journal of Electromyography and Kinesiology,22(5), 785-794.
4. Cramer, G. D., Gregerson, D. M., Knudsen, J. T., Hubbard, B. B., Ustas, L. M., & Cantu, J. A. (2002). The effects of side-posture positioning and spinal adjusting on the lumbar Z joints: A randomized controlled trial with sixty-four subjects.Spine,27(22), 2459-2466.
5. Cramer, G. D., Henderson, C. N., Little, J. W. Daley, C., & Grieve, T.J. (2010). Zygapophyseal joint adhesions after induced hypombility. Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics, 33(7), 508-518.
6. Evans, D. W. (2002). Mechanisms and effects of spinal high-velocity, low-amplitude thrust manipulation: Previous theories. Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics, 25(4), 251-262.
7. Owens, Jr., E. F., Hosek, R. S., Sullivan, S. G. B., Russell, B. S., Mullin, L. E., & Dever, L. L. (2016). Establishing force and speed training targets for lumbar spine high-velocity, low-amplitude chiropractic adjustments. The Journal of Chiropractic Education, 30(1), 7-13.
8. Nougarou, F., Dugas, C., Deslauriers, C., Pagé, I., & Descarreaux, M. (2013). Physiological responses to spinal manipulation therapy: Investigation of the relationship between electromyographic responses and peak force.Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics,36(9), 557-563.
9. Solomonow, M. (2009). Ligaments: A source of musculoskeletal disorders.Journal of Bodywork and Movement Therapies,13(2), 136-154.
10. He, G., & Xinghua, Z. (2006). The numerical simulation of osteophyte formation on the edge of the vertebral body using quantitative bone remodeling theory. Joint Bone Spine, 73(1), 95-101.
The Mechanism of the Chiropractic
Spinal Adjustment/Manipulation:
Ligaments and the Bio-Neuro-Mechanical Component
Part 2 of a 5 Part Series
By: Mark Studin
William J. Owens
A report on the scientific literature
Citation: Studin M., Owens W., (2017) The Mechanism of the Chiropractic Spinal Adjustment/Manipulation: Ligaments and the Bio-Neuro-Mechanical Component, Part 2 of 5, American Chiropractor 39 (6), pgs. 22,24-26, 28-31
Introduction
When we consider the mechanism of the spinal adjustment/manipulation as discussed in part 1 of this series, for clarity for the chiropractic profession, it will be solely referred to as a chiropractic spinal adjustment (CSA) so as not to confuse chiropractic treatment with either physical therapy or osteopathy. In analyzing how the CSA works, we must go beyond the actual adjustment or thrust and look at the tissue and structures that “frame” the actions. Although there are osseous borders and boundaries, there is a significant network of connective tissue that plays a major role in the CSA. We will focus this discussion on the ligaments that both act as restraints to the human skeleton and also function as sensory organs, we will also examine the role of the muscles and tendons that interact with the ligaments. It is critical to realize that muscles act as active and amplified restraints in the spinal system.
The neurological innervations of the ligaments play a significant role in influencing the central nervous system, both reflexively and through brain pathways. Those innervations either support homeostasis in a balanced musculoskeletal environment or creates confusion in a system that has been impaired either post-traumatically or systemically. The human body does not discriminate the etiology of biomechanical failure, it only reacts to create a “low energy” or neutral state utilizing the lowest amount of energy to function. This balanced or “low energy state” is considered the most optimal function state as nervous system function is not compromised by aberrant sensory input, this is why a “low energy state” is considered the highest function state.
With understanding the full functional and resultant role of the ligaments and other connective tissues in either macro or repetitive micro traumas, bio-neuro-mechanical failure (something we have historically called vertebral subluxation) occurs. This is the basis for chiropractic care and explains why immediate (pain management), intermediate (corrective) and long-term (wellness or health maintenance) care are necessary to reintegrate the bio-neuro-mechanical system of the human body. Often, the best we can accomplish as practitioners is to support compensation secondary to tissue failure to slow down the resultant joint remodeling and neurological corruption/compromise.
Ligamentous Function
Solomonow (2009) wrote:
The functional complexity of ligaments is amplified when considering their inherent viscoelastic properties such as creep, tension–relaxation, hysteresis and time or frequency-dependent length–tension behavior. As joints go through their range of motion, with or without external load, the ligaments ensure that the bones associated with the joint travel in their prescribed anatomical tracks, keep full and even contact pressure of the articular surfaces, prevent separation of the bones from each other by increasing their tension, as may be necessary, and ensuring stable motion. Joint stability, therefore, is the general role of ligaments without which the joint may subluxate, cause damage to the capsule, cartilage, tendons, nearby nerves and blood vessels, discs (if considering spinal joints) and to the ligaments themselves. Such injury may debilitate the individual by preventing or limiting his/her use of the joint and the loss of function…Dysfunctional or ruptured ligaments, therefore, result in a complex- syndrome, various sensory–motor disorders and other long-term consequences, which impact the individual’s well-being, his athletic activities, employer, skilled work force pool and national medical expenses. (p. 137)
Ligaments are closely packed collagen fibers that are helical at rest in a crimp pattern. This crimp pattern allows the ligament to recruit other fibers when stressed to support the joint and helps prevent ligamentous failure or subfailure (tearing of the ligament). They are comprised of collagen and elastin which give them both tensile strength and elasticity with no two joints being alike in composition. Each joint has a specific biomechanical role and varies depending upon the needs of that joint.
