Osteo OMM vs. Chiro "adjustment"

[domsport]

Firstly, Id like to start by saying that this is NOT a post to criticise either profession. I am sincerely interested in pursuing a career in osteopathic medicine and completely understand the benifits of manipulative therapy. I know the "histories" of Dr. Still and also of Andrew Palmer (Chiro), But I am curious to know if there are different physical, biomechanical, therapuetic differences to the Osteopathic OMM vs. Chiropractic manipulations. I work at a rehabilitaion facility and see the various modalities used by chiros and PT's to the benifit of the patient. I would assume that the "physical" aspects of Osteopathic medicine would be similar. Of course Osteopathic medicine can use far more to benifit the patient (pharmacology, surgery, a much bigger knowledge base ect) But when it comes down to the biomechanics and pysiology of OMM, how do they differ? Thanks

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Amy B]

I think the difference is OMM deals with bones and muscles and joints verses Ciro deals with only bones. Someone correct me if I am wrong please.

 

[EReze]

Yup AmyB.

OMM deals with the musco-skelatal system (the relationship of muscles, bones, joints, and other tissues throughout the entire body).

Chiropractors deal moreso with just the skeletal system- cracking bones and what-not.

Both are important components to alternative medicine.

 

[raptor5]

I beleive and I could be wrong that Chiro's exceed normal range of motion in some manipulations whereas HVLA (High Velocity Low Amplitude) implies an adjustment within the normal range of motion.

Raptor5

 

[Stillfocused]

From what I undertand, there are some similarities in terms of some of the techinques (espacially HVLA - high velocity, low amplitude thrust). However, as I understand it, there are also some important differences between OMT and Chiropractic.

THESE ARE ONLY GENERALIZATIONS:

Chiropractors are more focused specifically on spinal vertebrate. In an osteopathic structural exam, we look hard at all the whole body's neuromusculoskelatal system, especially at connective tissues, most particularly we are concerned with fascia.

We are more concerned with joint motion and how this motion fits within the overall structural and functional integrity of a patients body - chiropactors are supposed to be focused on "alignment" or vertebral symetry.

Chiropartic thrust techniques are supposed to be more forceful: they acceed the physiologic barrier and risk passing the anatomic barrier. Our thrusts are supposed to be more focused - they pass the pathogical barrier but stop at the physiologic barrier. Consider CVAs caused by chiropractors who tear vertebral arteries when "aligning" cervical vertebrate "subluxations".

Chiropractors think "alingment," we think about the feel of the tissues or TART (Tissue texture changes, Asymetry, Redness - color changes and Temperature changes).

Chiropartors are more apt to utilize x-rays and gadgets like the "Activator" while we tend to favor our palpatory sense to diagnose and use our hands to treat.

Osteopathy was based on Still's amalgam of medicine, surgery, bonesetting and energy healing - it is supposed to be a reform movement within medicine. OMT has always been understood as a form of "bloodless" surgery.

Osteopathic diagnosis and treatment takes place in the context of overall medical diagnosis and treatment - a DO is a fully trained physician. Anyone can learn surgical techniques but to use them safely and effectively one must be a physicain.

That said - there has to be some real value to chiropratic; that many people would not have spent that much money for the last 100 years if it was useless.

 

[BackTalk]

Its funny how all of you are telling everyone what chiropractic is, and is not, and yet none of you have gone to chiropractic school.

Chiropartors are more apt to utilize x-rays and gadgets like the "Activator" while we tend to favor our palpatory sense to diagnose and use our hands to treat.

I will admit the use of "Activator" is quackery as much quackery as the use of "Craniosacral Therapy" by osteopaths.

I agree that your statements are rather loose or half-truth.

 

[Dr JPH]

I am a bit dissapointed at some of the comments made here by DO students and people who claim to be familiar with osteopathy.

The differences are many, but the person who originally posted initially wanted to know the difference between the manual treatment approaches of the two fields.

In a nutshell, chiropractors focus on spinal lesions in their treatment approach. DOs can certainly focus on spinal lesions (in osteopathy we call them somatic sysfunctions) but we can (strictly from a manual medicine approach) can focus on any body part, tissue or area that has clinical significance as a somatic dysfunction.

