The Chiropractic Adjustment Changes Brain Function


The Evidence of Increased Muscle Strength is Added to Pain Sensitivity and Autonomic Changes



William J. Owens DC, DAAMLP

Matt Erickson DC, FSBT


A report on the scientific literature


There is a growing body of evidence that a high-velocity, low-amplitude (HVLA) chiropractic spinal adjustment (CSA) has a significant influence on cortical (brain) and other central (cord) changes. This is significant as the evidence is now answering more questions on why has chiropractic has had such a profound effect on a myriad of conditions beyond back pain. Technology, including but not limited to functional MRI, NCV, EEG and sEMG renders demonstrable validation of the effect the chiropractic spinal adjustment has on changes in central function.


A chiropractic spinal manipulation/adjustment is a specific HVLA thrust maneuver designed to correct spinal patho-neuro-biomechanics (remove nerve irritation/interference, restore biomechanical balance), increases important proteins such as Substance P (Evans 2002) and makes plastic changes to the central nervous system. Conversely, a spinal manipulation as manual therapy or thrust joint manipulation (TJM) performed by physical therapists (PT’s) is a generalized non-specific low-velocity, low-amplitude of non-specific HVLA thrust maneuver of joints and connective tissue to improve motion and decrease muscle tension.



Essentially, the intent of TJM is in treating pain and dysfunction. That is not to say a non-specific manipulation will not help a patient. However, when spinal manipulation is not performed as a chiropractic based neuro-biomechanical corrective adjustment or from a salutogenic health management perspective, it is something else entirely. Therefore, spinal manipulation as a chiropractic adjustment delivered by a chiropractor is not synonymous with TJM, mobilization or spinal manipulation delivered by a PT.


Reed, Pickar, Sozio, and Long (2014) reported, “.forms of manual therapy have been clinically shown to increase mechanical pressure pain thresholds (i.e., decrease sensitivity) in both symptomatic and asymptomatic subjects. Cervical spinal manipulation (chiropractic HVLA) has been shown to result in unilateral as well as bilateral mechanical hypoalgesia. Compared with no manual therapy, oscillatory spinal manual therapy at T12 and L4 produced significantly higher paraspinal pain thresholds at T6, L1, and L3 in individuals with rheumatoid arthritis. The immediate and widespread hypoalgesia associated with manual therapy treatments has been attributed to alterations in peripheral and/or central pain processing including activation of descending pain inhibitory systems. Increasing evidence from animal models suggests that manual therapy activates the central nervous system and, in so doing, affects areas well beyond those being treated. (p. 277)


Reed et al. (2014) also reported, The finding that only the higher intensity manipulative stimulus (ie, 85% BW [body weight] vs 55% BW or control) decreased the mechanical sensitivity of lateral thalamic neurons to mechanical trunk stimulation coincides with other reports relating graded mechanical or electrical stimulus intensity to the magnitude of central inhibition. Several clinical studies indicate that spinal manipulation [chiropractic spinal adjustment] alters central processing of mechanical stimuli evidenced by increased pressure pain thresholds and decreased pain sensitivity in asymptomatic and symptomatic subjects following manipulation. (p. 282)


Daligadu, Haavik, Yielder, Baarbe, and Murphy (2013) reported, There is also evidence in the literature to suggest that muscle impairment occurs early in the history of onset of spinal complaints, and that such muscle impairment does not automatically resolve even when pain symptoms improve. This has led some authors to suggest that the deficits in proprioception and motor control, rather than the pain itself, may be the main factors defining the clinical picture and chronicity of various chronic pain conditions. Furthermore, recent evidence has demonstrated that spinal manipulation (CSA) can alter neuromuscular and proprioceptive function in patients with neck and back pain as well as in asymptomatic participants. For instance, cervical spine manipulation (CSA) has been shown to produce greater changes in pressure pain threshold in lateral epicondylalgia than thoracic manipulation; and in asymptomatic patients, lumbar spine manipulation (CSA) was found to significantly influence corticospinal and spinal reflex excitability. Interestingly, Soon et al did not find neurophysiological changes following mobilization on motor function and pressure pain threshold in asymptomatic individuals, perhaps suggesting that manipulation [chiropractic spinal adjustments], as distinct from mobilization, induces unique physiological changes. There is also accumulating evidence to suggest that chiropractic manipulation can result in changes to central nervous system function including reflex excitability, cognitive processing, sensory processing, and motor output. There is also evidence in SCNP [sub-clinical neck pain] individuals that chiropractic manipulation alters cortical somatosensory processing and elbow joint position sense. This evidence suggests that chiropractic manipulation may have a positive neuromodulatory effect on the central nervous system, and this may play a role in the effect it has in the treatment of neck pain. It is hoped improving our understanding of the neurophysiological mechanisms that may precede the development of chronic neck pain in individuals with sub-clinical neck pain (SCNP) will help provide a neurophysiological marker of altered sensory processing that could help determine if an individual is showing evidence of disordered sensorimotor integration and thus might benefit from early intervention to prevent the progression of SCNP into more long-term pain states.  (p. 528)


Christriansen, Niazi, Holt, Nedergaard, Duehr, Allen, Marshall, Turker and Haarvik (2018) discussed the effects of a single session of a chiropractic spinal manipulation (CSA) on strength and cortical drive. They studied the effects upwards of 60 minutes and further testing is needed to determine the long-term effects of the adjustment. They found in “blinded studies” that “the increased maximum voluntary contraction force lasted for 30 min and the corticospinal excitability increase persisted for at least 60 minutes.” (pg. 737)


Christiansen et. Al (2018) also reported, “The increased V-wave amplitudes observed in the current study possibly reflect an increased cortical drive in the corticospinal pathways and corresponding increased excitability of the MNs following SM found differences in the cortical drive in volleyball athletes competing at different levels, and argued that elite players had increased cortical drive correlating to their biomechanical performance. The absence of change in the H-reflex in the presence of the increased MVC along with increased V-waves suggests that it's possible that the change post manipulation occurred at supraspinal centers involving a cortical neural drive. The V-waves represent cortical drive. The absence of change in the H-reflex alone suggests that the spinal motor neurons and the excitability of the spindle primary afferent synapses on the spinal motor neurons did not change as a result of SM.” (pg. 745) The above paragraph indicates there is no input at the cord level as the H-Reflex exhibited no changes.



Increased motor function for a minimum of 60 minutes post-chiropractic spinal adjustment has far-reaching manifestations for a dichotomy of the population. Athletes at every level will benefit from increased motor function and patients suffering from either muscular or neuro-degenerative illnesses, such as Parkinson’s, Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), Muscular Dystrophy and others will also potentially benefit. Although this article touched on PT manual therapy, low-velocity, low-amplitude or non-specific thrust joint manipulation; these forms of treatment do not render the outcomes a chiropractic spinal adjustment.


