Since the first stage of disc disease begins with joint immobilization , use of the wobble chair attempts to restore motion to the pathological disc(s). However, patients with pathological discs often express a significant level of pain and discomfort. Additionally, the supportive soft tissue surrounding the injured disc splints in response to the localized inflammatory cascade. This process further limits the ability of the injured joint to move. Finally, the patient cognitively avoids certain movements to avoid a sudden onset or increase in pain and discomfort. With the wobble chair, the patient is instructed to perform only those motions that are pain-free or cause only minor, tolerable pain. As the patient repetitively performs the wobble chair exercises, the pain-free range gradually becomes bigger until the patient's symptoms are reduced. This procedure is currently being used with the Pettibon Wobble Chair in the emergency room of a New Jersey hospital by hospital-based chiropractors .
The Pettibon Wobble Chair has been previously reported as part of a comprehensive approach for various spinal complaints [25–27]. It is thought that that the wobble chair produces motion in lumbar discs, given that the pivot point of the wobble chair is approximately the size of an adult lumbar nucleus pulposus. Recent evidence suggests that this type of motion has a protective effect on the disc, even in degenerated states , possibly through mediation of inflammatory cytokines in the injured discal tissue. Immobilization may also be one of the major factors in the acceleration of disc disease . Therefore, motion-based therapies for lumbar disc disease and herniations, within the confines of patient tolerance, should be promoted. The biggest advantage in using the wobble chair is that patients can use a portable version at home without supervision, allowing the clinician to promote active care, patient independence, and reduce patient clinic time.
Prior to this case report, the Pettibon Wobble Chair has only been used to "warm-up" the patients' spines prior to spinal manipulation [25–27]. This report is the first in the literature to suggest that this clinical treatment may facilitate a positive response in the treatment of EMG findings secondary to lumbar intervertebral disc disorders.
It is unknown if the patient would have been considered a good candidate for surgical intervention, given that the patient refused a neurosurgical consultation. However, had this patient displayed findings suggestive of cauda equina syndrome, including saddle paresthesia and loss of bowel and/or bladder control, he would not have been allowed to begin the treatment approach outlined here until neurosurgical consultation was completed. It is also noteworthy to discuss the role of diabetes in this case. The patient's age and history of diabetes may have contributed to the presence of EMG abnormalities. However, given the improvements found in the post-treatment EMG findings, despite consistent continued diabetic management, it is possible that the patient may have had an even better response if he didn't have diabetes. Diabetic history did not seem to adversely affect the results demonstrated in this case, given its continued presence throughout the study period. A recent study by Jensen et al  showed that, without treatment, disc bulges and protrusions causing nerve root compromise improved 3% and 38%, respectively, over a 14-month period. However, their results may not exactly apply to this case because this patient was asymptomatic, minus the clinical signs and EDX findings of lower limb neuropathy and radiculopathy. The severity of the motor, sensory, and reflex deficits warranted immediate intervention.
In searching the MEDLINE and PubMed databases, I could not find any previous reports outlining chiropractic treatment of similar cases using electrodiagnostic testing as the prime outcome measure. Although post electrodiagnostic testing showed improved nerve function, it is unknown whether the treatment produced this result, or if reversal may have been the result of time. However, it is unlikely that leaving this problem untreated would have produced this outcome, given the extent of the clinical neurological findings as well as the slow healing rate of injured discs as discussed earlier.
Finally, a post-treatment MRI was not ordered in this case. The rationale for this is mainly outlined at the beginning of this paper. Since up to 76% of the asymptomatic population may have lumbar disc herniations , I did not feel that a post MRI study would yield clinically important information. As newer information becomes available pertaining to pathomechanisms of symptomatic lumbar disc herniation, prospective studies may be useful in determining if conservative therapies can consistently reduce these abnormalities.
Although case reports such as this do not account for placebo or permit randomization across controlled interventions, the findings of this study suggest that the use of a Pettibon Wobble Chair may have clinical value, pending further follow-up studies. It is important to note that the results reported in this study cannot necessarily be attributed to the clinical treatment outlined. It is possible that the results were facilitated by any one of the procedures outlined. Therefore, the direct results of the wobble chair are still unknown. However, given the prognosis and recurrence rate for this type of clinical presentation, it seems that the clinical approach at least as a whole played some factor in the positive response.