The differences beyond the manual medicine are, as I said before, many.

I suggest that you future DO students out there take the time to read up on chiropractors. You will probably be working with them in the future in some capacity whether you choose to or not. You will have patients who come to see you telling you about their chiropractor who was referred by an MD. You will need to be able to answer the question "what IS the difference?"

The greatest fear I have regarding the future of the osteopathic profession is not that we do not have DOs who will carry the manual medicine theories and osteopathic principles, but that there are too many DOs who DON'T...and those folks will overshadow the others.

 

[modelcitizen]

Originally posted by JPHazelton
In a nutshell, chiropractors focus on spinal lesions in their treatment approach. DOs can certainly focus on spinal lesions (in osteopathy we call them somatic sysfunctions) but we can (strictly from a manual medicine approach) can focus on any body part, tissue or area that has clinical significance as a somatic dysfunction.

You're saying chiros call them "spinal lesions" and osteopaths call them "somatic dysfunction?" But whatever you call it, both are doing it? If so, then it sounds like it's just more a matter of semantics than treatment differences.

 

[DrMom]

Originally posted by modelcitizen
You're saying chiros call them "spinal lesions" and osteopaths call them "somatic dysfunction?" But whatever you call it, both are doing it? If so, then it sounds like it's just more a matter of semantics than treatment differences.

It definitely is more than semantics.

 

[modelcitizen]

Originally posted by DrMom
It definitely is more than semantics.

care to elaborate on that?

everyone agrees they're different, but the explanations of the differences make them sound more similar than different.

 

[Cookie Monster]

First off I would like to say I do not know very much about what chiropractors do (or don't do) but here is what I feel OMT is all about:

Doctors of osteopathic medicine receive extra training relating the musculoskeletal sytem with the lymphatic, circulatory, and nervous systems. With OMT, doctors use their hands to diagnose and treat injuries and illness which can encourage the body to heal on its own. OMT refers to approximately 25 different types of manual procedures. A D.O. completes a structural diagnosis by using an expanded observation and palpatory examination of the neuromuscular skeletal system with its venous, lymphatic and pulmonary interactions to identify the presence of significant hindrances to health. Overall, I think OMT tries to establish a proper balance between the circulatory and neuromusculoskeletal systems which might lead a patient to better health.

Hope this helps.

 

[rbassdo]

Two differences I know of, which haven't been addressed much yet.

1.) OMT HVLA techniques are intended to drive through the physiological barrier. I believe Chiropractics teaches to drive through the anatomical barrier. Hence, the studies done showing a much higher rate of injury via high velocity chiro. versus high velocity OMT.

2.) My chiropractor does not diagnose. She doesn't know how. She went to Palmer. I asked her to go ahead and treat my spine, but to tell me what she found. She couldn't do it and she admitted that she simply didn't learn how to diagnose musculoskeletal mechanics.

Additionally, there's a Palmer grad. in my class here at KCOM. He says the differences are definitely there, but when the much more detailed and clinically practical knowledge a D.O. student learns is added to the equation, there's no comparison.

 

[PTjay]

from my own experience...

people go to a chiropractor for chronic manipulation (crack your back once a week for the rest of your life, and don't forget to sign the check)

people go to a DO for occasional manipulation to increase range of motion or realign a joint but very rarely will a DO manipulate someone chronically as a chiropractor would.

manipulation should not be something you have done to you for the rest of your life.

 

[BackTalk]

Two differences I know of, which haven't been addressed much yet.

1.) OMT HVLA techniques are intended to drive through the physiological barrier. I believe Chiropractics teaches to drive through the anatomical barrier. Hence, the studies done showing a much higher rate of injury via high velocity chiro. versus high velocity OMT.

2.) My chiropractor does not diagnose. She doesn't know how. She went to Palmer. I asked her to go ahead and treat my spine, but to tell me what she found. She couldn't do it and she admitted that she simply didn't learn how to diagnose musculoskeletal mechanics.

Additionally, there's a Palmer grad. in my class here at KCOM. He says the differences are definitely there, but when the much more detailed and clinically practical knowledge a D.O. student learns is added to the equation, there's no comparison.