Christiansen et. Al (2018) concluded and perfectly positioned the effect of a chiropractic spinal adjustment and the effect on the brain, “this study supports a growing body of research that suggests chiropractic spinal manipulation’s main effect is neuroplastic in nature and affects corticospinal excitability. Changes in both cerebellum and prefrontal cortex function have been implicated post-spinal manipulation in previous research studies. The presence of mild, recurrent spinal dysfunction has been shown to be associated with maladaptive neural plastic changes, such as alterations in elbow joint position sense mental rotation ability, and even multisensory integration Furthermore, spinal manipulation of dysfunctional spinal segments has been shown to impact somatosensory processing, sensorimotor integration and motor control.” (pg. 746)




  1. Reed, W. R., Pickar, J. G., Sozio, R. S., & Long, C. R. (2014). Effect of spinal manipulation thrust magnitude on trunk mechanical activation thresholds of lateral thalamic neurons. Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics, 37
  2. Daligadu, J., Haavik, H., Yielder, P. C., Baarbe, J., & Murphy, B. (2013). Alterations in cortical and cerebellar motor processing in subclinical neck pain patients following spinal manipulation. Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics, 36.
  3. Christiansen, T. L., Niazi, I. K., Holt, K., Nedergaard, R. W., Duehr, J., Allen, K., ... & Haavik, H. (2018). The effects of a single session of spinal manipulation on strength and cortical drive in athletes. European journal of applied physiology118

Share this

Submit to DeliciousSubmit to DiggSubmit to FacebookSubmit to Google BookmarksSubmit to StumbleuponSubmit to TechnoratiSubmit to TwitterSubmit to LinkedIn
Published in Neck Problems

Deceptive Dogmatic Reporting Despite Successful Chiropractic Outcomes

Revealing the deception of low back pain naturally resolving

…and the dogma of non-specific back pain


Mark Studin, DC
William J. Owens DC
Timothy Weir, DC 


Citation:Studin M., Owens W., Weir T. (2018) Deceptive Dogmatic Reporting Despite Successful Chiropractic Outcomes, American Chiropractor, 40 (11) 10, 12-15

A report on the scientific literature

Over the past decade, there has been a growing body of evidence demonstrating the “how and why” of chiropractic evidenced-based results. However, there has also been a historical level of reporting dogmatic issues related to the “the natural history of back pain” and “non-specific back pain” that deceptively enter and intersect the conversation to apparently discredit “pro-chiropractic” evidenced-based research that has persisted in contemporary literature. This review is centered on those issues, and the references for the above comments will ensue in the paragraphs below.

The National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke reports “Most low back pain is acute, or short-term, and lasts a few days to a few weeks. It tends to resolve on its own with self-care, and there is no residual loss of function.” Kaiser Permanente, a national health system reports, “For most patients with back pain, the condition will improve within a few days or weeks.”

Kaiser Permanente goes on to report, “The primary goal of treatment is to maximize function and quality of life, rather than to eliminate pain. Some ongoing or recurrent pain is normal and not indicative of a serious problem. Avoid exposing the patient to unhelpful or possibly risky interventions. As a general rule, an intervention in which the patient is an active participant (e.g., physical therapy, walking, stretching, yoga) rather than a passive recipient (e.g., chiropractic, massage, acupuncture) is deemed to have greater potential to promote self-efficacy and self-management skills in the long term.”

Gedin, Edmar, Sundberg, and Burström in 2018 reported “Patients with acute back pain reported statistically significant and MCID (Minimal Clinically Important Difference) improvements in back pain intensity, back disability, HRQoL (Health-Related Quality of Life instrument), and statistically significant improvements in self-rated health, over four weeks following chiropractic care. Patients with chronic back pain reported statistically significant, albeit smaller and non MCID, changes for all PRO except self-rated health.

Interestingly, Gedin et al. have a significant level of statistics of demonstrating percentages of subjects who showed improvement and choose not to report that in the written part of the report, thereby not rendering a statistical interpretation. However, they included a caveat to perhaps minimize the positive results by reiterating the same deceptive dogma as discussed above. Gedin et. al then reported “However, it has been suggested that 90% of patients with acute low back pain recover within six weeks (van Tulder et al., 2006), which may also help explain the current findings of rapid improvements.(pg. 16) This opinion published in 2018 was referenced and supported by a 12-year old study which clearly ignored the contemporary literature.

Tamcan, Mannion, Eisenring, Horisberger (2010) reported on the only population-based study these authors were able to identify and concluded “When the 12-month follow-up period was divided into four equal time periods and, subsequently, clusters, it was seen that the majority of individuals placed in the moderate persistent [pain] cluster on the basis of the first 3 months data remained in this cluster at the following intervals. A reasonable consistency across time was also found for the clusters mild persistent and severe persistent. In contrast, the consistency of membership for the cluster initially identified as fluctuating was low, especially after six months.” (pg. 455-456) This study, which again is the only identified population-based study indicates that pain does not resolve “naturally” as was reported: “fluctuation was low, especially after six months.”

Knecht, Humphyres and Wirth (2017) reported on the recurrence of low back pain and stated, “Only 1 in 3 LBP (low back pain) episodes completely resolve within a year, and the percentage of LBP that goes from acute to chronic varies among studies from 2% to 34%.” Knecht et. Al (2017) also went on to report “Patients presenting with a subacute problem, lasting for more than 14 days at baseline, were at higher odds for a recurrent course, whereas the odds for a chronic course were higher only for patients presenting with a chronic problem (3 months) at baseline. Downie et al. reported that pain duration of more than five days was a factor that negatively affects prognosis. Similarly, duration of the current episode emerged as the most consistent factor for prognosis after one year in a study by Bekkering et al. and even predicted disability after five years. These findings suggest on the one hand that it might be prudent to seek professional advice [referenced chiropractic care in the article] early on in the pain episode.” (pg. 431)



These papers a part of the research trend supporting what the chiropractic profession has known all along, the natural progression of low back pain resulting in resolution is based on dogma and not supported by the research evidence. Additionally, the low back pain care path reported previously by Kaiser Permanente appears to be biased towards the denial of care and not consistent with the published literature.

Gedin et. Al (2018) also report, “it has been estimated that the vast majority of back pain cases is of non-specific origin.” (pg. 3) The concept of simply focusing on the treatment of non-specific back pain would render chiropractic no different than physical therapists when focusing on the “non-specific” nature of spine pain as the arbiter for care while the focus must be on the biomechanical compensation and individual motor units of the spine. Previous literature has verified that the supposition that “non-specific” is synonymous with ‘unobjectifiable” is erroneous since it was previously reported that chiropractic treats definite biomechanical changes in the motor units of the spine, therefore resulting in “very specific” biomechanical pathology.

Panjabi in 1992, presented a detailed work explaining how the biomechanical systems within the human spine react to the environment, how it can become dysfunctional and cause pain. He stated “Presented here is the conceptual basis for the assertion that the spinal stabilizing system consists of three subsystems, the vertebrae, discs, and ligaments constitute the passive subsystem, all muscles and tendons surrounding the spinal column that can apply forces to the spinal column constitute the active subsystem and finally, the nerves and central nervous system comprise the neural subsystem, which determines the requirements for spinal stability by monitoring the various trans­ducer signals [of the nervous system] and directs the active subsystem to provide the needed stability.” He goes on to state, “A dysfunction of a component of any one of the subsystems may lead to one or more of the following three possibilities, an immediate response from other subsys­tems to successfully compensate, a long-term adaptation response of one or more subsystems or an injury to one or more components of any subsystem.”


Panjabi continues, “It is conceptualized that the first response results in normal function, the second results in normal function but with an altered spinal stabilizing system, and the third leads to overall system dysfunction, producing, for example, low back pain. In situations where additional loads or complex postures are anticipated, the neural control unit may alter the muscle recruitment strategy, with the temporary goal of enhancing the spine stability beyond the normal requirements.” (pg. 383) This is where the idea of biomechanical compensation was identified.



Panjabi’s lifelong work summarized in the above work is the basis for the underlying mechanics of spine pain that does NOT correlate well to anatomical findings. Anatomical findings are fracture, tumor or infection and allopathy has labeled anything else “non-specific low back pain” which continues to maintain a dogmatic perspective in both clinical decision making and all too often, the literature, despite compelling evidence to the contrary.



