Joint manipulation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
For the chiropractic subluxation-based procedure, see Spinal adjustment.

Joint manipulation is the skilled passive movement of a skeletal joint that is applied at varying speeds and amplitudes. It may include a high velocity low amplitude (HVLA) therapeutic movement or thrust to move a joint past the physiological range of motion without exceeding the anatomic limit, and may involve the following factors: controlled force, leverage, direction, amplitude, and velocity. It is usually associated with an audible "popping" sound.

The procedure of joint manipulation is performed mainly by chiropractors, physical therapists, and osteopaths in the context of healthcare. When applied as a therapy for spine-related conditions it is referred to as "spinal manipulative therapy" (SMT), or simply spinal manipulation. When performed by chiropractors it is considered part of the "spinal adjustment," and sometimes called "chiropractic manipulative therapy" (CMT). Osteopaths may use it as part of their "osteopathic manipulative therapy" (OMT).

Manipulation of joints has been shown to reduce pain and temporarily increase passive range of motion in the joints. There is debate as to the effectiveness and safety of joint manipulation.

Contents

[edit] Mechanisms and effects

The audible "popping" sound often heard during a manipulative thrust is currently believed to be the result of the phenominon of cavitation. When a manipulation is performed, the force applied separates the joint surfaces of the fully encapsulated joint cavity of a diartrodial joint creating a relative vacuum within the fluid filled joint space. In this low pressure environment, the naturally dissolved gases found in all bodily fluids turn into a gas bubble that rapidly collapses upon itself and a sound is created. The contents of this vacuum are thought to contain water vapor, nitrogen, oxygen, and carbon dioxide.[1][2] The effects of this process will remain for hours while it is slowly reabsorbed by the body. There is some evidence that ligament laxity may be associated with the tendency to cavitate.[3]

The effects of joint manipulation have been shown to include:

  • Temporary relief of musculoskeletal pain.
  • Temporary increase in passive range of motion (ROM).[4]
  • Physiological effects on the central nervous system, probably at the segmental level.[5]
  • No alteration of the position of the sacroiliac joint.[6]

Common side effects of spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) are characterized as mild to moderate and may include: local discomfort, headache, tiredness, or radiating discomfort. [7]

[edit] Grade V mobilization

In the heirarchy of manual therapy treatment methods, manipulation is a Grade V mobilization. In some countries all five grades of mobilization, including manipulation, are called mobilization, and in others the first four are called mobilization, and Grade V is called manipulation.[8]

According to Maitland's concept, [9] the different grades of mobilization will produce selective activation of different mechanoreceptors:

  • Grade I - Activates Type I mechanoreceptors with a low threshold and which respond to very small increments of tension.
Activates cutaneous mechanoreceptors.
Oscillatory motion will selectively activate the dynamic, rapidly adapting receptors, ie. Meissner's and Pacinian Corpuscles . The former respond to the rate of skin indentation and the latter respond to the acceleration and retraction of that indentation.
  • Grade II - Similar effect as Grade I.
By virtue of the large amplitude movement it will affect Type II mechanoreceptors to a greater extent.
  • Grade III - Similar to Grade II.
Selectively activates more of the muscle and joint mechanoreceptors as it goes into resistance, and less of the cutaneous ones as the slack of the subcutaneous tissues is taken up.
  • Grade IV - Similar to Grade III.
With its more sustained movement at the end of range will activate the static, slow adapting, Type I mechanoreceptors, whose resting discharge rises in proportion to the degree of change in joint capsule tension.
  • Grade V - In the premanipulative position it has the same effect as a sustained grade IV.
In the snapping action, manipulation activates Type II and Type III (high threshold) mechanoreceptors.[8]

[edit] Safety issues

As with all interventions, there are risks associated with spinal manipulative therapy (SMT). Infrequent, but potentially serious side effects, include: vertebrobasilar accidents (VBA), strokes, spinal disc herniation, vertebral and rib fractures, and cauda equina syndrome.[10]

In a 1993 study, J.D. Cassidy, DC, and co-workers concluded that the treatment of lumbar intervertebral disk herniation by side posture manipulation is "both safe and effective."[11]

[edit] Risks of upper cervical manipulation

The degree of serious risks associated with manipulation of the cervical spine is uncertain, with widely differing results being published.