Note. “Ligaments and tendons,” by I. Ziv, (n.d.), [PowerPoint slides]. Retrieved from https://wings.buffalo.edu/eng/mae/courses/417-517/Orthopaedic%20Biomechanics/ Lecture%203u.pdf
Solomonow (2008) continued:
As axial stretching of a ligament is applied, fibers or bundles with a small helical wave appearance straighten first and begin to offer resistance (increased stiffness) to stretch. As the ligament is further elongated, fibers or fiber bundles of progressively larger helical wave straighten and contribute to the overall stiffness. Once all the fibers are straightened, a sharp increase in stiffness is observed. (p. 137)
Solomonow (2008) later stated:
Over all, the mostly collagen (75%), elastin and other substances structure of ligaments is custom tailored by long evolutionary processes to provide various degrees of stiffness at various loads and at various ranges of motion of a joint, while optimally fitting the anatomy inside (inter-capsular) or outside (extra-capsular) a given joint. The various degrees of helical shape of the different fibers allows generation of a wide range of tensile forces by the fiber recruitment process, whereas the overall geometry of the ligament allows selective recruitment of bundles such as to extend function over a wide range of motion. The large content of water (70%) and the cross weave of the long fibers by short fibers provides the necessary lubrication for bundles to slide relative to each other, yet to remain bundled together and generate stiffness in the transverse directions.(p. 137)
Solomonow (2008):
Length–tension and recruitment: The general length–tension (or strain–stress) behavior of a ligament is non-linear…The initial [reports] demonstrate rather large strain for very small increase in load. Once all the waves in the collagen fibers of the ligament have been straightened out, and all of the fibers were recruited, additional increase in strain is accompanied with a fast increase in tension…
Creep: When a constant load is applied to a ligament, it first elongates to a given length. If left at the same constant load, it will continue to elongate over time in an exponential fashion up to a finite maximum…
Tension–relaxation:When ligaments are subjected to a stretch and hold over time (or constant elongation) the tension–relaxation phenomena is observed. The tension in the ligament increases immediately upon the elongation to a given value. As time elapses, the tension decreases exponentially to a finite minimum while the length does not change…
Strain rate: The tension developed in a ligament also depends on the rate of elongation or strain rate (Peterson, 1986). In general, slow rates of elongation are associated with the development of relatively low tension, whereas higher rates of elongation result in the development of high tension. Fast stretch of ligaments, such as in high-frequency repetitive motion or in sports activities are known to result in high incidents of ligamentous damage or rupture…Fast rates of stretch, therefore, may exceed the physiological loads that could be sustained by a ligament safely, yet it may still be well within the physiological length range. Development of high tension in the ligaments may result in rupture and permanent sensory–motor deficit to the joint in addition to deficit in its structural functions. (p. 137-139)
Author’s note: A fast strain rate within the physiological limit may also cause ligamentous damage as the ligament hasn’t had enough time to adapt (stretch) to its new tensile demand and this is called a “sub-failure.”
“This phenomenon is associated with repetitive motion when a series of stretch-release cycles are performed over time (Solomnow, 1008, p. 140).
Ligament Reaction to Trauma and Healing
Solomnow (2008) stated:
Ligament Inflammation: Inflammatory response in ligaments is initiated whenever the tissue is subjected to stresses which exceed its routine limits at a given time. For example, a sub-injury/failure load, well within the physiological limits of a ligament when applied to the ligament by an individual who does not do that type of physical activity routinely. The normal homeostatic metabolic, cellular, circulatory and mechanical limits are therefore exceeded by the load, triggering an inflammatory response…
Another case where acute inflammation is present is when physical activities presenting sudden overload/stretch cause a distinct damage to the tissue which is felt immediately. Such cases, as a sudden loss of balance, a fall, collision with another person, exposure to unexpected load, etc., may result in what is called a sprain injury or a partial rupture of the ligament. Acute inflammation sets in within several hours and may last several weeks and up to 12 months. The healing process, however, does not result in full recovery of the functional properties of the tissue. Mostly, only up to 70% of the ligaments original structural and functional characteristics are attained by healing post-injury (Woo et al. 1990)...
Chronic inflammation is an extension of an acute inflammation when the tissue is not allowed to rest, recover and heal. Repetitive exposure to physical activity and reloading of the ligament over prolonged periods without sufficient rest and recovery represent cumulative micro-trauma. The resulting chronic inflammation is associated with atrophy and degeneration of the collagen matrix leaving a permanently damaged, weak and non-functional ligament (Leadbenter, 1990). The dangerous aspect of a chronic inflammation is the fact that it builds up silently over many weeks, months or years (dependent on a presently unknown dose-duration levels of the stressors) and appears one day as a permanent disability associated with pain, limited motion, weakness and other disorders (Safran, 1985). Rest and recovery of as much as 2 years allows only partial resolution of the disability (Woo and Buckwalter, 1988). Full recovery was never reported. (p. 143-144)
Hauser et al. (2013) reported that once a ligament is overloaded in either a failure or subfailure, then the tissue fails which results in partial or complete tears known as a sprain. When this occurs, the body “attempts” to repair the damaged ligament, but cannot completely.
Hauser et al. (2013) wrote:
With time, the tissue matrix starts to resemble normal ligament tissue; however, critical differences in matrix structure and function persist. In fact, evidence suggests that the injured ligament structure is replaced with tissue that is grossly, histologically, biochemically, and biomechanically similar to scar tissue. (p. 6)
Hauser et al. (2013) also stated:
The persisting abnormalities present in the remodeled ligament matrix can have profound implications on joint biomechanics, depending on the functional demands placed on the tissue. Since remodeled ligament tissue is morphologically and biomechanically inferior to normal ligament tissue, ligament laxity results, causing functional disability of the affected joint and predisposing other soft tissues in and around the joint to further damage. (p. 7)
Hauser et al. (2013) further said:
In fact, studies of healing ligaments have consistently shown that certain ligaments do not heal independently following rupture, and those that do heal, do so with characteristically inferior compositional properties compared with normal tissue. It is not uncommon for more than one ligament to undergo injury during a single traumatic event. (p. 8)
Author’s note: Ligaments are made with fibroblasts which produce collagen and elastin, and model the ligament throughout puberty. Once puberty is over, the fibroblasts stop producing any ligamentous tissue and remain dormant. Upon injury, the fibroblast activates, but now can only produce collagen, leaving the joint stiffer and in a biomechanically compromised functional environment. The above comment verifies that in the literature.
