Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category

Effectiveness of Adjustments in Chronic Migraine

Effectiveness of Adjustments in Chronic Migraine: Armed Randomized Controlled Trial. Complementary Therapies in Medicine. April 2015; Vol. 23; No. 2; pp. 149—156

Francesco Cerritelli, Liana Ginevri, Gabriella Messi, Emanuele Caprari, Marcello Di Vincenzo, Cinzia Renzetti, Vincenzo Cozzolino, Gina Barlafante, Nicoletta Foschi, Leandro Provincial: This study was carried out in the Department of Neurology of Ancona’s United Hospitals, Ancona, Italy. This article has 54 references.

The primary measurement outcome in this study is the Headache Impact Test (HIT-6); below is the conclusion from the cited reference:

“Our study shows that the HIT-6 is a reliable and valid tool for measuring the impact of headache on daily life in both episodic and chronic migraine sufferers. Furthermore, the HIT-6 tool discriminates well between chronic migraine, episodic migraine and non-migraine patients. As a brief tool, the HIT-6 is easy to score and interpret, and can be readily integrated into clinical practice, or clinical studies of migraine patients. It may offer clinicians a practical and easy-to implement tool to assist them with evaluating treatment effectiveness by obtaining input directly from the patient on aspects other than just the frequency of headache days.”


1) “This manipulative therapy trial is the largest ever conducted on migraine adult patients.” These authors assessed the effectiveness of manipulative treatment on 105 chronic migraine patients using:

• Headache Impact Test (HIT-6) questionnaire [main outcome measure]

• Drug consumption

• Days of migraine

• Pain intensity

• Functional disability

2) This is a randomized controlled trial. Patients received 8 treatments over a period of 6 months. Patients were randomly divided into three groups:


• Manipulation + medication therapy n=35

•• The manipulative techniques used in this study included myofascial release, treatment of ligamentous and membrane tensions, treatment of somatic dysfunctions, and treatment to asymmetries and imbalances in the pelvis and cranium.

• Sham manipulation + medication therapy n=35

•• The sham group received a false manipulation, in addition to drug care.

•• Sham therapy mimicked the manipulative care in terms of evaluation and treatment; it used light manual contact to ‘‘treat’’ the subject.

•• Both manipulative and sham therapy sessions lasted 30 minutes and were given weekly for the first two sessions, biweekly for the subsequent two, then monthly for the remained four sessions.

• Medication only n=35

3) “Migraine attacks are usually characterized by a unilateral and pulsating severe headache, lasting 4—72 hours, and are often associated with nausea, phono- and photophobia.”

4) “Migraine is a serious public health concern of considerable consequences to both the migraineur and society.”

5) The overall migraine prevalence in Europe is 10—15% of the population.

6) These authors make the following points pertaining to the etiology of migraine:

• In 20% of migraineurs, the attacks are anticipated by transient neurological

symptoms, the aura.

• Migraine has a genetic etiology in about 50% of cases.

• Migraine etiology also has multifactorial epigenetic mechanisms.

• During a migraine attack, high levels of inflammatory cytokines are released causing neurogenic inflammation of the meninges and transmitting pain signals to the trigeminovascular system and autonomic nervous system nuclei.

7) Criteria considered for manipulative evaluation and treatment were:

• Alteration of tissue consistency

• Asymmetry

• Range of motion restriction

• Tenderness

8) During migraine attacks, high levels of pro-inflammatory substances are released, altering neural autonomic pathways.

9) Manipulation influences the autonomic nervous system by producing a parasympathetic effect, and therefore, a “trophotropic tuning state.”

10) Manipulation is associated with a “reduction of pro-inflammatory substances.”

11) Manipulation in migraineurs could reduce the release of pro-inflammatory substances that have an effect on the autonomic nervous system function. “As a consequence, a cascade of biological and neurological events, potentially based on a rebalance of the abnormal activation of the habituation/sensitization mechanism, even between attacks, could occur resulting in an overall improvement of clinical outcomes.”

12) Manipulation “significantly reduced the frequency of migraine.”

13) At the end of the study period, there was a statistically significant difference on the overall HIT-6 score between the three groups; the manipulation group was statistically improved from control [drug only] and sham group.

14) “Considering migraine days per month, the three groups differed significantly at the end of the study period.”

15) Manipulation “significantly reduced the number of subjects taking medications.”

