Scoliosis

Scoliosis affects 5 to 7 million people in the United States. More than a half million visits are made to doctors’ offices each year for evaluation and treatment of scoliosis. Although scoliosis can begin at any age, it most often develops in adolescents between the ages of 10 and 15. Girls are more commonly affected than boys.

Because scoliosis can be inherited, children whose parents or siblings are affected by it should definitely be evaluated by a trained professional. Chiropractors specialize in the spine and nervous system and take a holistic approach to evaluating and treating scoliosis. If you are interested in having you or your child’s spine and nervous system checked after reading this blog, please contact us if you are interested in any further information.

In this blog, we will discuss the most frequently asked questions regarding scoliosis:

What is scoliosis?

What causes scoliosis?

What are the symptoms of scoliosis?

How is scoliosis evaluated?

What is the treatment for scoliosis?

What is scoliosis?

Scoliosis defined:

Any lateral deviation of the spine from the mid-sagittal plane

Because we walk on 2 feet, the human nervous system constantly works through reflexes and postural control to keep our spine in a straight line from side to side. Occasionally, a lateral (sideways) curvature develops. If the curvature is larger than 10 degrees, it is called scoliosis. Curves less than 10 degrees are often just postural changes.

Scoliosis can also be accompanied by lordosis (abnormal curvature toward the front) or kyphosis (abnormal curvature toward the back). In most cases, the vertebrae are also rotated. In more than 80% of cases, the cause of scoliotic curvatures is unknown; we call this condition idiopathic scoliosis. In other cases, trauma, neurological disease, tumors, and the like are responsible.

Functional scoliosis is often caused by some postural problem, muscle spasm, or leg-length inequality, which can often be addressed. Structural scoliosis does not reduce with postural maneuvers. Either type can be idiopathic or have an underlying cause.

What causes scoliosis?

There are many causes of curves in the spine. When the spines normal curvatures are altered, it affects the rest of the spine from the neck to your tailbone. The most common types of scoliosis seen in our office can be divided into two categories:

1. Structural: Structural scoliosis involves changes in the anatomy of the vertebra and/or facet joints. A rib hump appears on the convex side that cannot be actively corrected.
   
2. Functional (non-structural): In functional cases, the patient can actively correct the scoliosis by changes in their posture. Normal mobility is seen in side bending and the rib hump disappears when bending forward.
   

One of the most common causes of scoliosis is also the most easily treated. Many types of functional scoliosis found in adults and children can be identified and managed with conservative chiropractic care and do not require invasive surgeries. Many times, a difference in the lengths of the legs or an unbalanced pelvis can cause scoliosis. As the muscles around your spine adapt to the imbalance, other problems may appear.

What are the symptoms of scoliosis?

Scoliosis can significantly affect the quality of life by limiting activity, causing pain, reducing lung function, affecting heart function, and decreasing the overall function of the entire nervous system and tissues of the body. Diminished self-esteem and other psychological problems are also seen. Because scoliosis occurs most commonly during adolescence, teens with extreme spinal deviations from the norm are often teased by their peers. Fortunately, 4 out of 5 people with scoliosis have curves of less than 20 degrees, which are usually not detectable to the untrained eye. These small curves are typically no cause for great concern, but it is the perfect time to begin gentle, non-invasive treatment through Spinal Pelvic Stabilizers and chiropractic adjustments to prevent progression of the curves. In growing children and adolescents, however, mild curvatures can worsen quite rapidly—by 10 degrees or more—in a few months. Therefore, frequent checkups are often necessary for this age group.

How is scoliosis evaluated?

Evaluation begins with a thorough history and physical examination, including postural analysis. If a scoliotic curvature is discovered, a more in-depth evaluation is needed. This might include a search for birth defects, trauma, and other factors that can cause structural curves.

Patients with substantial spinal curvatures very often require an x-ray evaluation of the spine. The procedure helps determine the location and magnitude of the scoliosis, along with an underlying cause not evident on physical examination, other associated curvatures, and the health of other organ systems that might be affected by the scoliosis.Depending on the scoliosis severity, x-rays may need to be repeated as often as every 3 to 4 months to as little as once every few years.

Full spine x-rays are extremely helpful in diagnosing and treating scoliosis. Locating the primary areas contributing to the curvature and the magnitude of the scoliosis is used to guide treatment recommendations. In many chiropractic offices, many different points are measured and evaluated to determine uneven leg lengths or pelvic imbalances that may be contributing or causing the scoliosis. Scoliosis from structural imbalances is easily correctable without drugs or surgery. Please read on …

What is the treatment for scoliosis?

Typically, there are generally 3 treatment options for scoliosis according to the medical profession— careful observation, bracing, and surgery.

Careful observation is the most common “treatment,” as most mild scolioses do not progress. The medical approach takes a “wait and see” approach at this stage. If it progresses further, bracing may be recommended. Bracing is generally reserved for children who have not reached skeletal maturity (the time when the skeleton stops growing), and who have curves between 25 and 45 degrees. Surgery is generally used in the few cases where the curves are greater than 45 degrees and progressive, and/or when the scoliosis may affect the function of the heart, lungs, or other vital organs.

We evaluate and treat scoliosis much differently. What do we do differently?

We perform quick, simple, and non-invasive tests that determine your type of scoliosis – functional or structural. We then carefully inspect your posture and look for imbalances in legs and pelvis. We perform a digital foot scan to evaluate the arches in your feet. Pronation is often seen in one or both feet in individuals with scoliosis.

The loss of arch height that occurs with excessive pronation initiaties a series of postural faults and changes.

• Internal rotation of the tibia and femur
  
• Pelvis drops on the pronated side during stance and gait
  
• The pelvic tilt lowers the sacral base causing imbalance
  
• The lowest freely moveable vertebra to the side of the shorter leg
  
• A lateral spinal curvature develops in the lumbar spine due to lack of balanced support from the lower extremities
  
• If the functional curvature progresses into the thoracic spine, it may cause a slight rib hump
  

Adjustments are very important in addressing functional scoliosis. Curves increase the amount of stress and pressure put on joints, muscles, and nerves surrounding the spinal column – and chiropractors are experts in releasing and removing these stresses around the spine called subluxations.

The use of custom-made Spinal Pelvic Stabilizers to reduce pronation can provide substantial correction for most short legs without the need of a heel lift. In some cases, a heel lift is needed to balance out the leg lengths. With Foot Levelers custom orthotic stabilizers, heel lifts can be built in if needed at a very reasonable price. These custom-made stabilizers provide support and balance to your foundation and skeletal structure. Custom orthotics are commonly covered through most insurance plans, it is recommended that you check with your insurance company to see if “Custom-molded orthotics typically billed as L3020″ are covered in your policy.

Remember, without a solid foundation, everything else breaks down!

---

Ear Infections and Chiropractic

Newsletter Version

Ear infections aren’t the result of a drug shortage or deformed eustachian tubes …

Are you treating the underlying cause?

Considering there are 10 million new cases of otitis media every year, many parents experience the helpless feeling associated with the cries of a young child with an ear infection. Ear infections are also the most common reason for visits to the pediatrician – accounting for more than 35% of all pediatrician visits. There is nearly a 50% chance that your child will suffer a middle ear infection in the first year of their precious life. They chances increase to 75% by the age 3.

Common ear infection symptoms include:

• Ear pain
• Tugging or pulling at one or both ears
• Fever
• Unusual irritability
• Difficulty sleeping
• Fluid drainage from the ear
• Loss of balance

There are two main sources for otitis media, either bacterial or viral. This is when antibiotics are typically prescribed, hoping the infection is due to bacteria. If the infection is viral in origin, antibiotics will only make the problem worse as they kill off part of your child’s natural immunity.

For many children, these infections can become a chronic problem that requires frequent treatment that greatly increases your child’s risk of permanent hearing damage and associated speech and developmental problems. Chronic ear infections are the 2^nd most common reason for surgery in children under 2 (with circumcision being the first). At this point it is important to point out that this surgery requires general anesthesia which is never a minor thing for a developing child. It is also important to point out that your child’s ear infections are not the result of a drug shortage or deformed eustachian tubes, so why should your first choice of treatment be antibiotics and then ear tubes? Just because it is mainstream, does not make it the most effective treatment available.

What is the CAUSE of Ear Infections?

It surprises many parents to learn that some of the nerves that control and monitor your ear (1) begin in your brain stem, (2) continue down your spinal cord and (3) exit out from the spaces between the bones in your spinal column and regulate your ears. If the bones in the upper neck shift or become restricted (as they often do in the birthing process), the nerves that send signals to and from the ear and brain become compromised. When the nervous system becomes compromised, so does your body’s immune system – reducing the chances of your child’s ability to fight the infection on its own.

Subluxations are also accompanied by abnormal muscle tension that can exert pressure on nearby lymphatic drainage ducts. This prevents natural drainage, further compounding the problem. This is when ear tubes are commonly recommended. I will say this again, ear infections are not the result of a drug shortage or deformed eustachian tubes. As with any condition, finding the source of the problem and the cause of symptoms is far more important and successful than simply treating the surface symptoms with risky drugs and surgeries.

We believe in finding the cause of your child’s ear infections.

Newsletter Version

OWC Testing and Treatment for Ear Infections

The OWC will first complete a thorough consultation with you and your child to determine possible causes and/or contributing factors.  When we have gathered the necessary information, we will complete a nervous system evaluation utilizing the Insight Millenium Subluxation Station, our non-invasive, painless technology that is able to locate areas of interference and stress in your child’s nervous system.  There is a high correlation between interference in the first vertebra in the neck called the Atlas and ear infections. Once we have targeted areas of nerve interference, we will evaluate your child’s spine and muscles for any abnormal tension or restrictions.

Once we have had a chance to evaluate and interpret all of the results, we will sit down with you and your family and go over everything we discovered, explain to you what it all means, and present a customized treatment for your child if your child is a chiropractic candidate, and the costs associated with treatment.  We promise to only offer safe, natural solutions with a high success rate that allows your child’s body to heal itself – the way we were all intended to.  For more information on what we do, please contact us!

Chiropractic Treatment and Research

Chiropractors do not believe that ear infections are a result of a drug shortage or deformed eustachian tubes. We do believe that our bodies have an incredible capacity to fight infection and heal itself. When that ability is impaired, it means something else is going on. In most cases, nerve tension is found and can be gently reduced with safe and natural chiropractic adjustments. This helps restore nervous system integrity. For a child or infant, this usually requires a very light touch in a precise place and direction – it is the same pressure used to test the ripeness of a tomato.

Chiropractic adjustments to the atlas (the first bone in the neck) and occiput (a bone in the back of your skull) will encourage the middle ear to drain. As long as the ears can continue to drain without fluid build-up, infection is much less likely. The ears will build up their own antibodies and recover much more quickly and naturally. Some holisitic chiropractors will also recommend more natural supplements that are safe for your child to help fight the infection such as probiotics, special ear oils, or even 3% hydrogen peroxide drops directly in the ear. It is extremely important to never self-medicate yourself or your child, even natural supplements can be dangerous if taken inappropriately. ALWAYS consult with an educate, holistic practitioner before beginning any treatment regime.

