Spinal Mechanics

PPT Manipulation and Synergetic Spinal Mechanics

PPT Manipulation

Patient Research Survey

Preliminary Findings

 

 

J.R.Bayliss DO Osteopath London England

Email: support@spinalmechanics.com

 

Abstract

 

Background: Medical doctors routinely favour muscle based therapies over Osteopathy. Whilst this may be changing is some areas, there is a long way to go.

 

One reason for medical doctor’s reluctance to recommend manipulative based therapies like Osteopathy is partly due to their commitment to the NHS. However, there is another reason, the lack of clearly defined research to validate that a manipulative approach is more effective than what they can already achieve. Especially when so many doctors have very limited real world knowledge of the subject.  

 

One of the major reasons why Osteopaths do not have an abundance of validating research is due to limited funding but there is another reason; how do you compare a whole body treatment with another unrelated therapy?

 

When a patient is being manipulated, no matter how gentle the Osteopath is, for the technique to have any meaningful effect the patient becomes very aware that they are being manipulated and there is usually a series of audible clicks. This makes it impossible to judge the effects of manipulation directly with placebo.

 

Aims and Objectives: With the introduction of a new type of manipulative procedure called Passive-Prone-Technique based on the spinal theories by John Bayliss DO, for the first time Osteopaths should theoretically have the opportunity to compare the effects of manipulation directly with placebo? To prove if a comparison is possible, some basic research was needed to assess whether this could be achieved.

 

Discussion:  Passive Prone Techniques abbreviated to (PPT’s) are not a variation of ‘Applied Technique’ (Modification of an existing technique). They are different and based on an entirely new set of protocols.  Initial testing using the results from palpation, visual symmetry analysis and mobility tests has so far confirmed PPT manipulation has the potential to provide excellent results.

 

 

Conclusion: Three things had to be established to justify further research trials; 1) what do patients themselves think about PPT manipulation, 2) Could the patient tell when they had actually been manipulated and 3) Was the patient happy with the results.