16) “No study participant reported any adverse effects of the [manipulation].”

17) “Migraine attacks, use of drugs, pain and disability scores were significantly reduced in the OMT group.”

18) “OMT showed a significant improvement in the migraineurs’ quality of life.”

19) Interestingly, the “sham group significantly reduced the HIT-6 score compared to the conventional [drug only] care. “The magnitude of the results suggests that the sham procedure may be clinically effective.” [Important]

20) The sham treatment used soft touch, which will induce responses at different levels of the central nervous system, reducing pain and improving well-being.

21) “The use of osteopathy [manipulative therapy] as an adjuvant therapy for migraine patients may reduce the use of drugs and optimize the clinical

management of the patients.”

22) “The present study showed significant differences between OMT group compared to drug and sham groups, suggesting that OMT may be considered a clinically valid procedure for the management of patients with migraine.”


It is important to look at the numbers in the table and the graph in this Review. Again, it is noteworthy that sham manipulation is superior to drug-only treatment for migraine. Note that manipulation essentially eliminated migraine days per month, pain, disability, and reduced drug consumption by 80%. Note that for the group assigned to taking drugs-only, there was essentially no reduction in migraine days per month, pain, disability, and no reduction in drug consumption.

Our interpretation of this data is that it appears that manipulation is actually addressing the causative pathophysiology of migraine headache; in contrast, it appears that taking drugs is nothing more than temporary pain control with no benefit to the causative pathophysiological of migraine headache. We remain perplexed as to why any healthcare delivery system would favor drugs for migraine (and many other pain syndromes) over mechanical therapy.  $  ??? 😊

Complementary and Alternative Medicine Use in the US Adult Low Back Pain Population

Complementary and Alternative Medicine Use in the US Adult Low Back Pain Population. Global Advances in Health and Medicine January 2016; Vol. 5; No. 1; pp. 69-78


Neha Ghildayal, Pamela Jo Johnson, MPH, PhD, Roni L. Evans, DC, MS, PhD, and Mary Jo Kreitzer, PhD, RN.

The data for this article was from the 2012 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS), which is the most current nationally representative data available on CAM

health practices. Data was collected on 34,525 adults. “A major strength of this study was that it used a large, nationally representative survey of the US adult population with LBP and included a comprehensive list of CAM therapies.”



1) “A key goal of healthcare for patients with chronic back pain is to maximize their functional status so that they are able to carry out activities of daily living.”

2) “Many people suffering from LBP have found conventional medical treatments to be ineffective and unreliable for treating their pain. Therefore, due to

dissatisfaction with conventional treatments for LBP, individuals suffering from LBP are increasingly turning to complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) to find relief.”

3) Low back pain (LBP):

• Costs the United States healthcare system about $100 billion a year.

• Resulting in over 150 million lost workdays per year and $16 billion annually

in lost productivity in the US.

• More than 80% of adults in the US will experience it at some point during

their lifetime.

• Is a major cause of functional limitations and disability:

•• are 3 times more likely to have limited functional ability

•• are more than 4 times likely to experience serious psychological distress

• “People with back pain suffer from worse physical and mental health than

people without back pain.”

4) “A growing body of evidence supports the use of CAM for improving back pain outcomes, with back pain being the most common condition for which patients

use CAM.”

5) “Overall, chiropractic manipulation was the most prevalent CAM therapy used within the LBP population.” [Important]

6) “The majority of respondents (58.1%) who used CAM in the past year forback pain perceived a ‘great deal’ of benefit.”

7) “For people with severe LBP, turning to CAM may seem a better alternative due to its more conservative, noninvasive nature as compared to more conventional medical treatments such as epidural steroid injections, surgeries, and prescriptive medications—all which may carry higher risks than CAM treatments.”

8) Also, “those with severe pain may have exhausted all other possibilities and may be looking for any possibility of relief” and as such seek CAM approaches.

9) People may also seek CAM because of it low associated treatment risks.

10) “CAM therapies are becoming an increasingly important component of care for people with LBP.”

11) Over 40% of the US population used some form of CAM in the past year, with higher use reported among those with back pain.

12) The most popular therapies used in the LBP population included herbal therapies, chiropractic manipulation, and massage.

13) “The majority of the LBP population used CAM specifically to treat back pain, and most adults who used CAM for back pain perceived a great deal of benefit.”

