Pedersen Chiropractic

Pedersen Chiropractic Chiropractic office treating patients from infants to seniors with all types of conditions

07/28/2026

"Eggs are one of the most nutritionally complete foods available. They have a complex vitamin and mineral profile with such a unique composition that no other food compares. Besides animal brains, eggs are the only highly available source of omega 3s outside of fish."--- I got this from someone else. Is this true?

06/30/2026

I post this because, I guess, from time to time, I am presented with the quandary if I went to school to be a chiro. I promise I did. And unlike my Hollywood counterpart, I did actually attend in the USA. I just can't bring myself to wear the shirts that Allen did. This outline is pretty accurate overall. My personal scope of practice extends beyond spine care, to include the enormous range of musculoskeletal worries. I am trained in pediatric/ obstetric, sports and general health worries. I've been at it for lo these 44 years. I am not a medical practitioner and I hope to provide a difference from physical therapy. We truly enjoy a very good working relationship with medical and physical practitioners. It's about you guys.

Share

Do Chiropractors Go to Medical School? DC and MD Training Compared Side by Side in 2026
On this page

The Short Answer on Chiropractor Training
What the DC Program Actually Includes
What the MD Program Actually Includes
Where DC and MD Training Overlap
Where DC and MD Training Diverge
Total Training Time Compared
Why Both Credentials Exist as Separate Professions
What DC Credentials Do Not Include
How to Verify Your Chiropractor’s Education
Find a Licensed Chiropractor With Verified Education
Frequently Asked Questions
If you are asking do chiropractors go to medical school, the short answer is no, they do not attend medical school and they do not earn an MD degree. What they do attend is chiropractic college, a 4-year accredited doctoral program that looks a lot like the first 4 years of medical school in some ways and very different in others. The two programs overlap heavily in basic sciences but diverge sharply when it comes to pharmacology, surgery, hospital training, and residency.

This guide compares DC and MD training side by side in 2026, walks through what each program actually covers hour by hour, explains where the two paths look alike and where they part ways, and helps you understand why both credentials exist as separate licensed professions instead of one replacing the other.

The Short Answer on Chiropractor Training
Chiropractors complete a Doctor of Chiropractic degree at an accredited chiropractic college. Medical doctors complete a Doctor of Medicine degree at an accredited medical school. These are separate programs with different curricula, different licensing exams, and different scope of practice.

Here is the quick picture.

DC program length is 4 years of doctoral study following undergraduate prerequisites
MD program length is 4 years of medical school following undergraduate prerequisites, plus 3 to 7 years of residency training
DC total training is typically 7 to 8 years from the start of college to full licensure
MD total training is typically 11 to 15 years from the start of college to independent practice
Basic science overlap between the first 2 years of both programs is substantial
Later training diverges significantly with MDs moving into hospital-based rotations, pharmacology, and surgery while DCs focus on chiropractic technique, radiology, and outpatient clinical care
So when someone asks do chiropractors go to medical school, the accurate answer is no, they attend a different accredited doctoral program called chiropractic college.

What the DC Program Actually Includes
The Doctor of Chiropractic program is significantly more rigorous than most patients assume. It is not a certificate program, an online course, or a weekend certification.

Undergraduate prerequisites. Aspiring DCs must complete 3 to 4 years of undergraduate coursework including biology, general chemistry, organic chemistry, physics, and psychology. Most accredited chiropractic programs require a bachelor’s degree for admission in 2026.

Total doctoral program hours. A typical DC program includes 4,200 to 4,800 combined classroom and clinical hours across 4 academic years.

First year and second year coursework. The first half of chiropractic school focuses on basic medical sciences. Students take anatomy with cadaver dissection, biochemistry, microbiology, physiology, neuroanatomy, pathology, and histology. These courses are structurally similar to what medical students cover in years 1 and 2.

Third year and fourth year coursework. The second half shifts to clinical training. Students study diagnostic imaging and radiology interpretation, orthopedics, chiropractic technique, neurology, nutrition, pediatrics, geriatrics, and business practice. They also complete supervised clinical internships treating real patients.

National board examinations. Every DC graduate must pass a 4-part series administered by the National Board of Chiropractic Examiners. Parts 1 and 2 cover basic sciences and clinical sciences. Part 3 covers clinical competency. Part 4 is a practical exam on physical skills.

State licensure. Each state licenses chiropractors independently. Most require the national boards plus a state-specific jurisprudence exam before granting a license.

Continuing education. Licensed DCs must complete 12 to 30 continuing education hours annually depending on state requirements.

The Council on Chiropractic Education is the federally recognized accrediting body for chiropractic programs in the United States and publishes the full curriculum standards every accredited DC program must meet.

What the MD Program Actually Includes
Medical school and residency together represent a longer and broader training path than chiropractic college.