Do you even know what the anatomical barrier is?? Manipulation is a procedure that takes a joint into the paraphysiologic space and NOT past the anatomical barrier as THAT WOULD CAUSE DAMAGE! So let me correct this bad information. Chiropractic school DOE'S NOT teach to "drive through the anatomical space".

As far as your doctor not diagnosing goes....hmmm, if she's not diagnosing a problem, then what is she treating? Secondly, you're a bigger ****** than she is as you let her work on you!

Oh, yeah DO's are obviously geniuses as only a small minority of them practice manipulation...ok yeah...no comparison....sure....

PTJAY is a typical subordinate PT wanting to feel important. Don't you have some muscles to go rub on?

 

[PreMedAdAG]

Originally posted by Amy B
I think the difference is OMM deals with bones and muscles and joints verses Ciro deals with only bones. Someone correct me if I am wrong please.

Yeah, sorry amy, that is incorrect, I will post soon with backing to that

 

[PreMedAdAG]

Originally posted by raptor5
I beleive and I could be wrong that Chiro's exceed normal range of motion in some manipulations whereas HVLA (High Velocity Low Amplitude) implies an adjustment within the normal range of motion.

Raptor5

Chiropractors use this technique as well

 

[PreMedAdAG]

Originally posted by rbassdo

2.) My chiropractor does not diagnose. She doesn't know how. She went to Palmer. I asked her to go ahead and treat my spine, but to tell me what she found. She couldn't do it and she admitted that she simply didn't learn how to diagnose musculoskeletal mechanics.

No offense, but your DC is ******ED if she can't come up with a Dx on that. It's part of her job.................... jesus

 

[PreMedAdAG]

Originally posted by PTjay
from my own experience...

people go to a chiropractor for chronic manipulation (crack your back once a week for the rest of your life, and don't forget to sign the check)

people go to a DO for occasional manipulation to increase range of motion or realign a joint but very rarely will a DO manipulate someone chronically as a chiropractor would.

manipulation should not be something you have done to you for the rest of your life.

I'm amazed by all of the gneralized comments based on one or two experiences. When you go to see a chiropractor and they tell you to come back for 20 visits.. that's when you say thank you very much, I'll be in touch.. meanwhile, find yourself a GOOD chiropractor, that can treat the problem and send you away only to call when another problem occurs.!

 

[PreMedAdAG]

So now I come to my final post!

Sorry for all of the side comments posted previously.

I do know that I want to apply to DO school and I do know that my dad has been in practice (DC) for 30 years. His patients refer to him as the "miracle worker" Most patients see him on two follow up visits, if that, and then call when another problem pops up. He is a conservative treater, in other words, he doesn't use manipulations or therapy in excess just so he can get money from insurance!

I just wanted to mention one important thing that some people touched on but that others missed completely.

It seems like DO's are really into the whole neuromuscular aspect of treatment....

but DC's also treat joint problems and because all they CAN do is manipulate, they tend to be better at musculoskeletal manipulations. There aren't that many DO's who actually practice OMM all that much because a) it takes too long
b) there's not enough money in it.

For DCs, it's the only way that they can make money.

I think OMM is great for many other types of manipulation besides spinal disorders. I would trust my chiropractor with my spine and neck before anyone else.

I hope to learn more about the history of Still and Palmer and what is being practiced in modern times. I'm in no way claiming to be experienced because I haven't gone to medical school yet. But, I just think that if you're interested in DO's, you should really do some reading on DCs and DOs.. I think you'll get a better knowledge base if you read about both.

 

[DOSouthpaw]

The differences from what I can tell are quite different. I haven't read a whole lot of Chiropractic books, but I have read some Still, most all of Sutherland's stuff, all of Becker's stuff, and a lot of Fulford's stuff too, so I feel like I have some grasp on Osteopathy.

First of all is the paradigm that the two philosophies operate out of concerning lesioned areas.

Chiropractic Lesion= something out of place that needs to be put back into place

Somatic Dysfunction= Movement of restricted quanity AND/OR quality

This difference alone will account for the amount of activating force used to correct a lesioned segment.

