Letter to the Editor Medicine, Science and the Law 2014, Vol. 54(4) 236–237 ! The Author(s) 2014 Reprints and permissions: sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/0025802414549893 msl.sagepub.com

To the Editor, Case reports can provide valuable information about current clinical practice, or they can be used to highlight some of the issues in the management of patients’ pain, disease and disability. The publication and dissemination of clinical case reports can open important avenues for further research and offer an opportunity for clinicians to reflect and enhance their practice. Cicconi et al.1 present a case report of a patient who experienced an adverse event following osteopathic treatment. While case studies such as this are valuable methods by which adverse events following manual therapy (or any other intervention) can be described, the lack of detail about the patient, the interventions received and generalisations presented by the authors are problematic. Lack of patient detail has been highlighted previously as being an issue when investigating adverse effects of spinal manipulation.2 There are several other limitations of Cicconi et al.’s case report1 which we think are necessary to highlight. There is a lack of detail about the patient and the presenting features of their condition when they sought osteopathic treatment. The consequence of a lack of these important clinical details severely limits the educational benefit of the case report. Beyond ‘complaining of neck pain’ and the identification of ‘torticollis by disc protrusions’ as a pre-existing condition, the reader is left to ponder which symptoms led the patient to seek osteopathic care. More detail about the presenting features and the examination undertaken by the osteopath would allow the reader to develop their own opinion as to whether osteopathic treatment (or particular osteopathic manipulative techniques) was contraindicated in this specific case. The authors support this clinical reasoning process by stating ‘ . . . the knowledge of the patient’s clinical conditions is essential before starting an OMT [osteopathic manipulative treatment]’. However, there is no detailed information provided by the authors in the case report on the patient’s presenting symptoms. Further, the authors use the World Health Organisation Benchmarks for Training in Osteopathy3 as a basis for a number of statements related to the lack of a working diagnosis and the risk of an adverse event ‘ . . . could have been lower if the osteopath adhered to the guidelines’. Such simplistic statements are unhelpful and fail to appreciate

the ambiguity of musculoskeletal clinical practice. As a result, the authors fail to provide the reader with a valuable learning opportunity. The limited detail provided means it is difficult to establish whether the application of any manual therapy technique was contraindicated, or whether diagnostic imaging should have been obtained for this patient. Further, it would appear to the reader that the authors were advocating diagnostic imaging prior to the application of osteopathic treatment. Without the detail about the presenting features of the case, it is difficult to support such a position, given the lack of evidence for use of diagnostic imaging in non-specific cervical spine pain.4 Although the authors report that the osteopathic treatment ‘ . . . included cervical spine manipulation . . . ’, there is no mention of the use of any other techniques. The authors appear to draw the conclusion immediately that the cervical manipulation was the cause of the disc herniation. Yet the reader does not know whether any other techniques were applied. Manual therapy techniques, beyond cervical spine manipulation, are known to have adverse effects, including disc herniation.5,6 To conclude that the cervical spine manipulation alone was the cause of the herniation is spurious, given the lack of detail presented. The causal relationship established by the authors between the intervention and the post-treatment symptoms is plausible7 based on the timeline only. The lack of further detail in the case report limits the ability to draw any further conclusions, particularly as manipulation in the presence of diagnostically confirmed cervical spinal cord encroachment8 and cervical radiculopathy9,10 has been demonstrated to be beneficial in some cases. In no way can the actions of the osteopath after the treatment be condoned. Based on the information presented in the case report, the management of the patient once they had informed the osteopath of the adverse event could amount to professional misconduct (or similar). As clinicians, we are acutely aware of the need to develop a comprehensive understanding of the patient’s presenting complaint and medical history, undertake a thorough examination, obtain informed consent (including a discussion of the risks and benefits of the proposed management) and choose to apply manual therapy techniques that are not

Downloaded from msl.sagepub.com at Queen's University on March 9, 2015

Vaughan and Thomson

237

contraindicated and that are within the scope of osteopathic practice. Authors submitting case reports in the future are encouraged to provide much greater detail about the patient who is the subject of the report so that students and practicing health professionals can learn from such adverse events in the hope of minimising them in the future. Unfortunately, the case report by Cicconi et al.1 adds little to the continually developing picture of adverse effects following manual therapy. Funding This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

References 1. Cicconi M, Mangiulli T and Bolino G. Onset of complications following cervical manipulation due to malpractice in osteopathic treatment: a case report. Med Sci Law. 2014. DOI: 10.1177/0025802413513451. 2. Tuchin P. A replication of the study ‘Adverse effects of spinal manipulation: a systematic review’. Chiro Man Thera 2012; 20: 1–7. 3. World Health Organisation. Benchmarks for training in osteopathy. World Health Organisation, www.who.int/ medicines/areas/traditional/BenchmarksforTrainingin Osteopathy.pdf (2010, accessed 20 July 2013). 4. Rubinstein SM and van Tulder M. A best-evidence review of diagnostic procedures for neck and low-back pain. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol 2008; 22: 471–482. 5. Carnes D, Mars TS, Mullinger B, et al. Adverse events and manual therapy: a systematic review. Man Ther 2010; 15: 355–363.

6. Shin BC, Lee MS, Park TY, et al. Serious adverse events after spinal manipulation: a systematic review of the Korean literature. Focus Altern Complement Ther 2010; 15: 198–201. 7. Malone DG, Baldwin NG, Tomecek FJ, et al. Complications of cervical spine manipulation therapy: 5-year retrospective study in a single-group practice. Neurosurg Focus 2002; 13: 1–8. 8. Murphy DR, Hurwitz EL and Gregory AA. Manipulation in the presence of cervical spinal cord compression: a case series. J Manipulative Physiol Ther 2006; 29: 236–244. 9. Rodine RJ and Vernon H. Cervical radiculopathy: a systematic review on treatment by spinal manipulation and measurement with the neck disability index. J Can Chiropr Assoc 2012; 56: 18. 10. Boyles R, Toy P, Mellon J Jr, et al. Effectiveness of manual physical therapy in the treatment of cervical radiculopathy: a systematic review. J Man Manipulative Thera 2011; 19: 135.

1

Brett Vaughan1 and Oliver Thomson2 Osteopathy, College of Health and Biomedicine, Victoria University, Melbourne, Australia 2 British School of Osteopathy, London, UK

Corresponding author: Brett Vaughan, College of Health & Biomedicine, Flinders Lane Campus, Victoria University, PO Box 14428, Melbourne, Victoria 8001, Australia. Email: [email protected]

Downloaded from msl.sagepub.com at Queen's University on March 9, 2015

Valuable information about current clinical practice.

Valuable information about current clinical practice. - PDF Download Free
73KB Sizes 0 Downloads 4 Views