Undergraduate prerequisites. MD applicants typically complete biology, general chemistry, organic chemistry, physics, biochemistry, and often additional coursework in psychology, sociology, and statistics. A bachelor’s degree is universally required.

Medical school length. 4 academic years, typically 4,500 to 4,800 combined classroom and clinical hours.

First year and second year coursework. The first 2 years of medical school are preclinical and focus on basic medical sciences. Coursework includes anatomy, biochemistry, physiology, pharmacology, pathology, microbiology, immunology, and the basics of disease processes across all organ systems.

Third year and fourth year rotations. The second half of medical school is clinical rotations in hospitals and outpatient settings. Students rotate through internal medicine, surgery, pediatrics, obstetrics and gynecology, psychiatry, family medicine, and emergency medicine.

USMLE licensing exams. MD candidates pass the United States Medical Licensing Examination in 3 steps during and after medical school.

Residency training. After medical school, MDs complete 3 to 7 years of residency in a chosen specialty. Family medicine and internal medicine residencies are typically 3 years. General surgery is 5 years. Neurosurgery and cardiothoracic surgery can extend to 7 years or more.

Board certification. After residency, most MDs pursue board certification in their specialty through bodies like the American Board of Internal Medicine or the American Board of Surgery.

Continuing medical education. Licensed MDs must complete ongoing CME hours to maintain licensure and board certification.

Where DC and MD Training Overlap
The two programs share significantly more curriculum than most patients realize, particularly in the early years.

Anatomy. Both DC and MD students complete gross anatomy with cadaver dissection. DC programs often include more hours on the musculoskeletal and nervous systems specifically.

Physiology. Both programs cover how body systems function, at comparable depth during the first 2 years.

Biochemistry. Both programs cover the biochemical basis of cell function, metabolism, and disease processes.

Microbiology. Both programs cover bacteria, viruses, fungi, and parasites relevant to human disease.

Pathology. Both programs cover how diseases develop and how they are identified in tissue.

Neuroanatomy and neurology. Both programs cover the structure and function of the nervous system, though DCs emphasize the relationship between the spine and nervous system more heavily.

Diagnostic imaging. Both programs teach X-ray interpretation, though DC programs often include more hours dedicated to musculoskeletal imaging specifically.

Patient history and physical examination. Both programs teach how to gather a patient history, perform a physical exam, and document findings.

The overlap in the first 2 years is enough that some researchers have argued chiropractic and medical preclinical education are more similar than different. Where the two paths diverge is in what happens during years 3 and 4 and beyond.

Where DC and MD Training Diverge
The second half of each program is where the two educations part ways significantly.

Pharmacology. MD students take extensive pharmacology courses covering thousands of medications, their mechanisms, interactions, and clinical use. DC programs cover pharmacology at a more limited level focused on understanding what patients may be taking rather than prescribing.

Surgery. MD students complete surgical rotations and learn the principles of surgical decision-making and postoperative care. DC programs do not include surgical training because chiropractors do not perform surgery.

Hospital medicine. MD students spend significant time in inpatient hospital settings learning acute care, critical care, and hospital-based diagnosis. DC programs are primarily outpatient-focused.

Obstetrics and delivery. MD students rotate through obstetrics and gynecology including labor and delivery. DC programs do not include delivery training because chiropractors do not deliver babies.

Emergency medicine. MD students complete emergency department rotations learning acute emergency care. DC programs include limited emergency recognition training focused on recognizing when to refer out.

Psychiatry and mental health. MD programs include psychiatric rotations and pharmacologic management of mental illness. DC programs cover the basics of recognizing mental health issues but do not train practitioners to treat them.

Chiropractic manipulation. DC students complete hundreds of hours of hands-on chiropractic technique training. MD students typically receive little to no manual manipulation training unless they pursue it separately.

Radiology interpretation. Both programs teach X-ray reading, but DC programs place significantly more emphasis on musculoskeletal radiology as a core clinical skill.

Residency. MDs complete 3 to 7 years of post-graduate residency before independent practice. DCs can practice independently immediately after passing national boards and obtaining state licensure, though many pursue postdoctoral fellowships in specialties like sports, radiology, or pediatric chiropractic.

Total Training Time Compared
Adding everything together gives a clearer picture of the difference.

DC training total. 3 to 4 years undergraduate plus 4 years chiropractic school equals 7 to 8 years before independent practice.

MD training total for primary care. 4 years undergraduate plus 4 years medical school plus 3 years residency equals 11 years before independent practice.

MD training total for specialty medicine. 4 years undergraduate plus 4 years medical school plus 5 to 7 years residency plus 1 to 3 years fellowship equals 13 to 18 years for specialties like cardiology, neurosurgery, or interventional radiology.

The longer MD training reflects the broader scope of practice MDs have. Chiropractors train as specialists in the musculoskeletal and nervous systems. MDs train as general physicians who then subspecialize.