Cramer et al. (2002) further clarified the biomechanics of spinal failure at the motor until level and reported, “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)

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.” (pg. 252)

Evans (2002) continued, “an HVLA manipulation, involving gapping of the zygapophyseal joint reduces the impaction and opens the joint, so encouraging the meniscoid to return to its normal anatomical position in the joint cavity. This ceases the distension of the joint capsule, thus reducing pain.”  (p. 253)

The involvement of nociceptors and nociceptive impulses stimulates the cortical regions of the brain which evokes a cortical response to that noxious stimuli. Haavik et al. (2017) reported the effects of a chiropractic spinal high velocity-low amplitude adjustment by stating “These results are consistent with previous findings that have suggested increases in strength following spinal manipulation were due to descending cortical drive and could not be explained by changes at the level of the spinal cord.” (pg. 1)

The persistent utilization of “non-specific” in reference to specific biomechanical alterations and failure in the human spine is dogmatic and deceptive since it “lumps together” all types of manual treatment, where chiropractic, based upon its unique application differs from other forms of manual therapy performed by physical therapy, acupuncture, and massage therapy. It differs in the ability of chiropractors to diagnosis and manages spinal compensation. In comparison to each other, each discipline is disparate in goals, application, and science and when not considered as such, lends itself to continue deceptive dogmatic arguments ignoring the evidenced-based truths of chiropractic.


  1. The National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (2018) Retrieved from
  2. Kaiser Permanente, Non-specific Back Pain Guidelines (2017) retrieved from”
  3. Gedin, F., Dansk, V., Egmar, A. C., Sundberg, T., & Burström, K. (2018). Patient-reported improvements of pain, disability and health-related quality of life following chiropractic care for back pain–A national observational study in Sweden. Journal of Bodywork and Movement Therapies.
  4. Tamcan, O., Mannion, A. F., Eisenring, C., Horisberger, B., Elfering, A., & Müller, U. (2010). The course of chronic and recurrent low back pain in the general population. Pain150(3), 451-457.
  5. Knecht, C., Humphreys, B. K., & Wirth, B. (2017). An Observational Study Recurrences of Low Back Pain During the First 12 Months After Chiropractic Treatment. Journal of manipulative and physiological therapeutics40(6), 427-433.
  6. Downie AS, Hancock MJ, Rzewuska M, Williams CM, Lin CW, Maher CG. Trajectories of acute low back pain: a latent class growth analysis. 2016;157(1):225-234
  7. Bekkering GE, Hendriks HJ, van Tulder MW, et al. Prognostic factors for low back pain in patients referred for physiotherapy: comparing outcomes and varying modeling techniques. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2005;30(16):1881-1886.
  8. Panjabi, M. M. (1992). The stabilizing system of the spine. Part I. Function, dysfunction, adaptation, and enhancement. Journal of spinal disorders5, 383-383.
  9. 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.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.
  10. Haavik, H., Niazi, I. K., Jochumsen, M., Sherwin, D., Flavel, S., & Türker, K. S. (2016). Impact of spinal manipulation on the cortical drive to upper and lower limb muscles. Brain Sciences7(1), 2.

Share this

Submit to DeliciousSubmit to DiggSubmit to FacebookSubmit to Google BookmarksSubmit to StumbleuponSubmit to TechnoratiSubmit to TwitterSubmit to LinkedIn
Published in Neck Problems

Re-Integration of Lost Cervical Curve Post-Motor Vehicle Accident

Quantifying and Qualifying Injury and Recovery of the Lateral Cervical Curve by a Serial Examination of Injured Lateral Cervical Spine via Radiographs


By: Ray Wiegand, DC

Mark Studin DC.


A patient presented in January 2018 following a motor vehicle accident (MVA) to a chiropractor licensed in Colorado. This doctor, trained in x-ray digitization and utilizing the Analysis System Software, adjusted the full spine according to the computerized rendered conclusions that identified the primary biomechanical lesions of the spine while avoiding compensatory spinal segments. In the absence of any osteophytes, as per He and Xinghua (2006), verifies this is a recent injury vs. chronic and consistent with the MVA history as causality.






The patient demonstrates the findings of a sudden impact injury with severe loss of the cervical curve and forward head translation. Loss of the cervical curve and FHT (forward head translation) is the single common etiology of almost everyone with musculoskeletal complaints from an MVA, based upon the experience of the authors. The computer graphic above is for patient education, illustrating a normal cervical for comparison for the patient. In this case the patient was rated “Very Severe” for biomechanical severity with 19.3 mm of anterior head translation based upon digitization).

As patient positioning can influence the contour of the cervical curve, the patient's plane line of the teeth was in a neutral position for the neutral x-ray view. This creates a frame of reference for future comparison. According to Kapandji (1974), this position is the true neutral position of balanced head posture. Lifting the chin to obtain a neutral posture creates the opportunity for the patient to demonstrate more of a lordosis. But typically, they will not. In this example the patient head was in 17.9° of flexion which alters  upper cervical measurements.



Serial examination                  1/2018 compared to 5/2018




The patient is in natural neutral posture with the plane line of the teeth horizontal.



Post chiropractic spinal high velocity-low amplitude adjustments, the patient went from 206 spinal stress units (SSU) to 89.2 SSU. The SSU measures the patient’s geometric departure from a balanced uninjured lateral cervical curve. In this example the patient decreased in stress by 116.8 SSU. This represented going from 4 SD (standard deviations) from normal to 1 SD from normal.



Upon radiographic examination post MVA, the patient presented with a reversed cervical curve. Numerically, this was rated at 206 stress units and post chiropractic spinal high velocity-low amplitude adjustments the patient was reduced by 116.8 SSU units to a value of 89.2, resulting in a minimal of loss of curve as determined numerically. Visually, the patient’s cervical curve was returned to “near normal” with the plum line going from the posterior arch of C1 through the posterior body of C7.





  1. Kapandji, I.A. Physiology of the Joints, 2nd Edition, 1974.  New York, NY. Churchill Livingston, pg 44-45
  2. 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.

Share this

Submit to DeliciousSubmit to DiggSubmit to FacebookSubmit to Google BookmarksSubmit to StumbleuponSubmit to TechnoratiSubmit to TwitterSubmit to LinkedIn
Published in Case Reports

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)


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)


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. 


  1. AAPM facts and figures on pain, the American Academy of pain medicine (2018), retrieved from:
  2. Sinnott P., Dally S., Trafton J., Goulet J. and Wagner T. (2017) Trends in diagnosis of painful neck and back conditions, 2002 to 2011, Medicine, 96 (20), pgs. 1-6
  3. Corcoran K., Dunn A., Green B., Formolo L., and Beehler G. (2018) Changes in Female Veterans’ Neck Pain Following Chiropractic Care at a Hospital for Veterans, Complimentary Therapies in Clinical Practice 30, pgs. 91-95
  4. Studin M., Owens W., (2017) The Mechanism of the Chiropractic Spinal Adjustment/Manipulation: Chiropractic vs. Physical Therapy for Spine, Part 5 of 5, Retrieved from:



Share this

Submit to DeliciousSubmit to DiggSubmit to FacebookSubmit to Google BookmarksSubmit to StumbleuponSubmit to TechnoratiSubmit to TwitterSubmit to LinkedIn
Published in Neck Problems


Primary Spine Care

A mandatory “future trend” for chiropractic success that has already begun

By Mark Studin

William J. Owens

Primary Spine Care has been proven in the market place as chiropractic’s future and the instrument to increase our utilization. Primary Spine Care simply means that the chiropractor is the first referral option for mechanical spine issues short of fracture, tumor or infection. After 10 years of development and 4 years of market testing, this paradigm has been released nationally and has far exceeded our expectations based upon the dramatic increased utilization of chiropractic services nationwide from private practice to hospitals.   If you are committed to being “the best-of-the-best” through clinical excellence, you can still create a leadership position in your community for both you and your practice with not losing sight that this is happening, with you or without you, and if you are not out in front you will potentially be forever behind. 