14) “CAM use appears to be an important and growing part of healthcare for the back pain population.”



Limitations from this study include that the authors did not distinguish between acute and chronic back pain patients, which would undoubtedly influence the

percentages of perceived benefits from the various approaches. Chiropractic remains the leader of outpatient management choices for CAM for LBP, with an extremely high patient satisfaction rate; yet only 15% of those with LBP are using chiropractic.

Surprisingly, acupuncture is only being used by 2% of those with low back pain. An important aspect of this study (mentioned but not quantified) is that all of the CAM approaches are extremely safe, with a very low risk of adverse occurrences. Lastly, a mentioned but underemphasized aspect of this study is that many who chose to use CAM do so because traditional approaches to the management of their back pain was ineffective.

[Most chiropractors do not consider chiropractic to be “alternative” or “complementary” to medical practice, but rather a scientifically proven, non-drug, and non-surgical approach to healthcare problems, including musculoskeletal pain].

Glucose Metabolic Changes in the Brain and Muscles of Patients with Nonspecific Neck Pain Treated by Spinal Manipulation Therapy

Glucose Metabolic Changes in the Brain and Muscles of Patients with Nonspecific Neck Pain Treated by Spinal Manipulation Therapy:

A [18F] FDG PET Study {a radioactive glucose PET scan study}. Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine Volume 2017

 The study has four important findings:

  • The brain is affected by chiropractic adjusting
  • Chiropractic adjusting inhibits pain
  • Chiropractic adjusting inhibits muscle tone, improving ranges of motion
  • Chiropractic adjusting inhibits sympathetic tone, a key influence on immunity and other factors in systemic wellness


PET (positron emission tomography) scan is a powerful neuroimaging technique to investigate neuronal activity in the human brain and muscles.

18F-labeled fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) is a radioactive analogue of glucose, and is an excellent imaging marker of brain glucose consumption (brain metabolic activity).


A PET scan can visualize brain metabolic changes induced by spinal manipulative therapy (SMT). The aim of this study was to investigate changes in brain and muscle glucose metabolism using positron emission tomography with fluorodeoxyglucose.


Twenty-one male volunteers were recruited for the present study. Spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) was applied using an Activator in accordance with the Activator Methods protocols. The Activator applied impulses to specific vertebrae or joints. “SMT was performed on the subject in a prone position without movements such as cervical rotation, lateral flexion, and extension, in order to prevent the muscular FDG uptake due to muscle contractions during the therapeutic procedure. SMT was carried out on the whole spine, the scapulae, the ilium, and the sacrum, as necessary for each subject. The mean number of SMT adjusted sites was 8 per subject.”


Glucose metabolism of the brain and skeletal muscles was measured. Also measured was salivary amylase levels as an index of autonomic nervous system (ANS) activity, muscle tension, and subjective pain intensity. “Other measurements indicated relaxation of cervical muscle tension, decrease in salivary amylase level (suppression of sympathetic nerve activity), and pain relief after SMT.” “SMT on all subjects was performed by the same Chiropractor, who was an advanced practitioner of Activator Methods.”


 1) Spinal manipulation therapy (SMT) has “been applied mainly to musculoskeletal problems such as neck pain or low back pain.”

2) Previous studies have shown that “SMT has beneficial clinical effects, including pain relief and reduction of blood pressure.”

3) “The intensity of subjective pain was evaluated using a 0–10 visual analog scale (VAS) before and after SMT in the treatment condition.”

4) “Cervical muscle tension was measured bilaterally at the superior part of the trapezius muscle using a tissue hardness meter.”

5) “Salivary amylase levels were measured for each subject using an amylase monitor to evaluate changes in autonomic nervous system (ANS) function.”

6) “Salivary 𝛼-amylase levels correspond to plasma norepinephrine levels and are utilized as an accessible measure of sympathetic nervous reactivity in stress research, with lower levels indicating lower activity.”

7) “We observed multiple changes in brain activity after SMT.”

8) “The findings of the present study demonstrate how stimuli to the mechanoreceptors of the joints and skin during SMT are processed in the brain.”

9) “Brain processing after SMT may lead to physiological relaxation via a decrease in sympathetic nerve activity.” [Key Point]

10) “Comparisons of VAS pain scores in the treatment condition revealed a significant decrease after SMT.”