Why Both Credentials Exist as Separate Professions
Understanding why DCs and MDs are distinct licensed professions helps clarify why chiropractors follow their own training path rather than attending medical school.

Different training goals. Chiropractic was founded on the principle that specific types of manual therapy to the spine can address musculoskeletal and nervous system conditions. The training is designed around that focus. Medicine was designed as a broad scientific practice addressing any human disease. The training reflects that breadth.

Different regulatory pathways. Each profession evolved its own accreditation bodies, licensing exams, and state boards over more than a century. Merging them would require a dramatic restructuring of American healthcare licensing.

Different patient populations. While overlap exists, many chiropractic patients seek manual care as a first choice for musculoskeletal complaints and never need hospital-based medical care for the same condition. Many medical patients present with conditions that have nothing to do with the musculoskeletal system.

Complementary rather than competing. In practice, many chiropractors and medical doctors refer patients back and forth, particularly for back pain, neck pain, and post-injury rehabilitation. The 1992 federal antitrust ruling that formally ended the American Medical Association’s boycott of chiropractic opened the door to the coordinated care model common in 2026.

What DC Credentials Do Not Include
Understanding the limits of DC training is as important as understanding its depth.

DCs are not trained to prescribe medication. Pharmacology at the depth required for prescribing is not part of the DC curriculum, and no state licenses chiropractors to prescribe.

DCs are not trained to perform surgery. No surgical training exists in the DC curriculum and no state grants chiropractors surgical privileges.

DCs are not trained in hospital-based medicine. While some chiropractors work in integrated hospital settings, the DC program does not cover inpatient medical care.

DCs are not trained to deliver babies or perform emergency medicine. These scopes belong to other professions.

DCs are trained to refer out. A significant part of DC clinical education focuses on recognizing when a condition is outside chiropractic scope and referring to the appropriate medical specialist. The Federation of Chiropractic Licensing Boards publishes scope of practice rules for every state.

How to Verify Your Chiropractor’s Education
Before your first visit, verify your chiropractor graduated from an accredited program.

Step 1. Look up the chiropractor’s license through your state chiropractic licensing board. Every license record shows where the practitioner completed their DC degree.

Step 2. Verify the school is accredited by checking the CCE accredited programs list. There are roughly 20 accredited DC programs in the United States in 2026.

Step 3. Check for specialty credentials. If your chiropractor claims specialties like sports, pediatrics, or Webster technique, verify through the relevant certifying body.

Step 4. Review any disciplinary history. State licensing boards publish formal disciplinary actions against DCs whose conduct fell below professional standards.

Step 5. Ask about postdoctoral training. Many DCs complete postgraduate diplomates in specialties that require an additional 300 to 600 hours of focused training. Examples include the Certified Chiropractic Sports Physician credential and the International Chiropractic Pediatric Association Webster certification.

Find a Licensed Chiropractor With Verified Education
Understanding the difference between chiropractic college and medical school helps you understand what kind of training your chiropractor actually received. The practical question is finding a licensed DC with verified credentials from an accredited program. A directory with credential verification, education details, and specialty filters makes this easier than searching one clinic at a time.

Browse our directory to find licensed chiropractors near you with verified education and strong patient reviews. If you are still researching the profession, our related guides cover whether chiropractors are real doctors, whether chiropractic is scientifically legitimate, and how much a chiropractor visit actually costs.

The DC credential represents a distinct 4-year doctoral path that is rigorous within its specific scope. Understanding what it includes and what it does not is the foundation for making informed decisions about when chiropractic care is the right fit for your condition.

Frequently Asked Questions
Do chiropractors go to medical school or chiropractic school?

Chiropractors attend chiropractic college, a separate 4-year accredited doctoral program. They do not attend medical school and do not earn an MD degree.

How long is chiropractic school compared to medical school?

Both programs are 4 years of doctoral study. The total training time differs significantly afterward because MDs complete 3 to 7 years of residency before independent practice while DCs can begin practicing immediately after licensure.

Do chiropractors and medical students take the same classes?

The first 2 years overlap substantially in basic sciences like anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, and pathology. The second half of each program diverges significantly, with MDs moving into hospital rotations and DCs focusing on chiropractic technique and outpatient care.

Can chiropractors call themselves doctors if they did not go to medical school?

Yes. Chiropractors hold a Doctor of Chiropractic degree, which is a recognized professional doctorate. The title Doctor refers to the doctoral credential, not specifically to medical school attendance.

Is chiropractic school as hard as medical school?

Both programs are rigorous and demanding. The coursework overlaps in difficulty during the preclinical years. Medical school extends into longer and broader clinical training after graduation through required residency, which adds significantly to the overall training burden.

