The spine journal : official journal of the North American Spine Society
-
The growing recognition of cervical manipulation as a treatment of neck pain and cervicogenic headaches has lead to increased interest in potential complications that may result from this treatment approach. Recent surveys have reported that many neurologists will encounter cases of vertebral artery dissection that occur at various times after cervical manipulation, whereas most practitioners of spinal manipulation are of the opinion that these events are extremely rare. We asked the question whether these differences in perception could be explained in part by referral or selection bias. ⋯ The perceived risk after cervical manipulation by chiropractors and neurologists is related to the probability that a practitioner will be made aware of such an incident. The difference in the number of chiropractors (approximately 3,840 in 1997) and neurologists (approximately 4,000 in 1997) in active practice and the fact that each patient who has a stroke after manipulation will likely be seen by only one chiropractor but by three or more neurologists partly explains the difference in experience and the perception of risk of these two professions. This selection or referral bias is important in shaping the clinical opinions of the various disciplines and distorts discussion on the true incidence of these complications of cervical manipulation. The nature of this study, however, describes the likelihood that a clinician will be made aware of such an event and cannot be interpreted as describing the actual risk of stroke after manipulation.
-
Fortunately, catastrophic cervical spinal cord injuries are relatively uncommon during athletic participation. Stinger and transient quadriplegia/paresis are more frequent injuries that have a wide spectrum of clinical severity and disabilities. Although the diagnosis of these injuries may not be clinically difficult, the treatment and decision about when or if the athlete may return to play after such an injury is often unclear. ⋯ The issue of return to play for an athlete after a cervical spine injury is controversial. Tremendous extrinsic pressures may be exerted on the physician from noninvolved and involved parties. The decision to return an athlete to a particular sport should be based on the mechanism of injury, objective anatomical injury (as demonstrated by clinical examination and radiographic evaluation) and an athlete's recovery response.
-
Spinal sarcoidosis is rare. Most spinal sarcoid lesions are intramedullary, and only three cases of extramedullary sarcoid lesions have been reported. ⋯ An extramedullary sarcoid lesion is rare. Unlike intramedullary sarcoid lesions, it can be totally removed. If no systemic sarcoidosis is present, the patient can have a satisfactory recovery.