11) “Cervical muscle tension was significantly reduced bilaterally after SMT.” “Our results suggest that stimulation of joints during SMT induced relaxation of reflexive muscle tension.”

12) “Salivary amylase level decreased significantly after SMT.”

Changes Following Spinal Manipulation

-Visual Analogue Pain, VAS, Significantly Reduced By About 65%

-Muscle Tension Significantly Reduced

-Salivary Amylase (as an indicator of norepinephrine sympathetic tone)Significantly Reduced

-Cingulate Cortex (part of the limbic system)emotions, learning, memory

-Increased Cerebellar Vermis (spinal proprioception)posture/movement, emotions Increased

-Somatosensory Cortex (pain perception/localization)Reduced

-Prefrontal Cortex (executive function) personality, planning, decision making, moderating social behavior Reduced

13) The Cerebellar Vermis:

  • “The Cerebellar Vermis receives somatic sensory information from the spinal cord and via the vestibulospinal tract or reticular nuclei of the brainstem through the spinal cord, connecting indirectly or directly with motor cells on the ventral horn. These systems control involuntary muscular tension and reflexes.”
  • The cerebellum has many roles in non-motor functions.
  • “The cerebellum is also thought to have a functional role as an integrator of multiple effector systems, including affective processing, pain modulation, and sensorimotor processing.”
  • The Cerebellar Vermis is activated during mental recall of emotional personal episodes in humans. 14) “Our assessment of body responses in this study showed relaxation of muscle tension and decreased salivary amylase levels—phenomena that are associated with reduced sympathetic nerve activity.”[Key Point]

14) SMT stimuli to the joints may result in “decreased sympathetic nerve activity.” [Key Point]

15) These authors believe that the relaxation of muscle tone documented in this study occur as a consequence of two mechanisms:

  • Inhibition of sympathetic autonomic nervous activity
  • Improvement of the range of joint movement

16) “We observed that SMT stimulus induced physical responses such as muscle tension relaxation, pain relief, and reduced amylase secretion.”

17) “Neural inputs evoked by SMT stimuli via various receptors in muscles, tendons, and joints may ascend to the somatosensory areas of the brain through the medial lemniscal system. “

18) “In summary, we observed metabolic changes in the brain and skeletal muscles, as well as reductions in subjective pain, muscle tension, and salivary amylase, after SMT intervention. These results may be associated with reduced sympathetic nerve activity,” suggesting that SMT induces sympathetic inhibition (“relaxation”).

20) “The brain response to SMT may reflect the psychophysiological relaxation that accompanies reduced sympathetic nerve activity.”


This study used the most sophisticated technology to date to assess the affects of chiropractic spinal adjusting:

  • Changes in radioactive glucose metabolism as measured with a PET scan in both the brain and in muscles
  • Changes in muscle tone
  • Improvement in pain using a VAS
  • Changes in sympathetic nervous system production and release of norepinephrine (sympathetic tone)


Akie Inami, Takeshi Ogura, Shoichi Watanuki, Mehedi Masud, Katsuhiko Shibuya,Masayasu Miyake, Rin Matsuda, Kotaro Hiraoka, Masatoshi Itoh, Arlan W. Fuhr,Kazuhiko Yanai, Manabu Tashiro:Takeshi Ogura is a chiropractor.Arlan Fuhr is a chiropractor and owner of Activator Methods International, Ltd.

This study was done at Tohoku University Graduate School of Medicine, Sendai, Japan, along with the Division of Cyclotron Nuclear Medicine at Tohoku University. This article has 47 references.




What You Need to Know About Vaping

By Bart N. Green, DC, MSEd, PhD, Kevin Rose, DC, MPH and Claire Johnson, DC, MSEd, PhD

Editor’s Note: This article has been modified from the original, which was directed toward a professional (doctor) audience.

Smoking can be harmful in so many ways. Not only are there a multitude of negative health consequences from smoking, but recent research even shows a connection between smoking and back pain.1 Thus, any aid that can help people stop smoking is of interest. However, what happens if the aid causes new problems? The health impact, use and safety of electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) are still under investigation. We offer a brief overview on this important public health issue.

1. What Is Vaping?

When someone smokes traditional cigarettes, they inhale the smoke of burning tobacco. However, someone using an electronic device, such as an electronic cigarette, inhales vaporized chemical liquids – thus the term vaping.

