|
|
|
Introduction |
|
Osteopathy is a holistic approach to healing based on the premise that a
misaligned musculoskeletal system is the source of most health problems and that
structure and function of the body are inseparable (Lesho 1999; Wagner 1996).
Doctors of osteopathy, called DOs, are fully licensed physicians who also
practice allopathic medicine and usually specialize in primary care (American
Osteopathic Association 2000). The training to become a DO requires the same
length of study as becoming an MD and the post-graduate residency is generally
parallel (see Training, Certification, and Licensing section below) (Kappler et
al. 2000). In addition to standard primary care, DOs use a wide range of
techniques collectively referred to as osteopathic manipulative therapy (OMT),
along with conventional treatments such as medication and surgery (Zorski 2000).
Some OMT techniques may resemble chiropractic adjustments. One difference is
that osteopathic manipulation tends to stay within the anatomical and
physiological range of motion of the joint while chiropractors may manipulate a
joint beyond that range (Lesho 1999). A wide variety of OMT techniques may be
applied by the practitioner to realign the musculoskeletal system; unify the
circulatory, nervous, endocrine, immune, and musculoskeletal systems to function
as an integrated whole; and restore the body's inherent self-regulatory and
homeostatic functions (Kappler et al. 2000). |
|
|
Historical Background |
|
Andrew Taylor Still, MD, an itinerant physician on the Missouri frontier,
developed osteopathy in 1874 (American Osteopathic Association 2000). Still
became disillusioned with the failure of allopathic medicine to treat many
illnesses effectively and believed that pharmaceuticals frequently caused more
harm than good. Still's extensive knowledge of anatomy and physiology led him to
conclude that the musculoskeletal system was the key to optimal health. He
created osteopathic treatments as an outgrowth of traditional bone-setting
methods that were used to align broken bones (Vickers and Zollman 1999).
As was the case with other alternative healing methods of the time,
allopathic physicians ridiculed and refused to endorse osteopathy. Despite this
opposition, an increasing public demand for his services led Still to open the
first osteopathy school in Missouri in 1892. Vermont became the first state to
license DOs in 1896. In 1901, the American Osteopathic Association was created
to regulate the profession. Nevertheless, mainstream medicine continued to
disapprove of osteopathy until the early 1960s. In 1962, the California Medical
Association, the state branch of the American Medical Association, invited DOs
to join its group in order to swell its ranks and gain a voting majority in the
national association. By 1973, DOs had full practice rights in all 50 states
(Lesho 1999).
Today, there are 19 osteopathic colleges in the United States and
approximately 42,000 DOs, who make up five percent of the physician population
(Kappler et al. 2000; Lesho 1999). Like other physicians, DOs have full hospital
privileges, prescribe medication, and perform surgery. However, the public
remains largely unaware of their methods and practice (American Osteopathic
Association 2000). |
|
|
Scientific
Principles |
|
The body's neurological, visceral, metabolic, and endocrine functions respond
to the requirements of the musculoskeletal system through a complex system of
reflex arcs, local mediators, and adrenocortical hormones, which link
communication between the somatic and visceral systems. Osteopathy is based on
the premise that dysfunction in the musculoskeletal system produces abnormal
neural activity (Kappler et al. 2000). This affects the central nervous system
via the sympathetic trunk and ganglia, and disturbs the function of the internal
organs. The mechanism by which the musculoskeletal system affects the internal
organs is known as a somatovisceral reflex (Lesho 1999).