T

See these little bitty muscles? Very deep down past the erector spinae etc., research has shown that these little muscle...
06/09/2026

See these little bitty muscles? Very deep down past the erector spinae etc., research has shown that these little muscles don't really perform much mechanical function, but rather they are more sensory apparatuses feeding info to your brain about joint position, velocity etc. When joint function is aberrant, sensory input will alert to your brain, via nociception, the sense of something wrong, or the next step up, Pain! The signal then changes the way you move either by your volition, or forced avoidance, AKA antalgia, crooked spine, where you cannot , no matter what stand straight. This is an ancient protective mechanism to prevent further damage.
Chiro intervention is very effective to remediate the situation, and can actually prevent it.
This an obviously complex mechanism, and this is a basic infomercial for chiropractic. But it works and has been working as a profession since 1895.
See you soon!

It's camo day for both of us!
05/29/2026

It's camo day for both of us!

04/20/2026

The Amazing Human Body
By Jamie L. Cortese, DC

Have you ever wondered how your body heals when you fall off your bike and scrape your arm and knee?
Or how every cell in your body just knows the exact reaction to mount a response to a threat in our immune system? The human body has an amazing ability to adapt, change, and heal all on its own. This is called innate intelligence. Every living thing has innate intelligence.

How does innate intelligence communicate with all of the body parts? How does it know to absorb some nutrients and to reject others, and at the same time grow and develop the muscles that you just worked out at the gym? The answer to these questions is we all have an inborn wisdom, innate intelligence. This wisdom, which God placed in our bodies, is designed to develop us and keep us healthy throughout our lifetimes.

With innate intelligence, every cell of your body is connected and controlled through your brain and spinal cord. Your nervous system is the master communication network for innate intelligence. The brain and spinal cord, also known as the Central Nervous System (CNS), controls all functions of the body by a process that sends signals from the brain via the nerves and then out to the body. This system is called the Peripheral Nervous System (PNS.)

It is vitally important for the body parts to always have communication and stay connected with the brain. One important reason for this connection is for restoring or repairing and healing from injuries that may happen on a daily basis. We all need to be able to adapt to our environment, which for many of us is always changing.

If a body part loses communication with that network, it will begin to lose its proper function and not be in sync with the rest of the body. This will cause us to become weaker and weaker, and more susceptible to injury or trauma because it isn’t performing and supporting us optimally.

The way for that body part to stay plugged-in to the innate intelligence is through the nervous system. Every nerve supplies every organ, every muscle, and every tissue. Those nerves need to properly relay their signals through the PNS all the way up to the innate intelligence headquarters in the brain. Our brain, being the master controller, sends signals that travel down the spinal cord, then exit out a small space between two vertebrae, which ultimately takes the information all the way to its destination.

If that network is disrupted at any point along its path, the signal will be weaker or even lost. The number one most common way for those signals to be disrupted is through misalignment in the spine. The space that the nerve needs to exit the spine is quite small and also contains blood vessels, lymph vessels, and fatty tissue.

Chiropractic frees up those signals of innate intelligence to flow from your brain to the body, allowing us to properly develop, heal, and achieve normal function.

It only takes about 10mm of Hg (mercury) pressure on a nerve (about the weight of a dime) to cut the nerve signal off about 50%. The misalignment of the vertebra is called a vertebral subluxation. This mis-alignment causes pressure on the spinal cord and nerve exiting the space between the spinal bones. The result is that the intended body part for that nerve will not be receiving the full message from the brain. So you can imagine if the brain cannot communicate with the body, then there will not be proper function.

The reason why so many people are helped with peripheral problems like muscle tension and weakness, digestive problems, and even asthma through chiropractic care, is because we remove the interference between those body parts and the brain.

It is not just about pain! So many people correlate chiropractic with helping back pain, neck pain, and headaches. Chiropractic is about restoring FUNCTION. Better communication between the brain and body is our driving force. Chiropractic frees up those signals of innate intelligence to flow from your brain to the body, allowing us to properly develop, heal, and achieve normal function.

Chiropractic’s main goal is to allow a clearer expression of your innate intelligence.

Yes, we help with back and neck pain, but that is not what gets me out of bed every day to help more people! Most importantly, chiropractic allows your innate intelligence to be able to communicate freely throughout the body through the nervous system. Your innate intelligence is programmed to cause your body to thrive with health, and I’m here to support you now and throughout your lifetime.

Looking for a chiropractor for your family? Find an ICPA chiropractor here.

This article appeared in Pathways to Family Wellness

Call now to connect with business.

Ember came by! Omg the cutest!
04/15/2026

Ember came by! Omg the cutest!

