Israel Medical Association Journal

Spinal manipulation therapy (SMT) is commonly used as an effective therapeutic modality for a range of cervical symptoms. However, in rare cases, cervical manipulation may be associated with complications. In this review we present a series of cases with cervical spine injury and myelopathy following therapeutic manipulation of the neck, and examine their clinical course and neurological outcome. We conducted a search for patients who developed neurological symptoms due to cervical spinal cord injury following neck SMT in the database of a spinal unit in a tertiary hospital between the years 2008 and 2018. Patients were assessed for the clinical course and deterioration, type of manipulation used and subsequent management. A total of four patients were identified, two men and two women, aged 32–66 years. In three patients neurological deterioration appeared after chiropractic adjustment and in one patient after tuina therapy. Three patients were managed with anterior cervical discectomy and fusion while one patient declined surgical treatment. Assessment for subjective and objective evidence of cervical myelopathy should be performed prior to cervical manipulation, and suspected myelopathic patients should be sent for further workup by a specialist familiar with cervical myelopathy (such as a neurologist, a neurosurgeon or orthopedic surgeon who specializes in spinal surgery). Nevertheless, manipulation therapy remains an important and generally safe treatment modality for a variety of cervical complaints. This review does not intend to discard the role of SMT as a significant part in the management of patients with neck related symptoms, rather it is meant to draw attention to the need for careful clinical and imaging investigation before treatment.

Background: The effect of anti-platelet drugs on surgical blood loss and perioperative complications has not been studied in depth and the management of surgical patients taking anti-platelet medications is controversial.

Objective: To assess the effect of anti-platelet therapy on perioperative blood loss in patients undergoing appendectomy either laparoscopically or via open surgery.

Methods: We reviewed the files of all patients > 40 years old who underwent open or laparoscopic appendectomies from 2007 to 2010. Excluded were patients with short hospitalization and no follow-up of hemoglobin level, patients on warfarin treatment and patients who underwent additional procedures. Estimation of blood loss was based on decrease in hemoglobin level from admission to discharge. Risk factors for blood loss, such as anti-platelet therapy, age, gender, surgical approach, surgical time, surgical findings and complications, were analyzed.

Results: The final cohort included 179 patients (mean age 61 ± 14 years, range 40–93) of whom 65 were males. The mean perioperative hemoglobin decrease was 1.59 ± 1.07 mg/dl (range 0–5 mg/dl). Thirty-nine patients received anti-platelet therapy prior to surgery and 140 did not. No significant differences in decrease of hemoglobin level were found between patients receiving anti-platelet therapy and those who were not (1.73 ± 1.21 vs. 1.55 ± 1.02 mg/dl, P = 0.3). In addition, no difference was found between patients on anti-platelet therapy operated laparoscopically and those operated in an open fashion (1.59 ± 1.18 vs. 2.04 ± 1.28 mg/dl, P = 0.29). Five patients required blood transfusions, two of whom were on anti-platelet therapy. Blood loss was significantly greater in patients with a perforated appendicitis and in those with an operative time of more than one hour.

Conclusions: Anti-platelet therapy does not pose a risk for increased blood loss following emergent appendectomy performed either laparoscopically or in an open fashion.