Insurers are scrambling to “corner the market” using the lure of primary spine care.  In the end, this is just another plan to further limit your reimbursements; it is “managed care in sheep’s clothing”. Hospitals are also devising primary spine care schemes to dupe you into becoming one of their devoted “minions” into a 1-way referral pattern; with you referring into THIER system while avoiding referring into YOURS. Chiropractic academia is also struggling to catch the primary spine care trend, while their true mandate is to prepare our future doctors of chiropractic to pass national and state boards.  Our politicians and political organizations have realized they are also significantly behind this trend and are reaching “inward” in a hope for someone within the organization to try to take a leadership position. Although our political organizations are vocally touting their ability to grow chiropractic, we can see historically the opposite is true.  Our profession has thought leading with politics was the answer and that path would finally deliver chiropractic into the mainstream, however, based upon published evidence, that approach has proven to deliver relatively stagnant growth as reported by Adams et. Al (2017).  Adams states chiropractic utilization to be 8.4% of the population. It was also reported that 35.2% of the United States population takes over the counter drugs and 23.2% takes prescription medications for the same conditions that respond favorably to chiropractic care. The disparity in utilization of drugs vs. chiropractic care underscores that our global approach to the promotion of chiropractic care is failing, and it can no longer be “business as usual.”

One of the fastest growing trends in healthcare today, is defining who should be considered a “Primary Spine Care Practitioner.” There is a myriad of factors to consider and the timing, based upon a “Best Practice/Evidence Based  Models” (consisting of the scientific literature, patient feedback/expectations and the doctors experience) is perfect for chiropractic to take its place as the leading profession in this critically important niche.  As a society, we are failing to provide adequate spine care.  One of the issues that inevitably occurs when there is a trend catching everyone’s attention, is the rise of the “fly by night, get rich quick, self-proclaimed gurus” that cut corners behind the scenes, but gives you the perception that they are true leaders.  Our profession has a significant history of this occurring, particularly in the managed care arena and we are seeing it starting to happen within the contemporary Primary Spine Care Practitioner trend.  We wanted to provide insight on what is occurring from our unique position, which combines both chiropractic and medical academia and clinical practice.  We would like to outline the critical factors to consider so you can prepare to effectively participate and leverage this important trend in healthcare to your private practice.  The end result; increase utilization (you are busier).

The following should be considered a guide to your path to success in Primary Spine Care and WHO to participate WITH and WHO to AVOID.


One of the most important aspects of evaluating a Primary Spine Care training program, or even taking advice at the academic, political or consulting end is determining whether the program and its instructors are coming from a position of success.  Do they present with a proven track record or are they are simply capturing a trend and experimenting with you and your practice?  Consider the reality television show The Shark Tank, a show which has billionaire investors investigating companies that want them to invest in their products or services. The Sharks have a simple rule, which is an underlying theme of the show, what has the “wannabe” business PRODUCED in revenue or success PRIOR to a Shark considering investing their personal money? If the answer is little or none, then the Shark passes since speculation rarely leads to profit. Too many Primary Spine Care “guru’s” promote a pathway to success, but have not achieved any significant level of expertise or track record in filling offices in a profitable scenario. These are the groups that have so called “friends” on the inside and at first glance seems impressive, but as you dig deeper into their past successes they come up empty.  It is important to not enter a training program that needs YOU to grow, that is a recipe for failure, frustration and no return on your investment.  We suggest asking how many chiropractors are currently in the program and how may referrals they have to date in their system [most do not keep track for obvious reasons] and GET references.  Facts are facts and not rhetoric and no matter how “sexy” a program appears, it means nothing if it doesn’t work.  This is the difference between an experimental process and a real program achieving real results.  Don’t be the experiment.


Secondly, we want to caution you to make sure every Primary Spine Care program is putting chiropractic first.  We suggest asking if the program is chiropractic centric or does it concurrently invite physical therapists as Co-Primary Spine Care Providers?  It has long been discussed and demonstrated [CLICK HERE FOR VERIFICATION] that the scientific literature has concluded that chiropractic care for spine is superior to that of physical therapy at many levels including pain management and in the reduction of recurrent disability. 

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. These differences raise concerns regarding the useof physiotherapists as gatekeepers for the worker’s compensation system. (pg. 388)

Programs that include physical therapy are brining chiropractic down to a level that will not ensure your success as the outcomes are far less effective than a chiropractic spinal adjustment as evidenced in the paragraph above. Physical therapy has its place in spine care, but not first. It is our experience that a program who offers both chiropractic and physical therapy as primary spine care will do this to ensure the profit of the program and NOT YOU. We also firmly believe this creates a public healthcare risk by supporting poorer outcomes, which feed the current opiate epidemic by mismanaging mechanical spine patients. In the end, this will create a perception that chiropractic and physical therapy are equal.  Nothing could be farther from the truth and nothing could be more dangerous to the public and your long-term success.  Only consider a Primary Spine Care program that is chiropractic only.


This is one of the most negative aspects of the current Primary Spine Care trend and one that we see happening more and more each week. There are groups in our profession that are promoting the Primary Spine Care concept not to help chiropractic, but to “sell” chiropractic to insurance carriers or hospitals under the umbrella of third party administrators or managed care. This type of focus is NOT in the best interest of chiropractic and does not have your practice’s best interests in mind or the chiropractic profession (for verification, see all the current managed care models that allow 8 or 10 visits at a severely reduced fee, where most have chiropractors controlling your practice and paycheck).  Insurance carriers are not ignorant, they realize the benefits of using chiropractic care and coverage is expanding in these plans, however there are those in our profession that continue to insert themselves between hardworking chiropractors and the insurance carriers.  This is a veiled attempt to create a “network” of doctors that they can sell to the highest bidder.  These “middle men” even promise doctors in their group a steady stream of patients, but in the end, it is an empty promise or worse… you get a lot of patients at such a reduced rate that paying your bills is challenging.  Don’t let this happen to you and your practice. Enriching others at the expense of your practice and your family is not a recipe for success.  We suggest reviewing ALL the directors of ALL programs you are considering and if there is ANY indication that they had consulted with insurance carriers, worked for managed care companies or are significant players in the independent examination world…RUN.  Many are now getting astute and realizing that chiropractors have been taken advantage of for too long, so they leave these things off their CV or Resume.  We suggest searching GOOGLE and Social Media, many have digital trail and an employment track record that can be uncovered.  This is occurring faster and more obviously than previously thought…don’t be taken advantage of, consider WHY the program was created and to whom the money flows. 


