Traditional Osteopathy and the General Osteopathic Treatment: A Historical Concept and a Modern Application

Historically, Andrew Taylor Still, MD, DO, differentiated osteopathic medicine from allopathic medicine with its unique approach to treatment using manual therapy. Those treatments, known as osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT), are currently used to treat somatic dysfunction. The Educational Council on Osteopathic Principles (ECOP) includes different treatment methods, such as muscle energy, high-velocity, low-amplitude, Still techniques, myofascial release, and counterstrain, amongst others, under the category of OMT. Conversely, osteopathic practitioners outside the USA, mostly from Europe, use some techniques that are not necessarily documented as OMT by the ECOP. This is the case of the General Osteopathic Treatment (GOT). The GOT found its origin with Dr. Still and was promoted, amongst his contemporaries, by Dr. John Martin Littlejohn, DO, who founded the British School of Osteopathy in London. The general treatment, based on a strong biomechanical background, was further spread in Europe by John Wernham, DO, a British osteopath and one of Littlejohn’s students. Wernham developed and taught the GOT in its original form based on the principles and philosophy of osteopathic medicine. The goals of this article are to give an historical perspective of the GOT, to describe the foundation and concepts behind it, and to provide a review of the scientific literature of this treatment approach. The GOT can be used to diagnose and directly treat somatic dysfunction using the TART principle in a clinical setting. Besides the recognized contra-indications of treating somatic dysfunction, there are no clear scientifically published findings of contraindications for the use of the GOT. Like other OMTs, the GOT needs more scientific evidence to better understand its clinical applications.

Effectiveness of Non-Pharmacological Interventions for Irritable Bowel Syndrome: A Systematic Review

Introduction. Given the complexity of the therapeutic management of irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), alternative non-pharmacological therapies are frequently offered to patients. The aim of this study was to conduct a systematic review in order to establish the current evidence base for non-pharmacological interventions (body-directed and mind-body therapies) in the management of IBS. Materials and Methods. The literature was searched in several electronic databases (PubMed (including Medline), Web of Science (Clarivate Analytics), Scopus (Elsevier), ScienceDirect (Elsevier), Cochrane Library (Wiley), and Wiley Online Library (Wiley)) for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in the English language from 1990 to 2020. Effectiveness outcomes were examined through the change in overall IBS symptoms or abdominal pain up to 12 months after treatment. Results. 11 studies (parallel-group RCTs) were identified that enrolled 1590 participants in total. Body-directed therapies (acupuncture and osteopathic medicine) showed a beneficial effect compared with standard medical treatment for overall IBS symptoms at 6 months follow-up, while no study found any difference between body-directed and sham therapies for abdominal pain or overall IBS symptoms. It was not possible to conclude whether hypnotherapy was superior to standard medical treatment or supportive therapy for overall IBS symptoms or abdominal pain due to discordant results. Conclusions. Although body-directed therapies such as acupuncture and osteopathic medicine may be beneficial for overall IBS symptoms, higher-quality RCTs are needed to establish the clinical benefit of non-pharmacological interventions for IBS. An important challenge will be the definition of the optimal control groups to be used in non-pharmacological trials.

An osteopathic approach to carpal tunnel syndrome

Carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) is a common cause of medical and workforce-related expenses in the United States. It is also frustrating for patients who have difficulty using the affected hand, impairing their activities of daily living and decreasing their quality of life. By utilizing the philosophy of osteopathic medicine, providers can better implement a treatment plan by working with the patient to find one that incorporates all aspects of the patient’s environment. By using the practice of osteopathic manipulative therapy (OMT), osteopathic physicians can often effectively treat the patient’s symptoms without side effects found in medications. This is especially useful in patients who may be unable to take certain medications, such as pregnant patients. Other treatment modalities are also reviewed in this manuscript.

Utilizing the Four Tenets of Osteopathic Medicine as an intersectional framework for approaching sexual orientation and gender identity disclosure as a provider

The Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, Intersex, and other (LGBTQI+) community continues to experience health inequity and unmet needs. This manuscript examines the application of the Four Tenets of Osteopathic Medicine (FTOM) during a patient’s self-disclosure of their sexual orientation and/or gender identity to the provider, also known as coming out. Tenet One discusses the interplay between intersectionality and coming out. Tenet Two elucidates how coming out moves toward a balance of homeostasis and self-healing. Tenet Three examines how structure and function can be understood on a personal level and how society influences coming out. Tenet Four explains the resources available to facilitate the previously forementioned changes. By applying the Four Tenets, the provider may more readily understand what “coming out” means on personal and social levels and what implications they may have on their patients’ health.