Next, and what I feel is a huge difference is the manner in which manipulation is viewed (at least traditionally). Traditional (straight) chiropractors manipulate to cure disease while Osteopaths manipulate to reduce Allostatic load and help the host achieve its potential so disease can be more fully combated by the host, hence, less illness.

Of course, this is all just semantics to some, but the philosophy is radically different if you like that stuff (The Breath of Life, the Tide, Jealous's biodynamic approach to the patient) but to most that is a waste of time because medicine isn't seen as philosphical anymore...unfortunately.

The differences in technics can be vast as well. Osteopaths are taught more modalites in school, although chiropractors can learn these in continuing education classes. These include many indirect techniques (FRT, FPR, NMR, Indirect Myofacial, Jones's S/CS, etc..) and direct techniques (MET, Direct Myofacial, etc.), and of course Osteopathy in the Cranial Field (Alot of chiros will learn Cranialsacral Therapy (Trade Mark) from the Upledger Institute which is again...quite different than OCF). Even the HV/LA is different in many ways. Chiropractors mainly focus on direct thrusts onto the lesioned joint (short levers), while Osteopaths tend to focus on using Type III mechanics to lock down to the lesioned segment, apply a fulcum, and use an extremity or other part of the body as a lever (long levers). This SHOULD require less force to mobilize if properly positioned, but I've seen people put tons of force into the Kirksville Krunch when if they would have localized better it would have been a little bitty push. If localized properly, you should be able to mobilize a vertebral segment with a gentle, and quick push of your thumb. but anyway.

As far as barriers are concerned, both Chiros and Osteopaths should thrust into the restrictive (pathlogical) barrier. This is the new Patholgical Physiological Barrier of the patient because it has reduced the Physiological Barrier limited by the patient's muscles and totalled concealed the Elastic Barrier which is limited by the joint capsule and ligaments. If you thrust into the Anatomical Barrier, then you're probably going to think you did a great job and fixed the problem because the patient never came back....until their lawyer sends a letter.

See y'all later!

 

[rbassdo]

Originally posted by BackTalk

Do you even know what the anatomical barrier is?? Manipulation is a procedure that takes a joint into the paraphysiologic space and NOT past the anatomical barrier as THAT WOULD CAUSE DAMAGE! So let me correct this bad information. Chiropractic school DOE'S NOT teach to "drive through the anatomical space".

As far as your doctor not diagnosing goes....hmmm, if she's not diagnosing a problem, then what is she treating? Secondly, you're a bigger ****** than she is as you let her work on you!

Oh, yeah DO's are obviously geniuses as only a small minority of them practice manipulation...ok yeah...no comparison....sure....

PTJAY is a typical subordinate PT wanting to feel important. Don't you have some muscles to go rub on?

wow...i'm a ******. that was so tasteful. anyhow...you made my point! Pushing beyond the anatomical barrier absolutely causes damage! That's why D.O.'s stay within the physiological barrier (e.g. - the ROM achieved by me moving my own arm). By the way, I understand an anatomical barrier to be the absolute limit of motion imposed by the anatomic structure of a joint. so, i couldn't move/push any one of my joints beyond its anatomical barrier. An outside force (you) could.

ever heard of "shotgunning?" that's what this chiropractor I went to is doing. she doesn't diagnose. she just attempts to "pop" any joint she can get her hands on. if it goes...then there must have been something wrong with it. i had no idea that she wasn't going to be prepared to diagnose when i visited her. i just figured a chiropractor who proudly displayed her Palmer diploma (with honors) would be able to do diagnose. she informed me that she wasn't taught how to diagnose.

By the way...where's the Chiriopractic Forum??

 

[tkim]

A lot of interesting conversation and ideas *could* take place here if the participants keep it civil.

If the tone of this thread continues to be negative, I will close it.

 

[BackTalk]

I'm glad I made your point and my point is that chiropractic school DOE'S NOT teach to drive through the anatomical barrier.

Hence, the studies done showing a much higher rate of injury via high velocity chiro. versus high velocity OMT.

What studies?

I've never heard of "shot gunning", are you sure it's not called "Russian roulette"? Listen, this is coming from a chiropractor, I wouldn't let that quack adjust the color on my television set.

she informed me that she wasn't taught how to diagnose.