Doctors of chiropractic are licensed and trained to diagnose and treat patients of all ages and will use a gentler type of treatment for children. Treatment frequency and duration will vary from child to child – on average, six to eight treatments are all that is needed to help with ear infections.

Chiropractic Adjustments for Chronic Ear Infections

Chiropractic Adjustments Have Positive Effect on Acute Ear Infections

Chiropractic Care for Children Receives More Press

Chiropractic Helping Kids Fight Ear Infections

Chiropractic Kids Have Fewer Ear Infections

Chiropractors Treating Kids to Fight Infections

Medical Treatment and Research

Standard medical treatment for most cases of otitis media is with antibiotics. This is only effective if the cause of the ear infections is bacterial – but many cases are viral, for which antibiotics are useless. According to many research studies, antibiotics are often not much more effective than the body’s own immune system. Not to mention the fact that repeated doses of antibiotics can lead to drug-resistant bacteria which creates a whole new gamete of problems and can still leave the child screaming in pain.

In severe cases, when fluids from an ear infection haven’t cleared from the ear after several months, and hearing is affected—specialists often prescribe “ear tubes,” artificial drainage tubes. During the surgical procedure, a small opening is made in the eardrum to place a tube inside. The tube relieves pressure in the ear and prevents repeated fluid buildup with the continuous venting of fresh air. According to Jack Paradise at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, for every one child who needs and gets tubes for the ears, about 20 others who don’t need them also get them. They almost always cause permanent scars on the eardrum and could impair hearing decades later.

In most cases, the membrane pushes the tube out after a couple of months and the hole in the eardrum closes. Although the treatment is effective, it has to be repeated in some 20 to 30 percent of cases. And this kind of surgery requires general anesthesia, never a minor thing in a small child. If the infection persists even after tube placement and removal, children sometimes undergo adenoidectomy (surgical removal of the adenoids)— an option that is effective mostly through the first year after surgery.

Antibiotics Usage During First Year of Life Increases Risk for Asthma

Antibiotics Usage in Babies Linked to Asthma

Children and Unnecessary Antibiotics

Doctors Urged to Delay Kid’s Earache Drugs

Drugs Not Recommended for Ear Infections

---

Innate Intelligence

We have all heard of intelligence. It is usually used to describe one’s ability to learn something in relation to education or knowledge. But this is not the only intelligence that exists in this world. There is a much deeper, complex form of intelligence that chiropractors term “innate intelligence”. Innate Intelligence is the core foundation of the chiropractic philosophy.

Innate Intelligence is the defining difference between a living human being and a deceased human cadaver. It is this inborn intelligence that allows your body to heal itself after you cut your finger, but a cadaver cannot. It is life itself that heals.

If you have never taken a moment to think about this amazing concept, I highly encourage you to do it now.

Think about a time that you or your child has cut their hand or leg. After the puncture to the skin, blood immediately starts flowing from the open wound and starts to clot to seal the wound. When your blood cells rush to the wound site and begins to form a clot, it has not traveled there at random. It knows exactly where it is going and exactly what to do when it gets there. But how? You did not have to tell your body to complete these important processes … so who or what is sending the instructions? It is the powerful life force that we term Innate Intelligence.

“In every living thing there is an Innate Intelligence guiding it on the path to health.” ~Dr. Terry Rondberg D.C.

---

Living things are not random collections of molecules and atoms. We are much greater than the sum of our parts. It is undeniable that there is an order to the body. This is the basis for Innate Intelligence.

In human beings, it is the Innate Intelligence that tells a newborn baby how many times its heart should beat each minute; how to ingest and digest nutrients and eliminate the waste; how to develop and utilize white blood cells to fight infections; how to communicate its need for outside assistance. No one has to teach an infant these things.

Yet, Innate Intelligence can only guide the internal functioning of that child. It cannot enable her to manipulate her environment or do more than her body will permit. She can’t, for instance, walk over to the refrigerator and get a snack if she’s hungry (anymore than a plant can turn on a lamp if it needs more light). That action will take training and education rather than inborn Intelligence.

If you put a plant on a window sill, in a day or so it will have turned its leaves to face the light. Turn the plant around and in another day or so, it again will have turned its leaves to receive the light it needs to maintain its normal functions. The plant doesn’t use logic to figure out that it needs light, or decide to turn its leaves around to face the window. It doesn’t “think” and it isn’t self-aware. Yet, the intelligence it possesses allows it to go from a tiny seed to a lush plant, to send roots into the soil to find water and nutrients, to search out and utilize light and air, to transform those elements into additional leaves, roots, sprouts, and even more seeds which will be carried on the wind to start the process all over somewhere else. Not random action, but intelligence. Not education, but inborn knowledge. Innate Intelligence. (Quoted from Terry Rondberg, DC)

Remarkably, every living thing possesses 100% of the Innate Intelligence it needs. You’ll never see a plant which “knows” that its roots need to grow into the soil, but doesn’t also “know” that its leaves need to grow upward toward the light. Can you imagine the poor plant pushing both its roots and its leaves downward because it only had 50% of its Innate Intelligence?

If an entity is alive, it possesses 100% of the Innate Intelligence it needs. More importantly, by its very definition, the Innate Intelligence is always normal, and its function is always normal. What this means is that our bodies “know” exactly what they need and how to adapt to our environment in order to function best.

If our physical and emotional health relied solely on our Innate Intelligence, we would all be “perfectly” healthy. But there are other factors at work. A master carpenter might be an expert in building a table, but if his arm is in a cast and he can’t apply force to his hammer, or if he doesn’t have the proper tools, the table won’t come out very well. Your Innate Intelligence is an expert in running your body, but if it is deprived of its life energy (Innate Energy) or lacks the proper tools (Innate Matter), it will result in a less-than-normal functioning system.

These three elements – Innate Intelligence, Innate Energy, and Innate Matter – make up the “Triune of Life.” Since a person’s Innate Intelligence has the “expertise” it needs to properly maintain that body, chiropractors don’t address themselves to that area. Nor do they involve themselves with the actual “tools” provided to each person – the body and internal organs. Their concern is with the Innate Energy or force which provides the link between the Innate Intelligence and Innate Matter.

Deepak Chopra, MD stated in his book Quantum Healing that when he researched and thought about Innate Intelligence and medical intervention, he came to three conclusions:

• First, that intelligence is present everywhere in our bodies.
• Second, that our own inner intelligence is far superior to any we can try to substitute from the outside.
• Third, that intelligence is more important than actual matter of the body, wince without it, that matter would be undirected, formless, and chaotic.

Intelligence makes the difference between a house designed by an architect and a pile of bricks.

Next time you are looking for a health care practitioner to evaluate your health, consider the concept of Innate Intelligence, Innate Energy, and Innate Matter. Will the treatment and recommendations given enhance the “Triune of Life” or interfere with its inborn potential? Does this practitioner see you as a whole entity? Or are you simply a pile of organ, glands, and tissues?

At Optimal Wellness Chiropractic, we promise to be a holistic provider that honors, respects, and recognizes that your whole is greater than the sum of your parts and to only recommend and use treatments that will enhance and support your body’s innate intelligence to heal itself.

For chiropractor that shares our similar philosophy, please check out www.creatingwellness.com to find a Creating Wellness Center near you.

---

Facts on Spinal Decompression

By Thomas A. Gionis, MD, JD, MBA, MHA, FICS, FRCS, and Eric Groteke, DC, CCIC

Orthopedic Technology Review, Vol. 5-6, Nov-Dec 2003.

This clinical outcomes study was performed to evaluate the effect of spinal decompression on symptoms and physical findings of patients with herniated and degenerative disc disease. Results showed that 86% of the 219 patients who completed the therapy reported immediate resolution of symptoms, while 84% remained pain-free 90 days post-treatment. Physical examination findings showed improvement in 92% of the 219 patients, and remained intact in 89% of these patients 90 days after treatment. This study shows that disc disease?the most common cause of back pain, which costs the American health care system more than $50 billion annually?can be cost-effectively treated using spinal decompression. The cost for successful non-surgical therapy is less than a tenth of that for surgery. These results show that biotechnological advances of spinal decompression reveal promising results for the future of effective management of patients with disc herniation and degenerative disc diseases. Long-term outcome studies are needed to determine if non-surgical treatment prevents later surgery, or merely delays it.

INTRODUCTION: ADVANCES IN BIOTECHNOLOGY

With the recent advances in biotechnology, spinal decompression has evolved into a cost-effective nonsurgical treatment for herniated and degenerative spinal disc disease, one of the major causes of back pain. This nonsurgical treatment for herniated and degenerative spinal disc disease works on the affected spinal segment by significantly reducing intradiscal pressures.1 Chronic low back pain disability is the most expensive benign condition that is medically treated in industrial countries. It is also the number one cause of disability in persons under age 45. After 45, it is the third leading cause of disability.2 Disc disease costs the health care system more than $50 billion a year.

The intervertebral disc is made up of sheets of fibers that form a fibrocartilaginous structure, which encapsulates the inner mucopolysaccharide gel nucleus. The outer wall and gel act hydrodynamically. The intrinsic pressure of the fluid within the semirigid enclosed outer wall allows hydrodynamic activity, making the intervertebral disc a mechanical structure.3 As a person utilizes various normal ranges of motion, spinal discs deform as a result of pressure changes within the disc.4 The disc deforms, causing nuclear migration and elongation of annular fibers. Osteophytes develop along the junction of vertebral bodies and discs, causing a disease known as spondylosis. This disc narrows from the alteration of the nucleus pulposus, which changes from a gelatinous consistency to a more fibrous nature as the aging process continues. The disc space thins with sclerosis of the cartilaginous end plates and new bone formation around the periphery of the contiguous vertebral surfaces. The altered mechanics place stress on the posterior diarthrodial joints, causing them to lose their normal nuclear fulcrum for movement. With the loss of disc space, the plane of articulation of the facet surface is no longer congruous. This stress results in degenerative arthritis of the articular surfaces.5

This is especially important in occupational repetitive injuries, which make up a majority of work-related injuries. When disc degeneration occurs, the layers of the annulus can separate in places and form circumferential tears. Several of these circumferential tears may unite and result in a radial tear where the material may herniate to produce disc herniation or prolapse. Even though a disc herniation may not occur, the annulus produces weakening, circumferential bulging, and loss of intervertebral disc height. As a result, discograms at this stage usually reveal reduced interdiscal pressure.

The early changes that have been identified in the nucleus pulposus and annulus fibrosis are probably biomechanical and relate to aging. Any additional trauma on these changes can speed up the process of degeneration. When there is a discogenic injury, physical displacement occurs, as well as tissue edema and muscle spasm, which increase the intradiscal pressures and restrict fluid migration.6 Additionally, compression injuries causing an endplate fracture can predispose the disc to degeneration in the future.

