Case-series · July 29, 2026
Retrospective Case Series: Significant Pain Reduction and Functional Improvement in Peripheral Neuropathy Patients at a Chiropractic Clinic
By Asuta Health - Lincoln - Dr. Ole Olson
Abstract
Background: Peripheral neuropathy presents a significant challenge to patient quality of life, often leading to chronic pain and functional limitations. Traditional therapies offer varying success rates. This retrospective case series investigates the outcomes of chiropractic care for peripheral neuropathy. Methods: We analyzed data from 11 patients presenting with peripheral neuropathy at Asuta Health - Lincoln - Dr. Ole Olson. Inclusion criteria were verified outcomes of patients who underwent care for peripheral neuropathy. Recorded metrics included patient-reported pain reduction percentages and qualitative descriptions of functional improvement. Results: Across 11 cases, the mean pain reduction was 85% (median 84%). Functional improvements, such as restored sensation, improved mobility, and increased activity levels, were frequently reported. Individual cases demonstrated significant improvements, including a patient with bilateral foot numbness achieving 82% pain reduction and another with severe foot burning attaining 91% pain reduction. Conclusions: The findings suggest that patients with peripheral neuropathy undergoing care at this chiropractic clinic experienced substantial pain reduction and functional benefits. These outcomes warrant further investigation through prospective studies to understand the specific mechanisms and broader applicability of these treatment approaches.
Methods
This study presents a retrospective case series analyzing clinical outcomes of patients diagnosed with peripheral neuropathy who underwent care at Asuta Health - Lincoln, under the supervision of Dr. Ole Olson. The study design was observational, reviewing existing patient reports and testimonials. Inclusion criteria for this series were straightforward: adult patients presenting with a chief complaint of peripheral neuropathy whose outcomes were documented and available as verified patient testimonials at the clinic. Data was collected from a total of 11 de-identified patient cases. The metrics captured included self-reported initial and final pain levels (when available, typically on a 0-10 scale), calculated pain reduction percentages, and qualitative descriptions of symptom resolution, functional improvements, and overall patient experience. Mobility improvement was not tracked as a specific aggregate metric in this series. The timeframe of treatment varied among cases, ranging from initial consultations to ongoing care over several weeks or months. Due to the retrospective nature, specific treatment protocols were not consistently detailed across all cases. De-identification protocols were strictly followed to protect patient privacy. Limitations inherent in this retrospective case series include the absence of a control group, reliance on patient self-reported outcomes which can introduce bias, variability in the completeness of documented metrics across cases, and the single-site nature of the data collection. The study aimed to describe the observed clinical findings and patient perspectives rather than to establish causality or generalizability.
Discussion
The observed outcomes in this retrospective case series suggest that patients with peripheral neuropathy receiving care at Asuta Health - Lincoln experienced highly positive clinical results, particularly in terms of pain reduction and functional recovery. The mean pain reduction of 85% and median reduction of 84% are notable, especially considering the often recalcitrant nature of peripheral neuropathy symptoms to conventional treatments. Similar positive functional changes, such as restored sensation in the feet enabling a farmer to continue working (Case 5), the ability to stand for extended periods (Case 6), and renewed confidence in walking (Case 7), indicate a significant impact on patients' daily lives and overall well-being. These outcomes align with a broader understanding that a multidimensional approach to neuropathy management can yield substantial benefits, particularly when previous treatments have been unsuccessful. The reported successes in patients with long-standing conditions, such as the Vietnam veteran with Agent Orange-related neuropathy (Case 8) or the individual who had seven years of symptoms and failed four prior treatments (Case 10), are particularly encouraging. This suggests that the care provided at this clinic may offer viable solutions for complex and chronic cases. The qualitative data, detailing improvements like feeling the texture of a floor again or being able to travel and volunteer, underscores the profound impact on quality of life beyond mere pain scores. While the specific treatment protocols are not detailed here, the consistent positive outcomes across a variety of neuropathy presentations warrant further exploration into the chiropractic approaches employed. These findings contribute to the growing body of literature suggesting that conservative management, including chiropractic care, can play a vital role in the comprehensive treatment strategy for peripheral neuropathy, potentially offering relief where other methods have fallen short.
Limitations
This retrospective case series has several limitations inherent to its design. Firstly, its retrospective nature means it relies on existing patient data, which can lead to inconsistencies in data collection and missing information across cases. Secondly, it is a single-site study from Asuta Health - Lincoln, meaning the findings may not be generalizable to other clinics or populations. Thirdly, the reliance on self-reported patient outcomes, particularly for pain scores and functional improvements, introduces potential for recall bias and subjectivity. The absence of a control group prevents direct comparison of outcomes to alternative treatments or no treatment, thus limiting the ability to infer causality. Furthermore, there is an inherent selection bias, as the cases reviewed were those with verified outcomes, potentially overlooking cases with less favorable results. Specific treatment protocols were not consistently detailed, making it challenging to understand the mechanisms behind the observed improvements. Lastly, the small sample size of 11 cases limits the statistical power and generalizability of the findings.