Omm

[relish]

All right, help me out future Osteopathic physicians. Chiropratic medicine is more widely known than omm. Almost every time I have explained OMM to anyone, at the end of my shpeel, they conclude verbally that it is the same as chiropracty. I know it is not, but I cannot contest. Chiropratic is concentrated on the spine, whereas OMM covers the body as a unit. However, are the techniques used really that different? Will a patient with health problems be helped equally with the two professions? There are differences I know, but are they really that significant?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[OsteoMed02]

It is very commonplace to hear osteopathic manual medicine be equated with chiropractic medicine. While I cannot attest to what the principles of chiropratic medicine are, I can share some insight as to how OMM may differ.

Osteopathic physicians are trained in both traditional medicine and in manual medicine, allowing them to treat not only disorders of the neuromusculoskeletal system but every other body system as well. What is often misunderstood about OMM is that it isn't just effective at treating a sore neck or an overworked vertebral column. Patients with COPD, GI disease, and other such internal processes respond to intervention with manual medicine.

Osteopaths are trained not only to evaluate the bony skeleton, but are also taught "layer palpation" which enables them to differentiate bone from tendon from muscle from fascia, and so on. We use a lot of soft tissue techniques in order to correct areas that appear to be malaligned or are causing pathology for the patient. This should not be confused with massage because there are methods of diagnosis that must precede the treatment.

Lastly (although there is much more to be said), the concept of holism in osteopathy is most prevalent in the teaching of OMM. This art teaches you how to conceive of the body as a functioning whole, that pathology in one area affects all of the other systems because they are interrelated, even your psyche.

It is difficult for me to say whether or not treatment by both a DC and a DO would be beneficial. I think that the extensive medical background of the DO provides the most complete care but due to lack of knowledge about the profession, it does not receive the attention that it deserves and most people turn to chiropractic medicine first. I would suggest talking with a DO who practices OMM regularly and a DC to see what their views on the subject are. I'm sure a lot of it depends on personal preference and chief complaint from the patient.

I hope this has been helpful for you!

Take care,

Julia
MSUCOM MS-II

 

[DrMom]

I've taken to explaining OMM as being similar to physical therapy. There is so much more to OMM than HVLA, so it really is a dis-service to describe it as "like chiropracty." Also, of course, DOs are fully trained physicians, something that doesn't apply to either PTs or DCs.

 

[stoic]

Dr. Mom -

I really like the idea of explaining OMM in terms of PT. That's such a good idea that I'm going to incorperate it into my regular speech about DO's.

Just as a side note, the fact that DO's are fully trained physicians should never be forgotten. In the past 2 months two ER docs (one MD and one DO) have relayed a very scary chiro tales to me. Even though they work in different ER's, they both recently had an older gentlmen (not the same one) come in complaining of severe upper back pain. Hx revealed that in both cases the pain had been increasing in severity for several months and both had both been seeking Chiro treatments for relief. X-ray/CT revealed that both of these guys had tumors pressing against the spine. What's REALLY scary is that one of the guys brought his Chiro x-rays with him to the ER and the Doc (a DO) immediatly recongnized the tumor on the films... the chiro didn't know what he was looking at and had been missing the tumor for ~6 months. That's a lot of time to lose with a fast growing malignat tumor.