Cranial Bone Movement

[Dr JPH]

The cranial bones are connected by fibrous sutures. Anatomy texts will tell you that fibrous sutures can allow for some movement.


Just a few links for people to check out (or for some of you, to condemn, I'm sure).

http://www.icnr.com/craniojournal/cranialbonemobility.htm

http://www.icnr.com/articles/craniodontics.html

http://www.icakusa.com/akbasic/tc.html

http://www.osteodoc.com/research.html

http://www.cranialintegration.com/research.html

And here is a complete listing of cranial osteopathy references composed by Dr. Feely

http://www.drfeely.com/doctors/osteo_refcran_a.htm

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[bigmuny]

Wow you really pulled out the big guns, those are some impressive sources. Who could argue with the international society of phreno-cranio-quackologists? Everyone knows those guys are some heavy hitters. Why don't you see how many articles you can find supporting magnet therapy or chelation(for other than lead poisoning). I betcha there are loads of em, from equally renowned groups.

 

[BrooklynDO]

Bones move for the plastics guys :
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...ve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=14707619

yea i dunno
grays does say that cranial sutures were designed for motion. If I remember correctly.... It sites a specific article I dont quire remember right now....


also I didnt have time to look at the hardcopy of these, but here goes. Tell me what you think if you read them
also, i made sure none of them are in the JAOA just in case someone was bothered by that

1. Ferre, J.C., & Barbin, J.Y., "The Osteopathic Cranial Concept: Fact or Fiction?" Surgical-Radiologic Anatomy, Vol. 13,1991,165-170.
Grietz, D., et. al., "Pulsatile Brain Movements and Associated Hydrodynamics Studied by Magnetic Resonance Phase Imaging, the Monro-Kellie Doctrine Revisited", Radiology Vol. 34,1992, 370-380

1. Enzmann, D.R., & Pelc, NJ., "Brain Motion: Movement with Phase-Contrast MR Imaging", Radiology, Vol. 185, (3), 1992, 653-660.
1. Feinberg, D.A., & Mark, A.S., "Human Brain Motion and Cerebrospinal Fluid Circulation Demonstrated with MR Velocity Imaging", Radiolo~, Vol. 163, (3), 1987, 793-799.
1. Maier, S.E., et. al., "Brain and Cerebrospinal Fluid Motion: Real Time Quantification with M-Mode MR Imaging", Radiolo~y, Vol. 193, (2), 1994, 447-483.
1. Bering, E.A., "Circulation of the Cerebrospinal Fluid, Demonstration of the Choroid Plexuses as the Generator of the force for Fluid Flow and Ventricular Enlargement", Journal of Neurosurgery, Vol. 19, 1962, 405-413.
1. Wayte, S.C. "Magnetic Resonance Imaging of Pulsatile Cerebrospinal Fluid Flow by Spatial Modulation of Magnetization", The British Journal of Radiology, Vol. 65, (774), 1992, 495-501.
1. Jaslow, C.R., "Mechanical Properties of Cranial Sutures", Journal of Biomechanics, Vol. 23, (4) 1990, 313-321.
1. Heifetz, M.D., & Weiss, M., "Detection of Skull Expansion with Increased Intracranial Pressure", Journal of Neurosurgery, Vol. 55, 1981, 811-812.
1. Hanten, W.P. et. al., "Craniosacral Rhythm: Reliability and Relationships with Cardiac and Respiratory Rates", Journal of Orthopaedic and Sports Physical Therapy, Vol. 27, (3), 1998, 213-218.
1. Wagemans, P.A.H., et. al., "Sutures and Forces: A Review", American Journal of Pritchard, JJ. et. al., "The Structure and Development of Cranial and Facial Sutures Orthodontia and Dentofacial Orthopaedics, Vol. 94,1988,129-141.
1. Moskolenko, Y., "Bioengineering Support of the Cranial Osteopathic Treatment", Medical and Biological ", Journal of Anatomy, Vol. 90, 1956, 73-80.
1. Engineering

 

[Dr JPH]

Originally posted by bigmuny
Wow you really pulled out the big guns, those are some impressive sources. Who could argue with the international society of phreno-cranio-quackologists? Everyone knows those guys are some heavy hitters. Why don't you see how many articles you can find supporting magnet therapy or chelation(for other than lead poisoning). I betcha there are loads of em, from equally renowned groups.

Interesting how the negative posts never seem to have any valid information or insight, but rather just bashing what was cited.

 

[DrMom]

Originally posted by JPHazelton
Interesting how the negative posts never seem to have any valid information or insight, but rather just bashing what was cited.

I always figure that people who are unwilling to consider the possibility, won't see the evidence.

I have serious issues with some of the explanations of cranial (and have been vocal about this with our dept chair), but I can feel the movement and can successfully treat.