The alteration of normal kinetics is the most prevalent cause of lower back pain and disc disruption and thus it is vital to maintain homeostasis in and around the spinal disc; Yong-Hing and Kirkaldy-Willis7 have correlated this degeneration to clinical symptoms. The three clinical stages of spinal degeneration include:

1. Stage of Dysfunction. There is little pathology and symptoms are subtle or absent. The diagnosis of Lumbalgia and rotatory strain are commonly used.
   
2. Stage of Instability. Abnormal movement of the motion segment of instability exists and the patient complains of moderate symptoms with objective findings. Conservative care is used and sometimes surgery is indicated.
   
3. Stage of Stabilization. The third phase where there are severe degenerative changes of the disc and facets reduce motion with likely stenosis.
   

Spinal decompression has been shown to decompress the disc space, and in the clinical picture of low back pain is distinguishable from conventional spinal traction.8,9 According to the literature, traditional traction has proven to be less effective and biomechanically inadequate to produce optimal therapeutic results.8-11 In fact, one study by Mangion et al concluded that any benefit derived from continuous traction devices was due to enforced immobilization rather than actual traction.10 In another study, Weber compared patients treated with traction to a control group that had simulated traction and demonstrated no significant differences.11 Research confirms that traditional traction does not produce spinal decompression. Instead, decompression, that is, unloading due to distraction and positioning of the intervertebral discs and facet joints of the lumbar spine, has been proven an effective treatment for herniated and degenerative disc disease, by producing and sustaining negative intradiscal pressure in the disc space. In agreement with Nachemon?s findings and Yong-Hing and Kirkaldy-Willis,1 spinal decompression treatment for low back pain intervenes in the natural history of spinal degeneration.7,12 Matthews13 used epidurography to study patients thought to have lumbar disc protrusion. With applied forces of 120 pounds x 20 minutes, he was able to demonstrate that the contrast material was drawn into the disc spaces by osmotic changes. Goldfish14 speculates that the degenerated disc may benefit by lowering intradiscal pressure, affecting the nutritional state of the nucleus pulposus. Ramos and Martin8 showed by precisely directed distraction forces, intradiscal pressure could dramatically drop into a negative range. A study by Onel et al15 reported the positive effects of distraction on the disc with contour changes by computed tomography imaging. High intradiscal pressures associated with both herniated and degenerated discs interfere with the restoration of homeostasis and repair of injured tissue.

Biotechnological advances have fostered the design of Food and Drug Administration-approved ergonomic devices that decompress the intervertebral discs. The biomechanics of these decompression/reduction machines work by decompression at the specific disc level that is diagnosed from finding on a comprehensive physical examination and the appropriate diagnostic imaging studies. The angle of decompression to the affected level causes a negative pressure intradiscally that creates an osmotic pressure gradient for nutrients, water, and blood to flow into the degenerated and/or herniated disc thereby allowing the phases of healing to take place.

This clinical outcomes study, which was performed to evaluate the effect of spinal decompression on symptoms of patients with herniated and degenerative disc disease, showed that 86% of the 219 patients who completed therapy reported immediate resolution of symptoms, and 84% of those remained pain-free 90 days post-treatment. Physical examination findings revealed improvement in 92% of the 219 patients who completed the therapy.

METHODS

The study group included 229 people, randomly chosen from 500 patients who had symptoms associated with herniated and degenerative disc disease that had been ongoing for at least 4 weeks. Inclusion criteria included pain due to herniated and bulging lumbar discs that is more than 4 weeks old, or persistent pain from degenerated discs not responding to 4 weeks of conservative therapy. All patients had to be available for 4 weeks of treatment protocol, be at least 18 years of age, and have an MRI within 6 months. Those patients who had previous back surgery were excluded. Of note, 73 of the patients had experienced one to three epidural injections prior to this episode of back pain and 22 of those patients had epidurals for their current condition. Measurements were taken before the treatments began and again at week two, four, six, and 90 days post treatment. At each testing point a questionnaire and physical examination were performed without prior documentation present in order to avoid bias. Testing included the Oswetry questionnaire, which was utilized to quantify information related to measurement of symptoms and functional status. Ten categories of questions about everyday activities were asked prior to the first session and again after treatment and 30 days following the last treatment.

Testing also consisted of a modified physical examination, including evaluation of reflexes (normal, sluggish, or absent), gait evaluation, the presence of kyphosis, and a straight leg raising test (radiating pain into the lower back and leg was categorized when raising the leg over 30 degrees or less is considered positive, but if pain remained isolated in the lower back, it was considered negative). Lumbar range of motion was measured with an ergonometer. Limitations ranging from normal to over 15 degrees in flexion and over 10 degrees in rotation and extension were positive findings. The investigator used pinprick and soft touch to determine the presence of gross sensory deficit in the lower extremities.

Of the 229 patients selected, only 10 patients did not complete the treatment protocol. Reasons for noncompletion included transportation issues, family emergencies, scheduling conflicts, lack of motivation, and transient discomfort. The patient protocol provided for 20 treatments of spinal decompression over a 6-week course of therapy. Each session consisted of a 45-minute treatment on the equipment followed by 15 minutes of ice and interferential frequency therapy to consolidate the lumbar paravertebral muscles. The patient regimen included 2 weeks of daily spinal decompression treatment (5 days per week), followed by three sessions per week for 2 weeks, concluding with two sessions per week for the remaining 2 weeks of therapy.

On the first day of treatment, the applied pressure was measured as one half of the person?s body weight minus 10 pounds, followed on the second day with one half of the person?s body weight. The pressure placed for the remainder of the 18 sessions was equivalent to one half of the patient?s body weight plus an additional 10 pounds. The angle of treatment was set according to manufacturer?s protocol after identifying a specific lumbar disc correlated with MRI findings. A session would begin with the patient being fitted with a customized lower and upper harness to fit their specific body frame. The patient would step onto a platform located at the base of the equipment, which simultaneously calculated body weight and determined proper treatment pressure. The patient was then lowered into the supine position, where the investigator would align the split of table with the top of the patient?s iliac crest. A pneumatic air pump was used to automatically increase lordosis of the lumbar spine for patient comfort. The patient?s chest harness was attached and tightened to the table. An automatic shoulder support system tightened and affixed the patient?s upper body. A knee pillow was placed to maintain slight flexion of the knees. With use of the previously calculated treatment pressures, spinal decompression was then applied. After treatment, the patient received 15 minutes of interferential frequency (80 to 120 Hz) therapy and cold packs to consolidate paravertebral muscles.

During the initial 2 weeks of treatment, the patients were instructed to wear lumbar support belts and limit activities, and were placed on light duty at work. In addition, they were prescribed a nonsteroidal, to be taken 1 hour before therapy and at bedtime during the first 2 weeks of treatment. After the second week of treatment, medication was decreased and moderate activity was permitted.

Data was collected from 219 patients treated during this clinical study. Study demographics consisted of 79 female and 140 male patients. The patients treated ranged from 24 to 74 years of age (see Table 1). The average weight of the females was 146 pounds and the average weight of the men was 195 pounds. According to the Oswestry Pain Scale, patients reported their symptoms ranging from no pain (0) to severe pain (5).

PATIENT GROUPS

The patients were further subdivided into six groups:

1. single lateral herniation 67 cases
   
2. single central herniation 22 cases
   
3. single lateral herniation
   with disc degeneration 32 cases
   
4. single central herniation
   with disc degeneration. 24 cases
   
5. more than 1 herniation
   with disc degeneration 17 cases
   
6. more than 1 herniation
   without disc degeneration 57 cases
   

RESULTS

According to the self-rated Oswestry Pain Scale, treatment was successful in 86% of the 219 patients included in this study (Table 2, page 39). Treatment success was defined by a reduction in pain to 0 or 1 on the pain scale. The perception of pain was none 0 to occasional 1 without any further need for medication or treatment in 188 patients. These patients reported complete resolution of pain, lumbar range of motion was normalized, and there was recovery of any sensory or motor loss. The remaining 31 patients reported significant pain and disability, despite some improvement in their overall pain and disability score.

Table 2. Results on self-rated Oswestry Pain Scale after treatment.

In this study, only patients diagnosed with herniated and degenerative discs with at least a 4-week onset were eligible. Each patient?s diagnosis was confirmed by MRI findings. All selected patients reported 3 to 5 on the pain scale with radiating neuritis into the lower extremities. By the second week of treatment, 77% of patients had a greater than 50% resolution of low back pain. Subsequent orthopedic examinations demonstrated that an increase in spinal range of motion directly correlated with an improvement in straight leg raises and reflex response. Table 2 shows a summary of the subjective findings obtained during this study by category and total results post treatment. After 90 days, only five patients (2%) were found to have relapsed from the initial treatment program.

Table 3. Percentage of patients that had improved physical exam findings post treatment.

Ninety-two percent of patients with abnormal physical findings improved post-treatment. Ninety days later only 3% of these patients had abnormal findings. Table 3 summarizes the percentage of patients that showed improvement in physician examination findings testing both motor and sensory system function after treatment. Gait improved in 96% of the individuals who started with an abnormal gait, while 96% of those with sluggish reflexes normalized. Sensory perception improved in 93% of the patients, motor limitation diminished in 86%, 89% had a normal straight leg raise test who initially tested abnormal, and 90% showed improvement in their spinal range of motion.

SUMMARY

In conclusion, nonsurgical spinal decompression provides a method for physicians to properly apply and direct the decompressive force necessary to effectively treat discogenic disease. With the biotechnological advances of spinal decompression, symptoms were restored by subjective report in 86% of patients previously thought to be surgical candidates and mechanical function was restored in 92% using objective data. Ninety days after treatment only 2% reported pain and 3% relapsed, by physical examination exhibiting motor limitations and decreased spinal range of motion. Our results indicate that in treating 219 patients with MRI-documented disc herniation and degenerative disc diseases, treatment was successful as defined by: pain reduction; reduction in use of pain medications; normalization of range of motion, reflex, and gait; and recovery of sensory or motor loss. Biotechnological advances of spinal decompression indeed reveal promising results for the future of effective management of patients with disc herniation and degenerative disc diseases. The cost for successful nonsurgical therapy is less than a tenth of that for surgery. Long-term outcome studies are needed to determine if nonsurgical treatment prevents later surgery or merely delays it.

Thomas A. Gionis, MD, JD, MBA, MHA, FICS, FRCS, is chairman of the American Board of Healthcare Law and Medicine, Chicago; a diplomate professor of surgery, American Academy of Neurological and Orthopaedic Surgeons; and a fellow of the International College of Surgeons and the Royal College of Surgeons.

Eric Groteke, DC, CCIC, is a chiropractor and is certified in manipulation under anesthesia. He is also a chiropractic insurance consultant, a certified independent chiropractic examiner, and a certified chiropractic insurance consultant. Groteke maintains chiropractic centers in northeastern Pennsylvania, in Stroudsburg, Scranton, and Wilkes-Barre.

REFERENCES

1. Eyerman E. MRI evidence of mechanical reduction and repair of the torn annulus disc. International Society of Neuroradiologists; October 1998; Orlando.
   