02/20/2026

Real-Time Visualization of Joint Cavitation
Gregory N Kawchuk 1,*, #, Jerome Fryer 2, #, Jacob L Jaremko 3, #, Hongbo Zeng 4, #, Lindsay Rowe 5, Richard Thompson 6, #
Editor: Qinghui Zhang7
Author information
Article notes
Copyright and License information
PMCID: PMC4398549 PMID: 25875374
Abstract
Cracking sounds emitted from human synovial joints have been attributed historically to the sudden collapse of a cavitation bubble formed as articular surfaces are separated. Unfortunately, bubble collapse as the source of joint cracking is inconsistent with many physical phenomena that define the joint cracking phenomenon. Here we present direct evidence from real-time magnetic resonance imaging that the mechanism of joint cracking is related to cavity formation rather than bubble collapse. In this study, ten metacarpophalangeal joints were studied by inserting the finger of interest into a flexible tube tightened around a length of cable used to provide long-axis traction. Before and after traction, static 3D T1-weighted magnetic resonance images were acquired. During traction, rapid cine magnetic resonance images were obtained from the joint midline at a rate of 3.2 frames per second until the cracking event occurred. As traction forces increased, real-time cine magnetic resonance imaging demonstrated rapid cavity inception at the time of joint separation and sound production after which the resulting cavity remained visible. Our results offer direct experimental evidence that joint cracking is associated with cavity inception rather than collapse of a pre-existing bubble. These observations are consistent with tribonucleation, a known process where opposing surfaces resist separation until a critical point where they then separate rapidly creating sustained gas cavities. Observed previously in vitro, this is the first in-vivo macroscopic demonstration of tribonucleation and as such, provides a new theoretical framework to investigate health outcomes associated with joint cracking.

Introduction
Background
Sounds emitted from human synovial joints vary in their origin. Joint sounds that occur repeatedly with ongoing joint motion arise typically when anatomic structures rub past one another. In contrast, “cracking” sounds require time to pass before they can be repeated despite ongoing joint motion. Although various hypotheses have been proposed over many decades regarding the origin of cracking sounds, none have been validated; the underlying mechanism of cracking sounds remains unknown.

History
In 1947, Roston and Wheeler Haines [1] published the first scientific study toward describing the origins of joint cracking. Their experiment used serial radiography to visualize joint cracking when distraction forces were applied to metacarpophalangeal (MCP) joints. Their results characterized the sequence of gross articular events that define joint cracking. The process begins with the resting phase where joint surfaces are in close contact. In this stage, a light distraction force will barely separate the joint surfaces. With a greater distraction force, the surfaces resist separation until a critical point after which they separate rapidly. It is during this rapid separation phase that the characteristic cracking sound is produced. Following cracking, the joint is in a refractory phase where no further cracking can occur until time has passed (approximately 20 minutes). Importantly, post-cracking distraction also reveals the presence of a “clear space” assumed by Roston and Wheeler Haines to be a vapour cavity. This cavity, described by some as a bubble, has been thought to form as distraction forces decrease pressure within the synovial fluid to the point were dissolved gas comes out of solution. Importantly, Roston and Wheeler Haines linked the production of the cracking sound to the formation of this clear space, a phenomenon first described in 1911 [2] but thought by some to occur only in unhealthy joints [3] until demonstrated to also occur in normal joints[4].

This interpretation of joint cracking stood as the standard for 24 years until 1971 when Unsworth, Dowson and Wright [5] refuted this view by stating that the exact mechanism of joint cracking “was in doubt”. Although Unsworth et al. used a similar radiographic procedure to confirm the same sequence of events described by Roston and Wheeler Haines, they arrived at a different conclusion. Specifically, Unsworth et al. speculated that the formation of a clear space, or bubble, was not the source of joint cracking, but rather cracking was caused by the subsequent collapse of the bubble. This idea was likely influenced by the realization that bubble collapse could cause damage in surfaces adjacent to the bubble itself [6]. First described by Rayleigh in 1917 [7], cavitation collapse came into the fore in the late 1960s as a source of significant damage in marine equipment [6] such as propellers, hydrofoils [8].

As a result, publications since 1971 have referenced Roston [9–11] or Unsworth [12–24] or both [5,11,25–39] when describing joint cracking. Adding to the confusion, others [25] have suggested that sound produced during joint cracking occurs through ligamentous recoil. Still others [18,19,25,26] advocate for an additional mechanism known as viscous adhesion or tribonucleation [40,41], a process that occurs when two closely opposed surfaces are separated by a thin film of viscous liquid. When these surfaces are distracted, viscous adhesion or tension between the surfaces resist their separation. Then, as distraction forces overcome the adhesive forces, the surfaces separate rapidly creating a negative pressure. This negative pressure, combined with the speed with which the surfaces separate, can create a vapour cavity within fluid much like a solid that has been fractured [42–44].

Unfortunately, no direct evidence exists to resolve these differing perspectives regarding the mechanism of joint cracking. While many have used various radiographic means to record events associated with joint cracking [1,5,10,45], these techniques have a number of limitations which conspire to obscure intra-articular events due to low space-time resolution, insufficient contrast and superimposition of structures.

