- Joined
- Mar 13, 2012
- Messages
- 6,825
- Reaction score
- 8,812
I'm going to restrict my responses to this thread because its not worth my time. I don't think cranial is anything close to what it is argued as being by OMM overlords, but like other posters, I have seen people improve from "skilled" treatment. I will never use it, and honestly my gut tells me its all crap, but I hesitate to rush to that conclusion, because a lot of stuff in medicine that sounds ridiculous later is found to work and other things that make logical sense aren't. I don't believe we are doing anything to the cranial bones with those minor movements, but who knows maybe people that do it well are affecting some change in the sense of modifying blood or lymphatic flow that we just don't know or can't quantify yet.
Less than a decade ago knee arthroscopy for OA and meniscal tears was one of the most commonly used procedures in Ortho/Sports med. Evidence for it is terrible. Its now beginning to be less used, but at the time medicine was all for it. Its not the only example, but perhaps the most recent and high profile of things that we thought we knew in medicine, but actually had no idea about.
The role of arthroscopy in the management of knee osteoarthritis for those who don't believe me.
Anyway, like I said, I'm never going to use cranial. I rarely use any OMT techniques outside of my home as it is, and I'm definitely not billing for it when I use it (and won't unless patients actually benefit from it). That said, I don't like the idea of being certain that treatments I don't understand are BS as much as I don't like the idea of being certain that treatments we all practice now absolutely work, because time has shown us that we as humans suck at knowing that.
Should cranial be taught in DO school? Probably not, but it was literally 2 labs out of all the weekly OPP labs we had at my school, so it was blip. In my opinion, there are bigger fish to fry like improving DO clinical rotations, improving residency application advising, and improving access to clinical research.
Less than a decade ago knee arthroscopy for OA and meniscal tears was one of the most commonly used procedures in Ortho/Sports med. Evidence for it is terrible. Its now beginning to be less used, but at the time medicine was all for it. Its not the only example, but perhaps the most recent and high profile of things that we thought we knew in medicine, but actually had no idea about.
The role of arthroscopy in the management of knee osteoarthritis for those who don't believe me.
Anyway, like I said, I'm never going to use cranial. I rarely use any OMT techniques outside of my home as it is, and I'm definitely not billing for it when I use it (and won't unless patients actually benefit from it). That said, I don't like the idea of being certain that treatments I don't understand are BS as much as I don't like the idea of being certain that treatments we all practice now absolutely work, because time has shown us that we as humans suck at knowing that.
Should cranial be taught in DO school? Probably not, but it was literally 2 labs out of all the weekly OPP labs we had at my school, so it was blip. In my opinion, there are bigger fish to fry like improving DO clinical rotations, improving residency application advising, and improving access to clinical research.
