Radiography and Clinical Decision-Making in Chiropractic.

The concern over x-ray exposure risks can overshadow the potential benefit of radiography, especially in cases where manual therapy is employed. Spinal malalignment cannot be accurately visualized without imaging. Manual therapy and the load tolerances of injured spinal tissues raise different criteria for the use of x-rays for spinal disorders than in medical practice. Current regulatory bodies rely on radiography risk assessments based on Linear-No-Threshold (LNT) risk models. There is a need to consider radiography guidelines for chiropractic which are different from those for medical practice. Radiography practice guidelines are summaries dominated by frequentist interpretations in the analysis of data from studies. In contrast, clinicians often employ a pseudo-Bayesian form of reasoning during the clinical decision-making process. The overrepresentation of frequentist perspectives in evidence-based practice guidelines alter decision-making away from practical assessment of a patient's needs, toward an overly cautious standard applied to patients without regard to their risk/benefit likelihoods relating to radiography. Guidelines for radiography in chiropractic to fully assess the condition of the spine and spinal alignment prior to manual therapy, especially with high velocity, low amplitude spinal manipulation (HVLA-SM), should necessarily differ from those used in medical practice.

Response to Comment on "Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science".

Gilbert et al. conclude that evidence from the Open Science Collaboration's Reproducibility Project: Psychology indicates high reproducibility, given the study methodology. Their very optimistic assessment is limited by statistical misconceptions and by causal inferences from selectively interpreted, correlational data. Using the Reproducibility Project: Psychology data, both optimistic and pessimistic conclusions about reproducibility are possible, and neither are yet warranted.

Exploratory evaluation of the effect of axial rotation, focal film distance and measurement methods on the magnitude of projected lumbar retrolisthesis on plain film radiographs.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this exploratory study was to evaluate the amount of error in retrolisthesis measurement due to measurement methods or projection factors inherent in spinal radiography. In addition, this study compared how accurately these methods determine positions of the lumbar vertebrae being studied and the expected projected size of the retrolisthesis. METHODS: Vertebral models were situated in a retrolisthesis position. Radiographs of the models were obtained in positive and negative y-axis rotations at 40- and 84-in focal film distances. The projected retrolisthesis was measured using the Gohl, Iguchi, and Lopes methods. RESULTS: At the 40-in focal film distance, the Iguchi method and Lopes methods were significantly more accurate than the Gohl method. At the 84-in focal film distance, the Lopes method was significantly more accurate than the Gohl method. Almost all measurements overestimated both the actual amount of retrolisthesis as well as the amount of trigonometrically calculated retrolisthesis that should have been present on the radiographs. Findings suggest that measurements were less accurate with vertebrae rotated more than 10°. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated that lumbar vertebral rotation, focal film distance, and measurement methods are potential sources of error in retrolisthesis measurement.

Guidelines for the practice and performance of manipulation under anesthesia.

BACKGROUND: There are currently no widely accepted guidelines on standards for the practice of chiropractic or manual therapy manipulation under anesthesia, and the evidence base for this practice is composed primarily of lower-level evidence. The purpose of this project was to develop evidence-informed and consensus-based guidelines on spinal manipulation under anesthesia to address the gaps in the literature with respect to patient selection and treatment protocols. METHODS: An expert consensus process was conducted from August-October 2013 using the Delphi method. Panelists were first provided with background literature, consisting of three review articles on manipulation under anesthesia. The Delphi rounds were conducted using the widely-used and well-established RAND-UCLA consensus process methodology to rate seed statements for their appropriateness. Consensus was determined to be reached if 80% of the 15 panelists rated a statement as appropriate. Consensus was reached on all 43 statements in two Delphi rounds. RESULTS: The Delphi process was conducted from August-October 2013. Consensus was reached on recommendations related to all aspects of manipulation under anesthesia, including patient selection; diagnosis and establishing medical necessity; treatment and follow-up procedures; evaluation of response to treatment; safety practices; appropriate compensation considerations; and facilities, anesthesia and nursing standards. CONCLUSIONS: A high level of agreement was achieved in developing evidence-informed recommendations about the practice of chiropractic/manual therapy manipulation under anesthesia.

Manipulation under anesthesia: a report of four cases.

OBJECTIVE: To report the results of manipulation under anesthesia (MUA) for 4 patients with chronic spinal, sacroiliac, and/or pelvic and low back pain. METHODS: The treatment group was arbitrarily selected from the chiropractor's patient base who received the MUA protocol along with a follow-up in-office articular and myofascial release program that mimics the MUA procedures. The chiropractic adjustments and articular and myofascial release procedures were performed in a chiropractic office. The MUA procedures were performed in an outpatient ambulatory surgical center. Patients with chronic pain who had not adequately responded to conservative medical and/or a reasonable trial (4 months minimum) of chiropractic adjustments, and had no contraindications to anesthesia or adjustments, were selected. The 4 patients went through 3 consecutive days of MUA followed by an 8-week protocol of the same procedures plus physiotherapy in-office without anesthesia. Data included pre- and post-MUA passive ranges of motion, changes in the visual analog scale, and neurologic and orthopedic examination findings. The patients had follow-up varying from 9 to 18 months. RESULTS: Increases in passive ranges of motion, decreases in the visual analog scale rating, and diminishment of subsequent visit frequency were seen in each of the patients. CONCLUSION: Manipulation under anesthesia was an effective approach to restoring articular and myofascial movements for these 4 patients who did not adequately respond to either medical and/or in-office conservative chiropractic adjustments and adjunctive techniques.