Manipulation under anesthesia
This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. (Learn how and when to remove these template messages)(Learn how and when to remove this template message)
|Manipulation under anesthesia|
Manipulation under anesthesia (MUA) or fibrosis release procedures is a multidisciplinary, chronic pain-related manual therapy modality which is used for the purpose of improving articular and soft tissue movement.[dubious ][definition needed] This is accomplished by way of a combination of controlled joint mobilization/manipulation and myofascial release techniques. Medication-assisted manipulation (MAM) may also be used to describe the procedure, although that term more broadly categorizes the varied forms of existing MUA techniques. In any form, MUA is used by osteopathic/orthopedic physicians and specially trained (MUA certified) chiropractors. It is intended as a means of breaking up adhesions (scar tissue) of or about spinal joints (cervical, thoracic, lumbar, sacral, or pelvic regions), or extremity joint articulations (i.e., knee, shoulder, hip) to which painfully restricted range of motion significantly limits function. Failed attempts at other standard conservative treatment methods (i.e., manipulation, physical therapy, medication), over a sufficient time-frame, is one of the principal patient qualifiers.
- 1 Procedure
- 2 History
- 3 State of evidence
- 4 Risk
- 5 References
In the outpatient ambulatory or hospital-based setting, with a qualified medical physician in attendance, the anesthetic or medication component/s of the spinal MUA procedure may be provided in one of two ways.
Intravenous (IV) infusion (administered by an anesthesiologist)
Historically, the medical literature identifies sodium pentothal as the earliest of the anesthetizing agents used with the MUA procedure. That was followed by a period during which propofol was used to induce a “twilight state” (aka, IV sedation or conscious sedation ). The latter became the doctor-preferred means of rendering the service, as it offered preservation of patient responsiveness during the delivery of treatment. With today’s MUA procedure, deep conscious sedation is accomplished with agents such as propofol, through monitored anesthesia care (MAC).
Local injection (administered by an anesthesiologist or pain management physician)
As a less common mode of MUA treatment, select injectable medications can be administered directly to affected synovial joints, spinal facet joints or into the surrounding epidural space. Local anesthetic injection allows previously incomplete office-based manual therapy methods to be better delivered/tolerated, but outside of the general anesthesia scenario. When rendered to the spine, this variety of MUA procedure is qualified by terms such as manipulation under joint anesthesia (MUJA) and manipulation under epidural anesthesia (MUEA).
Medication Assisted Manipulation (MAM) has been used since the 1930s, and MUA was practiced by osteopathic physicians and orthopedic surgeons in the 1940s and 1950s. It was largely abandoned due to complications from general anesthesia and due to the type of nonspecific manipulation procedures used. It was modified and revived in the 1990s, primarily by chiropractors, and also by osteopathic physicians; this was likely due to safer anesthesia used for conscious sedation, along with increased interest in spinal manipulation (SM).
In the MUA literature, spinal manipulation under anesthesia has been described as a controversial procedure. It has had a history susceptible to enthusiastic claims of success and indiscriminate use. With continued misperceptions about the findings and significance of primary research, similar issues remain today. An example of this is seen in endorsements for MUA that inaccurately cite study outcomes and/or focus on selective information which places the procedure, and the practice of multiple day applications, in a more favorable light. The table that follows provides detail concerning this phenomenon.