A 1996 Danish chiropractic study confirmed the risk of stroke to be low, and determined that the greatest risk is with manipulation of the first two vertebra of the cervical spine, particularly passive rotation of the neck, known as the "master cervical" or "rotary break."[12]

Serious complications after manipulation of the cervical spine are estimated to be 1 in 4 million manipulations or fewer.[13] A RAND Corporation extensive review estimated "one in a million."[14] Dvorak, in a survey of 203 practitioners of manual medicine in Switzerland, found a rate of one serious complication per 400,000 cervical manipulations, without any reported deaths, among an estimated 1.5 million cervical manipulations.[15] Jaskoviak reported approximately 5 million cervical manipulations from 1965 to 1980 at The National College of Chiropractic Clinic in Chicago, without a single case of vertebral artery stroke or serious injury.[16] Henderson and Cassidy performed a survey at the Canadian Memorial Chiropractic College outpatient clinic where more than a half-million treatments were given over a nine-year period, again without serious incident.[17] Eder offered a report of 168,000 cervical manipulations over a 28 year period, again without a single significant complication.[18] After an extensive literature review performed to formulate practice guidelines, the authors concurred that "the risk of serious neurological complications (from cervical manipulation) is extremely low, and is approximately one or two per million cervical manipulations."[19]

In comparison, there is a 3-4% rate of complications for cervical spinal surgery, and 4,000-10,000 deaths per million neck surgeries.[20]

Understandably, vascular accidents are responsible for the major criticism of spinal manipulative therapy. However, it has been pointed out that "critics of manipulative therapy emphasize the possibility of serious injury, especially at the brain stem, due to arterial trauma after cervical manipulation. It has required only the very rare reporting of these accidents to malign a therapeutic procedure that, in experienced hands, gives beneficial results with few adverse side effects".[21] In very rare instances, the manipulative adjustment to the cervical spine of a vulnerable patient becomes the final intrusive act which results in a very serious consequence.[22][23][24][25]

[edit] Potential for incident underreporting

Statistics on the reliability of incident reporting for injuries related to manipulation of the cervical spine vary. The RAND study assumed that only 1 in 10 cases would have been reported. However, Prof Ernst surveyed neurologists in Britain for cases of serious neurological complications occurring within 24 hours of cervical spinal manipulation by various types of practitioners; 35 cases had been seen by the 24 neurologists who responded, but none of the cases had been reported. He concluded that underreporting was close to 100%, rendering estimates "nonsensical." He therefore suggested that "clinicians might tell their patients to adopt a cautious approach and avoid the type of spinal manipulation for which the risk seems greatest: forceful manipulation of the upper spine with a rotational element."[26] The NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination stated that the survey had methodological problems with data collection. [27] Both NHS and Ernst noted that bias is a problem with the survey method of data collection.

A 2001 study in the journal Stroke found that vertebrobasilar accidents (VBAs) were five times more likely in those aged less than 45 years who had visited a chiropractor in the preceding week, compared to controls who had not visited a chiropractor. No significant associations were found for those over 45 years. The authors concluded: "While our analysis is consistent with a positive association in young adults... The rarity of VBAs makes this association difficult to study despite high volumes of chiropractic treatment."[28] The NHS notes that this study collected data objectively by using administrative data, involving less recall bias than survey studies, but the data were collected retrospectively and probably contained inaccuracies.[27]

In 1996, Coulter et al.[14] had a multidisciplinary group of 4 MDs, 4 DCs and 1 MD/DC look at 736 conditions where it was used. Their job was to evaluate the appropriateness of manipulation or mobilization of the cervical spine in those cases (including a few cases not performed by chiropractors).

"According to the report ... 57.6% of reported indications for cervical manipulation was considered inappropriate, with 31.3% uncertain. Only 11.1% could be labeled appropriate. A panel of chiropractors and medical practitioners concluded that '. . . much additional scientific data about the efficacy of cervical spine manipulation are needed.'"[29]

[edit] Misattribution problems

Studies of stroke and manipulation do not always clearly identify what professional has performed the manipulation. In some cases this has led to confusion and improper placement of blame. In a 1995 study, chiropractic researcher Allan Terrett, DC, pointed to this problem:

"The words chiropractic and chiropractor have been incorrectly used in numerous publications dealing with SMT injury by medical authors, respected medical journals and medical organizations. In many cases, this is not accidental; the authors had access to original reports that identified the practitioner involved as a nonchiropractor. The true incidence of such reporting cannot be determined. Such reporting adversely affects the reader's opinion of chiropractic and chiropractors."[30]

This error was taken into account in a 1999 review[31] of the scientific literature on the risks and benefits of manipulation of the cervical spine (MCS). Special care was taken, whenever possible, to correctly identify all the professions involved, as well as the type of manipulation responsible for any injuries and/or deaths. It analyzed 177 cases that were reported in 116 articles published between 1925 and 1997, and summarized:

"The most frequently reported injuries involved arterial dissection or spasm, and lesions of the brain stem. Death occurred in 32 (18%) of the cases. Physical therapists were involved in less than 2% of the cases, and no deaths have been attributed to MCS provided by physical therapists. Although the risk of injury associated with MCS appears to be small, this type of therapy has the potential to expose patients to vertebral artery damage that can be avoided with the use of mobilization (nonthrust passive movements)."[31]

In Figure 1 in the review, the types of injuries attributed to manipulation of the cervical spine are shown,[32] and Figure 2 shows the type of practitioner involved in the resulting injury. [33] For the purpose of comparison, the type of practitioner was adjusted according to the findings by Terrett. [30]

The review concluded:

"The literature does not demonstrate that the benefits of MCS outweigh the risks. Several recommendations for future studies and for the practice of MCS are discussed."[31]

Edzard Ernst has written:

"...there is little evidence to demonstrate that spinal manipulation has any specific therapeutic effects. On the other hand, there is convincing evidence to show that it is associated with frequent, mild adverse effects as well as with serious complications of unknown incidence. Therefore, it seems debatable whether the benefits of spinal manipulation outweigh its risks. Specific risk factors for vascular accidents related to spinal manipulation have not been identified, which means that any patient may be at risk, particularly those below 45 years of age. Definitive, prospective studies that can overcome the limitations of previous investigations are now a matter of urgency. Until they are available, clinicians might tell their patients to adopt a cautious approach and avoid the type of spinal manipulation for which the risk seems greatest: forceful manipulation of the upper spine with a rotational element."[26]

[edit] Emergency medicine

In emergency medicine joint manipulation can also refer to the process of bringing fragments of fractured bone or dislocated joints into normal anatomical alignment (otherwise known as 'reducing' the fracture or dislocation). These procedures have no relation to the HVLA thrust procedure.