Hauser et al. (2013) explained:
Osteoarthritis [OA] or joint degeneration is one of the most common consequences of ligament laxity. Traditionally, the pathophysiology of OA was thought to be due to aging and wear and tear on a joint, but more recent studies have shown that ligaments play a crucial role in the development of OA. OA begins when one or more ligaments become unstable or lax, and the bones begin to track improperly and put pressure on different areas, resulting in the rubbing of bone on cartilage. This causes the breakdown of cartilage and ultimately leads to deterioration, whereby the joint is reduced to bone on bone, a mechanical problem of the joint that leads to abnormality of the joint’s mechanics.
Hypermobility and ligament laxity have become clear risk factors for the prevalence of OA. The results of spinal ligament injury show that over time the inability of the ligaments to heal causes an increase in the degeneration of disc and facet joints, which eventually leads to osteochondral degeneration. (p. 9)
Ligaments as Sensory Organs
Spinal pain and the effects of the chiropractic spinal adjustment is both central and peripheral in etiology. According to Studin and Owens (2016), the CSA also affects the central nervous system with systemic sequelae verifying that chiropractic supports systemic changes and is not comprised solely of “back pain providers.” Although chiropractic is not limited to pain, chiropractors do treat back pain, inclusive of all spinal regions. Regarding pain, much of the pain generators originate in the ligaments.
Solomonow (2009) wrote:While ligaments are primarily known for mechanical support for joint stability, they have equally important sensory functions. Anatomical studies demonstrate that ligaments in the extremity joints and the spine are endowed with mechanoreceptors consisting of: Pacinian, Golgi, Ruffini and bare nerve endings. (Burgess and Clark, 1969; Freeman and Wyke, 1967a,b; Gardner, 1944; Guanche et al., 1995; Halata et al., 1985; Jackson et al., 1966; Mountcastle, 1974; Petrie et al., 1988, Schulz et al. 1984, Sjölander, 1989; Skoglund, 1956; Solomonow et al., 1996; Wyke, 1981; Yahia and Newman, 1991; Zimney and Wink, 1991). The presence of such afferents in the ligaments confirms that they contribute to proprioception and kinesthesia and may also have a distinct role in reflex activation or inhibition of muscular activities.(p. 144)
Dougherty (n.d.) reported:
Pacinian corpusclesare found in subcutaneous tissue beneath the dermis…and in the connective tissues of bone [ligaments and tendons], the body wall and body cavity. Therefore, they can be cutaneous, proprioceptive or visceral receptors, depending on their location…
When a force is applied to the tissue overlying the Pacinian corpuscle…its outer laminar cells, which contain fluid, are displaced and distort the axon terminal membrane. If the pressure is sustained on the corpuscle, the fluid is displaced, which dissipates the applied force on the axon terminal. Consequently, a sustained force on the Pacinian corpuscle is transformed into a transient force on its axon terminal. The Pacinian corpuscle 1° afferent axon response is rapidly adapting and action potentials are only generated when the force is first applied. (http://neuroscience.uth.tmc.edu/ s2/chapter02.html)
Dougherty (n.d.) stated:
TheRuffini corpusclesare found deep in the skin…as well as in joint ligaments and joint capsules and can function as cutaneous or proprioceptive receptors depending on their location. The Ruffini corpuscle…is cigar-shaped, encapsulated, and contains longitudinal strands of collagenous fibers that are continuous with the connective tissue of the skin or joint. Within the capsule, the 1° afferent fiber branches repeatedly and its branches are intertwined with the encapsulated collagenous fibers. (http://neuroscience.uth.tmc. edu/s2/chapter02.html) “Ruffini corpuscles in skin are considered to be skin stretch sensitive receptors of the discriminative touch system. They also work with the proprioceptors in joints and muscles to indicate the position and movement of body parts” (Dougherty, http://neuroscience.uth.tmc.edu/s2/chapter02.html).
Dougherty (n.d.) stated:
Golgi tendon organsare found in the tendons of striated extrafusal muscles near the muscle-tendon junction…Golgi tendon organs resemble Ruffini corpuscles. For example, they are encapsulated and contain intertwining collagen bundles, which are continuous with the muscle tendon, and fine branches of afferent fibers that weave between the collagen bundles…They are functionally "in series" with striated muscle. (http://neuroscience.uth.tmc.edu/s2/ chapter02.html)
“TheGolgi tendon organis a proprioceptor that monitors and signals muscle contraction against a force (muscle tension), whereas the muscle spindle is a proprioceptor that monitors and signals muscle stretch (muscle length)” (Dougherty, http://neuroscience.uth.tmc.edu/ s2/chapter02.html).
Dougherty (n.d.) stated:
…free nerve endings of 1° afferents are abundant in muscles, tendons, joints, and ligaments. These free nerve endings are considered to be the somatosensory receptors for pain resulting from muscle, tendon, joint, or ligament damage and are not considered to be part of the proprioceptive system. [These free nerve endings are called nociceptors.]
Solomonow (2009) commented:
The presence of such afferents in the ligaments confirms that they contribute to proprioception and kinesthesia and may also have a distinct role in reflex activation or inhibition of muscular activities…
Overall, the decrease or loss of function in a ligament due to rupture or damage does not only compromise its mechanical contributions to joint stability, but also sensory loss of proprioceptive and kinesthetic perception and fast reflexive activation of muscles and the forces they generate in order to enforce joint stability…
It was suggested, as far back as the turn of the last century, that a reflex may exist from sensory receptors in the ligaments to muscles that may directly or indirectly modify the load imposed on the ligament (Payr, 1900)…A clear demonstration of a reflex activation of muscles was finally provided in 1987 (Solomonow et al., 1987) and reconfirmed several times since then (beard et al., 1994; Dyhre-Poulsen and Krogsgard, 2000; Raunest et al., 1996; Johansson et al., 1989; Kim et al., 1995). It was further shown that such a ligamento-muscular reflex exists in most extremity joints (Freeman and Wyke, 1967b; Guanche et al., 1995, Knatt et al., 1995; Schaible and Schmidt, 1983; Schaible et al., 1986; Solomonow et al., 1996; Phillips et al., 1997; Solomonow and Lewis, 2002) and in the spine (Indahl et al., 1995, 1997; Stubbs et al., 1998; Solomonow et al., 1998). (p. 144).