Some historical misperceptions about the findings of spinal MUA research
|Author/s cited||Commonly reported outcomes claims||Actual outcomes data and relevant study methods, as reported by publication|
|Bradford and Siehl||71% of 723 MUA patients had good results (return to normal activity relatively symptom free) and 25.3% had fair results (return to normal activity with slight residuals)||Overall, for 723 cases (666 different patients), 60% had good results, 30% had fair results, and 10% had poor results. Most patients received a single procedure dose. As for the 185 patients with herniated disc, 26.4% had good results and 44.3% had fair results, with the author reporting, “improvement was quite temporary in a number of cases, since 51% required subsequent operation.” |
|Chrisman, et al.||51% of patients reported good to excellent results three years post MUA||51% of 39 patients had good or excellent results after rotatory manipulation of the spine under anesthesia. Of patients with positive myelograms, 37% (10 of 27) had good to excellent results three years or more after manipulation. All patients received a single procedure dose.|
|Krumhansl and Nowacek||Of 171 patients receiving MUA, 25% had no pain, 50% were much improved (with pain markedly decreased), and 20% were better and could tolerate their pain (but it interfered with work and recreation)||Of 171 patients, most of whom received a single procedure dose, approximately 25% were “cured” (having no pain of the type experienced prior to MUA), 50% were “much improved” (with markedly diminished pain and function restored but with intermittent nuisance type pain with weather changes or strenuous activity) and 20% were “better, but” (having a tolerable pain level but remained dysfunctional for work and recreational activities).|
|Kuo and Loh||83% of 517 patients treated with MUA responded well||Of 517 patients receiving manipulation, 76.8% had satisfactory results. However, the number of patients anesthetized during manipulation is not reported (if any). In general terms, the authors state, “Prior to manipulation, general anesthesia with intravenous thiopental sodium may be given to suppress pain and muscle spasm.” Seventy-three patients (14%) had a condition recurrence or relapse, ranging from 2 months to 12 years after the first series of manipulations. Unresponsive patients (9%, overall) underwent surgical exploration and received a second series of manipulations after revision of the treatment protocol such that 434 of 517 patients (83.9%) are reported as having responded well to manipulation.|
|Mensor||83% of 600 patients with EMG-verified radiculopathies reported significant improvement following MUA||For over 600 patients treated, a cursory evaluation led the author to “believe that the percentage of success or failure has not changed materially” from the original report. The original report cited excellent to good results in 64% of private patients and 45% of industrial accident patients with disabilities. Overall, 83% of patients received a single procedure dose, with the author reporting, “repeated manipulation is not justified” for satisfactory results. Within neither paper is EMG testing mentioned as part of the patient’s objective findings or as a qualifier for treatment.|
|Ongley, et al.||Patients that had back pain for a minimum of 10 years reported an 87% recovery rate after MUA||Eighty one patients had an average pain duration of 10 years. Patients in the experimental group were placed in a diazepam-induced amnesic state, and received manipulation after administration of local anesthetic to six different ligaments of the lumbar, lumbopelvic, and sacroiliac regions. At six months, of the 40 patients in the experimental group who received a single procedure dose, 87.5% had greater than 50% improvement in disability scores and 37.5% had recovered completely (“free from disability”).|
State of evidence
Since the 1930s, spinal manipulation under anesthesia has been reported in the published medical literature. Within the existing base of studies are some reports of positive results. However, it appears that as part of the evolution of the procedure, the medical literature reveals many variations in [A] the type of sedatives/medications used, [B] manipulation technique, [C] the number of MUA sessions employed, [D] the span of time between procedure doses (if administered in series), and [E] the types and breadth of application of post-MUA adjunctive and/or rehabilitative measures.
There has been and remains a strong theoretical basis for spinal MUA. However, considering the aforementioned differences in existing published studies, field practitioners have not had an objective and uniform means by which to establish evidence-based treatment protocols. Also, because the preponderance of studies are of lower level evidence the issue of long-term effectiveness of MUA in the management of specific spinal conditions has yet to be investigated. Another area for which basic experimental research is lacking to support the efficacy of MUA treatment of the low back, and other spinal regions, relates to the two presiding theories that [A] flexibility of the spine may be increased when adhesions are reduced, and [B] MUA is more effective at treating adhesions than office-based manual therapy methods. Perhaps of greater significance, the circumstances by which or how often spinal adhesions (scar tissue) may form in the general population, in the presence or absence of prior surgery or vertebral fracture, have not been addressed in the medical literature. To date, after tens of thousands of spinal MUA procedures having been performed in the United States, and with more than eight decades worth of related studies, there is only one published paper in the MUA literature that clearly demonstrates the presence of spinal adhesions.[unreliable medical source?] That relates to two patients, whose pre-MUA advanced diagnostic imaging revealed fibrosis after prior lumbar surgery.[unreliable medical source?]