2. Narayan P, Morris IM. A preliminary audit of the management of acute low back pain in the Kettering District. Br J Rheumatol. 1995;34:693-694.
   
3. McDevitt C. Proteoglycans of the intervertebral disc. In: Gosh, P, ed. The Biology of the Intervertebral Disc. Boca Raton, Fla: CRC Press; 1988:151-170.
   
4. Bogduk N, Twomey L. Clinical Anatomy of the Lumbar Spine. New York: Churchill Livingstone; 1991.
   
5. Cox JM. Low Back Pain: Mechanism, Diagnosis, and Treatment. 5th ed. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins; 1990:69-70, 144.
   
6. Cyriax JH. Textbook of Orthopaedic Medicine: Diagnosis of Soft Tissue Lesions. Vol 1. 8th ed. London: Balliere Tindall; 1982.
   
7. Nachemson AL. The lumbar spine, an orthopaedic challenge. Spine. 1976;1(1):59-69.
   
8. Ramos G, Martin W. Effects of vertebral axial decompression on intradiscal pressure. J Neurosurgery. 1994;81:350-353.
   
9. Shealy CN, Leroy P. New concepts in back pain management: decompression, reduction, and stabilization. In: Weiner R, ed. Pain Management: A Practical Guide for Clinicians. Boca Raton, Fla: St Lucie Press; 1998:239-257.
   
10. Pal B, Mangion P, Hossain MA, et al. A controlled trial of continuous lumbar traction in back pain and sciatica. Br J Rheumatol. 1986;25:181-183.
    
11. Weber H. Traction therapy in sciatica due to disc prolapse. J Oslo City Hosp. 1973;23(10):167-176.
    
12. Yong-Hing K, Kirkaldy-Willis WH. The pathophysiology of degenerative disease of the lumbar spine. Orthop Clin North Am. 1983;14:501-503.
    
13. Matthews J. The effects of spinal traction. Physiotherapy. 1972;58:64-66.
    
14. Goldfish G. Lumbar traction. In: Tollison CD, Kriegel M, eds. Inter-
    
15. disciplinary Rehabilitation of Low Back Pain. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins; 1989.
    
16. Onel D, Tuzlaci M, Sari H, Demir K. Computed tomographic investigation of the effect of traction on lumbar disc herniations. Spine. 1989; 14(1):82-90.

---

A Clinical Trial on Non-Surgical Spinal Decompression Using Vertebral Axial Distraction Delivered by a Computerized Traction Device

Bruce Gundersen, DC, FACO; Michael Henrie, MS II, Josh Christensen, DC.  The Academy of Chiropractic Orthopedists Quarterly Journal of ACO – June 2004

INTRODUCTION

Hypothesis: Axial traction of the spine produces remission of symptoms in specific conditions that have not responded to traditional manipulative protocols when computerized decompression traction, electrical stimulation and biofeedback exercise stabilization are applied under a controlled regimen.

The study is a pilot project and was not considered by an IRB for the initial phase. Continued investigation is suggested. The equipment for the study was provided by Calhoon Health Products. No fees for treatment were charged to any patients and no subjects were paid to participate in the study.

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

There are many studies on traction in the current literature. We have sited 20 indicating a broad interest in this concept and a continued search for alternatives to surgical decompression of the spine. The articles with a brief synopsis are listed at the end with the reference. The primary clinical point of the literature review is that compression of the neuronal elements of the spine seems to be a leading cause or generator of the pain in chronic situations. Decompression has proven effective and various forms of decompression are elaborated. In conclusion from analyzing these articles, vertebral axial distraction can be accomplished several ways and reports of reduction of intradiscal pressure, reduction of disc herniations, and associated symptoms are cited.

CURRENT RESEARCH

A trial was designed to measure the improvement on low back and leg pain and neck and arm pain patients. Patients who had reported symptoms in those areas were notified of the project and invited to participate. Other providers of physical medicine were notified as well and encouraged to have patients with similar unresponsive conditions inquire. All patients admitted to the study had a lengthy history of pain with multiple episodes of chiropractic manipulation and physical therapy with limited success.

METHODS

A combination of questionnaires were used to compute an intake score for each patient. The score was computed using the formula, the sum of the total score from each questionnaire. Categories of severity were created as follows: 0-150; 151-175; 176-200; and > 200.

Protocols were determined based on total intake score and ranged from 3 to 6 treatment sessions per week. Traction protocols were determined based on patient history and symptoms, chronicity and extent of radicular signs. Treatment frequency was determined by total points: under 150 – 3 days per week, 151 to 175 – 4 days per week, 176 to 200 – 5 days per week and over 200 – 6 days per week.

The Axial Disc Compression Traction Therapy unit, manufactured by Chattanooga, was utilized in this study. Directions contained in the D.T.S. Information manual, copyright 2002 by Jay Kennedy were followed.

In this study, there were nine men and 5 woman ranging in age between 26-64. The range in chronicity for LB/Leg pain was 6 months to 29 years and neck to arm pain 1 year to 7 years. Exclusion criteria included, those with spinal fusions from hardware implant, those with non-disc related central spinal stenosis, those over age 70 or under age 18.

Intake measurements include modified Oswestry Low Back Pain Disability Questionnaire (Fairbanks, 1980) and the Neck Disability Index (Vernon and Mior, 1988) Activities Discomfort Scale (Turner, 1983) and a quadruple visual analogue pain scale (Yeomans, 2000). Each item was scored and the total recorded and compared to the exit scores. For this project, no objective tests were obtained on intake or exit, only standardized outcomes assessment tools.

THE PROCEDURE

Patients who qualified to enter into the study were measured and fitted to the traction unit. Both prone and supine protocols were considered for lumbar decompression. The prone position is usually recommended but can be modified per patient ability to tolerate the position. Cervical decompression is done in the supine position. Precise positioning for each patient is critical for outcomes to be optimized A 100% compliance was expected from each subject accepted into the study in order to optimize the statistical analysis.

The specific treatment protocol was determined by the doctor after assessing the intake examination and evaluation. The computer controls the variations in the traction allowing for spinal decompression and attempting to reduce the muscle reaction and subsequent compression that can occur with some types of traditional or conventional traction devices. The preprogrammed patterns for ramping up and down the amount of axial distraction allows for optimal levels of spinal decompression and disc hydration when possible.

Proper patient positioning and specific technique insure expected results.

RESULTS

Of the 14 patients that were admitted into the study on May 17, 2004, the group was divided into the neck and arm pain group with 4 patients and the low back and leg pain group with 10 patients.

The three outcomes assessment tools were scored and totaled for each patient on intake and after three weeks of the study.

Using a single tool, the Revised Oswestry form for low back, it is noted that improvement parallels, in all but one case, the combination of the three tools.

The neck patients all responded well but not with as high an average as the low back patients.

Following the three-week initial phase of the study, the patient sample in this study continued to receive decompression at variable rates based on improvement. The outcome measurements are repeated at one month intervals to determine if the disability levels and perceived improvement parallel each other.

DISCUSSION

It is interesting to note that the measured results parallel the perceived or reported improvement in all but one case. That case would not be included in a long term study due to non-compliance but was included here because that is a regular obstacle in daily clinical practice.

Decompression of the spine is possible using axial distraction as a modality. Study limitations include remission of symptoms may also be linked to electrochemical effects and biomechanical stabilization. All but two of the patients in the study improved at least 30% or more in the first three weeks. Two did not. One drove 2 hours to and 2 hours from treatment sessions and was not expected to achieve much improvement notwithstanding. He did report considerable relief immediately after each session and understood that the driving more than negated any improvements. The other patient who did not measure any improvement did not comply with the protocol as outlined and would have been dismissed from the study due to poor treatment compliance.

Continued follow- up with this patient sample is recommended in Part II of this study at 1, 3, 6 and 12 month results with and without additional treatment. Studies on surgical decompression procedures of the spine are often designed to include a 2-3 year follow-up as well as reporting any associated morbidity during the study time for up to 5 years. Additional patients should be likewise admitted and studied and the 5 year plan should be instituted. Patients will also be instructed in regular use and frequency of the stabilization exercises.

This study utilized an outcomes based research design. Given the significant improvements reported in this study, it is hopeful that a randomized, controlled trial where sham traction (placebo) can be compared to decompression therapy. Also, separate subject groups can also be randomized to electrical stimulation, pelvic stabilization groups, and a combined therapies group.

CONCLUSIONS

Utilizing the outcome measures, this form of decompression reduces symptoms and improves activities of daily living. Long-term benefits were not studied but will be reported in another study. The future study will include regular follow-up measurements to determine if the remission continues with or without recurrence. Also, the future study will investigate whether or not periodic supportive treatment sessions are needed to maintain symptom satisfaction.

REFERENCES

1. Mackenzie R: Mechanical diagnosis and therapy for disorders of the low back. In Taylor JR, Twomey LT (Eds.): Physical therapy of the low back. Churchill Livingstone, New York, 2000 p.26 & 143.

2. Kushlich SD, Ulstrom RN, Michael CJ: Tissue origin of low back pain and sciatica. Orthop Clin North Am (22): 181,1991.

3. Nachenson AL, Elfstrom G: Intravital dynamic pressure measurements of Lumbar discs. Scand J Rehabil Med 2 Supp 1:1-40, 1970.

4. Yong, Hing K., Kirkaldy-Willis WH:’ Pathophysiology of degenerated discs of the lumbar spine. Phila. The Ortho Clinics of N. Am. Vol.(14) #3 July 83, p.p. 493504.

5. Bogduk N., Twomey L.: Clinical anatomy of the Lumbar Spine. ChurchillLivingstone New York. 1992. p.p. 68-69 & 151-173

6. Twomey LT.: Sustained lumbar traction: An experimental study of long spine segments. Spine 1985; (10): 146-149.

7. Judkovich BD.: Lumbar traction therapy-elimination of physical factors that prevent stretch. JAMA 1955; 159.

8. Gose E, Naguszewski L.: Vertebral axial decompression therapy: an outcome study. Neuro Resarch. (20)#3, April 1998.

9. Mathews JA.: Dynamic Discograhy: A study of lumbar traction. Annals of Phy Med, IX (7) 1968, p.p. 265-279.

10. Colachis SC.et al: Effects of intermittent traction on vertebral separation. Arch of Phy Med & Rehab 1972 (50), p.p.251-258.

11. Shealy CN. Borgmeyer V.: Decompression, reduction, stabilization of the Lumbar spine: A cost effective treatment for lumbosacral pain. AJPM 1997, 7(2), 663 -665.

12. Winkle D, et al.: Diagnosis & treatment of the lumbar spine. Aspen: Maryland: 1996 p.p. 303-313.

13. Degenerative disorders of the spine. In: Hochschuler SH, Cotler HB, (Eds.) Rehab of the Spine. Mosby MO. 1993 p.p.464-465 & p.260,

14. Cyriax JH: Illustrated Manual of orthopaedic med, London, Butterworths, 1983 p.p. 30-40.

15. Schiotz E, Cyriax JH: Manipulation, past and present. London, Heinemann, 1975

16. Biomechanics. In: Hochschuler SH, Cotler HB, (Eds.) Rehab of the Spine. Mosby MO.1993 p.p. 146.

17. Kushlich S: Tissue origin of mechanical low back pain and sciatica. In: Hochschuler SH, Cotler HB, (Eds.) Rehab of the Spine. Mosby, MO. 1993 p.p.595-599.