The liquids in e-cigarettes often contain nicotine or other drugs, as well as scents or flavors to increase the pleasure of the experience. E-cigarettes are now the most commonly used smoking product by U.S. youth2 and the number of users continues to rise.

2. What Are the Arguments in Favor of Vaping?

Vaping is considered an option to reduce the harmful effects of traditional tobacco cigarette smoking and as an aid to help people quit. The thought is that e-cigarettes might help someone step down to lower levels of addictive substances (e.g., nicotine) and reduce the amount of carcinogens inhaled. Some studies have shown the use of e-cigarettes may help some people to reduce or stop smoking.3

3. What Are the Potential Harms of Vaping?

Although e-cigarettes do not use burning tobacco, they still contain harmful substances. Issues with vaping include:

  • Intake of vaporized substances in e-cigarettes may be harmful.4-6
  • E-cigarettes have vapors that can include formaldehyde, acetaldehyde and metal nanoparticles.7
  • E-cigarette devices could potentially be used to intake illegal or other potentially harmful drugs,8  such as synthetic drugs or cannabis.9-10
  • Secondhand vapors are harmful to those who are exposed.4-5
  • There is potential harm with short-term use, although the effects of long-term use on health are unknown.
  • Targeting minors with bright colors and candy flavors, and re-establishing the culture that smoking is “cool” or “safe,” may entice youth to start or continue smoking.
  • The potential exists for physical danger from e-cigarettes (e.g., explosions and burns).

4. What Can You Do to Learn More?

In addition to speaking with your doctor, helpful resources on e-cigarettes include the following:

  • The U.S. Surgeon General has a “Know the Risks” fact sheet on youth and e-cigarettes.
  • The American Heart Association has a fact sheet on e-cigarettes and public health.
  • The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CD) has a website with information for patients.
  • The American Lung Association has a statement on e-cigarettes.
  • The American Public Health Association has a policy statement on the regulation of e-cigarettes.

5. So, Is Vaping Good or Bad?

Although vaping is touted as an aid for smoking cessation to help those who are addicted to tobacco, this does not mean vaping is harmless. Harms may be experienced by the person vaping, as well as those who are inhaling the vapors secondhand. The best thing for your health is to refrain from smoking at all – electronic or tobacco.


  1. Green BN, Johnson CD, Snodgrass J, et al. Association between smoking and back pain in a cross-section of adult Americans. Cureus, 2016 Sep 26;8(9):e806.
  2. Singh T, Kennedy S, Marynak K, et al. Characteristics of electronic cigarette use among middle and high school students – United States, 2015. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep, 2016 Dec 30;65(5051):1425-1429.
  3. Hartmann-Boyce J, McRobbie H, Bullen C, et al. Electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 2016 Sep 14;9:CD010216.
  4. Pankow JF, Kim K, McWhirter KJ, et al. Benzene formation in electronic cigarettes. PLoS One, 2017 Mar 8;12(3).
  5. Hess IM, Lachireddy K, Capon A. A systematic review of the health risks from passive exposure to electronic cigarette vapour. Public Health Res Pract, 2016 Apr 15;26(2).
  6. Kaisar MA, Prasad S, Liles T, Cucullo L. A decade of e-cigarettes: limited research and unresolved safety concerns. Toxicology, 2016 Jul 15;365:67-75.
  7. Drug Facts: Electronic Cigarettes (e-Cigarettes). Washington, DC: National Institutes of Health, National Institute on Drug Abuse, May 2016.
  8. Blundell MS, Dargan PI, Wood DM. The dark cloud of recreational drugs and vaping. QJM, 2017 Mar 9.
  9. Giroud C, de Cesare M, Berthet A, et al. E-cigarettes: a review of new trends in cannabis use. Int J Environ Res Public Health, 2015 Aug 21;12(8):9988-10008.
  10. Budney AJ, Sargent JD, Lee DC. Vaping cannabis (marijuana): parallel concerns to e-cigs? Addiction, 2015 Nov;110(11):1699-704.

Bart Green, DC, MSEd, PhD, is a full-time corporate health chiropractor; a part-time faculty member at National University of Health Sciences; and a member of the APHA-CHC. He has extensive experience working in interdisciplinary pain management teams for patients with chronic non-cancer pain.

Kevin Rose, DC, MPH, is a public health professor at the Southern California University of Health Sciences and a diplomate of the American Board of Chiropractic Orthopedists.

