Case-series · July 28, 2026
Management of Symptomatic C5-C6 Disc Bulge with Spinal Decompression and Chiropractic Adjustments: A Retrospective Case Series
Abstract
Background: Symptomatic C5-C6 disc bulges are a frequent cause of neck pain and cervical radiculopathy. Conservative management is the typical first-line approach. This study reviews outcomes for patients receiving a multimodal chiropractic treatment protocol. Methods: A retrospective case series was conducted on data from eight patients treated at a single chiropractic clinic, Finn Chiropractic - Mars. Inclusion criteria were a diagnosis of C5-C6 disc bulge and documented pre- and post-treatment pain scores. All patients presented with neck pain and arm tingling. Treatment protocols included spinal decompression therapy and chiropractic adjustments. Pain was measured on a 10-point numeric rating scale. Results: The cohort (n=8) consisted of five males and three females, with ages ranging from the 20s to the 70s. The mean pain reduction was 88% (median 88%). Initial pain scores ranged from 7/10 to 8/10. Following a treatment period of 4 to 12 weeks, all eight patients reported a final pain level of 1/10. Conclusion: In this case series, patients with symptomatic C5-C6 disc bulges reported substantial pain reduction following a protocol of spinal decompression and chiropractic adjustments. These findings suggest this conservative approach may be a viable option for this condition, and warrant further investigation through more rigorous controlled studies.
Methods
This study was conducted as a retrospective case series analyzing patient records from Finn Chiropractic - Mars, located in Mars, PA. The data was collected from a cohort of eight adult patients who presented with a chief complaint of neck pain with associated arm tingling and a diagnosis consistent with a C5-C6 bulging disc. Inclusion criteria for this series required a documented pre-treatment and post-treatment pain score, allowing for a quantitative analysis of change. Patient data was de-identified to protect privacy. Information extracted from patient files included age range, gender, chief complaint, initial and final pain scores on a 10-point Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NPRS), treatment duration, and the therapeutic protocols administered. All patients in this cohort received a combination of spinal decompression therapy and chiropractic adjustments. The specific frequency and duration of care were tailored to individual patient needs, as documented in their treatment plans. Changes in functional mobility were not systematically tracked with a formal metric and therefore were not included in the aggregate analysis. This study was performed by reviewing existing clinical data and did not involve direct patient interaction or intervention for research purposes.
Discussion
The results of this retrospective case series suggest a positive association between a multimodal chiropractic protocol of spinal decompression and adjustments and the reduction of pain in patients with symptomatic C5-C6 disc bulges. The cohort demonstrated a substantial mean pain reduction of 88%, with all eight patients uniformly reporting a final pain level of 1/10 from initial scores of 7/10 or 8/10. This degree of improvement is clinically significant, as it corresponds with patient reports of being able to resume daily activities without the limitations previously imposed by their neck pain and radicular symptoms. The consistency of these outcomes across a varied patient population, including different age groups and both genders, is noteworthy. The combination of chiropractic adjustments, intended to improve segmental joint function, and spinal decompression, designed to reduce intradiscal pressure, may offer a synergistic therapeutic effect. While the mechanism cannot be confirmed by this study, the observed outcomes align with the theoretical goals of these conservative treatments. These findings indicate that this specific non-surgical approach may be a highly effective option for pain management in this patient population. However, given the study's limitations, the results should be interpreted as preliminary. They provide a foundation for future prospective research, such as randomized controlled trials, which are necessary to establish causality and compare this protocol's efficacy against other treatments or a placebo.
Limitations
This study has several important limitations. Firstly, its retrospective design means that data was collected from clinical records not originally intended for research, which can lead to inconsistencies or missing variables, such as a formal mobility metric. Secondly, as a case series from a single chiropractic center, the findings may not be generalizable to other clinical settings, patient populations, or practitioners with different techniques. Thirdly, the absence of a control group makes it impossible to determine causality. The improvements observed could be influenced by the natural history of the condition, placebo effects, or other unaccounted-for factors. Fourthly, the primary outcome measure was a self-reported pain score, which is subjective by nature. Lastly, there is a potential for selection bias, as the cases may represent patients who responded favorably to treatment and chose to complete their care plan, potentially excluding those who had poorer outcomes or discontinued care early.