Open Access
Open Peer Review

This article has Open Peer Review reports available.

How does Open Peer Review work?

Partial tetraplegic syndrome as a complication of a mobilizing/manipulating procedure of the cervical spine in a man with Forestier's disease: a case report

  • Maximilian J Hartel1Email author,
  • Ulrich Seidel2,
  • Lukas Iselin1,
  • Aristomenis K Exadaktylos3 and
  • Lorin M Benneker2
Journal of Medical Case Reports20115:529

https://doi.org/10.1186/1752-1947-5-529

Received: 28 January 2011

Accepted: 27 October 2011

Published: 27 October 2011

Abstract

Introduction

Even if performed by qualified physical therapists, spinal manipulation and mobilization can cause adverse events. This holds true particularly for the cervical spine. In light of the substantial risks, the benefits of cervical spine manipulation may be outweighed by the possibility of further injury.

Case presentation

We present the case of a 56-year-old Caucasian man with Forestier's disease who went to see a physiotherapist to relieve his aching neck while on a holiday trip. Following the procedure, he was transferred to a local hospital with a partial tetraplegic syndrome due to a cervical 6/7 luxation fracture. Reportedly, the physiotherapist took neither a detailed history, nor adequate diagnostic measures.

Conclusions

This case highlights the potentially dangerous complications associated with cervical spine mobilization/manipulation. If guidelines concerning cervical spine mobilization and manipulation practices had been followed, this adverse event could have been avoided.

Introduction

Even if performed by qualified physical therapists, spinal manipulation and mobilization of the cervical spine in particular can cause severe adverse events. There has been doubt that the benefits of manipulation and mobilization at the cervical spine outweigh the risks linked to it [14]. Several potentially life-threatening complications following spinal manipulation have been reported [511].

Here, we describe an example of a severe non-vascular complication. The adverse event may likely have been avoided if the physical therapist had taken a careful patient history prior to the procedure, as our patient already knew about his underlying degenerative disease.

Case presentation

We present the case of a 56-year-old Caucasian man with Forestier's disease also known as diffuse idiopathic skeletal hyperostosis (DISH). Forestier's disease is a common spinal enthesopathy that is mostly encountered in men older than 50 years [12]. A prevalence of 28% has been found in autopsy specimens [13]. DISH is more common in patients with diabetes and gout [14].

Our patient sought the services of a local physical therapist while on vacation to obtain massages and other treatments for his aching and stiff neck. According to our patient, the physiotherapist (board certified per our patient's report), was more forceful in his manipulating than our patient was used to. He reports having had severe neck pain prior to a short period of unconsciousness. After the procedure, he was unable to mobilize himself off the table. Prior to this incidence the physiotherapist had reportedly not known about our patient's Forestier's disease. He supposedly had not asked about underlying diseases nor had our patient remembered to tell him.

Our patient was referred to a local hospital with a partial tetraparetic syndrome. MRI scans of the cervical spine showed a C 6/7 luxation fracture, as well as degenerative alterations with large spondylophytes bridging the vertebral bodies of the cervical spine extensively (consistent with Forestier's disease) (Figure 1). Axial traction therapy was chosen for several days followed by a dorsal stabilization procedure using internal fixation. Twelve days after the initial trauma he was repatriated and referred to our division of spine surgery. Subjectively, the symptoms improved over time after the initial trauma. On admission to our institution our patient reported having electrifying pain in the whole left upper extremity. Finger abduction in the left hand was slightly reduced to grade M4 of five (according to British Medical Research Council grading, 1978). On the right side the active finger abduction was significantly reduced to grade M0-1/5 and elbow extension to M3/5.
Figure 1

T2-weighed MRI scan in a median-sagittal plane of the cervical spine. There is a C 6/7 luxation fracture without evidence for a profound spinal cord lesion. The degenerative alterations, particularly the large bridging spondylophytes are consistent with Forestier's disease.

A subsequent computed tomography (CT) scan showed an insufficient fracture reduction leaving the facet joints in a persistent subluxation, potentially continuing to compromise neural structures (Figure 2). Our patient was also noted to have elevated inflammatory parameters. Due to his clinical presentation, revision surgery with posterior hardware removal, irrigation, debridement and decompressive laminectomy was undertaken. Our patient was then flipped into a supine position for a ventral approach. No obvious signs of infection were seen anteriorly and therefore a ventral inter-corporal fusion procedure was performed at level C6/7 and the cervical spine instrumented between the levels C5 to T1 using a plate (Vectra).
Figure 2

Computed tomography scan of our patient's cervical spine obtained on admission to our institution. The scan shows a persistent luxated position of the fracture at level C6/7 after dorsal stabilization at the outside hospital.