“Ligamento-muscular reflexes, therefore, may be inhibitory or excitatory, as may be fit to preserve joint stability; inhibiting muscles that destabilize the joint or increased antagonist co-activation to stabilize the joint” (Solomonow, 2009, p. 145).
Spinal Stabilization and Destabilization
Panjabi (2006) reported:
1. Single trauma or cumulative microtrauma causes subfailure injury of the spinal ligaments and injury to the mechanoreceptors [and nociceptors] embedded in the ligaments.
2. When the injured spine performs a task or it is challenged by an external load, the transducer signals generated by the mechanoreceptors [and nociceptors] are corrupted.
3. Neuromuscular control unit has difficulty in interpreting the corrupted transducer signals because there is spatial and temporal mismatch between the normally expected and the corrupted signals received.
4. The muscle response pattern generated by the neuromuscular control unit is corrupted, affecting the spatial and temporal coordination and activation of each spinal muscle.
5. The corrupted muscle response pattern leads to corrupted feedback to the control unit via tendon organs of muscles and injured mechanoreceptors [and nociceptors], further corrupting the muscle response pattern. (p. 669)
The above stabilization-destabilization scenario is the foundation for why a CSA is clinically indicated for short, intermediate and long-term treatment (biomechanical stabilization) as clinically indicated. It also clearly outlines what the goal of the CSA is, to integrate the bio-neuro-mechanical system to bring the human body to utilize its lowest form of energy for homeostasis or as close to normal as tissue pathology allows.
This is part 2 of a 5-part series where part 1 covers the osseous mechanics of the chiropractic spinal adjustment. This part covered the ligamentous involvement from a supportive and neurological perspective. The topic of part 3 will be spinal biomechanics and their neurological components in addition to how the chiropractic spinal adjustment makes changes bio-neuro-mechanically. Part 4 will be an in-depth contemporary comparative analysis of the chiropractic spinal adjustment vs. physical therapy joint mobilization. The final part will be a concise overview of the chiropractic spinal adjustment.
References:
1. Solomonow, M. (2009). Ligaments: A source of musculoskeletal disorders.Journal of Bodywork and Movement Therapies,13(2), 136-154.
2. Ziv, I. (n.d.). Ligaments and tendons [PowerPoint slides]. Retrieved from https://wings.buffalo.edu/eng/mae/courses/417-517/Orthopaedic%20Biomechanics/Lecture%203u.pdf
3. Hauser, R. A., Dolan, E. E., Phillips, H. J., Newlin, A. C., Moore, R. E., & Woldin, B. A. (2013). Ligament injury and healing: A review of current clinical diagnostics and therapeutics.The Open Rehabilitation Journal,6, 1-20.
4. Solomonow, M. (2006). Sensory–motor control of ligaments and associated neuromuscular disorders.Journal of Electromyography and Kinesiology,16(6), 549-567.
5. Studin M., & Owens W. (2016). Chiropractic spinal adjustments and the effects on the neuroendocrine system and the central nervous system connection. The American Chiropractor, 38(1), 46-51.
6. Dougherty, P. (n.d.). Chapter 2: Somatosensory systems. Neuroscience Online. Retrieved from http://neuroscience.uth.tmc.edu/s2/chapter02.html
7. Panjabi, M. M. (2006). A hypothesis of chronic back pain: Ligament subfailure injuries lead to muscle control dysfunction.European Spine Journal,15(5), 668-676.
The Mechanism of the Chiropractic
Spinal Adjustment/Manipulation:
Bio-Neuro-Mechanical Effect
Part 3 of a 5 Part Series
By: Mark Studin
William J. Owens
A report on the scientific literature
Citation: Studin M., Owens W., (2017) The Mechanism of the Chiropractic Spinal Adjustment/Manipulation: Bio-Neuro-Mechanical Component Part 3 of 5, American Chiropractor 39 (7), pgs. 30,32,34, 36, 38, 40-41
In part 1 of this series, we discussed the osseous mechanisms of the chiropractic spinal adjustment (CSA) and in part 2 we discussed the mechanical and neurological functions of connective tissue. It is in this connective tissue as well as in other neurological components located in the osseous structures of the spine that the primary effector structures of a CSA are to be found. To fully understand the bio-neuro-mechanical mechanism of the CSA, we must explore the mechanical aspect of the chiropractic adjustment, what effect it has on the neurological effector organs, how the spine and brain are inter-related and finally, how the muscles and ligaments (intervertebral discs) working in tandem effectuate homeostasis.
HISTORICAL REPORTING
Kent (1996) reported:
Dishman and Lantz developed and popularized the five component model of the “vertebral subluxation complex” attributed to Faye. However, the model was presented in a text by Flesia dated 1982, while the Faye notes bear a 1983 date.The original model has five components:
1. Spinal kinesiopathology
2. Neuropathology
3. Myopathology
4. Histopathology
5. Biochemical changes.
The “vertebral subluxation complex” model includes tissue specific manifestations described by Herfert which include:
1. Osseous component
2. Connective tissue involvement, including disc, other ligaments, fascia, and muscles
3.The neurological component, including nerve roots and spinal cord
4. Altered biomechanics
5. Advancing complications in the innervated tissues and/or the patient’s symptoms. This is sometimes termed the “end tissue phenomenon” of the vertebral subluxation complex.