At the same time, organ dysfunction manifests as abnormal tissue texture and
restricted range of motion. The mechanism by which the organs affect the
musculoskeletal system is known as a viscerosomatic reflex (Lesho 1999). In
addition, sustained abnormal neural output induces facilitation of segmentally
related areas of the spinal cord. Since communication is bidirectional, the
viscera and the musculoskeletal system become linked in an abnormal cycle of
afferent and efferent impulses that maintains and exacerbates the disturbance
(Kappler et al. 2000). Thus, OMT aims to readjust abnormalities in the
musculoskeletal system to induce far-reaching effects on the rest of the body
(Lesho 1999). |
|
|
Mechanism of Action |
|
OMT is believed to work on mechanical, neurophysiological, and psychological
levels to restore musculoskeletal alignment. The process is thought to reduce
nociceptor activity and motor neuron firing, relax muscle fibers, release
endorphins, enhance neuronal cellular transport, ensure proper blood and lymph
flow, and stimulate joint lubrication (Lesho 1999). |
|
|
Clinical Evaluation |
|
The majority of DOs practice allopathic medicine as primary care physicians,
so a visit to a DO is similar to a visit to an MD (American Osteopathic
Association 2000). However, a DO will typically include an assessment of the
musculoskeletal system, range of motion testing, and palpation of muscles,
joints and tissue (Kappler et al. 2000). DOs also note skin temperature and
sweat gland activity to help assess local areas of dysfunction, and may order
X-rays to ascertain underlying pathology (Vickers and Zollman 1999). If the
patient does not have any contraindications to OMT (see Contraindications
section below), the DO may perform a series of manipulations ranging from thrust
techniques to soft-tissue methods. A session can take from 15 minutes to an
hour. If the patient does not improve after treatments, the DO may refer him or
her to a medical specialist (Zorski 2000). |
|
|
Clinical Applications |
|
The US Department of Health and Human Services endorses OMT as an effective
treatment for acute low back pain (Kappler et al. 2000). Although one study of
patients with back pain concluded that there was no statistical difference in
clinical outcomes between patients who received OMT and patients who received
the standard medical treatment for back pain, the OMT patients had a decreased
need for pain medication. If future studies document that pain medications can
be reduced by using OMT, this modality would have the advantage of fewer
medication-related adverse events and side effects as well as potential cost
savings (Andersson et al. 1999).
The study of osteopathy has been applied for non-musculoskeletal problems as
well; for example, a blinded, randomized, controlled study of hospitalized
patients with pancreatitis resulted in significantly fewer days in the hospital
for those treated with OMT (Lesho 1999). Furthermore, a small, controlled study
indicated that OMT improved gait in patients with idiopathic Parkinson's disease
after only one treatment. A study of 100 hypertensive patients treated solely
with OMT showed significant reductions in systolic and diastolic blood pressure.
Researchers postulate that osteopathy may delay the onset of permanent
hypertension by decreasing aldosterone levels in the blood. Furthermore, studies
using rhinomanometry show that OMT reduces the amount of work required by the
nose during breathing; these studies corroborate patient reports that OMT drains
the sinuses and relieves the symptoms, duration, and recurrence of the common
cold (Kappler et al. 2000).
Surgery for carpal tunnel syndrome is one of the most commonly performed
surgical procedures on the hand in the United States (Rayan 1999). Repetitive
motion injuries, among which carpal tunnel syndrome is the most prevalent,
account for nearly fifty percent of work-related disorders (Szabo 1998). Studies
suggest that osteopathy is an effective modality for carpal tunnel syndrome
because it alleviates pressure on the median nerve and helps patients avoid
surgery (Sucher and Hinrichs 1998). One small, uncontrolled study of 16 subjects
who underwent manipulation showed them to manifest increased range of motion,
decreased subjective symptoms, and improved nerve conduction. All 16 decreased
restriction to a grade of 2 or less on a 1 to 5 point analog scale (Sucher
1994). If this effect is confirmed, osteopathic manipulation might help to
eliminate or reduce unnecessary invasive procedures and provide some cost
savings.