Seriously, Palmer is not a die hard "straight" chiropractic school like Sherman or Life College of Chiropractic. You are either making this up or your doctor just chooses not to diagnose and just practices "straight chiropractic". I know for a fact that she learned to diagnose, she had to in order to get chiropractic license. She would have never passed the four sets of boards if she didn't know how to diagnose.

By the way...where's the Chiriopractic Forum??

I don't know what a " Chiriopractic" forum is.

 

[modelcitizen]

Thanks for the posts, Backtalk. You clearly know what you're talking about, and it's upsetting the DO's here who don't.

Keep up the good work.

 

[tkedave]

One thing I've noticed is chiropractors tend to use a lot less soft tissue treatment. I've shadowed a few OMM specialist and they use counter-strain and the stile technique a ton; almost 90% of the time. The only DOs that I?ve seen use HVLA a lot are family docs who simply do it because it is quick and instant relief.

One the other hand I talked to a chiropractic student that was in his second year trying to find how they did stuff different. They had learned some of the techniques just like counter-strain but to a much lower degree. He knew what it was, but said he wouldn't use it much. On the other hand he tended to use a lot more 'poping' treatments for things. He also was really focused on 'trigger points'. When I went to treat a friend for a pull muscle near his scapula, the chiropractic student kept going off about if it was a trigger point. By the time he was done talking and me telling him it wasn't a trigger point I had fully treated it with counter-strain and the pain was gone. But I?m sure part of that was him still being a student.

Also I think chiropractors and DOs simply do some of the techniques different. Two ex-chiropractors that were now DOs said a lot of the techniques simply seemed 'backwards' but with the same result.

One thing that hasn't been brought up is, it might not be the techniques that are all that different, but the education you receive. Some DO schools don't teach OMM as well as others. Some DO students don't use OMM. Two 3rd years I talked to on OMM rotations both said they didn't like OMM and wouldn't use it - go figure. And I'm sure some chiropractic schools are very good at the manual medicine. It comes down to how much you want to use it and if you view it as useful.

 

[Shinken]

Question: What's worse than an MD vs DO thread?

Answer: A DO vs DC thread.

Talking about MD's, DO's and DC's, here's something funny and ironic to think about:

The application service (AMCAS) for MD schools is headquartered in DC.

The application service (AACOMAS) for DO schools is headquartered in MD.

I thought that was kind of interesting (yes, my brain works in mysterious ways).

OK, carry on.

 

[Amxcvbcv]

Originally posted by Shinken
Question: What's worse than an MD vs DO thread?

Answer: A DO vs DC thread.

Talking about MD's, DO's and DC's, here's something funny and ironic to think about:

The application service (AMCAS) for MD schools is headquartered in DC.

The application service (AACOMAS) for DO schools is headquartered in MD.

I thought that was kind of interesting (yes, my brain works in mysterious ways).

OK, carry on.

Awesome.

 

[wholehealth]

The main difference between these two is their approach in theory. DO's come from the standpoint of the circulation system. DC's come from the standpoint of the nervous system.
In Gray's anatomy it states that all functions of the body are regulated and maintained by the nervous system. If the nervous impulses are interfered with at any level the body will not perform at its potential. If there is a vertebral subluxation then that nerve impulse has interference and whatever is maintained by that nerve is running at less than 100%. Knowing this, 'would you like to live in a body that is full of vertebral subluxations and try to operate at 100% when the body is only capable of 80%?'

The only purpose of chiropractic is to adjust vertebral subluxation so that the body can perform all of its functions at its full potential. DC's are doctors of performance not health. Let me repeat this, they are not doctors of health or medicine they are doctors of performance. By adjusting a vertebral subluxation the body can perform its own functions at its highest potential and the body can realize health through its own harmony and accord.
DC's are not responsible for diagnosis because that is not their place. Their only responsibility is to Locate, Analyze, and Correct Vertebral Subluxation.

Which of you would not want your body to run at its highest potential? I know I want to always be at my highest potential. This is common sense folks, don't complicate things.......

DC's are experts in spinal subluxations and the performance of the nervous system. Health is then transmitted through the nervous system because all interference is removed.
If you doubt the importance of the nervous system then study embryology and you will realize the the brain, spinal column, and nerves are the first to take form and from that all else manifests.