A 2005 consensus statement from the American Academy of Osteopathy indicates that research and publication is limited for the use and effectiveness of MUA. More recently, it has been reported that there are gaps in the medical literature for spinal MUA in the areas of patient selection and treatment protocols. On account of that, a Delphi process was undertaken to develop evidence-informed and consensus-based guidelines for the chiropractic profession. The outcome of that process offers direction to MUA practitioners and facilities, although not intended for individual patients.
Notably, the criteria recommended by members of the chiropractic profession are distinctly different from the criteria established by the American Academy of Osteopathy. Moreover, the Delphi method is a consensus process which represents consenting opinion from an impaneled group of experts. But with expert opinion serving as the lowest level of evidence (Level V) in the medical evidence hierarchy, the MUA-related Delphi process publication of 2014 does not enhance the state of the evidence for spinal MUA. Therefore, the largely anecdotal basis for procedural effectiveness, and continued reliance upon the spinal MUA protocols historically used, are what principally influence the practice of MUA today.
In comparison to other available treatment options for chronic spine pain patients, it is the benchmark of the randomized controlled trial that could best define patient candidacy, optimal procedure dosing, and long-term effectiveness for MUA. Previous MUA investigators have mentioned the use of inconsistent protocols and have called for large-scale MUA studies (randomized trials) for chronic low back pain. To date, no such studies have been undertaken.
Due to the lack of high-level research evidence for the long-term clinical efficacy of spinal MUA, several traditional criteria for patient selection are without support or remain unproven. The most recent analysis of the published medical evidence for MUA shows that disc herniation/protrusion qualifies as at least a relative contraindication, with risk for injury and no proven long-term benefit. Also, in the presence of a positive lumbar EMG study (nerve root compression) with lumbar disc herniation, Level II evidence suggests that patients will eventually need surgical correction. For chronic neck and low back pain patients who also have significant anxiety/stress, Level II evidence suggests that MUA will not be of therapeutic benefit. Accordingly, most insurance carriers in the United States maintain medical policy which deems the spinal MUA unproven or experimental/investigational.
Extremity joint MUA
Patients that may qualify for MUA to an extremity joint include those with stiff post-operative knee joints that have undergone total knee replacement (total knee arthroplasty- TKA). Range of motion data taken at discharge following TKA have been suggested as an indicator for MUA, when falling short of the “optimal zone” of ≥70˚ flexion combined with an extension deficit of ≤10˚. It appears that the ideal period for applying manipulation to knee stiffness after TKA is at less than 20 weeks from primary surgery, with no added benefit reported from re-manipulations. Similarly, another recent study also found that MUA is useful for decreased range of motion but the success rate of repeated MUA was less than that of the primary dose.
Outside of the above clinical scenario and related research, the supportive evidence for MUA to other extremity joints is weak, inconclusive or non-existent. The shoulder, when failing to achieve flexibility following standard treatment, is one of the extremity regions for which the frozen shoulder condition has traditionally been cited as an indication for MUA. There are some supportive studies in this area, including one showing that patients fare better with intervention at 6 and 9 months after condition onset (having significantly better abduction and external rotation, with less pain at rest and at night). However, for those studies which represent the highest level of research evidence, the results of two recent systematic reviews for frozen shoulder raise question as to treatment superiority when compared to other forms of treatment. Namely, in the 2012 systematic review, Maund, et al. found a single adequate study, but no evidence there of better outcome with MUA versus home exercise. In the 2015 systematic review, Uppal, et al. determined MUA to be equivocal at best, when compared to hydrodilation and steroid injection.
The provision of MUA to an extremity joint is reserved for primary conditions thereof, such as a frozen articulation. The practice of applying MUA to an extremity joint that conjoins the spine (i.e., shoulder and/or hip), as a routine component or an extension of a spinal MUA procedure, is not supported by clinical investigation.
Tens of thousands of uneventful spinal and extremity MUA procedures have been performed in the United States over the past several decades. As such, in all likelihood, the risks with the procedure are relatively low or minimized with current techniques and when patients are properly selected and evaluated by the anesthesiologist, the medical physician who is providing medical clearance, and the MUA manual therapy practitioner (DC, DO, MD). However, as with any procedure, there are inherent risks with MUA. The chiropractic literature seems to best address concern for complications, poor outcomes, or adverse events with spinal MUA.; however, better event reporting is needed in developing more definitive risk criteria. In part, these include severe sacroiliac pain with transient “pain paralysis” (of one or both legs), transient respiratory distress, a significant adverse cardiovascular event, spinal fracture with hemothorax, lower extremity fracture, glenoid fracture, shoulder dislocation, and pseudoaneurysm.