One of the more “sexy” portions of working as a Primary Spine Care Provider is the hospital component.  Since doctors of chiropractic have historically worked outside of the mainstream health system, it continues to be relatively rare for DCs to be included in hospital groups.  Fortunately, hospitals are working with doctors of chiropractic more than ever before, however many of the chiropractors that are leading the way are simply being taken advantage of by the system.  Most chiropractors don’t know it is occurring, while hospitals are “selling” YOU on perceived success in breaking into their system.  In the end, it is just a house of cards and will do nothing to move you or your practice forward.  When working with the hospitals as a Primary Spine Care Provider, the point is that THEY REFER TO YOU as the first option for mechanical spine issues. If the hospital is excited to receive referrals FROM you instead of referring TO you…RUN.  Hospitals not referring to chiropractic as a first choice for spine is NOT a Primary Spine Care Program, it is an enrichment program for the hospital and the consultant that is promoting or selling the program.  Caveat Emptor!!! Do your homework first and do not fall into the trap of being put on a list, having access to doctors in the hospital and having an open line of communication with doctors you refer to… you already have that! A true Primary Spine Care Program ALREADY has established, or will give you the pathway for referrals INTO YOUR office.   Anything other than that is to suck you into the hospital system to get your referrals. Never lose sight that chiropractic is big business for many hospitals and they will do anything to get your business and not give an inch to allow you a piece of theirs. The tide is turning with many hospitals bringing chiropractic on staff, changing by-laws to create chiropractic inclusion into their system and realizing that the best business model is the chiropractor as the first referral option and keep everything else in-house.   Make sure you are creating or entering the right system, a REAL Primary Spine Care Program will teach you that and show you how it has been done in other areas of the country.


In the chiropractic world, there are two places that a program can evolve FROM and two places that it is governed BY.  The program can evolve FROM either an Academic or a Clinical perspective and it can be governed BY either Academics or Politics.  These are very important points to consider.  First, when a program is buried in Academics, although it may be perceived as having state of the art information, it is often built and run from predominantly a theoretical perspective.  This is a prime example of a “it looks good on paper” program, which has not had any real measure of clinical success in the marketplace.  Secondly, when a program is developed and run by clinicians there is often a narrow-sited approach that is missing what the literature provides and not understanding the trends in the industry.  Many times, the clinicians are lacking significant post-graduate training on MRI, Spinal Biomechanical Engineering and triage protocols which ultimately will make the program ineffective or focus on one aspect too heavily. This is at the expense and ultimately the success of your practice. Another alarming trend is when politics drives the process. It is our observation over the last 4 decades that politics typically drives patients and income to those who are in control of the political process and their “friends.” Typically, the rest of the profession, no matter how hard they try, work or get better, simply can’t participate as the system has been designed for so few. In addition, politics in our profession has been controlling too much and has crossed the lines too often in our academic process; they should support academia, not lead it . The “politics first” approach has lead us to an 8.4% utilization in the United States when failing spine care is epidemic nationally and with so many patients suffering, all chiropractic offices should be on a waiting list.

When we consider how a program is governed, the options are either academia or politics and as stated above, politics should support academia, not drive it and the success of a Primary Spine Care program is a perfect example. Politics cannot drive it, there must be a mix of significant post-doctoral (graduate level) formal training and a long history of success in this paradigm.

It can no longer be business as usual, your success and future depend on it.


The perfect solution is a blend of meaningful post-doctoral (graduate level) formal training and clinical practice with a track record of success. Politics as previously stated is there to support the process, not drive the process.  Historically the old way of doing things is not working based upon the 8.4% of our current utilization. Investigate the qualifications and experience of who you are listening to and who you choose to follow, and a blend of academia and successful clinical experiences is the perfect solution. This can be verified by demanding to inspect the Curriculum Vitae of all involved and then scour both Google and social media as previously suggested.     

After 10 years of researching the infrastructure of primary spine care and 4 years of market testing in figuring out HOW to make it work in every chiropractic office in the world, we have ALREADY gotten 711,434 (as of 1-26-2018) referrals INTO chiropractic practices in 47 states from lawyers, primary care medical providers, medical specialists, urgent care centers and emergency room. I also want to report, that this number is an approximate, where the actual number is significantly higher, but that is all we can safely verify. It is this number that would make the “Sharks” happy because it already works, and YOU are not the market research or the EXPERIMENT. It was done with your clinical excellence, a best practice model inclusive of the literature and a business plan that includes medical primary care providers, medical specialists, urgent care centers, hospital emergency rooms and lawyers.

Right now, you are still at the beginning of this “Wave” [or future trend] and you do not have to change how you treat your patients, how you adjust or whether you believe in subluxation or purely a pain model. All you HAVE to do is work within your lawful scope of practice as set forth by your state and get smarter with a business plan to educate your referral sources, so THEY RUN AFTER YOU. Truthfully, that is the easiest part.


  1. Adams, J., Peng, W., Cramer, H., Sundberg, T., Moore, C., Amorin-Woods, L., & Lauche, R. (2017). The Prevalence, Patterns, and Predictors of Chiropractic Use Among US Adults: Results From the 2012 National Health Interview Survey. Spine42(23), 1810-1816.
  2. Studin M., Owens W. (2016) The Mechanism of the Chiropractic Spinal Adjustment/Manipulation: Chiropractic vs. Physical Therapy for Spine, Retrieved from:
  3. 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 rehabilitation27(3), 382-392.

Dr. Mark Studin is an Adjunct Associate Professor of Chiropractic at the University of Bridgeport College of Chiropractic, an Adjunct Professor at Cleveland University-Kansas City College of Chiropractic, an Adjunct Professor of Clinical Sciences at Texas Chiropractic College and a Graduate Medical Clinical Presenter for the State of New York at Buffalo, Jacobs School of Medicine 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 (, teaches MRI interpretation and triaging trauma cases to doctors of all disciplines nationally and studies trends in healthcare on a national scale ( He can be reached at 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 Jacobs School of Medicine, an Adjunct Professor at Cleveland University-Kansas City College of Chiropractic, 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 or or 716-228-3847  


Share this

Submit to DeliciousSubmit to DiggSubmit to FacebookSubmit to Google BookmarksSubmit to StumbleuponSubmit to TechnoratiSubmit to TwitterSubmit to LinkedIn

Chiropractic & Central Afferent Inhibition:

A Chiropractic Care Path & Mechanism for Chronic Pain, Tremors, Spatial and Inhibitory Distortion


By Mark Studin

William J. Owens

Michael Barone

A report on the scientific literature 


Although it is unusual in the literature to place a disclaimer in the beginning of an article, we want to ensure that our reporting is not inflammatory since the foundation of this article was written with the following limitation in our primary literary source, Haavik, Niazi, Holt and Murphy (2017) reported:


This study was not designed to test the efficacy of chiropractic care for treating chronic pain; therefore, conclusions about efficacy cannot be drawn from our findings. The study did not include randomization with an adequate control group, thus limiting the interpretations that can be made about the changes in pain observed in the trial. Causation cannot be claimed. (pg. 135)


Although Haavik, et al. reported limitations in their study, the results cannot be overlooked or minimized, particularly when those results match what doctors working within a “Best Practice Model” (the patient and doctor feedback component) have been reporting for decades. Additionally, in the clinical setting, this information provides direction to practitioners searching for answers although the mechanisms are not yet fully understood. Results often don’t mandate detailed knowledge of the mechanism and that is the primary reason why both “evidenced based” and “best practice” models must be embraced and combined (pure literature results with doctor and patient feedback or experiences) as a matter of public health.


When we consider central afferent neurological input, the inability to inhibit those signals leads to sensorimotor disturbances that are found in the chronicity of many chronic pain conditions, essential tremors, dystonia and other central spatial and temporal mismatches. In addition, we must consider to the long-term negative sequalae of those conditions, such as brain shrinkage.


