PATIENT EVALUATION


Candidates are selected for manipulation under anesthesia after obtaining an adequate history, thorough physical examination, and the appropriate diagnostic imaging and laboratory procedures necessary for an accurate diagnosis of the underlying condition.


History and Physical

The burden of proof for medical necessity rests with the treating doctor. It should be substantially documented in the patient’s history and physical, with specific emphasis on: the failure to respond to conservative means in the history; indication of fibrosis and/or myofibrosis in the physical examination; and any supportive diagnostic testing as indicated and warranted by medical necessity of the patient’s condition.


A complete physical examination is performed paying special attention to motion palpation of the spine and a visual inspection and palpation of the skin (manifestation of sympathetic nervous system changes including edema, tissue texture, increase or decrease of moisture, temperature changes, etc). Additionally, digital palpation identifies increased or decreased changes in muscle and fascia tone which lead to altered biomechanics.


Laboratory Exam


Laboratory examinations should be performed to further evaluate patient health. They not only contribute to differential diagnosis, but they also help the medical saff assess patient health prior to going under anesthesia. Females of child bearing years should be evaluated for pregnancy.


Females of child bearing years should be evaluated for pregnancy. A male past 40 years of age should also have the following test done: serum alkaline and acid phosphatase. After completion of the preliminary work, other laboratory procedures may be indicated.


Radiographic Examination

Anterior-posterior (front/back) and lateral (side) radiographs of the joints involved should be taken. Additionally, extension and lateral bending views may be of benefit in visualizing loss of function. Many times one may want a detailed view of the joints which are to be manipulated under anesthesia. Motion studies on fluoroscopy may be helpful.


Studies should be repeated after serial manipulation under anesthesia to see what changes have been affected by the procedure. When warranted, CT Scan and/or MRI scan of the spine should be employed to rule out or confirm suspected pathology.


Electrodiagnostic Tests


Electrodiagnostic studies of the appropriate spinal outflows should be performed to rule out specific neurological dysfunction. These tests confirm or differentiate diagnosis of neuropathy, radiculopathy or plexopathy. They show the presence or lack of nerve compression and localize and assess the degree of injury along the course of a nerve.





Home| How Procedure is Performed| Patients Who Are A Good Fit| MUA Effects| Indications| Patient Evaluation| MUA Techniques| Post Operative Care| MUA Results|

Supporting Studies/Great Results


There are several research studies about the effectiveness of manipulation under anesthesia, including:


1. 83% of 600 patients with EMG verified radiculopathies reported significant improvement - Robert Mensor, MD


2. Patients that had back pain for a minimum of 10 years reported an 87% recovery rate after MUA - 1987 with Ongly et al


3. 51% of patients with unrelieved symptoms after conservative care had been exhausted reported good to excellent results three years post MUA - Donald Chrisman, MD


4. 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) and that flexibility, elasticity and range of motion can be restored following MUA - Bradford and Siehl


5. 83% of 517 patients treated with MUA responded well - Paul Kuo, MD professor of Orthopedic Surgery


6. Krumhansi and Nowacek reported on an MUA study done on 171 patients who experienced constant intractable pain for several months to 18 years. All of the patients of the study failed other conservative intervention. The results of the study showed that 25% of the patients had no pain, 50% were much improved with pain markedly decreased, 20% were better and could tolerate their pain but it interfered with work and recreation. Failures comprised 5% where there was minimal or no pain relief periods.

Send Us an Email
Request Additional Information