- Gordon, Robert; Cremata, Edward; Hawk, Cheryl (2014). "Guidelines for the practice and performance of manipulation under anesthesia". Chiropractic & Manual Therapies. 22 (1): 7. doi:10.1186/2045-709X-22-7. PMC 3917622. PMID 24490957.
- Kohlbeck, Frank J; Haldeman, Scott; Hurwitz, Eric L; Dagenais, Simon (2005). "Supplemental Care with Medication-Assisted Manipulation Versus Spinal Manipulation Therapy Alone for Patients with Chronic Low Back Pain". Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics. 28 (4): 245–52. doi:10.1016/j.jmpt.2005.03.003. PMID 15883577.
- Francis, R (1989). "Spinal manipulation under general anesthesia: a chiropractic approach in a hospital setting". J Am Chiro Assoc. 26 (12): 39–41.
- Williams, HA (1998). "Part II. Manipulation Under Anesthesia: Key Aspects". J Am Chiro Assoc. 35 (1): 44, 46–9.
- "American Academy of Osteopathy consensus statement for osteopathic manipulation of somatic dysfunction under anesthesia and conscious sedation" (PDF). March 16, 2005.
- Clybourne, H. E (1948). "Manipulation of the low-back region under anesthesia". The Journal of the American Osteopathic Association. 48 (1): 10. PMID 18883818.
- Mensor, M. C (1955). "Non-operative treatment, including manipulation, for lumbar intervertebral disc syndrome". The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. American Volume. 37-A (5): 925–36, passim. doi:10.2106/00004623-195537050-00003. PMID 13263339.
- Siehl, D (1963). "Manipulation of the spine under general anesthesia". The Journal of the American Osteopathic Association. 62: 881–7. PMID 13988981.
- Chrisman, O. D; Mittnacht, A; Snook, G. A (1964). "A Study of the Results Following Rotatory Manipulation in the Lumbar Intervertebral-Disc Syndrome". The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. American Volume. 46 (3): 517–24. doi:10.2106/00004623-196446030-00005. PMID 14133339.
- Rumney, I. C (1968). "Manipulation of the spine and appendages under anesthesia: An evaluation". The Journal of the American Osteopathic Association. 68 (3): 235–45. PMID 5189345.
- Herzog, James (1999). "Use of cervical spine manipulation under anesthesia for management of cervical disk herniation, cervical radiculopathy, and associated cervicogenic headache syndrome". Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics. 22 (3): 166–70. doi:10.1016/S0161-4754(99)70131-4. PMID 10220716.
- Manipulation Under Anesthesia. mdStrategies. June 2012 https://mdstrategies.com/nl_06_12.htm
- West, Daniel T; Mathews, Robert S; Miller, Matthew R; Kent, George M (1999). "Effective management of spinal pain in one hundred seventy-seven patients evaluated for manipulation under anesthesia". Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics. 22 (5): 299–308. doi:10.1016/S0161-4754(99)70062-X. PMID 10395432.
- Bronfort, Gert; Haas, Mitch; Evans, Roni; Kawchuk, Greg; Dagenais, Simon (2008). "Evidence-informed management of chronic low back pain with spinal manipulation and mobilization". The Spine Journal. 8 (1): 213–25. doi:10.1016/j.spinee.2007.10.023. PMID 18164469.
- Morningstar, Mark W; Strauchman, Megan N (2010). "Management of a 59-year-old female patient with adult degenerative scoliosis using manipulation under anesthesia". Journal of Chiropractic Medicine. 9 (2): 77–83. doi:10.1016/j.jcm.2010.02.002. PMC 2943655. PMID 21629554.
- Morningstar, Mark W; Strauchman, Megan N (2012). "Manipulation under anesthesia for patients with failed back surgery: Retrospective report of 3 cases with 1-year follow-up". Journal of Chiropractic Medicine. 11 (1): 30–5. doi:10.1016/j.jcm.2011.08.006. PMC 3315860. PMID 22942839.