18. Natural history of the lumbar spine. In Taylor JR, Twomey LT,(Eds):Physical Therapy of the Low Back, Churchill Livingstone, New York, 2000, p.p 25-26 & 43-51.

19. Onel D et al. Computed tomographic investigation of the effects of traction on lumbar disc herniations. Spine 1989; 14(1):82-9

20. Hides J, Stokes, M, et al: Evidence of lumbar multifidus wasting ipsilateral to symptoms in patients with low back pain. Spine 1995, 19(2): p. 165

21. Anderson DBJ, Nachemson, AL. Intervertebral disc pressures during traction. Scand J of Rehab Supple 1983; (9):88-91.

22. Colachis S, Strom J: Cervic al traction. Arch Phys Med 1965 (64):815.

23. Harris P: Cervical traction: Review of liturature and treatment guidelines. Phys Ther (57):910, 1977.

24. Braaf MM, Rosner S. Recent concepts in treatment of headache. Headache, (5):3844 1965.

25. Cyriax J: The treatment of lumbar disc lesions. British Medl Jour Dec.23 14341438.

26. McElhannon JE: Physio-therapuetic treatment of myofascial disorders. Anaheim Hills, CA.: James McElhannon.

27. Deyo RA, Loeser JD, Bigos SJ. Herniated lumbar intervertebral disc. Ann Intern Med 1990:(112): 598-603.

28. Breig A, Troup J: Biomechanical considerations in the straight leg raise test. Spine 1979; (4):242.

29. Mazion JM, Haynes LM: Mazion’s illustrated reference of orto/neuro/physio diagnostic techniques. Casa Grande, Mazion publisher, 4th ed, 1980

30. Greenstein GM: Clinical assessment of neurological disorders. St. louis, Mosbyyear book, Inc. 1995.

31. Weber H: The natural history of disc herniation and the influence of intervention. Spine 1994 (19): p.p. 2234-2238.

32. Saal JA, Saal JS: The non-operative treatment of HNP with radiculopathy: an outcome study. Spine 1989 (14): p.p. 431-437.

33. Komori H, Shinomiya K, et al., The natural history of HNP with radiculopathy. Spine (21): 225-229, 1996.

34. Quain MB, Tecklin JS,: Lumbar traction: it’s effect on respiration. Phys Ther 1985; 65 (9): 1343-6.

35. Krause M, et al: Lumbar traction: evaluation of effects and recommended application for treatment. Man Ther 2000, May;5 (2): 72-81.

36. Gillstrom P, Erickson K,: CT exam of influence of autotraction on herniation of lumbar disc. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 1985; 104(5):289-93.

37. Beurskens AJ et al: Efficacy of traction for non-specific back pain. Spine 1997 Dec 1 ;(23): 2756-62.

38. Laban MM et al: Intermittant cervical traction: a progenitor of lumbar radicular pain. Arch Phys Med Rehab 1992 Mar;73 (3):295-6.

39. Pellecchia GL: Lumbar traction: a review of the liturature. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 1994 Nov:20 (5): 262-7.

40. Austin R: Lumbar traction a valid option. Aust J Physio 1998; 44 (4):280.

41. Constantoyannis C, et al: Intermittent cervical traction for radiculopathy due to large-volume herniated discs. JMPT 2002 Mar; 25 (3).

42. Adams M, Bogduk Net al: Biomechanics of back pain. Churchill Livingstone NY, 2002: p,p 163-167

43. Grieve G: Mobilization of the spine. Churchill Livingstone NY, 1991: p.p 273283.

44. Martin M, Ramos G: Effects of vertebral axial decompression on intradiscal pressure. J Neur 81: 350-353, 1994.

45. Richardson C, Jull Get al: Therapeutic exercises for spinal segmental stabilization in low back pain. Churchill Livingstone NY, 1999.

46. Dullerud R, Nakstad P: CT changes after conservative treatment for lumbar disc herniation. Acta Radiol Sept;35(3):415-9, 1994.

47. Quain MB, Tecklin JS: Lumbar traction: its effect on respiration. Phys Ther Sept;65 (9):1343-6, 1985.

48. Mcgill S: Low back disorders (evidence-based prevention and rehabilitation). Human Kinetics, 2002.

49. Hseuh TC, Ju MS: Evaluation of the pulling angle and force on intermittent cervical traction. JFMed Assoc 1991 Dec;90(12): 1234-9

50. Saal JS, Saal JA: Nonoperative management of herniated cervical IVD with radiculopathy. Spine 1996 Aug 15;21(16): 1877-83.

51. Weatherall VF: Comparison of electrical activity in the sacrospinalis musculature during traction in two different positions. J Ortop Sports Phys Ther 1995;(8): 382390.

52. Letchuman R, Deusinger RH: Comparison of sacrospinalis myoelectric activity and pain levels in patients undergoing static and intermittent lumbar traction. Spine 1993;18(10): 1361-1365.

Decompression, Reduction, and Stabilization of the Lumbar Spine: A Cost-Effective Treatment for Lumbosacral Pain

American Journal of Pain Management Vol. 7 No. 2 April 1997
Emerging Technologies: Preliminary Findings

C. Norman Shealy, MD, PhD, and Vera Borgmeyer, RN, MA

C. Norman Shealy MD, PhD, is Director of The Shealy Institute for Comprehensive Health Care and Clinical Research and Professor Of Psychology at the Forest Institute of Professional Psychology. Vera Borgmeyer is Research Coordinator at the Shealy Institute for Comprehensive Health Care and Clinical Research. Address reprint requests to: Dr. C. Norman Shealy, The Shealy Institute for Comprehensive Health Care and Clinical Research , 1328 East Evergreen Street, Springfield, MO 65803.

INTRODUCTION

Pain in the lumbosacral spine is the most common of all pain complaints. It causes loss of work and is the single most common cause of disability in persons under 45 years of age (1). Back pain is the most dollar-costly industrial problem (2). Pain clinics originated over 30 years ago, in large part, because of the numbers of chronic back pain patients. Interestingly, despite patients’ reporting good results using “upside-down gravity boots,” and commenting on how good stretching made them feel, traction as a primary treatment has been overlooked while very expensive and invasive treatments have dominated the management of low back pain. Managed care is now recognizing the lack of sufficient benefit-cost ratio associated with these ineffective treatments to stop the continued need for pain-mitigating services. We felt that by improving the “traction-like” method, pain relief would be achieved quickly and less costly.

Although pelvic traction has been used to treat patients with low back pain for hundreds of years, most neurosurgeons and orthopedists have not been enthusiastic about it secondary to concerns over inconsistent results and cumbersome equipment. Indeed, simple traction itself has not been highly effective, therefore, almost no pain clinics even include traction as part of their approach. A few authors, however, have reported varying techniques which widen disc spaces, decompress the discs, unload the vertebrae, reduce disc protrusion, reduce muscle spasm, separate vertebrae, and/or lengthen and stabilize the spine (3-12).

Over the past 25 years, we have treated thousands of chronic back pain patients who have not responded to conventional therapy. Our most successful approach has required treatment for 10-15 days, 8 hours a day, involving physicians, physical therapists, nurses, psychologists, transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulator (TENS) specialists, and massage therapists in a multidisciplinary approach which has resulted in 70% of these patients improving 50-100%. Our program has been recognized as one of the most cost-effective pain programs in the US (I 3). The average cost of the successful pain treatment has been cited as less than half the national average (13).

Our protocol combined traditional, labor-intensive physical therapy techniques to produce mobilization of the spinal segments. This, combined with stabilization, helped promote healing. In addition we used biofeedback, TENS, and education to reinforce the healing processes. We wanted to produce a simpler and more cost-effective protocol that could be consistently reproduced. The biofeedback and education could be easily replicated. The problem was producing spinal mobilization to the degree that we could decompress a herniated nucleus and relieve pain. Stabilization would come after pain relief.

The DRS System was developed specifically to mobilize and distract isolated lumbar segments. Using a specific combination of lumbar positioning and varying the degree and intensity of force, we produced distraction and decompression. With fluoroscopy, we documented a 7-mm distraction at 30 degrees to L5 with several patients. In fact, we observed distraction at different spinal levels by altering the position and degree of force.

We set out to evaluate the DRS system with outpatient protocols compared to traditional therapy for both ruptured lumbar discs and chronic facet arthroses.

Subjects. Thirty-nine patients were enrolled in this study. There were 27 men and 12 women, ranging in age from 31 to 63. Twenty-three had ruptured discs diagnosed by MRI. Of these, all but four had significant sciatic radiation, with mild to moderate L5 or S1 hyperalgesic. All had symptoms of less than one year.

The facet arthrosis patients also underwent MRI evaluations to rule-out ruptured discs or other major pathologies. They had experienced back pain from one to 20 years. Six had mild to moderate sciatic pain with significant limitations of mobility.

METHODOLOGY

Patients were blinded to treatment and were randomly assigned to traction or decompression tables. Traction patients were treated on a standard mechanical traction table with application of traction weights averaging one-half body weight plus 10 pounds, with traction applied 60-seconds-on and 60-seconds off, for 30 minutes daily for 20 treatments. Following the traction, Polar Powder ice packs and electric stimulation were applied to the back for 30 minutes to relieve swelling and spasm, and patients were then instructed in use of a standard TENS use to be employed at home continuously when not sleeping. After two weeks, the patients received a total of three sessions with an exercise specialist for instruction in and supervision of a limbering/strengthening exercise program. They were re-evaluated at five to eight weeks after entering the program.

Decompression patients received treatment on the DRS System, designed to accomplish optimal decompression of the lumbar spine. Using the same 30 minute treatment interval, the patients were given the same force of one-half the body weight plus 10, but the degree of application was altered by up to 30 degrees. The effect was to produce a direct distraction at the spinal segment with minimal discomfort to the patient.

Eighty-six percent of ruptured intervertebral disc (RID) patients achieved “good” (50-89% improvement) to “excellent” (90-100% improvement) results with decompression. Sciatica and back pain were relieved. Only 55% of the RID patients achieved “good” improvement with traction, and none excellent.”

Of the facet arthrosis patients, 75% obtained “good” to excellent” results with decompression. Only 50% of these patients achieved “good” to “excellent” results with traction.

Table 1. Patient assessment of pain relief secondary to decompression and to traction.

DISCUSSION

Since both traction and decompression patients received similar treatment (except for the differences in the traction table versus the decompression table) with similar weights, ice packs, and TENS, the results are quite enlightening. The decompression system is encouraging and supports the considerable evidence reported by other investigators stating that decompression, reduction, and stabilization of the lumbar spine relieves back pain. The computerized DRS System appears to produce consistent, reproducible, and measurable non-surgical decompression, demonstrated by radiology.