In addition to the above conditions, osteopathy is used to treat neck and
shoulder pain, sports injuries, repetitive strain disorders, headaches,
arthritis, and dysmenorrhea (Vickers and Zollman 1999); whiplash, scoliosis,
lumbar radiculopathies, spondylolysis, and coccygodynia (Andersson et al. 1999);
and muscle spasm, myofascial strain, myositis, piriformis syndrome, stress,
tension headache, and cervical, thoracic, and lumbar strain or sprain (Kappler
et al. 2000). Cranial osteopathy, an osteopathic technique that stimulates the
craniosacral system, has been used to treat colic, constant crying, disturbed
sleep patterns, and behavioral problems in young children (Vickers and Zollman
1999). |
|
|
Risks, Side Effects, Adverse
Events |
|
There tend to be few risks associated with OMT, which may be explained by the
fact that osteopaths generally do not attempt to move a joint beyond its
restricted range of motion (Lesho 1999). Side effects reported in 25-50% of all
patients include a temporary increase in pain, slight headache, and fatigue.
Seventy five percent or more of all such complaints resolve within 24 hours.
Stroke and spinal cord injury have been reported in the literature and are
estimated to occur in 1 in 20,000 patients undergoing cervical manipulation.
However, it is possible that greater awareness of these risks has improved
osteopathic practice and reduced the rate of severe complications (Vickers and
Zollman 1999). In addition, vertebral artery thrombosis following upper cervical
manipulation has been reported in the literature at an incidence of 1 in 400,000
manipulations. A comprehensive literature review of English language journals
revealed that of 78 reports of cerebrovascular manipulative injuries, only eight
cases could be attributed to osteopaths (Kappler et al.
2000). |
|
|
Contraindications |
|
Most contraindications are related to high velocity thrusts, one of the many
manipulative techniques used by osteopaths (Kappler et al. 2000).
Contraindications to high velocity thrusts and other OMTs include acute
inflammatory arthropathies, fracture, dislocation, ligament rupture or
instability, infection, vertebrobasilar arterial insufficiency, aneurysm, acute
myelopathy, and acute cauda equina syndrome (Vickers and Zollman 1999).
Other contraindications include rheumatoid arthritic involvement of the cervical
spine, bony metastasis, or severe osteopenia (Lesho 1999). Likewise, patients
with osteoporosis can sustain pathological fractures if excess force is used
(Kappler et al. 2000). Relative contraindications to high velocity thrusts
include spondylolisthesis with ongoing slippage, articular hypermobility, recent
joint surgery with signs of instability, benign bone tumors, and concurrent use
of anticoagulant medication (Vickers and Zollman 1999). Patients with metastatic
cancer, active pulmonary tuberculosis, or miliary tuberculosis should not
undergo lymphatic pump techniques (Lesho 1999). |
|
|
Additional Clinical
Outcomes |
|
Osteopathy may also be suitable for adhesive capsulitis, anterior knee pain,
asthma, epicondylitis, tendonitis (particularly of the rotator cuff),
impingement syndrome, irritable bowel syndrome, plantar fascitis, thoracic
outlet syndrome, temporomandibular joint syndrome (TMJ), and vertigo. It may be
a useful adjunctive treatment for sinusitis, anxiety, depression, fibromyalgia,
osteoarthritis, degenerative disc disease, spondylolisthesis without slippage,
herniated disc, Bell's palsy, chronic obstructive lung disease, gastrointestinal
disorders, pneumonia, reflex sympathetic dystrophy, pregnancy and childbirth,
otitis media, and premenstrual syndrome (Kappler et al. 2000).
|
|
|
The Future |
|
The number of DOs is growing in the United States. In 1996, the number of
applicants to osteopathic medical schools increased by 5.2% from the previous
year to a total of 10,781 (Lesho 1999). In recent years, there has been a
perceived convergence of osteopathic and conventional medicine, which has
increased accessibility to, and usage of, osteopathic manipulation. Despite the
growing numbers of osteopaths and the greater utilization of OMT, however, there
is concern for the future of osteopathic medicine. DOs tend to function
primarily as primary care physicians, they generally pursue postgraduate study
in conventional programs, and the parameters for their practice are patterned on
conventional diagnostic and treatment principles. In such an environment, there
is potential for the loss of osteopathic manipulative skills, along with
decreased adherence to the principles and philosophy of osteopathic medicine.