[edit] See also

[edit] References

  1. ^ Brodeur R. "The audible release associated with joint manipulation.". J Manipulative Physiol Ther 18 (3): 155-64. PMID 7790795.
  2. ^ Protopapas M, Cymet T, Protapapas M (2002). "Joint cracking and popping: understanding noises that accompany articular release.". J Am Osteopath Assoc 102 (5): 283-7. PMID 12033758. Available Online
  3. ^ Fryer, Gary and Jacob, Mudge and McLaughlin, Patrick (2002) The Effect of Talocrural Joint Manipulation on Range of Motion at the Ankle. Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics, 25. pp.384 to 390. PMID: 12183696
  4. ^ Nilsson N, Christensen H, Hartvigsen J. "Lasting changes in passive range motion after spinal manipulation: a randomized, blind, controlled trial.". J Manipulative Physiol Ther 19 (3): 165-8. PMID 8728459.
  5. ^ Sacroiliac joint manipulation decreases the H-reflex. Murphy BA, Dawson NJ, Slack JR. Electromyogr Clin Neurophysiol. 1995 Mar;35(2):87-94. PMID: 7781578
  6. ^ Tullberg T, Blomberg S, Branth B, Johnsson R. Manipulation does not alter the position of the sacroiliac joint. A roentgen stereophotogrammetric analysis. Spine. 1998 May 15;23(10):1124-8; discussion 1129. PMID: 9615363. "Because the supposed positive effects are not a result of a reduction of subluxation, further studies of the effects of manipulation should focus on the soft tissue response."
  7. ^ Frequency and Characteristics of Side Effects of Spinal Manipulative Therapy. Outcomes of Treatment (Adverse) Spine. 22(4):435-440, February 15, 1997.
  8. ^ a b How Manipulation Works. Christopher So, PT, Journal of the Hong Kong Physiotherapy Association, Vol. 8, 1986
  9. ^ Maitland, G.D. Peripheral Manipulation 2nd ed. Butterworths, London, 1977.
    Maitland, G.D. Vertebral Manipulation 5th ed. Butterworths, London, 1986.
  10. ^ Frequency and Characteristics of Side Effects of Spinal Manipulative Therapy. Outcomes of Treatment (Adverse) Spine. 22(4):435-440, February 15, 1997.
  11. ^ Cassidy JD, Thiel H, Kirkaldy-Willis W (1993). "Side posture manipulation for lumbar intervertebral disk herniation.". J Manip Physiol Ther 16: 96-103. PMID 8445360.
  12. ^ Klougart N, Leboeuf-Yde C, Rasmussen L. "Safety in chiropractic practice, Part I; The occurrence of cerebrovascular accidents after manipulation to the neck in Denmark from 1978-1988.". J Manip Physiol Ther 19: 371-7. PMID 8864967.
  13. ^ Lauretti W "What are the risk of chiropractic neck treatments?" retrieved online 08 028 2006 from www.chiro.org
  14. ^ a b Coulter ID, Hurwitz EL, Adams AH, et al. (1996) The appropriateness of manipulation and mobilization of the cervical spine 'Santa Monica, CA, Rand Corp: xiv [RAND MR-781-CCR]. Current link
  15. ^ Dvorak J, Orelli F. How dangerous is manipulation to the cervical spine? Manual Medicine 1985; 2: 1-4.
  16. ^ Jaskoviak P. Complications arising from manipulation of the cervical spine. J Manip Physiol Ther 1980; 3: 213-19.
  17. ^ Henderson DJ, Cassidy JD. Vertebral Artery syndrome. In: Vernon H. Upper cervical syndrome: chiropractic diagnosis and treatment. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1988: 195-222.
  18. ^ Eder M, Tilscher H. Chiropractic therapy: diagnosis and treatment (English translation). Rockville, Md: Aspen Publishers, 1990: 61.
  19. ^ Haldeman S, Chapman-Smith D, Petersen DM. Guidelines for chiropractic quality assurance and practice parameters. Gaithersburg, Md: Aspen Publishers, 1993: 170-2.
  20. ^ The cervical spine research society editorial committee. The Cervical Spine, Second edition. Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott Company 1990: 834.
  21. ^ Kleynhans AM, Terrett AG. Cerebrovascular complications of manipulation. In: Haldeman S, ed. Principles and practice of chiropractic, 2nd ed. East Norwalk, CT, Appleton Lang, 1992.
  22. ^ Haldeman S, Kohlbeck F, McGregor M. Unpredictability of cerebrovascular ischemia associated with cervical spine manipulation therapy: a review of sixty‐four cases after cervical spine manipulation. Spine, 2002, 27(1):49‐55.
  23. ^ Rothwell D, Bondy S, Williams J. Chiropractic manipulation and stroke: a population-based case‐controlled study. Stroke, 2001, 32:1054‐60.
  24. ^ Haldeman, S et al. Clinical perceptions of the risk of vertebral artery dissection after cervical manipulation: the effect of referral bias. Spine, 2002, 2(5):334‐342.
  25. ^ Haldeman S et al. Arterial dissections following cervical manipulation: the chiropractic experience. Journal of the Canadian Medical Association, 2001, 2, 165(7):905‐906.
  26. ^ a b Spinal manipulation: Its safety is uncertain. Edzard Ernst, CMAJ, January 8, 2002; 166 (1)
  27. ^ a b NHS Evaluation of the evidence base for the adverse effects of spinal manipulation by chiropractors
  28. ^ Rothwell D, Bondy S, Williams J (2001). "Chiropractic manipulation and stroke: a population-based case-control study.". Stroke 32: 1054-60. PMID 11340209. Original article
  29. ^ Finding A Good Chiropractor. Samuel Homola, DC. Arch Fam Med. 1998;7:20-23.
  30. ^ a b Terrett A (1995). "Misuse of the literature by medical authors in discussing spinal manipulative therapy injury.". J Manipulative Physiol Ther 18 (4): 203-10. PMID 7636409.
  31. ^ a b c Di Fabio R (1999). "Manipulation of the cervical spine: risks and benefits.". Phys Ther 79 (1): 50-65. PMID 9920191. Retrieved on 2006-11-17.
  32. ^ Figure 1. Injuries attributed to manipulation of the cervical spine.
  33. ^ Figure 2. Practitioners providing manipulation of the cervical spine that resulted in injury.

[edit] Further reading

  • Cyriax, J. Textbook of Orthopaedic Medicine, Vol. I: Diagnosis of Soft Tissue Lesions 8th ed. Bailliere Tindall, London, 1982.
  • Cyriax, J. Textbook of Orthopaedic Medicine, Vol. II: Treatment by Manipulation, Massage and Injection 10th ed. Bailliere Tindall, London, 1983.
  • Greive Modern Manual Therapy of the Vertebral Column. Harcourt Publishers Ltd., 1994
  • Maitland, G.D. Peripheral Manipulation 2nd ed. Butterworths, London, 1977.
  • Maitland, G.D. Vertebral Manipulation 5th ed. Butterworths, London, 1986.
  • McKenzie, R.A. The Lumbar Spine; Mechanical Diagnosis and Therapy. Spinal Publications, Waikanae, New Zealand, 1981.
  • McKenzie, R.A. The Cervical and Thoracic Spine; Mechanical Diagnosis and Therapy. Spinal Publications, Waikanae, New Zealand, 1990.
  • Mennel, J.M. Joint Pain; Diagnosis and Treatment Using Manipulative Techniques. Little Brown and Co., Boston, 1964.

[edit] External links

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../j/o/i/Joint_manipulation.html"