[go: up one dir, main page]

Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Outline

More questions than answers

1997, Primary Health Care

https://doi.org/10.7748/PHC.7.5.3.S6

Abstract
sparkles

AI

This paper explores the complexities and unanswered questions surrounding various manual therapy techniques, such as ischaemic compression and myofascial release, in addressing muscular pain and dysfunction. It questions the physiological mechanisms at play during treatment and discusses the relationship and philosophical distinctions between chiropractic and osteopathy practices. The lack of comparative studies on these modalities is highlighted, advocating for a more integrated approach to treatment that could provide clearer answers to ongoing clinical questions.

Key takeaways
sparkles

AI

  1. The text explores the efficacy of various manual therapy techniques on muscular pain relief.
  2. No comparative studies exist to evaluate the effectiveness of techniques like myofascial release and high-velocity thrusts.
  3. Jones' spontaneous positional release demonstrates an alternative approach to pain resolution without invasive pressure.
  4. The distinction between chiropractic and osteopathic practices is increasingly blurred due to overlapping treatment methodologies.
  5. Integration of diverse therapeutic methods may offer comprehensive benefits yet lacks empirical validation in comparative studies.
More questions than answers? Consider what is actually happening when ischaemic compression/inhibitory pressure/acupressure/local myofascial release techniques are applied to painful, contracted, muscular areas. What is taking place in the recipient tissues? • • • • • Journal of Bodywork and Movement Therapies (1997) 1(2), 63 © Pearson Professional Ltd 1997 Are they being deprived temporarily of their blood supply so that a 'flushing' of fresh oxygenated blood can occur subsequently, after release of the pressure, so easing the ischaemia assumed to be contributing to pain and restriction? (Travell & Simons 1992) Or are neurological ilffluences being brought to bear, so that pain messages are blocked or modified via gate control mechanisms? (Melzack & Wall 1988) Or are energy factors involved, with the degree and duration of the pressure applied determining whether energy is added to or deducted from the equation? (Academy of Traditional Chinese Medicine 1975) Or is myofascial elongation occurring as a result of sustained pressure on the tissues? (Barnes 1990) Or are all four, and perhaps other physiological processes - such as endorphin release (Baldry 1993) - at work simultaneously in response to sustained digital pressure applied to dysfunctional soft tissues? An osteopath, chiropractor, physical therapist, acupuncturist, Rolfer, shia tsu practitioner or neuromuscular therapist might each take different views as to what it is that they were doing as such pressure was being applied, despite the fact that to the observer they would appear to be doing precisely the same thing. What does science say? At present answers are few and questions many in areas such as this, for although research has examined aspects of the benefits of such treatment approaches, no comparative studies have been published. Logic would suggest that elements of all the concepts described are involved in whatever benefits derive from direct manual pressure approaches. It should be emphasized that there are also other ways of dealing with local J O U R N A L OF B O D Y W O R K AND M O V E M E N T T H E R A P I E S dysfunction. Jones (1981) showed that applying minimal pressure to painful 'points' and then using the pain as perceived by the patient as a monitor while the area, or body as a whole, was positioned in such a way as to remove the pain being experienced, allowed a self-generated resolution ('spontaneous positional release') of the pain to take place. At the same time an easing of whatever stress pattern was producing/maintainingthe pain would occur. While manual pressure is a direct, somewhat invasive and potentially tranmatising approach, which demands an adaptive response from the body, indirect, functional approaches (such as Jones strain/counterstrain) avoid demanding a response and instead offer an opportunity for change. Many find these methods more acceptable both philosophically and in practice, but are these feelings justified (Chaitow 1996)? Once again we await research to show what seems to be indicated by clinical experience. Consider also the question of the relationship between joint and muscle problems. In order to normalize a restricted joint should the soft tissues which support and control its motion receive attention to release, stretch and normalize them - so helping to restore joint function (Stiles 1984, Janda 