The results of cultures of the intra-operative biopsies taken from our patient's dorsal cervical spine were positive for a coagulase-negative Staphylococcus and Proteus mirabilis. An adequate antibiotic regime was established. Our patient was transferred to a neurological rehabilitation center eight days post-operatively in a stable condition.

At two-month follow-up, our patient reported satisfaction with the outcome. His inflammatory parameters had normalized and all the incisions looked well healed. He had an acceptable range of movement of his cervical spine. While his left upper extremity had full sensomotor function, on his right side function was still impaired. At six-month follow-up, persistent but slightly improving neurological deficits were recorded. Figure 3 shows radiographic imaging results obtained at the six-month follow-up demonstrating no changes in alignment, intact hardware and osseous consolidation. Subsequent to the last follow-up, our patient was still undergoing ergotherapeutic and physiotherapeutic therapy addressing his right upper extremity limitations.
Figure 3

Plain radiographic images obtained at the six-month follow-up. The alignment is unchanged, the hardware intact, and there are signs of osseous consolidation.

Discussion

Cervical manipulation and mobilization is commonly performed in cases of headache and neck pain [7]. Several potentially life-threatening complications following spinal manipulation have been reported [511]. Interestingly, there seems to be disagreement among experts in this field about the actual size of risk for complications following manual therapy procedures. Malone and colleagues estimated that in every 850 patients, one irreversible complication (for example, clinical significant vertebral disc herniations needing operative treatment) occurs [7]. Carnes et al. estimated in their review a very low risk rate of 0.01% per patient for major adverse events [15]. Then again, Kerry et al. state in their critical literature review in 2008 addressing the association between cervical spine manual therapy and cervical artery dysfunction, that 'it is currently impossible to meaningfully estimate the size of the risk of post-treatment complications' [16].

Fractures of the cervical spine seem to be a rare subgroup of the irreversible and serious complications associated with spinal manipulation. They are specifically reported in cases with pre-existing underlying spinal pathologies, such as osteoporosis, tumors or metastases [6, 17, 18]. Oppenheim et al. reported one pathological fracture in a series of 18 patients [5]. One case of a pathological odontoid fracture and another case of an osteoporotic odontoid fracture were seen by Schmitz et al. and Ea et al., respectively [6, 19]. Kewalramani et al. reported two cases in their series of three [9]. In 1976, Rinsky and colleagues have published a case of a permanent C4 tetraplegia following chiropractic manipulation in a patient with ankylosing spondilitis [8]. To the best of our knowledge, the case presented in this paper is the first with Forestier's disease as the underlying pathology with a severe complication following a cervical mobilizing/manipulating procedure.

Our patient was aware of his underlying disease, but underestimated the risk of an adverse event and therefore neglected to inform his physiotherapist. As mentioned above, the complicated course of our patient may have likely been avoided if guidelines for treatment procedures involving the cervical spine had been followed [20, 21]. Counter to standards of care, a detailed history was reportedly not taken by the provider [22]. Moreover, as postulated by Maigne et al., prior to any manipulation of the cervical spine radiographic imaging is indispensable [17]. Hurwitz and colleagues stated in their literature review that cervical spine mobilization and manipulation probably provide at least short-term benefit for some patients with neck pain or headaches [2]. Given this statement, mobilization and manipulation in the cervical spine may be justifiable for a limited number of patients [2, 11].

If conventional X-ray imaging had been used in our patient's case, the underlying disease and the associated absolute contraindication for mobilization/manipulation practices would have been easily detected.

A limiting factor in this case is that our patient was not able to retrospectively depict the exact maneuver performed by the physiotherapist that led to the accident.

Conclusions

The case serves as a reminder to health care providers of the potentially severe complications associated with cervical spine mobilization/manipulation. It emphasizes that cases such as this could easily be prevented if a thorough history had been taken and/or necessary diagnostic measures had been performed in advance of any mobilizing/manipulating procedure.

Consent

Written informed consent was obtained from the patient for publication of this case report and any accompanying images. A copy of the written consent is available for review by the Editor-in-Chief of this journal.