Continuing research and education are necessary in order to establish the
scientific and clinical foundations of osteopathy (Wagner
1996). |
|
|
Training, Certification, and
Licensing
Requirements |
|
The educational requirements for DOs are practically identical to those for
conventional doctors. DOs receive four years of basic medical education, one
year of a general rotating internship (Kappler et al. 2000), and two to six
years of residency training in a chosen specialty area (American Osteopathic
Association 2000). The major difference between osteopathic and conventional
medical education is that osteopaths receive extra training in the
musculoskeletal system and OMTs (American Osteopathic Association 2000). In
addition, osteopathic schools tend to have a more preventive and holistic focus
than do conventional medical schools (American Osteopathic Association 2000). To
obtain state licenses, DOs must also pass a national board examination that is
comparable to the MD state licensing exam (American Osteopathic Association
2000). DOs are licensed in all 50 states; the American Osteopathic Association
regulates their education, training, and practice. |
|
|
Resources |
|
For referral information, contact the American Osteopathic Association in
Chicago, Illinois at 800-621-1773 or on the web at www.am-osteo-assn.org; and
the American Academy of Osteopathy in Indianapolis, Indiana at 317-879-1881 or
on the web at www.aao.medguide.net. The American College of Osteopathic Family
Physicians in Arlington Heights, Illinois, at 800-323-0794 or on the Web at
www.acofp.org, is one of the largest professional organizations for DOs in the
United States. |
|
|
References |
|
American Osteopathic Association. What is a doctor of osteopathic medicine
(D.O.)? Accessed July 27, 2000 at
www.am-osteo-assn.org/Consumers/whatdo.htm.
Andersson GB, Lucente T, Davis AM, Kappler RE, Lipton JA, Leurgans S. A
comparison of osteopathic spinal manipulation with standard care for patients
with low back pain. N Engl J Med. 1999;341(19):1426-1431.
Kappler R, Ramey KA, Heinking KP. Osteopathic Medicine. In: Novey DW, ed.
Clinician's Complete Reference to Complementary and Alternative Medicine.
St. Louis, Mo: Mosby; 2000:325-337.
Lesho EP. An overview of osteopathic medicine. Arch Fam Med.
1999;8(6):477-484.
Rayan GM. Carpal tunnel syndrome between two centuries. J Okla State Med
Assoc. 1999;92(10):493-503.
Sucher BM. Palpatory diagnosis and manipulative management of carpal tunnel
syndrome. J Am Osteopath Assoc. 1994;94(8):647-663.
Sucher BM, Hinrichs RN. Manipulative treatment of carpal tunnel syndrome:
biomechanical and osteopathic intervention to increase the length of the
transverse carpal ligament. J Am Osteopath Assoc.
1998;98(12):679-686.
Szabo RM. Carpal tunnel syndrome as a repetitive motion disorder. Clin
Orthop. 1998;351:78-89.
Vickers A, Zollman C. The manipulative therapies: osteopathy and
chiropractic. BMJ. 1999;319(7218):1176-1179.
Wagner GN. Osteopathy. In: Micozzi MS, ed. Fundamentals of Complementary
and Alternative Medicine. New York, NY: Churchill Livingstone;
1996:79-89.
Zorski KC. Osteopathy: restoring health through science. The Integrative
Medicine Companion. Newton, Mass: Integrative Medicine Communications;
2000:40-41. |
|
Copyright © 2000 Integrative Medicine
Communications This publication contains
information relating to general principles
of medical care that should not in any event be construed as specific
instructions for individual patients. The publisher does not accept any
responsibility for the accuracy of the information or the consequences arising
from the application, use, or misuse of any of the information contained herein,
including any injury and/or damage to any person or property as a matter of
product liability, negligence, or otherwise. No warranty, expressed or implied,
is made in regard to the contents of this material. No claims or endorsements
are made for any drugs or compounds currently marketed or in investigative use.
The reader is advised to check product information (including package inserts)
for changes and new information regarding dosage, precautions, warnings,
interactions, and contraindications before administering any drug, herb, or
supplement discussed herein. | |