Baliki, Geha, Apkarian and Chialvo (2008) reported:


Recent studies have demonstrated that chronic pain harms cortical areas unrelated to pain, long-term pain alters the functional connectivity of cortical regions known to be active at rest, i.e., the components of the “default mode network” (DMN). This DMN is marked by balanced positive and negative correlations between activity in component brain regions. In several disorders, however this balance is disrupted. Studying with fMRI [functional MRI] a group of chronic back pain patients and healthy controls while executing a simple visual attention task, we discovered that chronic back pain patients, despite performing the task equally well as controls, displayed reduced deactivation in several key default mode network regions. These findings demonstrate that chronic pain has a widespread impact on overall brain function, and suggest that disruptions of the default mode network may underlie the cognitive and behavioral impairments accompanying chronic pain.” (pg. 1398)


“The existence of a resting state in which the brain remained active in an organized manner, is called the ‘default mode of brain function. The regions exhibiting a decrease in activity during task performance are the component members of the “default-mode network” (DMN), which in concerted action maintain the brain resting state. Recent studies have already demonstrated that the brain default mode network is disrupted in autism, Alzheimer’ disease, depression, schizophrenia and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, suggesting that the study of brain resting activity can be useful to understand disease states as well as potentially provide diagnostic information.”  (pg. 1398)


This is important since for the first time we are starting to see a published correlation between spinal function, chronic pain and central nervous system changes.  This is what our founders have observed yet were unable to prove.


“Thus, the alterations in the patient’s brain at ‘rest’ can result in a different default mode network organization. In turn, potential changes in the default-mode network activity could be related to symptoms (other than pain) commonly exhibited by chronic pain patients, including depression and anxiety, sleep disturbances, and decision-making abnormalities, which also significantly diminish their quality of life… chronic pain patients display a dramatic alteration in several key default-mode network regions, suggesting that chronic pain has a widespread impact on overall brain function” (pg. 1398)


This information is pointing to the fact that a doctor of chiropractic should be involved in the triage and treatment of these patients and part of a long-term spinal care program. 


Baliki Et. Al (2008) continued “Consistent with extensive earlier work examining visuospatial attention tasks, dominant activations were located in posterior parietal and lateral prefrontal cortices, whereas deactivations occurred mainly within Pre-Frontal Cortex and Posterior Cingulate/Cuneate Cortexes. Although activations in chronic back pain patients’ and controls’ brains were similar, chronic back pain patients exhibited significantly less deactivations than healthy subjects in Pre-Frontal Cortex, amygdala, and Posterior Cingulate/Cuneate Cortexes.  The focus was on identifying differences in the way chronic back pain patients’ brains process information not related to pain. This is the first study demonstrating that chronic back pain patients exhibit severe alterations in the functional connectivity between brain regions implicated in the default mode network. It seems that enduring pain for a long time affects brain function in response to even minimally demanding attention tasks completely unrelated to pain. Furthermore, the fact that the observed task performance, compared with healthy subjects, is unaffected, whereas the brain activity is dramatically different, raises the question of how other behaviors are impaired by the altered brain activity” (pg. 1399).


“However, the disruption of functional connectivity observed here with increased chronic back pain duration may be related to the earlier observation of brain atrophy increasing with pain duration also in chronic back pain patients. Patient’s exhibit increased pre-frontal cortex activity in relation to spontaneous pain, in addition to dorsolateral prefrontal cortex atrophy. Therefore, the decreased deactivations described here may be related to the dorsolateral pre-frontal cortex /pre-frontal cortex mutual inhibitory interactions perturbed with time. If that is the case, it will support the idea of a plastic, time-dependent, reorganization of the brain as patients continue to suffer from chronic back pain. Mechanistically, the early stages of this cortical reorganization may be driven by peripheral and spinal cord events, such as those that have been documented in animal models of chronic pain, whereas later events may be related to coping strategies necessary for living with unrelenting pain. It is important to recognize that transient but repetitive functional alterations can lead to more permanent changes. Accordingly, long term interference with normal activity may eventually initiate plastic changes that could alter irreversibly the stability and subsequently the conformation of the resting state networks” (pg. 1401).


Essential Tremors which, according to Wikipedia


Essential tremor (ET, also referred to as benign tremor, familial tremor, or idiopathic tremor) is the most common movement disorder; its cause is unknown. It typically involves a tremor of the arms, hands or fingers but sometimes involving the head, vocal cords or other body parts during voluntary movements such as eating and writing.[1] It is distinct from Parkinson's disease—and often misdiagnosed as such—although some individuals have both conditions. Essential tremor is commonly described as an action tremor (i.e., it intensifies when one tries to use the affected muscles) or postural tremor (i.e., present with sustained muscle tone) rather than a resting tremor, such as is seen in Parkinson’s, which is usually not included among its symptoms. (


Restuccia, Valeriani, Barba, Le Pera, Bentivoglio, Albanese and Tonali (2003) reported:


...our present data seem to indicate that somatomotor cortical areas play an important role in generating ET. This finding can be important in the future understanding of its pathophysiologic mechanisms, as well as in its management. (pg. 127)


This study suggests that somatosensory cortical areas plays an important role, therefore the afferents “feeding” that region is critical in normalizing function of the cortex a that region. Another negative sequela of aberrant input.

When we consider one potential etiology of maladaptive plastic changes in the brain that can cause chronic pain, essential tremors, brain shrinkage and a host of other maladies, regulatory control of the impulses must be considered and interfered with. The lack of gating (inhibition) will lead to an overflow of impulses and crate a negative cascade that can lead to chronic and often permanent changes. Haavik, Niazi, Holt and Murphy (2017) reported:


Thus, distorted sensory information is thought to disturb SMI (sensorimotor integration) and impair accurate motor control. In normal circumstances, 2 inputs that engage the sensory system have a reciprocally inhibitory action that gates the total amount of signal at all central levels, spatially and temporally limiting the amount of input engaging the CNS. This is thought to prevent sensory “overflow.” The defective gating may cause an input-output mismatch in specific motor programs, and such mismatches in motor programs may in themselves lead to production of distorted sensory information and issue of less than ideal motor commands. In this way, the chronicity of the problem can be maintained via a self-perpetuating mechanism. The reduced frontal N30 SEP (somatosensory evoked potential) peak ratio observed in the current study after 12 weeks of chiropractic care may reflect a normalization of pain-induced central maladaptive plastic changes and may reflect one mechanism for the improvement of functional ability reported following chiropractic adjustment or manipulation. (pg. 134)


The N30 ratio change represented on average a 37.4% decrease following the 12 weeks of chiropractic care. The N30 MU (median-ulnar) amplitude changes following chiropractic care represented an 18.0% decrease in amplitude compared with baseline (pg. 131) Alongside this change in the N30 SEP ratio, the subjects reported a decrease in both current pain and average pain over the last week. A control period of 2 weeks of no intervention resulted in no significant changes in any SEP peak ratio. (pg. 134)


When considering care paths for this population of patients, the following was reported by Haavik, Niazi, Holt and Murphy (2017) reported:


The 2-week control period, during which no intervention was applied, was followed by a 12-week chiropractic care intervention. During the 12 weeks of chiropractic care, the chiropractor assessed and treated the subject as she would any other chronic pain patient. The participating chiropractor (H.H., with 7 years clinical experience) assessed the spine for segmental dysfunction using tenderness on palpation and passive intervertebral and global motion of the spine. Other treatments included as part of chiropractic care were exercises, peripheral joint adjustments/manipulations, soft tissue therapy, and pain education if deemed by the chiropractor to be appropriate based on history and examination. The chiropractic adjustment/manipulation was the delivery of a high-velocity, low-amplitude thrust to dysfunctional spinal segments. (pgs. 129-130)


The changes observed conclude (with the aforementioned disclaimer that more research is needed) that chiropractic is a verifiable treatment option. Haavik, Niazi, Holt and Murphy (2017) continued:


The changes observed in dual SEP ratios after several weeks of chiropractic care in a chronic pain population suggest that this treatment option may improve gating of peripheral afferent input to the brain, thus improving impaired SMI in cortical motor areas and improving processing of motor programs. Impaired SMI and defective motor programming is known to be present in various chronic pain populations and is implicated in the clinical symptomatology. We know from the literature that in normal circumstances, afferent input to the motor system leads to finely tuned activation of neural elements and ultimately results in the correct execution of movement. Multiple experimental and clinical studies have confirmed the importance of sensory feedback to the motor system. Thus, distorted sensory information is thought to disturb SMI and impair accurate motor control. In normal circumstances, 2 inputs that engage the sensory system have a reciprocally inhibitory action that gates the total amount of signal at all central levels, spatially and temporally limiting the amount of input engaging the CNS. This is thought to prevent sensory “overflow.” The defective gating may cause an input-output mismatch in specific motor programs, and such mismatches in motor programs may in themselves lead to production of distorted sensory information and issue of less than ideal motor commands. In this way, the chronicity of the problem can be maintained via a self-perpetuating mechanism. The reduced frontal N30 SEP peak ratio observed in the current study after 12 weeks of chiropractic care may reflect a normalization of pain-induced central maladaptive plastic changes and may reflect one mechanism for the improvement of functional ability reported following chiropractic adjustment or manipulation. (pgs. 134-135)


Haavik, Niazi, Holt and Murphy (2017) concluded:


After the 12 weeks of chiropractic care, when he was also feeling better symptomatically, this was reversed, and all of his MU traces for all SEP peak complexes were smaller in amplitude than his M + U trace, indicating a greater level of central reciprocal inhibition was occurring… Thus, if sensory “overflow” occurs, then incomplete processing of this incoming signal may occur in the brain, resulting in its perceiving not only excessive, but also spatially distorted information. (pg. 135)


The N9 SEP peak (the “N” is a location for electrodes) reflects the afferent signal over the brachial plexus before it enters the CNS, and thus can be used to ensure that the incoming signal is consistent before and after an intervention. Furthermore, these experiments demonstrated that the subjects' N30 SEP peak ratios decreased significantly after a single chiropractic manipulation of the cervical spine. As the N30 SEP peak is thought to reflect early cortical SMI, the authors argued that their results suggest that the subject's SMI networks' ability to suppress the dual input after the adjustment was increased. The N30 SEP peak ratios remained decreased even after repeating the 20-minute repetitive thumb abduction task. This suggested that the treatment effects appear to have altered the way in which each subject's CNS responded to the repetitive thumb typing task.


When considering treating chronic pain, dystonia, essential tremor or any other type of patient where there are spatial (distorted or excessive afferent) input issues, the above care path (treatment plan) should be considered. By not completed a complete treatment protocol might expose your patient to a chronic issue that may become permanent if the maladaptive cortical changes persist over time. Since there are no timetables for how long a patient can withstand for the issue to become permanent and there is an indexed peer reviewed suggestion of correction, that must be adhered as a minimum until further evidence suggests otherwise. In addition, no two patients are alike and the treatment plan should be guided with a full clinical reevaluation and consider performing that examination every 30 days of active care considering all facets, both history and clinical.




  1. Haavik, H., Niazi, I. K., Holt, K., & Murphy, B. (2017). Effects of 12 Weeks of Chiropractic Care on Central Integration of Dual Somatosensory Input in Chronic Pain Patients: A Preliminary Study. Journal of manipulative and physiological therapeutics40(3), 127-138.
  2. Restuccia, D., Valeriani, M., Barba, C., Le Pera, D., Bentivoglio, A., Albanese, A. & Tonali, P. (2003). Abnormal gating of somatosensory inputs in essential tremor. Clinical neurophysiology114(1), 120-129.
  3. Baliki N., Geha P., Apkarian A., Chialvo D., (2008) Beyond Feeling: Chronic Pain Hurts the Brain, disrupting the Default-Mode Network Dynamics, Journal of Neurosciences 28(6) 1398-1403
  4. Essential Tremor (2017) retrieved from:

Share this

Submit to DeliciousSubmit to DiggSubmit to FacebookSubmit to Google BookmarksSubmit to StumbleuponSubmit to TechnoratiSubmit to TwitterSubmit to LinkedIn
Published in Neck Problems

Chronic Pain and Chiropractic:

A 12-Week Solution & Necessity for Care


By Mark Studin

William J. Owens

A report on the scientific literature and commentary 



How long should a patient be under chiropractic care? This has been the struggle for many in the insurance industry, the legal community, licensure boards and a “hot topic” politically. There are the CCGPP [Council on Chiropractic Guidelines and Practice Parameters], the Croft Guidelines, Best Practice for Chiropractic Care for Older Adults, Best Practices Recommendations for Chiropractic Care for Infants, Children and Adolescents, Chiropractic Practice Guidelines: Chiropractic Care for Low Back Pain. These are just some of the chiropractic industry’s guidelines, then you must consider the insurance industry’s care paths where most are hidden behind statements like “medical necessity” and “eligible charges.” Those are “buzz phrases” indicating they have a guideline, but most will neither publish or make them available to the providers, their insured or the public claiming proprietary information giving them a legal basis for the secrecy.



Aetna, as an example lists specifics for care and then goes further to limit a significant number of techniques, procedures and diagnostics claiming they are “experimental.” Although Medicare considers chiropractic a covered service they limit treatment arbitrarily according based upon significant feedback from many in the profession.  Workers Compensation Boards have guidelines that are either legislated or created based upon a case law judge’s opinion which include arguments from the defense to support limiting care.  At best, that is an arbitrary process based upon rhetoric or legislation that is too often ignorant of the scientific literature resulting in serious imposed limits in scope of treatment as we see in California, New York and many other states.



Although the guideline landscape is expansive, these authors choose to rely on a hybrid of both “Best Practice” and “Evidenced Based” method in the development of treatment plans. Both have a strong place in clinical practice, academic settings, the courts and third-party reimbursement systems.


Best Practice is defined as “a method or technique that has consistently shown results superior to those achieved with other means, and that is used as a benchmark. In addition, a best practice can evolve to become better as improvements are discovered. Best practice is considered by some as a businessbuzzword, used to describe the process of developing and following a standard way of doing things that multiple organizations can use" (Best Practice, wiki/Best practice).


These are certain procedures in healthcare that are taught in schools, internships and residencies and are considered the “standard” by which care is expected to follow. These practices are based on clinical experience and rely heavily on time-tested approaches, that is how a profession evolves and grows.  Surprisingly, most of the best medical practice care paths are not published in the peer-reviewed indexed literature. This is due to many factors, but the most obvious are applications of financial resources and grants to “new” discoveries and the simple fact that the clinical arena is well positioned to monitor and adjust these practices in a timely manner allowing practitioners to keep pace with the literature that follows. In recent times, although it has been talked about for decades, there is another parameter that exists and although focuses on best practices, there is a strong reliance on published studies, aka “evidence”, as the main driver of whether a procedure is approved and reimbursed. This is extremely problematic to healthcare outcomes.