- Luukkainen, R; Sipola, E; Varjo, P (2008). "Successful Treatment of Frozen Hip with Manipulation and Pressure Dilatation". The Open Rheumatology Journal. 2: 31–2. doi:10.2174/1874312900802010031. PMC 2577945. PMID 19088868.
- Dreyfuss, P; Michaelsen, M; Horne, M (1995). "MUJA: Manipulation under joint anesthesia/analgesia: A treatment approach for recalcitrant low back pain of synovial joint origin". Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics. 18 (8): 537–46. PMID 8583177.
- Ben-David, B; Raboy, M (1994). "Manipulation under anesthesia combined with epidural steroid injection". Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics. 17 (9): 605–9. PMID 7884331.
- Aspegren, D. D; Wright, R. E; Hemler, D. E (1997). "Manipulation under epidural anesthesia with corticosteroid injection: Two case reports". Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics. 20 (9): 618–21. PMID 9436147.
- Nelson, L; Aspegren, D; Bova, C (1997). "The use of epidural steroid injection and manipulation on patients with chronic low back pain". Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics. 20 (4): 263–6. PMID 9168411.
- Dougherty, Paul; Bajwa, Saeed; Burke, Jeanmarie; Dishman, J. Donald (2004). "Spinal Manipulation Postepidural Injection for Lumbar and Cervical Radiculopathy: A Retrospective Case Series". Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics. 27 (7): 449–56. doi:10.1016/j.jmpt.2004.06.003. PMID 15389176.
- Dagenais, Simon; Mayer, John; Wooley, James R; Haldeman, Scott (2008). "Evidence-informed management of chronic low back pain with medicine-assisted manipulation". The Spine Journal. 8 (1): 142–9. doi:10.1016/j.spinee.2007.09.010. PMID 18164462.
- Krumhansl BR, Nowacek CJ. Manipulation Under Anesthesia. In Grieve GP (Ed). Modern manual therapy of the vertebral column. Edinburgh, Churchill Livingstone; 1986:777-786.
- Gordon, RC (2001). "An evaluation of the experimental and investigational status and clinical validity of manipulation of patients under anesthesia: a contemporary opinion". J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 24 (9): 603–11. doi:10.1067/mmt.2001.119859. PMID 11753335.
- Kohlbeck FJ, Haldeman S. Medication-assisted spinal manipulation. Spine J. 2002;2(4):288-302.
- DiGiorgi D. Spinal manipulation under anesthesia: a narrative review of the literature and commentary. Chiropr Man Therap. 2013 May 14;21(1):14. http://www.chiromt.com/content/21/1/14
- Siehl, D (Jun 1963). "Manipulation of the spine under general anesthesia". J Am Osteopath Assoc. 62: 881–7. PMID 13988981.
- Chrisman, OD; Mittnacht, A; Snook, GA (Apr 1964). "A Study of the Results Following Rotatory Manipulation in the Lumbar Intervertebral-Disc Syndrome". J Bone Joint Surg Am. 46 (3): 517–24. doi:10.2106/00004623-196446030-00005.
- Krumhansl BR, Nowacek CJ. Manipulation Under Anesthesia. In: Grieve GP, editor. Modern manual therapy of the vertebral column. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone. 1986:777-86.
- Kuo, PP; Loh, ZC (1987). "Treatment of lumbar intervertebral disc protrusions by manipulation". Clin Orthop Relat Res. 215: 47–55.
- Mensor MC. Non-operative treatment, including manipulation, for lumbar intervertebral-disc syndrome. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1965;47-A:1073-4.
- Mensor, MC (Oct 1955). "Non-operative treatment, including manipulation, for lumbar intervertebral disc syndrome". J Bone Joint Surg Am. 37 (5): 925–36. doi:10.2106/00004623-195537050-00003.
- Ongley, MJ; Klein, RG; Dorman, TA; Eek, BC; Hubert, LJ (1987). "A new approach to the treatment of chronic low back pain". Lancet. 182 (8551): 143–6. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(87)92340-3.