Lantz has since revised and expanded the “vertebral sub- luxation complex” model to include nine components:
1. Kinesiology
2. Neurology
3. Myology
4. Connective tissue physiology
5. Angiology
6. Inflammatory response
7. Anatomy
8. Physiology
9. Biochemistry.
Lantz summarized his objectives in expanding the model: “The VSC allows for every aspect of chiropractic clinical management to be integrated into a single conceptual model, a sort of ‘unified field theory’ of chiropractic… (p.1)
However, like many theories, these concepts have proven close to accurate and this report of the literature, although not designed to prove or disprove the Vertebral Subluxation Complex, validated many of the previous “beliefs” based upon contemporary findings in the literature and personal clinical experience, which along with patient expectations, are the three key components to evidence-based medicine.
CONTEMPORARY FINDINGS
In Part 1, we discussed specific biomechanical references in modern literature.
Evans (2002) reported:
…on flexion of the lumbar spine, the inferior articular process of a zygapophyseal joint moves upward, taking a meniscoid with it. On attempted extension, the inferior articular process returns toward its neutral position, but instead of re-entering the joint cavity, the meniscoid impacts against the edge of the articular cartilage and buckles, forming a space-occupying "lesion" under the capsule: a meniscoid entrapment…A large number of type III and type IV nerve fibers (nociceptors) have been observed within capsules of zygapophyseal joints. Pain occurs as distension of the joint capsule provides a sufficient stimulus for these nociceptors to depolarize. Muscle spasm would then occur to prevent impaction of the meniscoid. (p. 252-253)
This verifies that with a vertebrate out of position, there is a negative neurological sequella that causes a “cascade effect” bio-neuro-mechanically. Historically, this has been objectively identified and in chiropractic practices called a vertebral subluxation. This nomenclature has been accepted federally by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services as an identifiable lesion, for which the chiropractic profession has specific training in its diagnosis and management.
To further clarify the modern literature, Panjabi (2006) stated:
The spinal column has two functions: structural and transducer. The structural function provides stiffness to the spine. The transducer function provides the information needed to precisely characterize the spinal posture, vertebral motions, spinal loads etc. to the neuromuscular control unit via innumerable mechanoreceptors present in the spinal column ligaments, facet capsules and the disc annulus. These mechanical transducers provide information to theneuromuscular control unit which helps to generate muscular spinal stability via the spinal muscle system and neuromuscular control unit. (p. 669)
Panjabi (2006) reported:
1. Single trauma or cumulative microtrauma causes subfailure injury of the spinal ligaments and injury to the mechanoreceptors [and nociceptors] embedded in the ligaments.
2. When the injured spine performs a task or it is challenged by an external load, the transducer signals generated by the mechanoreceptors [and nociceptors] are corrupted.
3. Neuromuscular control unit has difficulty in interpreting the corrupted transducer signals because there is spatial and temporal mismatch between the normally expected and the corrupted signals received.
4. The muscle response pattern generated by the neuromuscular control unit is corrupted, affecting the spatial and temporal coordination and activation of each spinal muscle.
5. The corrupted muscle response pattern leads to corrupted feedback to the control unit via tendon organs of muscles and injured mechanoreceptors [and nociceptors], further corrupting the muscle response pattern.
6. The corrupted muscle response pattern produces high stresses and strains in spinal components leading to further subfailure injury of the spinal ligaments, mechanoreceptors and muscles, and overload of facet joints.
7. The abnormal stresses and strains produce inflammation of spinal tissues, which have abundant supply of nociceptive sensors and neural structures. (p. 669-670)
This indicates that once there is a bio-neuro-mechanical lesion (aka vertebral subluxation), there is a “negative cascade” both structurally (biomechanically) and neurologically in the body’s attempt to create homeostasis. However, should the cause of the lesion not be “fixed,” the entire system will perpetually fail. Over time, due to the Piezoelectric effect and Wolff’s Law of remodeling, the skeletal structure is now permanently altered. Therefore, treatment goals then switch from curative to simply management and is a long-term process.
In part 2, we discussed subfailure,and will examine it again as explained by Solomnow (2009).
Solomonow (2009):
Inflammatory response in ligaments is initiated whenever the tissue is subjected to stresses which exceed its routine limits at a given time. For example, a sub-injury/failure load, well within the physiological limits of a ligament when applied to the ligament by an individual who does not do that type of physical activity routinely. (p. 143)
Jaumard, Welch and Winkelstein (2011) reported:
In the capsular ligament under stretch, the collagen fiber structure and the nerve endings embedded in that network and cells (fibroblasts, macrophages) are all distorted and activated. Accordingly, capsular deformations of certain magnitudes can trigger a wide range of neuronal and inflammatory responses…Although most of the proprioceptive and nociceptive afferents have a low-strain threshold (~10%) for activation, a few receptors have a high-strain threshold (42%) for signal generation via neural discharge. In addition, capsular strains greater than 47% activate nociceptors with pain signals transmitted directly to the central nervous system. Among both the low- and high-strain threshold neural receptors in the capsular ligament a few sustain their firing even after the stretching of the capsular ligament is released. This persistent afterdischarge evident for strains above 45% constitutes a peripheral sensitization that may lead to central sensitization with long-term effects in some cases. (p. 12)
The cascade effect works in 2 directions, one to create a bio-neuro-mechanically failed spinal system and one to correct a bio-neuro-mechanically failed system.
Pickar (2002) reported:
The mechanical force introduced into the during a spinal manipulation (CSA) may directly alter segmental biomechanics by releasing trapped meniscoids, releasing adhesions or by reducing distortion of the annulus fibrosis. (p. 359)
This fact verifies that there is an osseous-neurological component that exists with the nociceptors at the facet level.
Pickar (2002) also stated:
In addition, the mechanical thrust could either stimulate or silence nonnociceptive, mechanosensitive receptive nerve endings in paraspinal tissue, including skin, muscle, tendons, ligaments, facet joints and intervertebral disc. (p. 359)
CENTRAL NERVOUS SYSTEM MODULATION
When discussing central nervous system activity as a direct sequella to a CSA, we must divide our reporting into 2 components, reflexively at the area being adjusted and through higher cortical responses. When discussing local reflexive activity, we must also determine if it is critical to adjust the specific segment in question or if the adjustment will elicit neurological and end organ (muscle) responses to help create a compensatory action for the offending lesion.
