Trial of a Test - Low Back Pain

[neuromuscular]

I would like as many as are interested to give feedback on a test that I have ben using for 15 years.

It suggests a condition that has been overlooked.

I have looked in numerous research areas and text books, but I cannot find any thing similar

The test is:

Landmark the ASIS to ASIS. Have the patient do hip abduction directly lateral in the coronal plane from closed at 15 cm or 6 inch increments to the abilty of the patient to perform. Note results.


Landmark the PSIS to PSIS and have the patient perform hip abduction as above. note results.

Landmark the ASIS to PSIS first on the right and then on the left as you have the patient do hip abduction as above.

I have found the following statistics:

No back pain:

No deviation inferior or superior to any great extent

Low back pain:

Only 10% have bilaterally equal pelvic angles that increase either to the posterior or anterior rotation.

The balance had differing pelvic angles. (90%)

Of this group:
60% right ant, left pos
20% right ant left neutral
20% right ant while left lesser angle ant.

See what you get for results.

Best regards.

Neuromuscular

Similar Threads:

• Low Back Pain
• low back pain
• low back Pain
• Low Back Pain
• Low back pain

[neuromuscular]

To All:

Please do the test without prejudice or bias.

I have shown this to many physios in person and they agree that the SIJ testing - Diane Lee , Hungerford et al versions - leave them wondering if the test is really "objective" or they are getting accurate information on which to base their therapy,


I have found that the tests are bias to show a certain ideal only if you accept the ideal going into the test.

If you do the tests on the basis of no outcome prejudiced, you will see differences from what is taught.

From the start, some have shown a closed viewpoint to anything differring from their viewpoint. This is not conducive to testing the innominate bone position test on its own merit.

Best regards,

Neuromuscular

[alophysio]

hi all,

The only way to do a test objectively is to have set parameters that you can measure.

Physiotherapy will always have an art component involved because of this reason - no matter what test you use...and because everyone is unique (even twins).

To measure either the APAS test (neuromuscular's test) or the "Stork Test" objectively, you would have to put markers into the bone to determine the direction of movements in 3 dimensions. And that would only give you direction of motion...how much motion is significant???

The Stork test has studies on reliability which support its use when it is a simple +/- result.

Do neuromuscular's test - it is simply hip ABD in the coronal plane at predetermined distances (which has the flaw of people having different leg lengths therefore not being comparable between patients unless they all have the same leg length). You then see if the pelvis as a unit twists.

It is simply a standing stretch of sorts - the tightest structures will lock up first causing a torsion or some other compensation of the body - when this occurs, you still have to work out what it is that caused the compensation...good luck!

[leebingate]

Dear Physiobob:

Thank you for your input.

I will not keep in touch with this forum.
It is not because of you or the forum.

I have had to ask several times for people, who gave very negative, if not insulting remarks, to just try the test. There appears to be little room for true research. Today research is how many prominent individual you can quote..

That is not my idea of research. That is the idea behind getting others to praise you, because you praise them. That is peer pressure and not peer review.

My idea of reseasrch is to take what you use now and pit it against some other process that would prove or disprove it. Then note the outcomes of each.

Right now the form closure/force closure/neuroplogicqal/emotional model is the "flavour of the month" if not the past decade or so.

Will it stand the test of time? Only time will show that.

We had the idea from Ptolemy that the earth was flat. It was agreed on and quoted extensively although other less known theories and ideas were put forth. Later, Capernicus and even later Glilleo put forth a different model that others - authorities of the time - strongly objected to. Time proved which was closer to the correct idea. Time proves or disproves all things.

I have had extremely unprofessional remarks from three different people in Australia - one of whom praised their method, but put down fellow therapists in England. That is not professionalism to me!

It is one thing to disagree on ideals and theories. It is quite another to put others down.

I have been stated to have a "hidden agenda". I do not have any desire ot sell or make money off of this idea. I just want others to be open to a new idea that many of those who we view as authorities agree has not been tried.

However, I do feel that others have revealed their hidden agendas in that their method is thebest dang whiz bang super duper all inclusive all-in-one version of the load transfer SIJ test which can assess from the tip of the patients toes to the back. I do not claim a panacea, just a new approach and theory.

I have used Andry Vleemings Book entitled Movement, Stability and Low Back Pain for the simple reason that it shows the preoccupation with the SIJ and SIJ testing by ALL disciplines as this was a complilation of some of the most eminent people of our time period. It shows a preoccupation with SIJ and related tests by its three and a half pages of references to the SIJ but no reference what so ever to the adductors. That to me shows where present "wisdom" is headed. Diane Lee and others have stated that the present theory has flaws if not gapping holes which require more research. I do not think that we should lightly brush these aside.

I have had personal things misrepresented by others These may be the viewpoint of that individual, but they do not represent the whole of the situation. That, I find very unprofessional.


I will not engage in discussion with such types of communication.

I ask all to try the two tests the Gillett or standing SIJ test with hip flexion and/or torso flexion ( load transfer swing phase if you like that designation better) and compare the same landmarks with the standing SIJ with hip ABD. What results does the practitioner see????? That is all. I do not want to lecture or sell a book or services. This was done free of charge and will continue to be so. I ask that they do this without prejudice and free of past ideals. Then, have each decide for themselves.

Since this posting on this thread, I have had interest from a Canadian university to do a trial or test of the idea on a small scale. I do not wish to continue to be hauled onto the carpet again and again as has been the experience in this forum.

I have said that I do not consider it professional to use certain ideals on a secular site and I still feel that way.

Using the power of authority is never beneficial.

My best to you and I hope that the forum will show more openness in the future.

I do not wish to continue, so if you wish to remove my threads that is acceptable to me. I do not want to be part of a character bashing.

Best regards,

Neuromuscular.

Hi,

I apologise for my comments.

Please don't take it personally Neuromuscular. I am genuinely concerned with your health.

Cheers
Additional Comment I forgot:
To All:

The apprehension to this test is normal. However, I urge all to try the test with hip abduction.

Then make your own decision and not that based on past theories.


Best regards,
Neuromuscular.