Of equal importance, the professional staff facilities required, as well as the time and cost, are all significantly reduced. Since the more complex treatment program of the last 25 years has already been shown to cost 60% less than the average pain clinic, the cost of this simpler and more integrated treatment program should be 80% less than that of most pain clinics-a most attractive solution to the most costly pain problem in the US. In addition, patients follow a 30-day protocol that produces pain relief yet allows them to continue daily activities and not lose workdays.

SUMMARY

We have compared the pain-relieving results of traditional mechanical traction (14 patients) with a more sophisticated device which decompresses the lumbar spine, unloading of the facets (25 patients). The decompression system gave “good” to “excellent” relief in 86% of patients with RID and 75 % of those with facet arthroses. The traction yielded no “excellent” results in RID and only 50% “good” to “excellent” results in those with facet arthroses. These results are preliminary in nature. The procedures described have not been subjected to the scrutiny of review nor scientific controls. These patients will be followed for the next six months, at which time outcome-based data can be reported. These preliminary findings are both enlightening and provocative. The DRS system is now being evaluated as a primary intervention early in the onset of low back pain-especially in workers’ compensation injuries.

REFERENCES

1. Acute low back problems in adults: assessment and treatment. US Department of Health and Human Services; 1994 Dec; Rockville, MD.

2. Snook, Stover. The costs of back pain in industry. occupational back pain, State-of-art review. Spine 1987; 2(No. 1): 1-4.

3. Gray FJ, Hoskins MJ. Radiological assessment of effect of body weight traction on lumbar disk spaces. Medical Journal of Australia 1963;2:953-954.

4. Andersson GB, Gunnar BJ, Schultz, AB, Nachemson AL. Intervertebral disc pressures during traction. Scandinavian Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine 1968; (9 Supplement): 8891.

5.Neuwirth E, Hilde W, Campbell R. Tables for vertebral elongation in the treatment of sciatica. Archives of Physical Medicine 1952; 33 (Aug):455-460.

6. Colachis SC Jr, Strohm BR. Effects of intermittent traction on separation of lumbar vertebrae. Archives of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation 1969; 50 (May):251-258.

7. Gray FJ, Hosking HJ. A radiological assessment of the effect of body weight traction on the lumbar disc spaces. The Medical Journal of Australia 1963; (Dec 7):953-955.

8. Gupta RC, Ramarao MS. Epidurography in reduction of lumbar disc prolapse by traction. Archives of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation 1978; 59 (Jul):322-327.

9. Cyriax J. The treatment of lumbar disc lesions. British Medical Journal 1950; (Dec 23):1434-1438.

10. Lawson GA. Godfrey CM. A report on studies of spinal traction. Medical Services Journal of Canada, 1958; 14 (Dec):762-77 1.

11. Cyriax JH. Discussions on the treatment of backache by traction. Proceedings of the Royal Society of Medicine 1955; 48:805-814.

12. Mathews JA. Dynamic discography: a study of lumbar traction. Annals of Physical Medicine 1968; IX (No.7):265279.

13. Managed Care Organization Newsletter (American Academy of Pain Management). July 1996.

Decompression

Spinal Decompression Therapy is a revolutionary non-surgical treatment for low back, neck pain, and disc herniations. It is quickly becoming the treatment of choice by chiropractors, medical doctors, and most multi-disciplinary clinics. Doctors and patient using this advanced system are proving beyond a doubt that Spinal Decompression Therapy may be your best chance to avoid back or neck surgery. Before you go under the knife or consume pill after pill of prescription poison, I highly recommend weighing your “less destructive” options that offer more success to back pain sufferers than expensive, dangerous surgery!

Decompression is an effective therapy for:

• Herniated Disc
• Degenerated Disc
• Facet Syndrome
• Sciatica and “Pinched” Nerves
• Post-surgical patients
• Spinal Stenosis

Back pain is the second most common complaint of the people the United States when they see their medical doctors. The only other condition complained of more than back pain is headaches. In most cases, the pain will just “go away”. In some cases, the pain stays and can really alter your mood, life, and health. It is important to know you do not have to live your life with pain. If your doctor has told you it is “all in your head,” or you that you will “have to live with this for the rest of your life,” you need to seek a second opinion by someone knowledgeable who specializes in the biomechanics of the human body that is not quick to cut you or drug you. You may have more options that they do not know about, like Spinal Decompression Therapy.

In this blog article, we will answer the most frequently asked questions about Spinal Decompression Therapy:

How can Spinal Decompression Therapy help?

Who needs Spinal Decompression?

How do I find out if I am a candidate for Spinal Decompression?

Is there research supporting Decompression?

How long will the treatment take?

How much will it cost?

How Can Decompression Therapy Help?

Spinal Decompression Therapy works by restoring function to the injured area. Constant gravitational pull from the Earth, over-use, mis-use, and injury are all factors that cause pressure to build up in the discs between the vertebrae in the spine. The focus of decompression is to open up the disc spaces to release this built-up pressure in addition to increasing the blood, oxygen, and nutrient supply to this vital tissue. During the pull phase, injured discs are gently stretched apart, producing a suction force inside the disc. This draws disc bulges and herniations back into the center of the disc along with oxygen, water, nutrients, and other healing substances. The end result is a strong, healthy, properly functioning disc.

Spinal Decompression Therapy is a lot like disc rehabilitation. Not only does decompression minimize disc bulges and herniations, but it also restores the proper nutrient supply to the disc. This allows the disc to regain its proper motion, and essential nutrient supply. If the decompression is successful, the disc remains healthy even after the treatment is finished.

Optimal Wellness Chiropractic is pleased to provide the DTS Spinal Decompression System. Spinal Decompression Therapy is a revolutionary non-surgical treatment for low back and neck pain and disc herniations.

• It is safe.
  
• It is comfortable.
  
• It is effective.
  
• It is cost effective.
  
• It is a reasonable alternative to surgery.

For more information visit the American Spinal Decompression Associate at http://www.americanspinal.com/non-surgical-spinal-decompression.html

Who needs Decompression Therapy?

The Triton DTS represents the finest Non-Surgical Decompression Traction System available today. The Spinal Decompression Table is designed to apply distraction tension to the patient’s spine without causing the muscles around your back to contract. When the muscles in the back or neck contract during treatment, it is much more difficult to promote healing and eliminate the true cause of the problem. This is a very important component in the success of decompression.

Decompression therapy is very affordable and MUCH cheaper than surgery. Spinal Decompression is highly recommended by Neurological Research. It was found that out of 778 cases of patients receiving spinal decompression 92% said that they showed improvement (Neurological Research; Volume 20, Number 3, April 1998). The statistics for low back surgery and pain medications are nowhere near this – I promise.

The time to consider it is NOW. The five deadly words in medicine are “maybe it will go away.” What are you waiting for? If you are living with chronic pain, what are the chances you’ll wake up one day pain-free without taking necessary action?

>If the financial aspect is a concern, call our office and ask about a free no-obligation consultation.

Am I a Candidate for Decompression?

Decompression Therapy is an effective treatment for:

• Herniated Disc
• Degenerative Disc Disease
• Facet Syndrome
• Sciatica
• Post-surgical patients
• Spinal Stenosis

Certain people are not candidates for spinal decompression therapy and usually have conditions such as:

• Tumors
• Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm
• Fractures
• Metal Implants, Screws, Plates in the spine
• Osteoporosis
• Pregnancy

Certain Conditions (diseases) that compromise the structural integrity of the spine and discs. These conditions are present in only a small percentage of the population.

For those that are considering Decompression Therapy, we offer a brief consultation free of charge to decide if you are a candidate for treatment at our office.

Does Research Support Decompression?

There is plenty of peer-reviewed, documented research supporting decompression therapy. Below are a few articles that I have found concerning the benefits. I encourage you to research the Triton DTS Decompression system so you can make a truly informed decision. I also encourage my patients to research back surgery risks and success. You will find out on your own that lumbar back surgery is rarely successful for relieving chronic back pain in nearly all long-term studies.

Neurologists, neurosurgeons, orthopedists, orthopedic surgeons, rheumatologists, internists, family practitioners, chiropractors, and multidisciplinary practices all use this treatment. Hundreds of doctors throughout the United States are relieving pain utilizing DTS.

A Clinical Trial on Non-Surgical Spinal Decompression Using Vertebral Axial Distraction Delivered by a Computerized Traction Device

Spinal Decompression

Simple Pelvic Traction Gives Inconsistent Relief to Herniated Lumbar Disc Suffers

Decompression, Reduction, and Stabilization of the Lumbar Spine: A Cost-Effective Treatment for Lumbosacral Pain

Click here for more research articles: http://www.chirospinecenter.com/research.htm

How long will treatment take?

The research shows that in most cases a treatment program for a ruptured or herniated disc begins with 20 spinal decompression treatments accomplished in a period of 4 to 6 weeks. This means that when you’re making a decision to start this program you should be committed to finishing it.

Correcting the spine is a lot like correcting misaligned teeth – they take time. You did not get to where you are overnight so it is important to set realistic expectations for treatment. It may take months to restore it and the rest of your life to stabilize it. This is true whether you go through non-surgical rehab and treatment with our office or if you decide to risk the surgery, rehab and treatment with other facilities.

Each session includes decompression therapy and spinal stabilization exercises and takes about 20 to 45 minutes. Spinal decompression is usually performed 3-5 times a week for 15-20 sessions.

It is your health as well as my reputation on the line here and I take both very seriously, I hope you do too.

How much will treatment cost?

Spinal Decompression therapy has been proven to work in research studies, doctors offices, and hospitals. The Triton DTS machine we use has been proven successful with thousands and thousands of patients nationwide and around the world! But does that guarantee that you will get the same result? Unfortunately not, that is why I encourage you to investigate the clinic and the doctor you choose.

On average, a 4-6 week program of decompression ranges anywhere from $1500-$4000. When comparing to the high cost of surgery and rehab, spinal decompression is an inexpensive investment. While decompression is not covered by insurance at this time, many associated procedures of treatment are covered. We would be happy to go over insurance coverage and cost of treatment with you – please contact us to schedule your complimentary, no-obligation consultation!

Decompression treatment in our office for will include low level (cold) laser therapy, chiropractic adjustments, and decompression. Chiropractic adjustments are highly encouraged and are worked into the price of the overall treatment at a very reasonable rate so that finances cannot stand in the way of you regaining your health and reclaiming your life. We offer many different payment options and affordable payment plans for those of all financial backgrounds.

We strongly encourage you to schedule an appointment in our office for a consultation to speak with Dr Lauren about your options for treatment, costs associated, and any other concerns you may have. We will, in more detail, explain how Spinal Decompression works and why it is so effective and why surgery does NOT work and is NOT effective. Contact us today to learn more about Decompression therapy!