1988)? Or should the joint be manipulated/adjusted to restore more normal motion, at the same time beneficially (reflexively) influencing the soft tissues (Liebenson 1990)? Ask this question of an osteopath or a chiropractor and you will probably receive conflicting answers. Which view is correct? Or are both correct? As chiropractors adopt an increasingly receptive view in respect of the importance (at least in rehabilitation settings) of soft tissue techniques, and as osteopaths incrementally utilize an ever wider range of soft tissue approaches (as well as applying high velocity thrusts when these are deemed appropriate) the distinction between osteopathy and chiropractic in practice blurs somewhat, even if there J A N U A R Y 1997 Chaitow remain philosophical distinctions rooted in the histories of these two professions. For a chiropractor the need to mobilize a joint which is restricted in motion would usually seem to be a primary and paramount objective, with high velocity thrust-type adjustments as the predominant tool. For the osteopath, while one objective would be for restricted joint mobilization to take place, this would be as part of a comprehensive normalization of function in which soft tissues would receive at least as much attention as the joint (Greenman 1989). Many modem osteopaths would, as likely as not, avoid active joint manipulation, opting instead for positional release or muscle energy type approaches to achieve these ends (Stiles 1984, Greenman 1989). Many physical therapists adopt an eclectic middle ground between these positions, using both approaches according to individual preferences. Who is correct? Or are all such approaches likely to achieve similar results? Studies of each system seem to show benefits, but they have not been compared in studies that evaluate the relative benefits of skilled soft tissue (MET, myofascial release, positional release, etc.), normalization of joints as compared with high velocity thrust mobilization approaches (Brodin 1982). So why not integrate the methods? As the Journal of Bodywork and Movement Therapies develops, these and other issues will be addressed and hopefully answers will begin to predominate instead of questions. Leon Chaitow Editor REFERENCES Academy of Traditional Chinese Medicine 1975 An outline of Chinese acupuncture. Foreign Language Press, Beijing Baldry PE 1993 Acupuncture, trigger points and musculoskeletal pain. Churchill Livingstone, Edinburgh Barnes JB 1990 Myofascial release: the search for excellence. Rehabilitation Services Inc., Paoli, PA Brodin H 1982 Lumbar treatment using MET. Osteopathic Annals 10:23-24 Chaltow L 1996 Positional release techniques. Churchill Livingstone, Edinburgh Greeuman P 1989 Principles of manual medicine. Williams and Wilkins, Baltimore Janda V 1988 In: Grant R (ed) Physical therapy of the cervical and thoracic spine. Churchill Livingstone, New York Jones L 1981 Strain and counterstraln. Academy of Applied Osteopathy, Colorado Springs, USA Liebenson C 1990 Active muscular relaxation techniques (part 2). Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics 13:2-6 Melzack R, Wall P 1988 The challenge of pain. Penguin, New York Stiles E 1984 Manipulation - a tool for your practice? Patient Care 18:16-42 Travell J, Simons D 1992 Myofascial pain and dysfunction (The Trigger Point Manual). Williams and Wilkins, Baltimore 0 JOURNAL OF BODYWORK AND MOVEMENT THERAPIES JANUARY 1997

FAQs

sparkles

AI

What physiological changes occur during ischaemic compression techniques?add

The paper reveals that ischaemic compression may temporarily reduce blood supply, facilitating a subsequent re-oxygenation and relief of pain after pressure release.

How does spontaneous positional release differ from traditional manual pressure techniques?add

Research indicates that spontaneous positional release, as described by Jones, utilizes minimal pressure and patient-perceived pain to promote self-resolution instead of invasive pressure.

What is the role of soft tissue techniques in joint dysfunction treatment?add

The findings suggest that both soft tissue normalization and joint manipulation are essential, with contemporary approaches increasingly integrating both for comprehensive treatment.

Why is there a lack of comparative studies on manual pressure techniques?add

The study highlights a gap in research literature, indicating the absence of comparative evaluations of manual pressure methods and their outcomes across different treatment philosophies.

How are the practices of chiropractors and osteopaths converging?add

The paper notes an increasing overlap in treatment techniques, as chiropractors embrace soft tissue methods while osteopaths adopt high-velocity adjustments, blurring traditional distinctions.