- Digiorgi, Dennis (2013). "Spinal manipulation under anesthesia: A narrative review of the literature and commentary". Chiropractic & Manual Therapies. 21 (1): 14. doi:10.1186/2045-709X-21-14. PMC 3691523. PMID 23672974.
- "Chiropractic Services" (PDF). Premera Blue Cross. April 1, 2017.
- "Manipulation Under Anesthesia" (PDF). Cigna. October 15, 2016.
- DiGiorgi D, Cerf JL, Bowerman DS. Outcomes indicators and a risk classification system for spinal manipulation under anesthesia: a narrative review and proposal. Chiropr Man Therap. 2018. 26:9. https://chiromt.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12998-018-0177-z
- Davis, CG; Fernando, CA; da Motta, MA (1993). "Manipulation of the Low Back Under General Anesthesia: Case Studies and Discussion". Journal of the Neuromusculoskeletal System. 1 (3): 126–134.
- Gordon R, Cremata E, Hawk C. Guidelines for the practice and performance of manipulation under anesthesia. Chiropr Man Therap. 2014 Feb 3;22(1):7. http://www.chiromt.com/content/22/1/7
- Wright, J. G; Swiontkowski, M. F; Heckman, J. D (2003). "Introducing levels of evidence to the journal". The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. American Volume. 85-A (1): 1–3. doi:10.2106/00004623-200301000-00001. PMID 12533564.
- don R, Cremata E, Hawk C. Guidelines for the practice and performance of manipulation under anesthesia. Chiropr Man Therap. 2014 Feb 3;22(1):7. http://www.chiromt.com/content/22/1/7
- Kohlbeck, Frank J; Haldeman, Scott (2002). "Medication-assisted Spinal Manipulation". The Spine Journal. 2 (4): 288–302. doi:10.1016/S1529-9430(02)00196-1. PMID 14589481.
- Palmieri, Nicholas F; Smoyak, Shirley (2002). "Chronic low back pain: A study of the effects of manipulation under anesthesia". Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics. 25 (8): E8–E17. doi:10.1067/mmt.2002.127072. PMID 12381983.
- Siehl D, Olson DR, Ross HE, Rockwood EE. Manipulation of the lumbar spine with the patient under general anesthesia: evaluation by electromyography and clinical-neurologic examination of its use for lumbar nerve root compression syndrome. J Am Osteopath Assoc. 1971;70:433-40
- Peterson CK, Humphreys BK, Vollenweider R, Kressig M, Nussbaumer R. Outcomes for chronic neck and low back pain patients after manipulation under anesthesia: a prospective cohort study. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2014 Jul-Aug;37(6):377-82
- "Manipulation Under Anesthesia" (PDF). UnitedHealth. March 1, 2017.
- Ipach, Ingmar; Mittag, Falk; Lahrmann, Julia; Kunze, Beate; Kluba, Torsten (2011). "Arthrofibrosis after TKA - Influence factors on the absolute flexion and gain in flexion after manipulation under anaesthesia". BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders. 12: 184. doi:10.1186/1471-2474-12-184. PMC 3175211. PMID 21838865.
- Ipach, I; Schäfer, R; Lahrmann, J; Kluba, T (2011). "Stiffness after knee arthrotomy: Evaluation of prevalence and results after manipulation under anaesthesia". Orthopaedics & Traumatology: Surgery & Research. 97 (3): 292–6. doi:10.1016/j.otsr.2011.01.006. PMID 21481664.
- Yeoh, David; Nicolaou, Nick; Goddard, Richard; Willmott, Henry; Miles, Kim; East, Debra; Hinves, Barry; Shepperd, John; Butler-Manuel, Adrian (2012). "Manipulation under anaesthesia post total knee replacement: Long term follow up". The Knee. 19 (4): 329–31. doi:10.1016/j.knee.2011.05.009. PMID 21703859.
- Ghani, H; Maffulli, N; Khanduja, V (2012). "Management of stiffness following total knee arthroplasty: A systematic review". The Knee. 19 (6): 751–9. doi:10.1016/j.knee.2012.02.010. PMID 22533961.