---

The 33 Principles of Chiropractic

Chiropractic is a healing art with a strong philosophy and belief that the “power that made you, heals you”. This power the human body contains is what we term innate intelligence. The profession was founded on and builds upon 33 principles that explain the human body, the human experience, and life. Below are the 33 Principles of Chiropractic:

---

THE UNIVERSAL PRINCIPLES

1. The Major Premise. There is a universal intelligence in all matter, continuously giving to it all its properties and actions, thus maintaining it in existence, and giving this intelligence its expression.

2. Cause and Effect. Every effect has a cause and every cause has effects.

3. The Principle of Time. All processes require time.

4. No Organization Without the Effort of Force. Matter can have no organization without the application of force by intelligence.

5. Universal Expression. Force is manifested as organization in matter; all matter has organization, therefore there is universal intelligence expressed in all matter.

6. The Triune of Organization. Any organized structure is a triunity having three necessary factors, namely intelligence, matter and the force which unites them.

7. The Amount of Intelligence in Matter. The amount of intelligence for any given amount of matter is 100%, and is always proportional to its requirements.

8. The Function of Intelligence. The function of intelligence is to create force.

9. The Amount of Force Created by Intelligence. The amount of force created by intelligence is always 100%.

10. The Function of Force. The function of force is to unite intelligence and matter.

11. The Function of Matter. The function of matter is to express force.

12. The Character of Universal Forces. The forces of universal intelligence are manifested as physical laws, are unswerving and unadapted, and have no solicitude for the structures in which they work.

13. Intelligence in Both Organic and Inorganic Matter. Universal intelligence intelligence gives force to both organic and inorganic matter.

14. Interference with Transmission of Universal Forces. There can be interference with the transmission of universal forces.

---

THE BIOLOGICAL PRINCIPLES

15. Organic Matter. The material of the body of a living thing is organized matter.

16. Innate Intelligence. A living thing has the intelligence of the universe inborn within it, referred to as its innate intelligence.

17. The Chiropractic Meaning of Life. The expression of this innate intelligence through matter is the Chiropractic meaning of “life.”

18. The Triune of Life. Life is necessarily the union of this intelligence and the matter of a living thing, brought about by the creation of specific internal (innate) forces.

19. Evidence of Life. The signs of life (assimilation, elimination, growth, reproduction, adaptability) are evidence of the innate intelligence of life.

20. The Mission of Innate Intelligence. The mission of the body’s innate intelligence is to maintain the material of the body of a living thing in active organization.

21. The Perfection of the Triune. In order to have 100% life, there must be 100% intelligence, 100% force, and 100% matter.

22. The Amount of Innate Intelligence. There is 100% of innate intelligence in every living thing, the requisite amount, proportional to its organization.

23. The Function of Innate Intelligence. The function of the body’s innate intelligence is to adapt universal forces and matter for use in the body, so that all parts of the body will have coordinated action for mutual benefit.

24. The Principle of Coordination. Coordination is the principle of harmonious interaction among all the parts of an organism, in fulfilling their functions and purposes.

25. The Limits of Adaptation. The body’s innate intelligence adapts forces and matter for the body’s use as long as it can do so without breaking a universal law; in other words, its expression is limited by the limitations of matter and time.

26. The Normality of Innate Intelligence. The body’s innate intelligence is always normal and its function is always normal.

27. The Character of Innate Forces. The forces the body’s innate intelligence creates are never intended to injure or destroy the living thing in which they work.

28. Comparison of Universal and Innate Forces. In order to carry on the universal cycle of life, universal forces are destructive, unless they can be adapted, whereas innate forces are always constructive, as regards a specific living thing.

29. Interference with Transmission of Innate Forces. There can be interference with the transmission of innate forces.

30. The Causes of Dis-ease. Interference with the transmission of innate forces causes incoordination, or “dis-ease.”

---

THE CHIROPRACTIC PRINCIPLES

31. The Conductors of Innate Forces. Some of the forces the body’s innate intelligence creates operate through or over the nerve system in animal bodies.

32. The Law of Demand and Supply. The Law of Demand and Supply exists in the body in its ideal state; wherein the nerves transmit messages from the body, concerning its needs, to the brain, which acts as the central processing unit for the body’s innate intelligence, and from the brain to the body to meet those needs.

33. Subluxations. Interference with transmission in the body is often directly or indirectly due to subluxations in the spinal column.

Click here to go back to the Chiropractic main page or click here for

Frequently Asked Questions about chiropractic.

---

Our Financial Policy

We are a “fee for service” practice. Payment is expected at the time of service. Because we are a wellness-based practice, we have chosen not to become an in-network provider for any insurance providers. We have done this to keep our rates affordable for the time we spend with patients and the comprehensive services we offer. We are happy to provide the necessary forms needed for you to submit claims to your insurance carrier for reimbursement.

Our fee schedule is based on the time spent with our patients, the complexity of the problem assessed, and the number of problems addressed. If a visit addresses several items, each of which would normally be the focus of a single visit, this will be reflected in the overall charge. Since we evaluate your health concerns in a holistic manner, our appointments require more time. Our prices reflect the amount of time and focus we spend on your individual case. If you are looking for a brief 5 minute visit for the price of a co-pay, we would be happy to refer you to an office that better fits your health goals.

We accept the following methods of payment:

• Cash
• Check
• Visa
• Mastercard
• HSA checks/cards
• Flex Spending Account Funds

Our Insurance Policy

We are an out-of-network provider for all insurance carriers. However, you may still use your insurance to assist in paying for your care. Keep in mind, we will always make treatment recommendations based on what you need, rather than what your insurance covers.

For those that wish to use their insurance for care, you are held to the same financial responsibilities as cash patients as your insurance policy coverage is an agreement between you and your carrier, not the providing doctor. All care must be paid for at the time services are rendered whether insurance claims are being sent or not. We will provide the necessary paperwork for you to submit the claims in a quick, easy way to your insurance carrier. If you are eligible for reimbursement, your carrier will mail a check directly to you.

We apologize for any inconvenience and will do our best to answer any questions you may have regarding our insurance policy.

Our Payment Plans

For those who wish to get the care they truly need and deserve, but cannot afford the upfront investment, we offer several very affordable payment plan options to fit your financial needs.

Through CareCredit, we are able to offer qualifying patients with no interest payments to keep your care within your financial comfort. For more information on CareCredit, please call them directly at 1-866-893-7864.

Our Cancellation Policy

We do our best to get new patients in the same day. In order to serve others, we ask that you offer a courtesy call if you cannot keep your allotted appointment time. A twenty-four hour notice is required for cancellation of appointments without acquiring “no-show” charge of 50% of the fee for the scheduled time allotted. This includes new patients. Please be considerate.

---

DR. LAUREN MONTIETH OPENS

CREATING WELLNESS CENTER

(Indianapolis, IN, Dec 8, 2008) – Dr Lauren Montieth has announced the opening of a Creating Wellness Center on the northwest side of Indianapolis, offering a highly-advanced wellness system that provides a customized approach to physical and nutritional well-being.

The Creating Wellness Center at Optimal Wellness Chiropractic is a fully-integrated, doctor-led, customized wellness program that focuses on all three dimensions of health. The center has installed breakthrough technology that scientifically measures a patient’s level of wellness in his or her physical, biochemical and emotional dimensions.

One of the unique features of the Creating Wellness system is the “Wellness Quotient,” a score of one’s overall level of wellness – a Wellness IQ of sorts. It helps the doctor determine a biological age for each patient and develop a customized program that helps slow the aging process.

The Creating Wellness customized plans include sophisticated exercise programs tailor- made to one’s fitness level and performance goals and a nutritional program designed for specific weight goals and food preferences. In addition, the Creating Wellness plan offers top-rated nutritional supplements, which recently received a gold medal, 5-star rating from NutriSearch, an independent testing lab.

To learn more about the Creating Wellness program, visit Dr. Lauren Montieth at 4375 Georgetown Rd in Indianapolis (located within Georgetown Market) or call 317-504-0425.

Local Doctor Receives

Specialized Wellness

Certification

(Indianapolis, IN, Dec 8, 2008) – Dr. Lauren Montieth of Indianapolis, director of Optimal Wellness Chiropractic recently attended specialized training at the world headquarters for Creating Wellness in New Jersey. The highly-specialized training focused on revolutionary technology that assesses an individual’s state of physical, biochemical and emotional health. Dr. Montieth learned the latest breakthroughs in wellness science and how to perform the most advanced wellness assessment ever developed.

One of the unique features of the Creating Wellness system is the “Wellness Quotient.” The Wellness Quotient is a score of one’s overall state of wellness – think of it as a Wellness IQ. It helps the doctor determine one’s biological age and design a customized wellness program that slows the aging process.

To learn more about the Creating Wellness program, visit Dr. Lauren Montieth at 4375 Georgetown Rd in Indianapolis (located within Georgetown Market) or call 317-504-0425.

Steroid Treatment Have Negative Effects for Both Young and Old

Separate studies have shown steroids to be harmful for two age groups, although these drugs are common treatments.

The first report, from the October 23rd issue of the Archives of Internal Medicine, states, “men and women older than 60 who take corticosteroids for longer than six  months are at greatly increased risk of deformities of the bones in the spine.” (FYI … inhalers used to “treat” asthma are corticosteroids!)  This report was based on a study of 229 patients who had taken corticosteroids for longer than six months, and was compared with 286 people the same age who did not take the drugs. The results showed that 28% of the corticosteroid-treated patients had at least one deformity of the vertebrae in the spine.

The second study examined the use of steroids in children for asthma and related problems. This study was published in the October 12, 2000 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine. The article stated long-term administration of systemic corticosteroids is a cause of impaired growth in children. The study showed that children treated with inhaled corticosteroids had less growth in height (1 to 1.6 cm [23 to 27 percent] less) than those assigned to other treatments. One of the concerns of the study was that they were unable to predict if this change in growth rate of the skeletal system was also accompanied by a change in organ system growth, including the brain. The authors urge caution.

The NEJM article did not mention studies showing the benefits of chiropractic for children with asthma. Such studies concerning chiropractic treatment for asthma included a 1996 study published by the Michigan Chiropractic Council and one from the Alberta Childrens Hospital in Calgary, Canada.

---

Interested in more research on asthma? Check out some of these articles …

Antibiotics During First Year of Life Increases Risk for Asthma

Antibiotic Usage in Babies Linked to Asthma

Antibiotic Usage in Babies Linked to Asthma & Allergies

The opening remarks of an article from the October 1, 2003 BBC News states, “Babies given antibiotics are more likely to develop asthma and other allergies, research suggests.”

The article reports on research done at the Henry Ford Hospital in Detroit. Senior researcher and epidemiologist Dr. Christine Cole Johnson studied 448 children, whose development was tracked for their first seven years. The children were studied to see if there was a relationship between the early usage of antibiotics and the onset of asthma or allergies.

Assessing the children repeatedly, the research team discovered that by the age of seven, children who were given at least one antibiotic in the first six months of their lives were found to be:

• 1.5 times more likely to develop allergies by age seven than those who did not receive antibiotics, and 2.5 times more likely to develop asthma.
  
• 1.7 times more likely to develop allergies, and three times more likely to develop asthma, if they lived in those early years with fewer than two pets.
  