Osteopathic Medicine in Four Chronic Musculoskeletal Pain Diseases: An Observational Trial with Follow-Up

<b><i>Background and Aim:</i></b> Patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain diseases (CMPDs) often use osteopathic medicine (OM), although the changes in patients with pain diseases are still insufficiently investigated. This study aimed to observe changes along and after OM in addition to routine care on pain, functioning, and quality of life in patients with four CMPDs. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> In this observational trial with follow-up, patients suffering from chronic neck pain (CNP, <i>n</i> = 10), chronic low back pain (CLBP, <i>n</i> = 10), chronic shoulder pain (CSP, <i>n</i> = 10), or chronic knee pain (CKP, <i>n</i> = 10) received up to six OM sessions in addition to routine care. <b><i>Results:</i></b> A total of 40 patients (73% female, mean age 47.7 ± 8.3 years, mean pain intensity 59.4 ± 12.5 mm, measured by a visual analog scale [VAS] 0–100 mm) were included. After 26 weeks, there was an improvement in the VAS pain score in the whole population (mean difference to baseline –33.1 mm [95% CI –40.5 to –25.7]), as well in the patients with the four diseases: CNP (–33.7 mm [–54.7 to –12.6]), CLBP (–28.2 mm [–47.9 to –8.4]), CSP (–32.4 [–46.8 to –18.0]), and CKP (–38.1 mm [–49.1 to –27.0]). Regarding disease-specific outcomes, we found improvements in CNP, as measured by the neck disability index (scale 0–50; mean difference –3.6 [–9.0 to 1.9]), CLBP, as measured by the low back pain rating scale (scale 0–60; –3.4 [–12.5 to 5.7]), CSP, as measured by the disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand score (scale 0–100; –13.4 [–23.1 to –3.7]), and CKP, as measured by the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (scale 0–96; –13.0 [–23.5 to –2.5]). These improvements persisted through week 52. No adverse events were observed. <b><i>Conclusion:</i></b> The study observed beneficial changes along and after the OM treatment in addition to routine care in patients with four different CMPDs. High-quality, multicenter randomized controlled trials are strongly needed to compare the effectiveness of OM and standard care interventions in treating CMPDs in the future. We have provided sufficient data for sample size calculations for these trials.

Patient-centered care or osteopathic manipulative treatment as mediators of clinical outcomes in patients with chronic low back pain

Context Patient-centered care is often considered a characteristic of osteopathic medicine, in addition to the use of osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT) in such musculoskeletal conditions as low back pain. Objectives This study aimed to determine if patient-centered care or OMT are mediators of the clinical outcomes of osteopathic medicine in patients with chronic low back pain. Methods A comparative effectiveness study was conducted within the Pain Registry for Epidemiological, Clinical, and Interventional Studies and Innovation (PRECISION Pain Research Registry). Eligible patients met the diagnostic criteria recommended by the National Institutes of Health Task Force on Research Standards for Chronic Low Back Pain and completed four consecutive quarterly encounters between April 2016 and November 2020. The Consultation and Relational Empathy instrument for patient-centered care was used at the baseline encounter and OMT use was measured at the final encounter. The clinical outcome measures included low back pain intensity on a numerical rating scale (NRS) from 0 to 10, back-related functioning on the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ), and pain impact on the National Institutes of Health Minimum Dataset for Chronic Low Back Pain (NIH-MDS). A parallel multiple mediator model was used to compute the direct and indirect effects of osteopathic medicine in achieving each of the three clinical outcomes. Results The 404 study patients had a mean age of 52.2 years (standard deviation, 13.1 years) and 288 (71.3%) were female. The 88 (21.8%) patients treated by osteopathic physicians reported more favorable scores for patient-centered care (mean, 41.3; 95% CI 39.0–43.5) than patients treated by allopathic physicians (mean, 38.0; 95% CI 36.8–39.3) (p=0.02). Fifty-six (63.6%) patients treated by osteopathic physicians used OMT. The age- and sex-adjusted outcomes for patients of osteopathic vs. allopathic physicians across all four encounters were: mean, 5.4; 95% CI 5.0–5.7 vs. mean, 5.9; 95% CI 5.7–6.1 on the NRS for pain intensity (p=0.01); mean, 11.3; 95% CI 10.1–12.6 vs. mean, 14.0; 95% CI 13.3–14.7 on the RMDQ for back-related disability (p<0.001); and mean, 26.8; 95% CI 24.9–28.7 vs. mean, 30.1; 95% CI 29.1–31.1 on the NIH-MDS for pain impact (p=0.002). Patient-centered care did not mediate any outcome of osteopathic medicine, whereas OMT mediated better outcomes in low back pain intensity. Conclusions This appears to be the first study to simultaneously address both patient-centered care and OMT as potential mediators of the effect of osteopathic medicine in treating chronic pain. Patient-centered care did not mediate the effects of osteopathic medicine and OMT only mediated outcomes relating to low back pain intensity. More research is needed to identify other aspects of osteopathic medicine that mediate its beneficial effects in patients with chronic low back pain.