Claire Johnson, DC, MSEd, PhD, is a professor at National University of Health Sciences and editor in chief of JMPT, the Journal of Chiropractic Medicine and the Journal of Chiropractic Humanities. She also serves as the communications chair for the APHA-CHC.

Categories: Uncategorized Tags: , ,

Osteopathic Manipulative Treatment Improves Heart Surgery Outcomes: A Randomized Controlled Trial Annals of Thoracic Surgery

(The Society of Thoracic Surgeons)


January 18, 2017; Vol. 16 [epub]

Vittorio Racca, MD, Bruno Bordoni, MS, Paolo Castiglioni, PhD, Maddalena Modica, MS, Maurizio Ferratini, MD


Cardiology Rehabilitation Center and Biomedical Technology Department, Santa


Maria Nascente Institute-IRCCS, Don C. Gnocchi Foundation, Milan, Italy

The aim of this study was to assess whether osteopathic manipulative treatment


(OMT) contributes to post heart surgical sternal pain relief and “improves

postoperative outcomes.”


Eighty post-sternotomy patients were randomly allocated to receive a standard ,cardiorespiratory rehabilitation program alone (control group) or standard cardiorespiratory rehabilitation with spinal manipulation. Pain intensity and respiratory functional capacity were quantified by the Visual Analogue Scale score and by a standardized breathing test, at the start and end of rehabilitation.




1) “Controlling sternal pain after heart surgery is important to reduce the risk of postoperative complications, but pain is often undertreated because of contraindications and side effects of analgesic drugs.” Postoperative pain

“diminishes patients’ ability to cooperate, delays recovery and may lead to worse outcomes.”

2) “Inadequately controlled postoperative pain negatively affects the immune system, wound healing, and pulmonary function.”

3) Pain can “activate the sympathetic system, increasing demands on cardiac function and favoring cardiac complications such as tachycardia, arrhythmia, or myocardial ischemia.”

4) “Uncontrolled postoperative pain is often responsible for neurologic

complications, episodes of delirium, and other acute confusional states with a multifactorial pathogenesis.”

5) “In addition to discomfort and suffering, pain may cause sleep deprivation, may delay return to normal functioning, and may have nociception-induced adverse effects on cardiovascular functioning and pulmonary morbidity.”

6) Pain intensity was measured using a 10-cm visual analogue scale (VAS)

ranging from “no pain at all” to “unbearable pain.”

7) The improvement in respiratory function was more marked in the

[manipulation] group. “The inspiratory volume was significantly greater in the [manipulation] group.”

8) “Hospitalization was significantly shorter in the [manipulation] group than in the control group (19.1 ± 4.8 versus 21.7 ± 6.3 days).”

9) “Anti-inflammatory drugs may impair renal function, interact with platelet

aggregation, and increase the risk of gastrointestinal damage and bleeding;

analgesic drugs have detrimental neurologic effects and negatively affect visceral motility; and opioids may decrease survival during in-hospital resuscitation and increase duration of hospitalization.”

10) The manipulation in this study began the day after being discharged from the surgery department, and was administered for 5 days.

11) At the end of rehabilitation:

  • The manipulation group had a lower Visual Analogue Scale score.
  • The manipulation group had higher mean inspiratory volume.
  • The manipulation group had shorter stays.


“At the end of the rehabilitation program, the reduction in perceived pain was more marked in the [manipulation] group and the VAS score was significantly lower in [manipulation] patients than in controls.”


13) “The combination of standard care with [manipulation] is effective in

inducing pain relief and functional recovery, and significantly improves the

management of patients after heart surgery with sternotomy.”

14) These authors reference articles that show spinal manipulation does the


  • “Intervenes in the process that transforms nociceptive information into the

subjective experience of pain.”

  • “Controls pain after abdominal surgery.”
  • “Facilitates recovery of functional ability after coronary artery bypass graft


  • “Improves cardiac function.”
  • “Reduces analgesia that patients with musculoskeletal problems need after

elective knee or hip arthroplasty.”

15) Of the patients who took pain medications, side effects occurred in

22.5%; these side effects included nausea, vomiting, dizziness, difficulty

concentrating, drowsiness, light-headedness, abdominal discomfort, constipation, dry mouth, itching, rash, and blurred vision.

16) Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs “may increase the risk of thrombotic cardiovascular events, including myocardial infarction, and of gastrointestinal bleeding.”

17) “Overuse of opioid analgesics induces side effects that can delay recovery and worsen the outcome.”

18) “This is the first randomized controlled trial evaluating the effect of OMT on both pain perception and functional outcomes after heart surgery.”

19) “The main results of our study are that OMT treatment decreases dramatically the level of perceived pain, and substantially improves the functional capacity in terms of inspiratory volumes.”

20) “We also observed a reduced hospitalization, on average by more than 2

days, in the OMT-treated group, that could be consequence of the improved

functional capacity.”

21) The gating mechanism of spinal manipulation would have an “analgesic effect, reducing somatic reactivity and muscle spasms.”

22) “The lower pain intensity in the OMT group at discharge suggests that OMT had a direct analgesic effect.” “The shorter duration of hospitalization

in the OMT group might suggest a more rapid functional improvement.”

23) “It can be hypothesized that the pain-relieving action of [manipulation]

enables lower doses of analgesic drugs.” “Our study suggests that [manipulation] may reduce the use of analgesic drugs, lowering the risk of adverse effects during rehabilitation programs.”

24) “The efficacy of [manipulation] on rehabilitation outcomes can therefore be summarized in terms of a more pronounced reduction in pain intensity and a greater improvement in rib cage mobility, both factors that might have played a role in shortening hospitalization.”

25) “Manipulative treatment is safe, free of side effects, and well

accepted by patients. Moreover, it is relatively inexpensive and only moderately time consuming. For these reasons, cardiac rehabilitation programs should include MT.”

26) Manipulation “should begin before the development of the respiratory

sequelae associated with reduced chest and diaphragm mobility.”

27) “We believe that adding [manipulation] to traditional care programs 1 week after surgery is neither too soon nor too late.”

28) These authors suggest that postoperative manipulation “can be expected to improve the quality of patient care and its cost efficiency, by leading to better and more rapid outcomes and by reducing morbidity.”




This amazing study supports that all post surgical patients should start spinal manipulation within 5 days of surgery, during the rehabilitation process. The benefits include:


  • Significantly reduced pain
  • Significantly improved function
  • Reduced hospital stay and it associated reduced costs
  • Avoidance of drugs and all the risks (complications and side effects)

associated with pharmacology

Categories: Uncategorized

Don’t let it get you

I wanted to wish everyone a great day! We don’t know what life will give us some days, and I wanted to remind everyone to stop…take a deep breath…exhale slowly…

Categories: Uncategorized

I heard once I go to a chiropractor I will have to go for the rest of my life?

We hear this often in our practice. It’s a common myth that once you have been adjusted that you have to go for the rest of your life. Will you go to your dentist for the rest of your life? What about your medical doctor? Optometrist? Just like your eyes and teeth, your spine needs check ups. Everyday, we experience things that can cause a subluxation in our spine. A subluxation occurs when a vertebrae is out of alignment and inhibits proper communication from the brain to the rest of the body.

Subluxations can be caused by several different instances. We all know if we take a major fall, we should definitely see our Doctor for an adjustment. But what if we are under stress or have lack of energy?  While subluxations can result from a physical cause, they can also arise from emotional and chemical causes.

Excessive stress can rob the body of its ability to function. It is well documented in the medical community that stress causes immune system breakdowns which causes the body to more susceptible to disease and injury. A correction of this type of subluxation can strengthen your immune system and restore function.

Chemical causes of a subluxation are related to dietary and nutritional habits. What we eat and drink can effect our spine. Poor diets and toxins from foods and drinks can cause subluxations. The chemicals we ingest into our bodies interfere with our bodies ability to adapt which can make us more inclined to subluxations.

In addition to regular adjustments from Dr. Clenin or Dr. Bomar, there are several steps you can take to diminish causes of subluxations. We all know the importance of eating properly, exercise and adequate sleep. These are a few simple actions we can take to reduce subluxations and improve overall health. Remember to drink plenty of water! At least half of your body weight in ounces. During these hot, hot summer months, you may want to increase your intake especially if you do a lot of activities outside. Lastly, we offer detoxification treatments that take less than 30 minutes! This is a good way to decrease the chemical effects to our spinal health.

If you want more information, call us at 901-683-5971.

Categories: Uncategorized