Reed and Pickar (2015) reported in an animal study:
First, during clinically relevant spinal manipulative thrust durations (<=150 ms), unilateral intervertebral joint fixation significantly decreases paraspinal muscle spindle response compared with non-fixated conditions. Second and perhaps more importantly, this study shows that while L6 muscle spindle response decreases with L4 HVLA-SM, 60%-80% of an L6 HVLA-SM muscle spindle response is still elicited from an HVLA-SM delivered 2 segments away in both the absence and presence of intervertebral joint fixation. These findings may have clinical implications concerning specific (targeted) versus nonspecific (nontargeted) HVLA-SM. (p. E755-E756)
Reed and Pickar (2015) also reported:
The finding that nontarget HVLA-SM delivered 2 segments away elicited significantly less but yet a substantial percentage (60%–80%) of the neural response elicited during target HVLA-SM may have important clinical implications with regard to HVLA-SM thrust accuracy/specificity requirements. It may explain how target vs non-target site manual therapy interventions can show similar clinical efficacy. In a recent study using the same model as the current study, the increase in L6 muscle spindle response caused by an HVLA-SM is not different between 3 anatomical thrust contact sites (spinous process, lamina, and mammillary body) on the target L6 vertebra but is significantly less when the contact site is located 1 segment caudal at L7…The current study confirms that a nontarget HVLA-SM compared with a target HVLA-SM decreases spindle response but adds the caveat that a substantial percentage (60%–80%) of afferent response can be elicited from an HVLA-SM delivered 2 segments away irrespective of the absence or presence of intervertebral fixation. (p. E756)
Coronado, Gay, Bialosky, Carnaby, Bishop and George (2012) reported that:
Reductions in pain sensitivity, or hypoalgesia, following SMT [spinal manipulative therapy or the chiropractic adjustment] may be indicative of a mechanism related to the modulation of afferent input or central nervous system processing of pain…The authors theorized the observed effect related to modulation of pain primarily at the level of the spinal cord since 1.) these changes were seen within lumbar innervated areas and not cervical innervated areas and 2.) the findings were specific to a measure of pain sensitivity (temporal summation of pain), and not other measures of pain sensitivity, suggesting an effect related to attenuation of dorsal horn excitability and not a generalized change in pain sensitivity. (p. 752)
These findings indicate that a chiropractic spinal adjustment affects the central nervous system specifically at the interneuron level in the dorsal horn. This is part of the cascade effect of the CSA where we now have objectively identified the mechanism of the central nervous system stimulation and its effects.
Gay, Robinson, George, Perlstein and Bishop (2014)
…pain-free volunteers processed thermal stimuli applied to the hand before and after thoracic spinal manipulation (a form of MT [Manual Therapy]). What they found was, after thoracic manipulation, several brain regions demonstrated a reduction in peak BOLD [blood-oxygen-level–dependent] activity. Those regions included the cingulate, insular, motor, amygdala and somatosensory cortices, and the PAG [periaqueductal gray regions].
The purpose of this study was to investigate the changes in FC [functional changes] between brain regions that process and modulate the pain experience after MT [manual therapy]. The primary outcome was to measure the immediate change in FC across brain regions involved in processing and modulating the pain experience and identify if there were reductions in experimentally induced myalgia and changes in local and remote pressure pain sensitivity. (p. 615)
Therefore, a thoracic CSA adjustment produced direct and measurable effects on the central nervous system across multiple regions, specifically the cingular cortex, insular cortex, motor cortex, amygdala cortex, somatosensory cortex and periaqueductal gray matter. This could only occur if “higher centers,” also known as the central nervous system, were affected.
Gay, Robinson, George, Perlstein and Bishop (2014) went on to report:
Within the brain, the pain experience is subserved by an extended network of brain regions including the thalamus (THA), primary and secondary somatosensory, cingulate, and insular cortices. Collectively, these regions are referred to as thepain processing network(PPN) and encode the sensory discriminate and cognitive and emotional components of the pain experience. Perception of pain is dependent not merely on the neural activity within the PPN [pain processing network] but also on the flexible interactions of this network with other functional systems, including the descending pain modulatory system. (p. 617)
Daligadu, Haavik, Yielder, Baarbe, and Murphy (2013) reported that:
Numerous studies indicate that significant cortical plastic changes are present in various musculoskeletal pain syndromes. In particular, altered feed-forward postural adjustments have been demonstrated in a variety of musculoskeletal conditions including anterior knee pain, low back pain and idiopathic neck pain. Furthermore, alterations in trunk muscle recruitment patterns have been observed in patients with mechanical low back pain. (p. 527)
This concludes that there are observable changes in the function of the central nervous system seen in patients with musculoskeletal conditions and chronic pain. Chiropractors have observed this clinically and it demonstrates the necessity for chiropractic care for both short and long-term management of biomechanical spinal conditions.
CONCLUSION
Although there is significantly more research verifying what occurs with a CSA, the above outlines the basics of how the adjustment works both biomechanically and neurologically from the connective tissue and peripheral nerves to the central nervous system both at the cord level and higher cortical regions. The final question is one of public safety.
Based on their study on 6,669,603 subjects after the unqualified subjects had been removed, Whedon, Mackenzie, Phillips, and Lurie (2015) concluded, “No mechanism by which SM [spinal manipulation] induces injury into normal healthy tissues has been identified” (p. 265).
Part 4 will be the evidence of subluxation degeneration and the literature verifying the mechanisms. Part 5, the final part of our series, will be an in-depth contemporary comparative analysis of the chiropractic spinal adjustment vs. physical therapy joint mobilization.
References:
1. Kent, C. (1996). Models of vertebral subluxation: A review. Journal of Vertebral Subluxation Research, 1(1), 1-7.
2. Evans, D. W. (2002). Mechanisms and effects of spinal high-velocity, low-amplitude thrust manipulation: Previous theories. Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics, 25(4), 251-262.
3. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. (2017). Medicare coverage for chiropractic services – Medical record documentation requirements for initial and subsequent visits. MLN Matters, Retrieved from https://www.cms.gov/Outreach-and-Education/Medicare-Learning-Network-MLN/MLNMattersArticles/downloads/SE1601.pdf
4. Panjabi, M. M. (2006). A hypothesis of chronic back pain: Ligament subfailure injuries lead to muscle control dysfunction.European Spine Journal,15(5), 668-676.
5. Solomonow, M. (2009). Ligaments: A source of musculoskeletal disorders.Journal of Bodywork and Movement Therapies,13(2), 136-154.
6. Jaumard, N. V., Welch, W. C., & Winkelstein, B. A. (2011). Spinal facet joint biomechanics and mechanotransduction in normal, injury and degenerative conditions.Journal of Biomechanical Engineering,133(7), 071010.
7. Pickar, J. G. (2002). Neurophysiological effects of spinal manipulation.Spine,2(5), 357-371.
8. Reed, W. R., & Pickar, J. G. (2015). Paraspinal muscle spindle response to intervertebral fixation and segmental thrust level during spinal manipulation in an animal model.Spine,40(13), E752-E759.
9. Coronado, R. A., Gay, C. W., Bialosky, J. E., Carnaby, G. D., Bishop, M. D., & George, S. Z. (2012). Changes in pain sensitivity following spinal manipulation: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Electromyography Kinesiology, 22(5), 752-767.
10. Gay, C. W., Robinson, M. E., George, S. Z., Perlstein, W. M., & Bishop, M. D. (2014). Immediate changes after manual therapy in resting-state functional connectivity as measured by functional magnetic resonance imaging in participants with induced low back pain.Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics, 37(9), 614-627.
11. Daligadu, J., Haavik, H., Yielder, P. C., Baarbe, J., & Murphy, B. (2013). Alterations in coritcal and cerebellar motor processing in subclinical neck pain patients following spinal manipulation.Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics, 36(8), 527-537.
12. Whedon, J. M., Mackenzie, T. A., Phillips, R. B., & Lurie, J. D. (2015). Risk of traumatic injury associated with chiropractic spinal manipulation in Medicare Part B beneficiaries aged 66-69 years. Spine, 40(4), 264-270.
The Mechanism of the Chiropractic
Spinal Adjustment/Manipulation:
Subluxation Degeneration
Effect of Sagittal Alignment on Kinematic Changes and Degree of Disc Degeneration in the Lumbar Spine
Part 4 of a 5 Part Series
William J Owens Jr
Mark E. Studin
A report on the scientific literature
More and more evidence is coming forward demonstrating both spinal stability and biomechanical balance as an important aspect of spine care. The good news is this is well within chiropractic’s scope, however many doctors of chiropractic are missing the education to accurately evaluate and objectify these types of biomechanical lesions. Our profession has spent most the last 122 years focused on TREATING these biomechanical lesions (Vertebral Subluxation, Joint Fixation, etc.) with little regard to the “assessment” component. The reason that is a critical statement, is that too often we treat compensation vs. the unstable joint.
Our founding doctors had used very specific techniques to analyze the spine from a functional perspective and most of our contemporary treatment techniques came out of these analysis, which are the basis for many of our most common techniques taught in today’s chiropractic academia. It seems in hindsight, that the major discussions of the time [early chiropractic] were about “identification” of the lesion to adjust, then evolved into the best WAY to deliver the adjustment.
Our roots and subsequently the true value and expertise of the doctor of chiropractic is in the assessment with treatment far secondary to an accurate diagnosis The medical community that both the authors and the doctors we teach no longer confuse our delivering of chiropractic care with a physical therapy manipulation or mobilization. The reason, our focus is on the diagnosis, prognosis and treatment plan BEFORE we render our treatment.
With medical specialists who understand spine, our conversation centers on spinal biomechanics and how a specific chiropractic spinal adjustment will restore sagittal/coronal alignment and coupled motion balance the spine. We discuss spinal biomechanics and have the literature and credentials to validate our diagnosis, prognosis and treatment plan. Chiropractic has been the leader in this treatment for over a century, but since we had chosen to stay outside of the mainstream healthcare system we had no platform to take a leadership position or be heard.
Medicine at both the academic and clinical levels are embracing chiropractic as the primary solution to mechanical spine issues (no fracture, tumor or infection) because as one primary care provider shared with us “traditional medical therapies inclusive of physical therapy has no basis in reality in how to treat these patients, which has led us in part, to the opiate crisis.” Part of the validation of what chiropractic offers in a biomechanical paradigm comes from surgical journals in the medical community.
Keorochana et al, (2011) published in Spine and out of UCLA, titled “To determine the effects of total sagittal lordosis on spinal kinematics and degree of disc degeneration in the lumbar spine. An analysis using positional MRI.” Remember that this article was 8 years ago and as a concept has evolved considerably since it was first discussed in the late 1990s. This is the clinical component of what Panjabi had successfully described and reproduced in the laboratory. It is now starting to become mainstream in clinical practice.
Many people ask why would surgeons care about the biomechanics of the spine when they are looking simply for an anatomical lesion to stabilize [fracture, tumor, infection, cord compression]? The authors answer this question by stating “It has also been a topic of great interest in the management of lumbar degenerative pathologies, especially when focusing on the role it may play in accelerating adjacent degeneration after spinal fusionand non-fusion procedures such as dynamic stabilization and total disc replacement.” [pg. 893]
They continue by stating “Alterations in the stress distribution may ultimately influence the occurrence of spinal degeneration. Moreover, changes in sagittal morphology may alter the mechanics of the lumbar spine, affecting mobility. Nevertheless, the relationships of sagittal alignment on lumbar degeneration and segmental motion have not been fully defined.” [pg. 893] This is precisely what our founding fathers called “Subluxation and Subluxation Degeneration!”