• nearly twice as likely to develop allergies if their mother had a history of allergies.
  
• nearly twice as likely to develop allergies if they were also breast-fed for more than four months, when combined with taking antibiotics.
  

Interestingly, babies who were breast-fed for more than four months, and who received antibiotics in their first six months were three times more likely to develop allergies, although they were no more likely to develop asthma. Also, interesting was the result that exposure to pets seemed to have a protective effect.

Those given antibiotics who lived in a family with fewer than two pets had 1.7 times the risk of allergies and three times the risk of asthma. However, when a family had two or more pets, the risk of allergies or asthma for the child was back to normal levels.

The biggest risk of all – an 11-fold increase – was found among children who were prescribed a broad-spectrum antibiotic, such as penicillin, were breast-fed for four months, and did not have family pets. The researchers also found evidence that the more courses of antibiotics a child received during their first six months, the higher their risk of developing an allergy.

“I believe we need to be more prudent in prescribing them for children at such a young age,” said Dr. Christine Cole Johnson. “In the past, many of them were prescribed unnecessarily, especially for viral infections like colds and flus when they would have no effect anyway.”

---

Interested in more research on asthma? Check out some of these articles …

Antibiotics During First Year of Life Increases Risk for Asthma

Steroid Treatment Have Negative Affects

Antibiotics During First Year of Life Increases Risk for Asthma

A new study published in the June 2007 issue of the scientific journal Chest shows that the risk of asthma is one and a half times greater in babies who received more than four courses of antibiotics before age 1. The research was reported on the June 15, 2007 Medscape website and in several news outlets including the online June 11, 2007 Toronto Star.

Researchers reviewed healthcare and prescription databases in Manitoba, Canada of over 13 thousand children to see if there was an association between antibiotic prescription use during the first year of life and asthma at the age of 7. The results showed that children who had been given antibiotics in the first year of life were more likely to develop asthma by age seven. Children in this group who were given four courses of antibiotics were most at risk.

Study author Anita L. Kozyrskyj, PhD, from the University of Manitoba in Winnipeg, Canada, commented, “Since oral antibiotics are frequently prescribed for upper and lower respiratory tract infections in children, an understanding of the relation between antibiotic use and asthma is critical to clinicians and health-care policymakers worldwide.” She continued, “To address the major methodological issues of reverse causation and selection bias in epidemiologic studies of antibiotic use in early life and the development of asthma, we undertook a cohort study of this association in a complete population of children.”

The authors noted that further studies were needed but suggested, “In the interim, it would be prudent to avoid the unnecessary use BS antibiotics in the first year of life when other antibiotics are available.” They concluded, “Antibiotic use in early life was associated with the development of childhood asthma, a risk that may be reduced by avoiding the use of BS [broad-spectrum] cephalosporins.”

The authors noted that further studies were needed but suggested, “In the interim, it would be prudent to avoid the unnecessary use BS antibiotics in the first year of life when other antibiotics are available.” They concluded, “Antibiotic use in early life was associated with the development of childhood asthma, a risk that may be reduced by avoiding the use of BS [broad-spectrum] cephalosporins.”

The Toronto Star interviewed Dr. Sheldon Spier, a pediatric respirologist at the Alberta Children’s Hospital. Dr. Spier commented that this study may help explain why asthma develops in some children. “This study really is quite important,” he continued, “It tells us a lot more about asthma and the possible factors that lead to it. But we do have to be careful in our interpretation of it.”

---

Interested in more research on asthma? Check out some of these articles …

Antibiotic Usage in Babies Linked to Asthma

Steroid Treatment Have Negative Affects

Effectiveness of Chiropractic in Correcting Asthma

Asthma has become a major health concern for children, doubling in the past 20 years. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimated that in 1998, approximately 17,299,000 people in the United States, or 6.4% of the population, had asthma, with cases among very young children up 160%. As reported in the June 16, 1999 issue of the Journal of the American Medical  Association, the number of people self-reporting asthma grew 75% between 1980 and 1994.

In another study conducted in 1996 by the Michigan Chiropractic Council (MCC), a panel of doctors tested the effectiveness of chiropractic care on children with asthma. The high demand of parents seeking alternative care for pediatric asthma was shown by the overwhelming interest in the study _ more than 500 parents called the MCC to participate.

The study, which took place during May and June of 1996, examined the impact of chiropractice care on asthmatic patients from birth to age 17. The average age of the participant was 10 years. “After 30 days of chiropractic health care, patients averaged only one attack, whereas prior to the study they were experiencing more than four attacks,” said MCC Dr. Bob Graham, who directed the study. “Medications, which can be costly, were decreased by nearly 70 percent. Finally, patient satisfaction was rated 8.5 on a scale of 10.” More than 70 chiropractors from 62 cities in Michigan studied more than 80 children suffering from asthma.

---

Interested in more research on asthma? Check out some of these articles …

Asthmatic Children In Canada Use Non-Medical Care

Chiropractic Helps Infant with Serious Lung Condition

Link Made Between Asthma and Subluxations

Chiropractic Helps Infant with Serious Lung Condition

A case study published in the February 19, 2008 issue of the scientific periodical, the Journal of Vertebral Subluxation Research (JVSR), documents a case of an infant with bronchopulmonary dysplasia being helped with chiropractic. Bronchopulmonary dysplasia, (BPD), is a serious lung condition that affects infants who are born premature and have resulting breathing and lung problems.

The usual course of medical care for infants with BPD is continual administration of oxygen for the first 28 days in an intensive care unit. The National Institutes of Health estimate that the average length of intensive in-hospital care for babies with BPD is 120 days. In most cases after the child leaves the hospital, the infant will be placed on antibiotics and will need ongoing breathing treatments, and intermittent oxygen.

In this case a female infant was born premature at 24 weeks gestation, weighed only 593 grams and was diagnosed with BPD. As a result of the premature birth she had surgery for retinopathy, several rounds of antibiotics, and a feeding tube for three months. After 17 weeks in the hospital she was discharged. Her medical care continues and consisted of nightly requirements of 1/8-liter of oxygen, a ventilation machine and continuation of antibiotics.

Three months after her release from the hospital she was brought to a chiropractor for an analysis. At that time she weighed twelve pounds, and it was observed that she was listless, constipated, colicky, with pasty skin and sinus congestion. Additionally it was noted that her breathing was short and rapid, her limbs were rather flaccid and she did not make eye contact. She had also recently completed her last round of antibiotics.

Chiropractic care given was specific adjustments initially twice daily—morning and afternoon for two weeks, then three times per week for two weeks; reducing to twice a week for one week, then once a week and eventually once every two weeks. The case report noted that after the initial adjustment, her mother reported when her baby was placed on her back, she used her abdomen more to hold her legs up; she was not colicky and was able to pass gas easily for the first time. After the second visit, her sinuses drained and congestion resolved. After the third adjustment, the baby made a loud noise and was drawing in more air.

As care continued other improvements noted included, the ability to hold her head up with more control, and improved facial color and symmetry. Additionally, her bowel movements improved and she became verbally louder and more alert. After her 14th chiropractic adjustment, the baby girl was breathing fully on her own with no signs of cyanosis There was no medical intervention during her chiropractic care.

After 24 visits this baby’s life had been changed as she was then able to roll over on her own, was asymptomatic and has not needed to be readmitted to the hospital nor administered antibiotics.

---

Interested in more research on asthma? Check out some of these articles …

Asthmatic Children In Canada Use Non-Medical Care

Effectiveness of Chiropractic in Correcting Asthma

Link Made Between Asthma and Subluxations

Asthmatic Children In Canada Use Non-Medical Care

An article from Reuters Health Information, printed in the Journal of the AMA, reports a survey that showed many children with asthma were seeking complementary medicine.

Dr. Sheldon Spier, of Alberta Children’s Hospital in Calgary, surveyed the parents of 117 pediatric asthma patients. Thirty percent reported using complementary medicine to help manage their children’s asthma symptoms, most commonly herbal medications, chiropractic, homeopathy, and vitamin C supplementation. The most common reason given for turning to complementary treatment was that the non-medical practitioners were perceived as treating the whole patient.

The International Chiropractic Pediatric Association lists several studies on its web site discussing the benefits of chiropractic for children with asthma. Some excerpts:

76.5% of patients with bronchial asthma said they benefited from chiropractic treatment. Peak oxygen flow rate and vital capacity increased after the third treatment.

Significantly lower quality of life impairment rating scores were reported for 90.1% of children after 60 days of chiropractic care. During this same time period the average number of asthma attacks decreased an average of 44.9%, and asthma medication usage was decreased an average of 66.5%.

Among parents of asthmatic children who had received chiropractic treatment, 92% considered this treatment beneficial.

---

Interested in more research on asthma? Check out some of these articles …

Chiropractic Helps Infant with Serious Lung Condition

Effectiveness of Chiropractic in Correcting Asthma

Link Made Between Asthma and Subluxations

Link Made Between Asthma and Subluxations

It is estimated that up to 15 million people suffer from asthma. Of those, 14.8 million are children under the age of 18. In 1993 alone, there were 198,000 hospitalizations for asthma. In that same sample year, 342 people under the age of 25 died due to this problem. In money terms, the direct cost of managing a patient with severe asthma has been estimated at more than $18,000 per year.

The following statistics about asthma come from the Better Health & Medical Network.

• Asthma has increased 46% from 1982-1993 with an 80% growth in children under 18.
  
• In the 5-17 age group, asthma causes an annual loss of more than 10 million school days per year.
  
• Asthma accounts for more childhood hospitalizations than any other childhood disease.
  
• Children with asthma spend approximately 7.3 million days per year restricted to bed rest.
  
• In 1990, there were 7.1 million physician visits for asthma.
  
• Health care costs for asthma were estimated to be $6.2 billion, which is almost 1% of the total US health care costs.
  
• More than 5,200 Americans died from asthma in 1991.
  

Recent articles in publications such as “The American Chiropractor”, and “Today’s Chiropractic” describe strong links between people who suffer from these conditions and nerve interference from subluxation. Subluxations are when bones in the spine pressure or irritate nerves causing abnormal nerve function. An article appearing in the Journal of Vertebral Subluxation Research Vol. 1 No. 4, also demonstrated the positive effects of chiropractic care on 81 children with asthma.

According to Richard Pistolese, research assistant for the International Chiropractic Pediatric Association, “Based upon information currently available, chiropractic care represents a safe non-pharmacological health care approach, that may be associated with a decrease in asthma-related impairment, reduced respiratory effort, and a decrease incidence of asthma attacks.”
Pistolese goes further to say, “The correction of vertebral subluxation is a non-invasive procedure, which could reduce or eliminate the need for medication, and potentially ease the severity of the asthmatic condition.”

---

Interested in more research on asthma? Check out some of these articles …

Asthmatic Children In Canada Use Non-Medical Care

Chiropractic Helps Infant with Serious Lung Condition

Effectiveness of Chiropractic in Correcting Asthma

Medical Treatments for Asthma

Lifestyle Modifications for Asthmatics

Next Page »