Given the above, the objective of this study was to characterize the events associated with joint cracking within the joint itself using real-time cine magnetic resonance imaging (cine MRI). Here we present direct evidence from cine MRI that the mechanism of joint cracking is related to cavity formation rather than bubble collapse.

Materials and Methods
Ethics Statement
An adult male subject possessing the ability to crack his MCP joints provided full informed, written consent to participate in this study approved by the Human Ethics Research Board of the University of Alberta.

Preparation
Ten MCP joints from a single participant were studied over two sessions with one finger at a time isolated for imaging. With the subject prone on the imaging gantry, the finger of interest was inserted into a tubular finger trap [46] that covered the finger from the apex to midway between the MCP and the proximal interphalangeal joint (Fig. 1). This end of the tube was tightened to the finger with a releasable tie. The opposite end of the tube was connected in-series to a ¼” diameter cable. The MCP of interest was then centered over top of a radiofrequency coil designed for MRI imaging of digits with the long axis of the finger perpendicular to the coil bore (Fig. 1).

Fig 1. The radiofrequency coil inside the clear housing (left).
Fig 1

Open in a new tab
The metocarpophaangeal (MCP) joint of interest centred over the bore of the radiofrequency coil (middle). The participant’s hand within the imaging magnet (right).

Imaging
Imaging studies were performed on a Siemens Sonata 1.5T system (Sonata; Siemens Healthcare; Erlangen, Germany) using the provided Siemens finger coil. Before and after MCP distraction, static magnetic resonance images were obtained of the MCP joint (3D T1 weighted GRE: Field of view = 160 x 120 mm, 256 x 192 matrix, 2 mm slice thickness, Flip angle = 30 degrees, TR = 20.0 ms, TE = 3.17 ms, bandwidth = 250 Hz/pixel). During distraction of the MCP joint, cine MRI was acquired from the midline of the joint at a rate of 3.2 frames per second until the distraction force was removed following the cracking event. Cine imaging parameters for a single shot steady-state free-precession (SSFP) pulse sequence were as follows: Field of view = 200 x 75 mm, 192 x 72 matrix, 5 mm slice thickness, Flip angle = 70 degrees, TR = 4.30 ms, TE = 2.15 ms, bandwidth = 1000 Hz/pixel.

Joint Distraction
With the subject prone, the hand and radiofrequency coil were secured to the imaging gantry then positioned in the magnet (Fig. 1). The cable attached to the finger of interest was then threaded through the magnet so that it exited on the side opposite the subject. During cine MRI acquisition, a slowly increasing distraction force was applied manually through the cable until the subject indicated the occurrence of joint cracking. At any time, the subject could request the process be stopped for any reason (which did not occur). In 5 MCP joints, distraction was ceased immediately after the cracking event. In the remaining 5 cases, distraction forces were maintained for approximately 5 seconds after cracking.

Image Analysis
Static images were displayed with software supplied by the magnet manufacturer. Cine MRI images were loaded as imaging sequences into ImageJ software [47] for further analysis. Within this software, images prior to the start of distraction and after the cessation of distraction were deleted from the imaging sequence. The remaining image sequence was then converted into binary images using default threshold settings within Image J. The space between the joint surfaces was then measured prior to joint distraction, immediately after the cracking event (the frame immediately following rapid joint separation) and once distraction forces were ceased. Measurement of joint space separation was performed by a custom Image J script that converted the images in the cine sequence to a binary format. In each cine frame, joint edges were detected automatically through thresholding and the total space between joint surfaces measured within a defined region of interest. In addition, MRI signal intensity was evaluated as a function of time in the region of interest where cavity formation occurred as well as in control areas where signal intensity was not expected to change (i.e. cancellous bone). All images were reviewed by an imaging physicist and two certified radiologists using native contrast settings.

Results
All ten MCP joints imaged resulted in joint cracking as confirmed by the subject and the cable operator.

Static images revealed normal MCP joints with the expected lack of any gaseous cavity prior to joint distraction (Fig. 2). Following the cracking event, static imaging with the addition of MCP distraction yielded a dark intra-articular void (Fig. 2).

Fig 2. T1 static images of the hand in the resting phase before cracking (left).
Fig 2

Open in a new tab
The same hand following cracking with the addition of a post-cracking distraction force (right). Note the dark, interarticular void (yellow arrow).

