Spinal manipulations are most sought after in the recent past by many for their spinal conditions. It is also widely believed to be very effective and productive. Many studies have come up with proof supporting the effectiveness of the treatment. But one also cannot turn a blind eye towards the studies which has come up with the adverse effects of the manipulative treatment technique. There had been reports which shows spinal manipulations had been counter productive. It has to be studied wether the fault lies with the manipulation techniques, or wether with the manipulator or with the level of education that has been given for a spinal manipulation specialist, most of whom takes one or two month course. Or even wether the problem is with the field being understudied as a treatment option.

A new study from the Medical Research Council (MRC, UK) that shows that spinal manipulation  combined with an exercise program offers effective treatment for those suffering from back pain. The study found that a collective approach to back pain treatment provided significant relief of symptoms and improvements in general health. It is also found that the greatest reduction of pain and the greatest improvement in back function was experienced by patients who received a treatment approach consisting of spinal manipulation and exercise in addition to care from their general practitioner.
But according to a study published in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, spinal manipulation should not be used routinely. Routine use of spinal manipulation on the upper spine could result in serious complications, such as stroke, and even death.Case reports, retrospective case series, prospective case series, case-controlled studies and surveys were reviewed by the Prof. Ernst,Professor of Complementary Medicine at Peninsular Medical School, Universities of Exeter and Plymouth, for the study. It had been found that spinal manipulation has been associated with about 600 serious adverse events and also non-serious adverse effects in about 50 percent of all patients who use it. Clear evidence was found of adverse events, from low level pain to disc herniation, bone fractures, spinal cord injury and stroke. Prof. Ernst believes patients may not be receiving enough information regarding the risks associated with spinal manipulation that would allow them to give informed consent interventions. While another research study in Canada where a team of researchers representing multiple professions that provide spinal manipulation reviewed the data collected worldwide. It was found that 14 identified cases of direct adverse reactions following spinal manipulation in children 18 and younger were found. Nine were serious, resulting in hospitalization, permanent disability or death. Three of the nine cases involved misdiagnosed underlying pathology such as cancer of the spinal cord. Two involved moderately adverse events such as severe headache requiring medical attention, and three involved minor events such as back soreness.This has lead to conclusion in the medical rings that though a lot of studies have been gone into most of the treatment modalities, still much more has to go into certain areas of treatment before it can be used on the patients. Many still feel that few therapies offered by the health service are relatively unstudied.

According to HealthGrades, a healthcare ratings organization in Golden, Colorado, in their sixth annual patient safety study, the patient safety in US hospitals is improving but "medical mistakes still occur at an alarming rate".Between 2005 and 2007, medical errors cost Medicare over $6.9 billion and were responsible for more than 92,000 potentially preventable in-hospital deaths among Medicare beneficiaries, reports Dr. Rick May at HealthGrades, More than 913,000 total "patient safety events" occurred, representing 2.3 percent of the nearly 38 million Medicare hospital admissions. Also the patients who suffered one of these mistakes had a one-in-ten chance of dying, the report indicates.Errors with the highest occurrence rates were "failure to rescue," defined as death among surgical inpatients with serious treatable complications; bed sores; postoperative respiratory failure; and serious postoperative infections."The good news is that there are hospitals that are doing an amazing job when it comes to patient safety," May said in a press release. "Patients need to know that they have a substantially lower risk of experiencing a medical error and therefore a lower risk of death or complications when they are admitted to one of these exceptional top-performing hospitals." (Courtesy: Reuters Health)