- Wied, Christian; Thomsen, Morten G; Kallemose, Thomas; Myhrmann, Lis; Jensen, Lotte S; Husted, Henrik; Troelsen, Anders (2015). "The risk of manipulation under anesthesia due to unsatisfactory knee flexion after fast-track total knee arthroplasty". The Knee. 22 (5): 419–23. doi:10.1016/j.knee.2015.02.008. PMID 25766466.
- Desai, Aravind S; Karmegam, Anand; Dramis, Asterios; Board, Tim N; Raut, Videsh (2013). "Manipulation for stiffness following total knee arthroplasty: When and how often to do it?". European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery & Traumatology. 24 (7): 1291–5. doi:10.1007/s00590-013-1387-7. PMID 24327007.
- Choi, Ho-Rim; Siliski, John M; Malchau, Henrik; Kwon, Young-Min (2015). "Effect of Repeated Manipulation on Range of Motion in Patients with Stiff Total Knee Arthroplasty". Orthopedics. 38 (3): e157–62. doi:10.3928/01477447-20150305-51. PMID 25760501.
- Vastamäki, H; Varjonen, L; Vastamäki, M (2015). "Optimal time for manipulation of frozen shoulder may be between 6 and 9 months". Scandinavian Journal of Surgery. 104 (4): 260–6. doi:10.1177/1457496914566637. PMID 25623916.
- Maund, E; Craig, D; Suekarran, S; Neilson, AR; Wright, K; Brealey, S; Dennis, L; Goodchild, L; Hanchard, N; Rangan, A; Richardson, G; Robertson, J; McDaid, C (2012). "Management of frozen shoulder: A systematic review and cost-effectiveness analysis". Health Technology Assessment. 16 (11): 1–264. doi:10.3310/hta16110. PMC 4781571. PMID 22405512.
- Uppal, Harpal Singh; Evans, J. P; Smith, C (2015). "Frozen shoulder: A systematic review of therapeutic options". World Journal of Orthopedics. 6 (2): 263–8. doi:10.5312/wjo.v6.i2.263. PMC 4363808. PMID 25793166.
- Krumhansl, BR; Nowacek, CJ (1986). "Manipulation Under Anesthesia". In Grieve, GP (ed.). Modern manual therapy of the vertebral column. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone. pp. 777–86.
- LaMendola, Bob (March 22, 2009). "Medical safety spotlight growing: Man unresponsive after 'manipulation under anesthesia'". Sun Sentinel.
- Gardner, SC; Majercik, SD; VanBoerum, D; Macfarlane, JR (2013). "Man, 57, with dyspnea after chiropractic manipulation". Clinician Reviews. 23 (4): 23–4, 27–8.
- Smith, Eric L; Banerjee, Sarah B; Bono, James V (2009). "Supracondylar Femur Fracture After Knee Manipulation: A Report of 3 Cases". Orthopedics. 32 (1): 18. doi:10.3928/01477447-20090101-22. PMID 19226045.
- Rodriguez-Merchan, E. C; Gomez-Cardero, P; Jimenez-Yuste, V (2012). "Iatrogenic fracture of the proximal tibia as a complication of knee manipulation under anaesthesia in a haemophilia patient with an ipsilateral stiff knee secondary to a supracondylar non-union of the femur". Haemophilia. 18 (4): e354–6. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2516.2012.02814.x. PMID 22537651.
- Magnussen, Robert A; Taylor, Dean C (2011). "Glenoid fracture during manipulation under anesthesia for adhesive capsulitis: A case report". Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery. 20 (3): e23–6. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2010.11.024. PMID 21397785.
- Roubal, Paul J; Placzek, Jeffrey D (2016). "Long-Lever-Arm Manipulation Under Anesthesia with Resultant Traumatic Anterior Shoulder Dislocation". Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy. 46 (8): 707. doi:10.2519/jospt.2016.0412. PMID 27477474.
- Sambaziotis, Chris; Plymale, Mickey; Lovy, Andrew; O'Halloran, Kevin; McCulloch, Kenneth; Geller, David S (2012). "Pseudoaneurysm of the Distal Thigh After Manipulation of a Total Knee Arthroplasty". The Journal of Arthroplasty. 27 (7): 1414.e5–7. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2011.10.009. PMID 22115766.