Cine MRI imaging revealed a sequence of events consistent with that outlined by Roston and Wheeler Haines [1]. A video of these events can be viewed in the supplemental material (S1 Video). Four still frames from the 4th right MCP joint depicting the characteristic intra-articular events associated with joint cracking are presented in Fig. 3: resting joint geometry (Fig. 3A), a time frame just prior to cracking (Fig. 3B), a time frame just after cracking (Fig. 3C) and a final frame following release of distraction forces (Fig. 3D). In the supplemental materials, a series of images is presented showing the moment just after joint cracking in all MCP joints investigated (S1 Fig.). Fig. 4 shows a time series of these events to display joint separation distance and changes in MRI signal-intensities for a representative finger cracking event. The joint separation distance shows a slow increase to the point of joint release at 6.2 seconds, as indicated by the vertical marker (left frame). The MRI signal intensity within the intra-articular space (Region 1) drops to reveal a signal void at the same time as the joint expands (6.2 seconds). Control regions in the fluid outside of the intra-articular space (Region 2) and in the bone (Region 3) show relatively unchanging signal intensities over the experiment. All regions were moved in each frame to track the motion of the bones. Finally, the signal intensity in the intra-articular space (Region 1) showed a steady increase with distraction just prior to joint cracking (Fig. 3B). Still images in the bottom of Fig. 4 highlight frames prior to, and just after, joint cracking which demonstrate a signal increase in Region 1 and the subsequent signal drop in the same region.

Fig 3. Still frames from a representative trial of joint cracking in the same MCP joint.
Fig 3

Open in a new tab
The right 4th MCP joint in the resting phase (A). The MCP joint as seen during distraction of the MCP joint in the frame just prior to joint cracking / joint separation (B). The MCP joint visualized in the next frame immediately after joint cracking (C). The joint in the refractory phase immediately after removal of distraction forces (D).

Fig 4. Time series plots for joint separation distance and signal intensity over the course of a representative MCP joint cracking (plots).
Fig 4

Open in a new tab
Cine MRI images displayed are those immediately prior to, and after, joint cracking with zoomed regions to demonstrate areas where signal intensities were measured for the region of interest as well as control regions.

Joint cracking always occurred over a single imaging frame which meant its duration was less than the duration of single frame (i.e. 310 ms). Wilcoxon Signed-ranks testing showed a significant difference in joint space in the cine frame prior to (0.93 mm +/- 0.73 mm STD) and after (1.89 mm +/- 0.59 mm STD) rapid surface separation/cracking (p = 0.001). The mean joint separation space prior to testing and after testing was not significantly different (p = 0.21).

The signal void as a result of joint cracking was observed in all 10 MCP joints studied and varied in size, shape and location. When distraction forces were maintained following joint cracking, the black void remained then disappeared from the field of view typically when distraction forces were removed and the joint surfaces allowed to re-approximate (Fig. 3D).

Discussion
This study employed cine MRI to visualize joint cracking in real time. To our knowledge, cine MRI has not been used previously to characterize this phenomenon. Congruent with historic results, cine MRI demonstrated minimal joint surface separation in the resting phase prior to joint cracking followed by rapid joint separation during the crack itself. Incongruent with the prevailing perspective from the last half century, cine MRI revealed rapid cavity inception associated with concurrent sound production and joint separation. Following these events, the resulting cavity was never seen to collapse; the cavity formed at the time of rapid joint separation then persisted past the point of sound production.

Dark signal intensities in the joint immediately following cracking on both cine MRI imaging (a balanced SSFP pulse sequence with a characteristic mixed (T2/T1) weighting) as well as in the higher resolution T1 weighted static images, supports the presence of an air region of interest. Specifically, a significant and rapid increase in the fluid T1 values, which could reduce the signal intensity in both of these acquisitions, is implausible, and thus the reduction in signal is most likely due to a reduction in spin density associated with the formation of an air space. The gradual increase in signal intensity in the same region just prior to the cracking is suggestive of fluid accumulation during this phase of the finger cracking.

Events consistent with tribonucleation
Our results offer direct experimental evidence that joint cracking is the result of cavity inception within synovial fluid rather than collapse of a pre-existing bubble. These observations are consistent with tribonucleation, a known process where opposing surfaces resist separation until a critical point where they separate rapidly resulting in v***r cavities that do not collapse instantaneously.

Specifically, tribonucleation explains each phase of the joint cracking sequence described originally by Roston and Wheeler Haines [1]. The resting phase where distraction forces result in minimal joint separation is explained by viscous attraction between joint surfaces. With sufficient distraction force, those adhesive forces are overcome which explains the rapid separation of joint surfaces. The resulting drop in synovial pressure allows dissolved gas to come out of solution which explains the “clear space” (a.k.a. bubble, cavity, void, fluid fracture) created within the joint. This cavity persists past the point of sound production; a subsequent collapse is never visualized. Importantly, the cavity does disappear from the region of interest with subsequent cessation of distraction forces, but well after joint cracking has occurred.

Interpretation of prior studies
Our results are consistent with those of Roston and Wheeler Haines [1]. Their classic study using serial radiographs correctly identified the sequence of events that characterizes joint cracking. Although technical limitations did not allow them to see formation of the cavity during sound production, but only its presence after its formation, they correctly identified creation of the clear space as the defining event of joint cracking. Furthermore, many of their speculations were consistent with tribonucleation. These included prophetic comments that the 1) distraction force must be applied to overcome tension within the synovial fluid (not within the soft tissues) before cracking can occur and that 2) the inherent tension forces that kept the joint surfaces together add stability to the joint itself.

