Dedicated to providing information about treatments to the cervical spine The safety of care provided to patients is becoming a topic that is frequently discussed in the health care community. If the goal of the treatment is to help the patient instead of causing harm, then a website dedicated to providing information about the safety of certain popular types of currently provided care is certainly in order.
The video above details the real facts about the chiropractic profession and the history of it's safety. Health care myths are discussed and many questions are answered. Dr. Ronald Farabaugh, www.chirocolumbus.com is a Chiropractic Physician in Columbus, Ohio in practice since 1982. This video was filmed under the direction of Dr. Robert Sheely, www.sheelychiro.com a Chiropractic Physician in Trenton, Ohio in practice since 1980. Together, they teach license renewal seminars to Doctors of Chiropractic. *** To help put this issue in perspective, keep in mind the following reality: Statistical Facts: Medical/hospital mistakes, drug reactions, and inappropriate surgeries
equal 225,000 deaths/yr making them the 3rd Leading Cause of Death in USA
JAMA, July 26, 2000 Vol. 284. No. 4. The first are heart disease and cancer!!
Estimates are for death only and do not include adverse effects associated with disability, discomfort associated with side effects of medication. *** Cervical Transforaminal Epidural Steroid Injections More Dangerous Than We Think? Conclusions: This study demonstrates a significant risk of serious neurologic injury after cervical TF-ESIs. A growing body of evidence supports an embolic mechanism, whereby inadvertent intra-arterial injection of particulate corticosteroid causes a distal infarct. Embolism to the distal basilar artery region can cause midbrain, pons, cerebellum, thalamus, temporal and occipital lobe infarctions. *** The Basis for Recommending Repeating Epidural Steroid Injections for Radicular Low Back Pain: A Literature Review . Conclusions: There does not appear to be any evidence to support the current common practice of a series of injections. Recommendations for further research are made, including a possible study design. *** A Risk Assessment of Cervical Manipulation vs. NSAIDs for the Treatment of Neck Pain. Dabbs et al. Conclusions: “The best evidence indicates that cervical manipulation for neck pain is much safer than the use of NSAIDs, by as much as a factor of several hundred times. There is no evidence that indicates NSAID use is any more effective than cervical manipulation for neck pain.” Death rate for NSAID-associated GI problems at 0.04% per yr among OA patients receiving NSAIDs, or 3,200 deaths in the US per year. He (Brandt) also noted that there are several animal studies and human clinical studies that have actually implicated NSAIDs in the acceleration of joint destruction. *** The Benefits Outweigh the Risks for Patients Undergoing Chiropractic Care for Neck Pain: A Prospective, Multicenter, Cohort Study J Manipulative Physiol Ther 2007 (Jul); 30 (6): 408–418
*** Immediate Effects on Neck Pain and Active Range of Motion After a Single Cervical High-velocity Low-amplitude Manipulation in Subjects Presenting with Mechanical Neck Pain: A Randomized Controlled Trial Conclusions: A group of 70 patients with neck pain (25 males and 45 females, ages 20-55 years) participated in this study. The lateral gliding test was used to establish an intervertebral joint dysfunction at the C3 through C4 or C4 through C5 levels. The subjects were randomly divided into either an experimental group, which received an HVLA thrust, or a control group, which received manual mobilization. Results suggest that a single cervical HVLA manipulation is more effective in reducing neck pain at rest, and in increasing active cervical range of motion, than a control mobilization procedure in subjects suffering from mechanical neck pain. *** “Current Concepts in Spinal Manipulation and Cervical Arterial Incidents” © 2006 Conclusions: 2001 Terret. There was opined misuse of the literature by medical authors (page 105). Were the injuries actual caused by a chiropractic physician? In reality, actual injury was involved with medical practitioners, medical specialists, osteopaths, physiotherapists, naturopaths, the patient, a kung fu practitioner, a blind masseur, a wife, and a barber in India. Death and Morbidity Rates of Common Medical Treatments: “Chiropractic procedures are the safest procedures in the provision of human health care services, when compared to know mortality and morbidity rates in medical practice.” (Current Concepts page 72) USA: 1: 2,000,000 neck manipulations Canada: 1:3,846,153 neck manipulations. Other sources: as low as 1:5,000,000 “In the 65-year period 1934 to 1999, there are only 37 cases of death known to have occurred in the world, from all types of SMT practitioners, with only 19 from that 65-year period being related to chiropractors or chiropractic manipulation (and some may have already had a stroke in evolution, and therefore had an identical outcome even if they had not consulted a DC.” NOTE: compare above statistic to the fact that 16,500 people die annually from NSAID related complications. (see BMJ and JAMA 2000) “The author has been unable to find any evidence-based clinical research to indicate beneficial effects of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) in the treatment of cervical-spine pain syndromes; and yet NSAIDs are the most common prescribed first-line treatment by medical practitioners (about 5% of all prescriptions)”. (Current Concepts page 74) *** Symptomatic Outcomes and Perceived Satisfaction Levels of Chiropractic Patients with a Primary Diagnosis Involving Acute Neck Pain J Manipulative Physiol Ther 2006 (May); 29 (4): 288–296 Conclusion: A total of 115 patients were contacted, of whom 94 became study participants, resulting in 60 women (64%) and 34 men. The mean age was 39.6 years (SD, 15.7). The mean number of visits was 24.5 (SD, 21.2). Pain levels improved significantly from a mean of 7.6 (median, 8.0) before treatment to 1.9 (median, 2.0) after treatment (P < .0001). The overall patient satisfaction rate was 94%. *** |
|