Regarding the type and number of patients in the study, the authors reported the following, “pMRIs [positional MRI] of the lumbar spine were obtained for 430 consecutive patients (241 males and 189 females) from February 2007 to February 2008. All patients were referred for pMRI [positional MRI – which included compression in both flexion and extension with a particular focus on segmentation translation and angular motions] due to complaints of low back pain with or without leg pain.” [pg. 894] This is the part where they looked for hypermobility.
In the first step in the analysis, the authors reviewed data regarding the global sagittal curvature as well as the individual angular segmental contributions to the curvature. The next step involved the classification of the severity of lumbar disc degeneration using the Pfirrmann classification system. [See Appendix A if you are not familiar]. This is where they looked for segmental degeneration. The patients were then classified based on the lordosis angle [T12-S1]. The groups were as follows:
Group A – Straight Spine or Kyphosis – [lordosis angle <20°]
Group B – Normal Lordosis – [lordosis angle 20° to < 50°]
Group C – Hyperlordosis – [lordosis angle >50°]
There is a structural categorization [lordosis] and a degenerative categorization [Pfirrmann] in this paper and the authors sought to see if there was a predictable relationship.
The results of this study were interesting and validated much of what the chiropractic profession has discussed relating to segmental “compensation” in the spine. Meaning, when one segment is hypomobile, adjacent segments will increase motility to compensate. The authors stated, “The sagittal lumbar spine curvature has been established as an important parameter when evaluating intervertebral disc loads and stresses in both clinical and cadaveric biomechanical investigations.” [pg. 896] They continue by stating “In vitro [in the laboratory or outside of the living organism] biomechanical tests do not take into account the influence of ligaments and musculature, and may not adequately address the complex biomechanics of the spine.” [pg. 896]
When it comes to spinal balance and distribution of loads in the spine, the authors reported “Our results may indicate that the border segments of lordosis, especially in the upper lumbar spine (L1–L2, L2–L3, and L3–L4), have greater motion in straight or kyphotic spines, and less segmental motion in hyperlordotic patients.” [pg. 896]
They continued by stating, “A greater degree of rigidity is found at the apical portion of straight or kyphotic spines, and more mobility is seen at the apical portion of hyperlordotic spines.” [pg. 897] Therefore, in both cases we see that changes in the sagittal configuration of the human spine has consequences for the individual segments involved.
This raises the question, “how does this related to accelerated degeneration of the motion segments involved?” [Subluxation Degeneration] The authors reported, “Regarding the relationship between the degree of disc degeneration and posture, subjects with straight or kyphotic spines tended to have a greater degree of disc degeneration at border segments, with statistical significance in the lower spine (L5–S1). On the other hand, hyperlordotic spines had a significantly greater degree of disc degeneration at the apex and upper spine (L4–L5 and L1–L2). The severity of disc degeneration tended to increase with increased mobility at the segments predisposed to greater degeneration (border segments of straight or kyphotic spines and apical segments of hyperlordotic spines).” [pg. 897]
The scientific literature and medicine is now validating (proving) what chiropractic has championed for 122+ years, that the human spine is a living neurobiomechanical entity, which responds to the changes in the external environment and compensates perpetually seeking a homeostatic equilibrium. We can now have verification that changes or compensation within the spinal system as a result of a bio-neuro-mechanical lesion (vertebral subluxation) results in degeneration (subluxation degeneration) of individual motion segments.
In conclusion, the authors state…
“Changes in sagittal alignment may lead to kinematic changes and influence load bearing and the distribution of disc degeneration at each level.” [pg. 897]
“Sagittal alignment may alter spinal load and mobility, possibly influencing segmental degeneration.” [pg. 897]
“Motion and the segmental contribution to the total mobility tended to be lower at the border of lordosis, especially at the upper segments, and higher at the apex of lordosis in more lordotic spines, whereas the opposite was seen in straight or kyphotic spines.” [pg. 897]
Although medicine is addressing this at the surgical level, as a profession they realize they have no conservative solutions, which has “opened the door” for the credentialed doctor of chiropractic to be in a leadership role in both teaching medicine about the role of the chiropractor as the primary spine care provider and the central focus of the care path for mechanical spine issues.
When communicating with patients and medical professionals it is critically important to educate them on what “current research” is showing and why it is important that this chiropractic approach to spine care is the future of spine care in the United States.
REFERENCE:
1. Keorochana, G., Taghavi, C. E., Lee, K. B., Yoo, J. H., Liao, J. C., Fei, Z., & Wang, J. C. (2011). Effect of sagittal alignment on kinematic changes and degree of disc degeneration in the lumbar spine: an analysis using positional MRI. Spine, 36(11), 893-898.
2. Teichtahl, A. J., Urquhart, D. M., Wang, Y., Wluka, A. E., Heritier, S. & Cicuttini, F. M. (2015). A dose-response relationship between severity of disc degeneration and intervertebral disc height in the lumbosacral spine. Arthritis Research & Therapy, 17(297). Retrieved from https://openi.nlm.nih.gov/detailedresult.php?img=PMC4619538_13075_2015_820_Fig1_HTML&req=4
3. Teraguchi, M., Yoshimura, N., Hashizume, H., Muraki,S., Yamada, H.,Minamide, A., Oka, H., Ishimoto, Y., Nagata, K. Kagotani, R., Takiguchi, N., Akune, T., Kawaguchi, H., Nakamura, K., & Yoshida, M. (2014). Prevalence and distribution of intervertebral disc degeneration over the entire spine in a population-based cohort: the Wakayama Spine Study. Osteoarthritis and Cartilage, 22(1). Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1063458413010029
4. Puertas, E.B., Yamashita, H., Manoel de Oliveira, V., & Satiro de Souza, P. (2009). Classification of intervertebral disc degeneration by magnetic resonance. Acta Ortopédica Brasileira, 17(1). Retrieved from http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?pid=S1413-78522009000100009&script=sci_arttext&tlng=en
|
|
Homeof the USCD 
ResearchBrowse Chiropractic Conditions 
RegisterDoctors JOIN here