Evidence-based practice(EBP) is an interdisciplinary approach to clinical practice that has been gaining ground following its formal introduction in 1992. It started inmedicineasevidence-based medicine (EBM) and spread to other fields such as dentistry, nursing, psychology,

education, library and information science and other fields. Its basic principles are that all practical decisions made should be based on three important criteria.  First, they must be based on the practicing provider’s clinical experience, secondly, they should be based on published research studies and thirdly should consider the patients expectations.


"Evidence-based behavioral practice(EBBP) entails making decisions about how to promote health or provide care by integrating the best available evidence with practitioner expertise and other resources, and with the characteristics, state, needs, values and preferences of those who will be affected. This is done in a manner that is compatible with the environmental and organizational context. Evidence is comprised of research findings derived from the systematic collection of data through observation and experiment and the formulation of questions and testing of hypotheses" (Evidence-Based Practice,


This highly-debated topic of evidence-based vs. best practice has valid issues on each side, but putting them together as a hybrid would allow them to thrive in both a healthcare delivery and reimbursement system; therefore, all sides would win. This would allow advances in healthcare to save more lives, increase the quality of life and at the same time, offer enough safeguards to prevent abuse to payors. A one-sided approach would tip the scales to favor either the provider/patients or the payors which, in the end, results in distrust and conflict.

Evidence-based medicine proponents argue that it would eliminate waste and reduce costs while providing patients with the most up-to-date care available. Those against this concept argue that reliance on evidence-based care would eliminate many procedures that fall under the best medical practice parameters and remove the clinical decision making and professional experience from the equation. They feel what would be left is denial of good therapies and the stifling of innovation since the process of establishing a research study, following its participants and publishing those findings can take many years not to mention poor study design or research bias can have both a profound effect on the evidence provided and severely delay the final publication. This delay would eventually cost either lives or severely diminish the quality of life for those who could have been helped during the research and publication processes.

Haavik, Niazi, Holt and Murphy (2017) reported:


Post hoc tests using the Bonferroni correction revealed significant mean differences in N30 MU amp (P = .049) and N30 MU to M + U ratio data (P = .001) during the chiropractic intervention, but no significant changes were observed during the control period (P = .1 for N30 MU amp and P = .3 for N30 MU to M + U ratio data). The effect size for the change in N30 MU amp was 0.61, and for the N30 MU to M + U ratio it was 0.66. The N30 ratio change represented on average a 37.4% decrease following the 12 weeks of chiropractic care. The N30 MU amplitude changes following chiropractic care represented an 18.0% decrease in amplitude compared with baseline. (Pg 131)


These results were based upon a limited study, but validates that a chiropractic spinal adjustment modulated aberrant afferent input by 37.4% in median and ulnar nerve rations and 18% in median and ulnar nerve amplitudes.


The authors went on to report:


The purpose of this preliminary study was to assess whether the dual SEP technique is sensitive enough to measure changes in cortical intrinsic inhibitory interactions in patients with chronic neck pain after a 12-week period of chiropractic care and, if so, whether any such changes related to changes in symptomatology. (pg. 128)


This was tested to determine if inhibitory innervation was affected specifically by a chiropractic spinal adjustment and the outcomes conclusively, against a 2-week control period of the same test subjects confirmed these results.

Haavik, Niazi, Holt and Murphy (2017) went on to describe the 12 weeks of chiropractic care that realized these results:


The chiropractic care plan was pragmatic and generally consisted of 2 to 3 visits per week for the first 2 to 3 weeks. Frequency was reduced based on clinical findings and patient symptomatology. By the end of the 12-week period, participants were seen once or twice a week. No requirements were placed on the treating chiropractor, other than including chiropractic adjustment or manipulation during treatment; thus, the care plan was designed in conjunction with patient preferences and was based on the patients’ history, symptoms, wishes, and time availability as well as the clinician’s clinical experience and knowledge. (pg. 130)


Although the length of care in this study does not render a specific guideline, it does validate that it takes time to realize changes in the mechanics of the spine and the human nervous system.  The results are consistent with the “Best Practice Model” and the authors 57 years of combined experience and results. Twelve weeks of care is a conservative and reasonable time frame since we are observing and considering that cerebral neuroplastic changes are a direct and verifiable result of a chiropractic spinal adjustment. Less than 12 weeks of chiropractic spinal adjusting has not been evidenced to make these reported changes, therefore we must consider this threshold for care.Concurrently, what we see is that less treatment time does not allow the connective tissue to help the spine as one contiguous organ system to remodel to a homeostatic state (a conversation for a different paper).


Chiropractic care for chronic pain patients requires a both a combination of Best Practice and Evidenced Based models as the literature is now verifying that a chiropractic spinal adjustment is an effective care path and 12 weeks is a minimum to see neuroplastic changes.  Clinically speaking however, to confirm the optimum care path for this particular population of patients, continuation of care should be based on re-evaluations every 30-days and should continue as clinical sign and symptoms persist and there is evidence that the patient is benefiting both in the short and long term.   Additionally, no significant improvement over the first 12 weeks should be considered acceptable as neuroplastic changes are a process. Although these authors have rarely personally experienced a lack of significant neuro-biomechanical changes over that time period, it is a clinical decision that must be derived by the treating provider in a “Best Practice Model” and not a 3rd party.



  1. Aetna Chiropractic Services (2017) Retrieved from:
  3. Best Practice. (n.d.). In Wikipedia. Retrieved January 3, 2012, from
  4. Evidence-Based Practice. (n.d.). In Wikipedia. Retrieved January 3, 2012, from
  5. Sackett, D. L., Rosenberg, W. M., Gray, J. A., Haynes, R. B., & Richardson, W. S. (1996) Evidence based medicine: What it is and what it isn't. British Medical Journal, 312(7023), 71-72.
  6. Haavik, H., Niazi, I. K., Holt, K., & Murphy, B. (2017). Effects of 12 Weeks of Chiropractic Care on Central Integration of Dual Somatosensory Input in Chronic Pain Patients: A Preliminary Study. Journal of manipulative and physiological therapeutics40(3), 127-138.

Share this

Submit to DeliciousSubmit to DiggSubmit to FacebookSubmit to Google BookmarksSubmit to StumbleuponSubmit to TechnoratiSubmit to TwitterSubmit to LinkedIn
Published in Neck Problems

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. 



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. Spine36(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 

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 

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




Share this

Submit to DeliciousSubmit to DiggSubmit to FacebookSubmit to Google BookmarksSubmit to StumbleuponSubmit to TechnoratiSubmit to TwitterSubmit to LinkedIn
Published in Neck Problems

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.




                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.




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)




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.





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.




1. Kent, C. (1996). Models of vertebral subluxation: A review. Journal of Vertebral Subluxation Research1(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

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.

Share this

Submit to DeliciousSubmit to DiggSubmit to FacebookSubmit to Google BookmarksSubmit to StumbleuponSubmit to TechnoratiSubmit to TwitterSubmit to LinkedIn
Published in Neck Problems

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



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 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. ( 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,

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. ( 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, 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.


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

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

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.

Share this

Submit to DeliciousSubmit to DiggSubmit to FacebookSubmit to Google BookmarksSubmit to StumbleuponSubmit to TechnoratiSubmit to TwitterSubmit to LinkedIn
Published in Neck Problems
Page 1 of 13

More Research