 

[bigmuny]

I am completely willing to see the possibility. Moreover I have explored the evidence via literature search(and reading my anatomy textbook for god sakes, it is likely we are all using the same one), spoken to people much smarter than myself(anatomy professor and clinical professor who both say it is hogwash, and neither have any vested interest in not telling me the truth), and listened to opposig arguments. I still come away thinking it is nonsense, or at the very best an unproven theory with zero demonstrated clinical benefit which has no business being included in a medical school curriculum. I also understand that the biggest proponents of cranial happen to be the people who make a lot of money off it(via practice and teaching seminars). At any rate, anyone interested can do a literature search, read a textbook, make up your own mind. Just remember, research has different levels credibility, and the first thing I was taught in research design class was to consider the source of all information/journal articles(if it isn't peer viewed I won't waste my time). I've also found that people who believe in cranial can't be argued with, because this stuff runs deeper with them than seeing it as merely being a treatment, it is like a religous/philosophical thing with them and they won't see the truth no matter what.

 

[Dr JPH]

Originally posted by bigmuny
I am completely willing to see the possibility. Moreover I have explored the evidence via literature search(and reading my anatomy textbook for god sakes, it is likely we are all using the same one), spoken to people much smarter than myself(anatomy professor and clinical professor who both say it is hogwash, and neither have any vested interest in not telling me the truth), and listened to opposig arguments. I still come away thinking it is nonsense, or at the very best an unproven theory with zero demonstrated clinical benefit which has no business being included in a medical school curriculum. I also understand that the biggest proponents of cranial happen to be the people who make a lot of money off it(via practice and teaching seminars). At any rate, anyone interested can do a literature search, read a textbook, make up your own mind. Just remember, research has different levels credibility, and the first thing I was taught in research design class was to consider the source of all information/journal articles(if it isn't peer viewed I won't waste my time). I've also found that people who believe in cranial can't be argued with, because this stuff runs deeper with them than seeing it as merely being a treatment, it is like a religous/philosophical thing with them and they won't see the truth no matter what.

I agree with your post 100%...up to the last line.

Just as you think that my belief in cranial is too deep to change, I feel the same with those who don't believe in it. The belief that cranial is nonsense is too deep to change. I accept that.

If there is a final resotion to this ongoingebate, I believe it should be this:

There are those who will choose to learn, practice, teach, and believe in cranial. There are those who will choose to ignore and shun it. Neither side has established proof, at least not to the satisfaction of the other side. All I am saying is that criticizing cranial is similar to how AT Still was first criticized for osteopathy. Maybe it will prove itself in the future and maybe it won't.

Until then, I choose to keep an open mind about it.

 

[OMMFellow06]

Proof or no proof, talk to the patients that have had it done to them and they'll tell you it works. Whether you want to believe that the bones more or not is not really the issue. The issue should be, do patients feel that it works and can you clinically see a difference? Talk to a patient that has been treated by a Osteopath who feels confident in their ability to use cranial and they'll tell you that they feel it helps them. And when it's a chronic patient such as a Parkinson's patient, any little bit helps to make their everyday activities that much better.

Also, as it was mentioned above, for those of you who don't believe it works, don't use it! But don't try to take it out of the curriculum because you feel that way because the person sitting right next to you in OMM may believe in it and may someday use it a lot in their practice. How much do the cranial classes you take in medical school really affect you in terms of time? I bet very little. Leave it be and if you don't believe in it, just don't use it.

 

[modelcitizen]

Originally posted by bigmuny
I am completely willing to see the possibility. Moreover I have explored the evidence via literature search(and reading my anatomy textbook for god sakes, it is likely we are all using the same one), spoken to people much smarter than myself(anatomy professor and clinical professor who both say it is hogwash, and neither have any vested interest in not telling me the truth), and listened to opposig arguments. I still come away thinking it is nonsense, or at the very best an unproven theory with zero demonstrated clinical benefit which has no business being included in a medical school curriculum. I also understand that the biggest proponents of cranial happen to be the people who make a lot of money off it(via practice and teaching seminars). At any rate, anyone interested can do a literature search, read a textbook, make up your own mind. Just remember, research has different levels credibility, and the first thing I was taught in research design class was to consider the source of all information/journal articles(if it isn't peer viewed I won't waste my time). I've also found that people who believe in cranial can't be argued with, because this stuff runs deeper with them than seeing it as merely being a treatment, it is like a religous/philosophical thing with them and they won't see the truth no matter what.

It's all "hogwash?" The publications should be "peer [re]viewed [sic]?" This crap is more "religious" than scientific?

Sounds like something I might say. Oh wait, I already did. Get a thesaurus, young grasshopper.

JP, congrats again on that OMM fellowship.

 

[Dr JPH]

Originally posted by modelcitizen


JP, congrats again on that OMM fellowship.

Thanks.