Hamo-study ii: effects of sternotomy on the mobility of the heart under influence of respiration

Abstract

Listen

Translate article

residents. Invitations to participate in the survey were e-mailed to 777 osteopathic physician members of the American Academy of Osteopathy (AAO). The percentage of responses in the ‘frequently’ and ‘always’ categories were compared for all questions. Friedman tests were conducted to determine if significant differences existed between the reported usage of each item. The effect of gender was analyzed using Mann-Whitney tests. Results: 171 osteopathic physicians responded to the survey, providing a 22% response rate. The most frequently reported procedures for the identification of segmental somatic dysfunction were palpation of paraspinal tissue texture (98%), transverse process asymmetry (89%), and tenderness (85%). 60% of respondents reported that the Fryette biomechanical model was frequently/always useful for diagnosis and treatment. Procedures for the treatment of segmental somatic dysfunction reported to be most frequently used were myofascial release (direct or indirect, 78%), soft tissue technique (77%), patient self stretches (71%), and osteopathy in the cranial field (OCF, 65%). Assessment procedures for the identification of pelvic and sacroiliac joint (SIJ) somatic dysfunction were subdivided into assessment of asymmetry, SIJ motion, and pain provocation tests. The pelvic landmarks most commonly assessed for asymmetry were the ASIS (87%), sacral base (82%), PSIS (81%), sacral sulci (78%), and iliac crests (77%). The SIJ motion tests most commonly used were ASIS compression (68%), OCF (61%), and the standing flexion test (54%). The most commonly used SIJ pain provocation tests were the active straight leg raise (52%) and ASIS compression (48%), but these tests were much less employed than those from other categories. Procedures for the treatment of pelvic and SIJ somatic dysfunction most frequently used were muscle energy (70%), myofascial release (67%), patient self-stretches (66%), OCF (59%), patient strengthening exercises (58%), soft tissue technique (58%), and articulatory technique (53%). There was a significant effect of gender for many of the treatment procedures. The vast majority of responders bill for osteopathic manipulative treatment (92%), document somatic dysfunction using positional, Fryette nomenclature (64%), and document the types of techniques used (83%). Conclusions: The results for commonly reported treatment approaches appear different from the findings of a previous study, particularly in relation to the apparently common use of myofascial release and OCF and comparatively low use of high velocity and articulatory techniques. This study also suggests there may be differences in technique selection between these respondents and those reported for osteopaths outside the United States.