Declarations

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Department of Trauma-, Hand-, and Reconstructive Surgery, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf
(2)
Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Bern University Hospital, Inselspital
(3)
Department of Emergency Medicine, Bern University Hospital, Inselspital

References

  1. Refshauge KM, Parry S, Shirley D, Larsen D, Rivett DA, Boland R: Professional responsibility in relation to cervical spine manipulation. Aust J Physiother. 2002, 48: 171-179.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Hurwitz EL, Aker PD, Adams AH, Meeker WC, Shekelle PG: Manipulation and mobilization of the cervical spine. A systematic review of the literature. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1996, 21: 1746-1759. 10.1097/00007632-199608010-00007.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  3. Stevinson C, Honan W, Cooke B, Ernst E: Neurological complications of cervical spine manipulation. J R Soc Med. 2001, 94: 107-110.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  4. Ernst E: Deaths after chiropractic spinal manipulations: a reply. Int J Clin Pract. 2011, 65: 818-View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  5. Oppenheim JS, Spitzer DE, Segal DH: Nonvascular complications following spinal manipulation. Spine J. 2005, 5: 660-666. 10.1016/j.spinee.2005.08.006.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Schmitz A, Lutterbey G, von Engelhardt L, von Falkenhausen M, Stoffel M: Pathological cervical fracture after spinal manipulation in a pregnant patient. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2005, 28: 633-636. 10.1016/j.jmpt.2005.08.017.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Malone DG, Baldwin NG, Tomecek FJ, Boxell CM, Gaede SE, Covington CG, Kugler KK: Complications of cervical spine manipulation therapy: 5-year retrospective study in a single-group practice. Neurosurg Focus. 2002, 13: ecp1-PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Rinsky LA, Reynolds GG, Jameson RM, Hamilton RD: A cervical spinal cord injury following chiropractic manipulation. Paraplegia. 1976, 13: 223-227.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Kewalramani LS, Kewalramani DL, Krebs M, Saleem A: Myelopathy following cervical spine manipulation. Am J Phys Med. 1982, 61: 165-175.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. van Zagten MS, Troost J, Heeres JG: Cervical myelopathy as complication of manual therapy in a patient with a narrow cervical canal [in Dutch]. Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd. 1993, 137: 1617-1618.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Dvorak J, Loustalot D, Baumgartner H, Antinnes JA: Frequency of complications of manipulation of the spine. A survey among the members of the Swiss Medical Society of Manual Medicine. Eur Spine J. 1993, 2: 136-139. 10.1007/BF00301410.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Hannallah D, White AP, Goldberg G, Albert TJ: Diffuse idiopathic skeletal hyperostosis. Oper Tech Orthop. 2007, 17: 174-177. 10.1053/j.oto.2007.03.001.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  13. Resnick D, Niwayama G: Diffuse idiopathic skeletal hyperostosis (DISH). Diagnosis of Bone and Joint Disorders. 1995, Philadelphia, PA: WB Saunders, 3: 1463-1495.Google Scholar
  14. Lauerman W, McCall B: Spine. Review of Orthopedics. Edited by: Miller M. 2004, Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 432-4Google Scholar
  15. Carnes D, Mars TS, Mullinger B, Froud R, Underwood M: Adverse events and manual therapy: a systematic review. Man Ther. 2010, 15: 355-363. 10.1016/j.math.2009.12.006.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Kerry R, Taylor AJ, Mitchell J, McCarthy C: Cervical arterial dysfunction and manual therapy: a critical literature review to inform professional practice. Man Ther. 2008, 13: 278-288. 10.1016/j.math.2007.10.006.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Maigne JY, Goussard JC, Dumont F, Marty M, Berlinson G: Is systematic radiography needed before spinal manipulation? Recommendations of the SOFMMOO [in French]. Ann Readapt Med Phys. 2007, 50: 111-116.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Austin RT: Pathological vertebral fractures after spinal manipulation. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed). 1985, 291: 1114-1115. 10.1136/bmj.291.6502.1114.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  19. Ea HK, Weber AJ, Yon F, Liote F: Osteoporotic fracture of the dens revealed by cervical manipulation. Joint Bone Spine. 2004, 71: 246-250. 10.1016/S1297-319X(03)00113-1.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Barker S, Kesson M, Ashmore J, Turner G, Conway J, Stevens D: Professional issue. Guidance for pre-manipulative testing of the cervical spine. Man Ther. 2000, 5: 37-40. 10.1054/math.1999.0230.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Magarey ME, Rebbeck T, Coughlan B, Grimmer K, Rivett DA, Refshauge K: Pre-manipulative testing of the cervical spine review, revision and new clinical guidelines. Man Ther. 2004, 9: 95-108. 10.1016/j.math.2003.12.002.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Vautravers P, Maigne JY: Cervical spine manipulation and the precautionary principle. Joint Bone Spine. 2000, 67: 272-276.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© Hartel et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2011

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Advertisement