Alternatively, the suggestion by Unsworth et al. [5] that joint cracking was the result of cavity collapse, is a sensible one given the tremendous amount of work at the same time that defined bubble collapse to be a source of damage in marine equipment. While the 1971 paper from Unsworth et al. [5] made significant contributions in terms of the role of joint symmetry in joint cracking, composition of synovial gases and providing an explanation for the refractory period, they did not provide any direct evidence of a cavity collapse despite their conclusion. Given that the cavity which forms after joint cracking disappears from view when distraction forces are removed, but then appears again with additional distraction, Unsworth et al. [5] may have mistaken this disappearance for bubble collapse. Even if the “bubble” is reabsorbed after joint cracking to then be reformed in some fashion with subsequent distraction, the appearance and persistence of a cavity following rapid joint separation does not support bubble collapse as a mechanism of joint cracking. We also observed that the joint space before and after testing did not change significantly. This finding suggests that the resting joint orientation is not changed by the cracking event in the MCP. This is in disagreement with Unsworth et al. [5] who suggested that resting MCP joint space increases following cracking.

While our work provides new insights into defining the mechanism underlying joint cracking, this new visualization technique opens novel avenues for investigation. Specifically, cine MRI revealed a new phenomenon preceding joint cracking; a transient bright signal in the intra-articular space. While not likely visualized gas given the imaging parameters employed, we do not have direct evidence to explain this observation. We speculate this phenomenon may be related to changes in fluid organization between cartilaginous joint surfaces and specifically may result from evacuation of fluid out of the joint cartilage with increasing tension. If so, this sign may be indicative of cartilage health and therefore provide a non-invasive means of characterizing joint status.

Limitations
The slice thickness used for cine MRI prevented us from visualizing the joint in its entirety. As such, it was not possible to see what happened within all regions of the joint during cracking. Future studies that image peripheral areas of the MCP may reveal the fate of the cavity formed after rapid joint separation which does not collapse at the time of joint cracking, but disappears from the region of interest when distraction forces on the joint are removed. The current slice thickness in cine MRI cannot establish if the cavity formed after joint cracking migrates to the peripheral region of the joint or is resorbed when distraction forces cease. Similarly, when distraction forces are provided in the refractory phase, our data does not assist us in determining if the observed cavity reforms from gas nuclei migrating together from the periphery of the joint or if a new cavity is formed de novo from solution.

In addition, we presume that rapid joint separation with cavity formation does not occur at the same traction force in each finger. Unfortunately, traction forces were not measured in this experiment due to incompatibility of available force measuring equipment with MRI..

Last, this work does not explain the magnitude of the sound caused by cavity formation. Although some have noted the production of sound during cavity formation through tribonucleation [48–50], the amplitude of the generated sound from these experiments would appear to be small whereas joint cracking can easily be heard across a room. Given the above, our in vivo results may be the largest example of tribonucleation and subsequent sound production observed to date.

Conclusions
Our data support the view that tribonucleation is the process which governs joint cracking. This process is characterized by rapid separation of surfaces with subsequent cavity formation, not bubble collapse as has been the prevailing viewpoint for more than a half century. Observed previously in vitro, this work provides the first in-vivo demonstration of tribonucleation on a macroscopic scale and as such, provides a new theoretical framework to investigate health outcomes associated with joint cracking. This framework will allow scientists to compare and contrast this process against tribonucleation observed between inanimate surfaces, an approach that may reveal how joint cracking affects cartilaginous joint surfaces. Presently, the literature in this area is confusing in that the energy produced during joint cracking is though to exceed the threshold for damage[51], but habitual knuckle cracking has not been shown to increase joint degeneration [52]. Ultimately, by defining the process underlying joint cracking, its therapeutic benefits, or possible harms, may be better understood.

Supporting Information
S1 Fig. Still cine MRI frames from each of the 10 metocarpophalangeal joint investigated in this study.
(TIF)

Click here for additional data file. (15.5MB, tif)
S1 Video. Real-time cine magnetic resonance imaging of the human metacarpalphalangeal joint undergoing traction.
Note that the joint surfaces stay in close contact. Then, as traction forces increase, a focal area of increased signal intensity is visualized prior to the critical point where rapid joint separation occurs and cavity formation is then visualized.

(MP4)

Click here for additional data file. (1.8MB, mp4)
Acknowledgments
The authors wish to acknowledge the staff of the Peter S. Allen MR Research Centre for their invaluable assistance.

Address

650 N Gospel
Paoli, IN
47454

Opening Hours

Monday 9am - 5pm
Tuesday 9am - 12pm
Wednesday 9am - 5pm
Friday 9am - 5pm

Telephone

+18122522225

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when Pedersen Chiropractic posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Shortcuts

Share

Category