If you are seeing patients whose nervous system is not operating at 100% and treating them then it is like taking water out of canoe cup by cup instead of plugging the leak.

As a Do I would imagine you would want to work with patients who are free of nerve interference so that the tools and techniques you use to treat them are able to work at their fullest potential......

Again, the message is simple...Free the body of nerve interference so that the body can respond, adapt, and maintain equilibrium at its fullest potential.


BTW, I am a student at Sherman College of Straight Chiropractic and I hope to work with Doctors of all schools to ease the suffering of those who desperately need our help and do not need our political dogma to interfere with their needs.

you can reach me at [email protected]. This is my sisters computer and she is beginning VTech osteopathy college.

You all take care and I wish you the best in your studies, practice,, and ability to care for others. God Bless....

 

[wholehealth]

Thanks, bro, using the words vertebral subluxation under my name is sure to give me a reputation...

 

[PTjay]

BackTalk

not sure where the hostility came from (if you read what I wrote I said it was my PERSONAL experience). Since my experience is obviously limited would you mind explaining to me when chronic manipulation would be indicated?

By the way, the patients who I work with day in and day out and seeing them make functional progress makes me feel important, not posting on some anonymous forum.

p.s. I work at a Level I Trauma Hospital and I certainly don't "rub on muscles".

 

[coreyw]

picking up an old old thread here... sorry, but better late than never...

Between the chiropractic adjustment and the osteopathic HVLAT... there is absolutely no difference in effect. None what so ever.

That said, there is a large range of different kinds of HVLAT/adjustment technique... some, like some of the traditional Gonstead adjustment (used in chiropractic), tend to be applied more forcefully, but this is partly or mostly just a matter training emphasis and personal practitioner style. Some osteopathic techniques are a little less specific, and some chiropractors will tend to adjust joints that - arguably - don't need adjusting. What differences do exist are of degree and personal preference, rather than physiological effect.

By far the greater part of the chiropractic profession defines a vertebral subluxation is a remarkably similar way to the somatic dysfunction. The point is that 'mis-alignment' no longer accurately describes either profession's understanding of what is happening to the body. More than a few chiropractors have abondoned the term 'subluxation' with all of its metaphysical baggage. NB: This need not mean abondoning the neurodystrophic hypothesis altogether or the 'vertebral subluxation complex' model... just the term.

To say that all chiropractors subscribe to the idea of a misaligned vertebra causing neurodystrophy and organ disease as such is like saying that all osetopaths believe that the artery reigns supreme - it just ain't so anymore.

The practice differences between osteopathy and chiropractic lie in a) osteopathy's traditional emphasis on a wider range of techniques, including a plethora of soft-tisse manipulative therapies; and b) osteopathy's broader, more liberal (and more scientifically valid) view of the role of the musculoskeletal system in health and disease.

Both of these have a significant bearing on osteopathic diagnosis and treatment and the patient's *experience* of osteopathy (no matter the US/International divide between scope-of-practice) is often quite different to that of chiropractic.

That said, it's chiropractic that in recent decades, has invested more in R&D into manipulative therapy than osteopathy globally.

Culturally, and - in the United States - in scope of practice there are some stark differences... but an adjustment is basically an HVLAT.

ttfn

 

[PublicHealth]

Oddly, there are more chiropractors in the US than there are DOs, and Americans are more likely to know what a chiropractor does as opposed to a DO.

 

[OSUdoc08]

Ok everyone, here is the bottom line:

When someone approaches me and asks the difference between DO's & DC's what do I say?

More specifically, other than the obvious of pharmacology and surgery,

In one or two sentences, how do you explain to the layperson the difference between OMT & Chiropractic Therapy?

 

[rescuetomm]

coreyw is right on OSUdoc08. If patients are seeking help for musculoskeletal conditions chiropractic can and is effective. If you read a up to date mission statement from a DC school and that of the AAOMCAS you would think philosophically they are the same with the exception of pharm/surgery. The line can be very blurred from my experience. Their are DOs that utilize OMM frequently that I would entrust my spine to and some do not practice OMM at all. You will find that the techniques may be different but the end result is the same. The DOs in my area (3) do not use omm as a general rule and refer patients to our office. We have a excellent relationship with the DOs in our city. One of them comes to our office for treatment. Yes, I am a DC. I will however be attending DMU this fall. I do not obviously have a beef with DOs since I will be one in 2008.

