Announcement

The scientific merit of spinal dysfunction and therapeutic benefits of spinal manipulation for neuromusculoskeletal conditions were challenged in the early days of chiropractic. Manipulation has been generally accepted for back pain, neck pain, sciatica, joint problems, sprains, strains, osteoarthritis, herniated discs and other musculoskeletal (MSK) conditions.

Scientific evidence has indicated that spinal manipulation is a safe, mild-to-moderate pain reliever for lower back pain, neck pain and headache, and recent health care guidelines have listed it as a viable treatment option for symptoms that do not respond to self-care. [9]

Spinal manipulation in chiropractic medicine has evolved greatly since the first high-velocity adjustment performed by D.D. Palmer in the late 1800s. In addition, chiropractors have begun to embrace a variety of other evidence-based approaches to spine problems. Now, techniques include low-velocity adjustments involving the hands and even instruments and machines, and various other adjustments incorporating many specialized and individualized thrusts. [10]

Modern chiropractic research has started to focus more on the efficacy of specific types of spinal manipulation, including when certain adjustments are performed and how long they are included as part of chiropractic treatment plans. [9] Besides chiropractors, Doctors of Osteopathy (D.O.) and some Medical Doctors (M.D.) and Physical Therapists (P.T.) also perform spinal manipulation.

References:

(more…)

2

The Subluxation Complex Saves Diagnosis for Texas Chiropractors

By Frank M. Painter|June 14, 2012|Announcement, Diagnosis, Evaluation & Management, Subluxation|

The Subluxation Complex Saves Diagnosis for Texas Chiropractors

The Chiro.Org Blog

SOURCE: Dynamic Chiropractic

By James Edwards, DC

On April 5, 2012, the Third Court of Appeals of Texas issued a 58-page opinion in Cause No. 03-10-673-CV – the Texas Board of Chiropractic Examiners (TBCE) and the Texas Chiropractic Association (TCA) vs. the Texas Medical Association (TMA), the Texas Medical Board (TMB) and the State of Texas.

According to an April 6, 2012 communication by the Texas Chiropractic Association [1], the case presented three questions for the court:

1) Are the two TBCE rules that allow chiropractors to make certain “diagnoses” valid?2) Can chiropractors perform MUA?3) Can chiropractors perform needle EMG?Here’s what the Court of Appeals had to say in the matter:

Diagnosis

On the two most important issues presented by the TCA, the Court of Appeals upheld the validity of TBCE’s Rules 75.17(d)(1)(A) and (B) (“the scope of practice rules”). The first rule, 75.17(d)(1)(A), permits chiropractors to render diagnoses “regarding the biomechanical condition of the spine and musculoskeletal system,” and lists six typical diagnostic areas as examples of what is within the scope of practice. At the district court level, Judge Yelenosky had struck down that rule, stating that it created an unlimited authorization to diagnose any disease or condition, which, he said, exceeded chiropractors’ scope of practice.

The Court of Appeals disagreed and reversed Judge Yelenosky’s decision. The court found that the TBCE rule does not exceed the scope of practice because the rule limits chiropractors to making diagnoses of the biomechanical condition of the spine and musculoskeletal system.

The second rule, 75.17(d)(1)(B), permits chiropractors to diagnose subluxation complexes of the spine or musculoskeletal system, and lists three examples of what is within the scope of practice. The Texas Medical Association and Texas Medical Board had challenged that rule, claiming that the rule allowed chiropractors to diagnose neurological conditions, and pathological and neurophysiological consequences that affect the spine and musculoskeletal system. At the district court level, Judge Yelenosky agreed and struck down the rule because he found that it expanded the scope of chiropractic beyond what was allowed in the Chiropractic Act.

Again, the Court of Appeals disagreed with District Court Judge Yelenosky. The appeals court acknowledged that a subluxation complex could have functional or pathological consequences that affect essentially every part of the body. But the court found that the rule itself only allowed chiropractors to render a diagnosis regarding a subluxation complex of the spine or musculoskeletal system. That authority, the appeals court held, was consistent with the Chiropractic Act. (more…)

10

Strokes May Seem Rare, But Can Occur 230% More Often Using The Pill

By Frank M. Painter|June 14, 2012|Announcement, Oral Contraceptives, Public Health, Stroke|

Strokes May Seem Rare, But Can Occur 230% More Often Using The Pill

The Chiro.Org Blog

SOURCE: MedPage Today ~ June 13, 2012

By Todd Neale, Senior Staff Writer

A large Danish registry study found that the risks of thrombotic stroke or myocardial infarction (MI) roughly doubled in women taking oral contraceptives with low-to-moderate doses of ethinyl estradiol.

Note that the overall number of thrombotic strokes or MIs was small.

The relative risks of thrombotic stroke and myocardial infarction (MI) are higher among users of hormonal contraception, although absolute risks remain low, a Danish study showed.

Use of oral contraceptives combining low-to-moderate doses of ethinyl estradiol and various progestins was associated with up to 2.3 times the risks of thrombotic stroke or MI compared with non-use, according to Øjvind Lidegaard, DrMedSci, of Copenhagen University Hospital, and colleagues.

The type of progestin in the pill had little effect on the risks, the researchers reported in the June 14 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine.

To put the risk in perspective, they estimated that among 10,000 women taking a pill combining desogestrel with ethinyl estradiol at a dose of 20 μg for 1 year, two will have arterial thrombosis and seven will have venous thrombosis.

(more…)

2