Knowledge of osteopathic manipulative medicine and osteopathic physicians in a New York South Asian community

Context Research regarding patient awareness of osteopathic manipulative medicine (OMM) can help identify barriers and factors limiting patient knowledge. Levels of knowledge about OMM and osteopathic physicians have been studied in New York’s Chinese and Korean populations, but have not previously been investigated in the South Asian population. Objectives To assess the knowledge of OMM and osteopathic physicians within a South Asian community of New York. Methods A cross-sectional study was designed in which a culturally appropriate survey, provided in both English and Hindi, was administered to study participants in order to measure knowledge of osteopathic medicine. The study utilized convenience sampling and distributed surveys to individuals who identified themselves of South Asian descent at high traffic sites in Hicksville, New York. The survey contained 10 questions, assessing the individual’s knowledge of osteopathic medicine. The Kruskal–Wallis and Chi-Square tests were employed to determine statistical significance of the data obtained from the surveys. Results The survey was conducted on 100 participants in Hicksville, New York. The respondent demographics included 53 males and 47 females with an average age of 41.2 ± 16.3 years old. There were 34 (34%) participants who had heard of osteopathic manipulative medicine (OMM) and 26 (26%) participants who had knowledge of doctor of osteopathic medicine (DO) physicians. Respondents were found more likely to have knowledge of DOs if they were born in the United States (US) vs. other countries (US, 8 of 14 [57.1%] vs. others, 18 of 86 [20.9%]; p=0.006) or lived longer in the US (11 of 26 [42.3%], p=0.039). Participants who spoke a non-English primary language were also found less likely to have knowledge of DOs as they made up 46 of the 58 respondents who indicated no knowledge (79.3%, p=0.042). Conclusions A general lack of knowledge of DOs and OMM exists within the South Asian community of Hicksville, New York and lower levels of awareness were found among participants who were male, born outside the US, had a language other than English as their primary language, and had spent less time in the US. Additional educational resources may be implemented to increase awareness of DOs and OMM among this and similar communities.

The Importance of the Posterolateral Area of the Diaphragm Muscle for Palpation and for the Treatment of Manual Osteopathic Medicine

The eupneic act in healthy subjects involves a coordinated combination of functional anatomy and neurological activation. Neurologically, a central pattern generator, the components of which are distributed between the brainstem and the spinal cord, are hypothesized to drive the process and are modeled mathematically. A functionally anatomical approach is easier to understand although just as complex. Osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT) is part of osteopathic medicine, which has many manual techniques to approach the human body, trying to improve the patient’s homeostatic response. The principle on which OMT is based is the stimulation of self-healing processes, researching the intrinsic physiological mechanisms of the person, taking into consideration not only the physical aspect, but also the emotional one and the context in which the patient lives. This article reviews how the diaphragm muscle moves, with a brief discussion on anatomy and the respiratory neural network. The goal is to highlight the critical issues of OMT on the correct positioning of the hands on the posterolateral area of the diaphragm around the diaphragm, trying to respect the existing scientific anatomical-physiological data, and laying a solid foundation for improving the data obtainable from future research. The correctness of the position of the operator’s hands in this area allows a more effective palpatory perception and, consequently, a probably more incisive result on the respiratory function.