 

[coreyw]

Originally posted by OSUdoc08
Ok everyone, here is the bottom line:

When someone approaches me and asks the difference between DO's & DC's what do I say?

More specifically, other than the obvious of pharmacology and surgery,

In one or two sentences, how do you explain to the layperson the difference between OMT & Chiropractic Therapy?

In layperson's terms, how's this?...

"If they practice manual therapy at all [and outside of the US they all specialise in OMT], osteopaths usually use a wide variety of hands-on approaches to relieve pain, help your body move better, and to help you recover from illness and injury. Chiropractors aim to do the same thing, but will focus on adjusting or 'popping' mainly the spine - they also routinely x-ray each patient. Osteopaths usually spend a bit more time with you on each visit, and use various massage and gentle mobilising techniques as well as direct joint manipulation ('popping')."

[That's three sentences... sorry ]

Or:

"Osteopaths are kind of like a medical doctor, massage therapist, chiropractor and physical therapist all rolled into one."

Then, of course, you can go into the guff about osteopaths being fully qualified medical doctors and - if you're being fair and not talking about OMM specialists but DO in general - you'll want to add that chiropractors receive more basic training in the manual treatment of disorders related to muscles and joints - especially of the spine. Both are trained to do what they do safely and effectively.

 

[OSUdoc08]

thanks

 

[JenMac]

Originally posted by rescuetomm
You will find that the techniques may be different but the end result is the same.

Exactly. Also, if you want to make first hand comparisons, shadow some of each. A lot of DCs practice in a LOT of different ways.

 

[coreyw]

It seems odd to me - as an external observer and long-time 'consumer' of manual therapies - that there isn't more cross-fertilisation between the osteopathic, chiropractic and assorted massage disciplines... especially in research, but also in clinical practice.

What seems even odder is that many students of each seem to know bugger all about what the other does.

It's like a psychiatrist not having much of a clue as to what a clinical psychologist does. Most peculiar.

My agenda is the promotion of manual medicine... the whole kit and kaboodle. Whatever works baby! Trigger-point, counter-strain, MET, HVLAT, cross-fibre kneeding, etc.

I look forward to the day when there ain't no osteopaths nor chiropractors nor MDs... There is just a community of well-trained health care professionals who use an optimal mix of manual therapies competently and regularly to help treat and prevent those musculoskeletal and systemic disorders for which such therapies are demonstrably cost-effective, just as they might prescribe drugs, surgery and lifestyle advice. These people would do the best they can, acting out of a strong devotion to self-development through community service. Passionate about what they do, they would also be humble enough to recognise their limitations and respect differences amongst themselves, and between theirs and other professions - They would be collegial in their spirit and work with others in the interests of their patients - including the allied health care and paramedical disciplines. They would love medicine but acknowledge its failings and flaws. They would be well-grounded in the biomedical sciences - critical thinkers yet open-minded to new possibilities and developments. They would understand the importance of evidence-based medicine, but not worship it. They would be active in basic and applied research, and supported by strong institutions that themselves are proactive in community, environmental and public health promotion. They would certainly deserve to be rewarded well for their services, but would never put profit ahead of humanity. These people may not be all of one mind - in fact it's better if they're not - but they would more or less share an inclination towards a conservative, preventative and holistic approach to health care. Ultimately, they would grasp the idea that medicine - including manual medicine - belongs not only to doctors, but to their patients for whom they are advocates and with whom they are partners.

And I couldn't care less if they call themselves osteopaths, chiropractors or oompaloompahs.

phew! ...then again they could be in it for the skiing holidays and the stethoscopes...

I was pleased to see that a forthcoming US osteopathic conference programme includes a presentation from a research scientist from the chiropractic tradition. All I can say is: About bloody time!

Incidentally, to the best of my knowledge, it was A. T. Still who first used the term 'adjustment' in relation to joint manipulation.

 

[JenMac]