Featured Articles

<< >>

All Great Clinicians Ask This Question

A few weeks ago I received this amazing email from a Chiropractor: “Thanks again for helping me realize how little I know.  I was much more content when I knew everything but I credit you as the guy who got me moving again.  Thanks man.” Dr. Z Dr. Zattended his first Somatic Senses course earlier [...]

Interview with Dr. Andreo Spina

Dr. Spina talks about what’s been missing in soft tissue treatment education, how his courses through Functional Anatomy Systems fill in the gaps, the importance of palpation and some common mistakes that are made by clinicians, how his Functional Range Release system works, and more… Dr. Andreo A. Spina B. Kin, DC, FCCSS(C), D.Ac, CPT Sports Specialist [...]

A Developmental Kinesiology Approach for Pain, Dysfunction and Optimal Performance

Dynamic Neuromuscular Stabilization (DNS) according to Koláŕ A Developmental Kinesiology Approach for Pain, Dysfunction
and Optimal Performance

 

Pavel Kolar, PaedDr., Ph.D.
Alena Kobesova, MD, Ph.D.

Department of Rehabilitation and Sports Medicine, Charles University, 2nd Medical Faculty, University Hospital Motol, Prague, Czech Republic

Etiology of back pain (or musculoskeletal pain) should be investigated not only from an anatomical and biomechanical standpoint, evaluating influence of external forces (i.e. loading) acting on the spine, but should also include evaluation of the internal forces induced by the patient’s own musculature. The stabilizing function of muscles plays a critical and decisive postural role, which in turn is dependent upon the quality of CNS control.

Current clinical and experimental studies suggest that our motor behavior is genetically predetermined. Initially “primitive reflexes” organized on spinal and brain stem level (e.g. supporting reflex, Galant reflex, suprapubic reflex etc.) are in control, later more complex sensory-motor functional relationships, organized on higher CNS levels including the “old” cortex, become activated. Such motor patterns occur as a result of CNS maturation.

Any purposeful movement influences the global posture, and this posture subsequently influences the quality of the phasic movement. Activation of the (deep) stabilizers is automatic and subconscious, preceding every purposeful movement (the ‘feed-forward mechanism’). The integrated stabilizing system of the spine consists of well balanced activity between deep neck flexors and spinal extensors in the cervical and upper thoracic region.  Stability of the lower thoracic and lumbar region is dependent on the proportional activity between the diaphragm, pelvic floor, all the sections of the abdominal wall and spinal extensors. The diaphragm, pelvic floor and abdominal wall regulate intra-abdominal pressure thus providing lumbopelvic postural stability. Under pathological conditions, insufficient postural function of the diaphragm, abnormal recruitment and timing between diaphragmatic and abdominal muscles activity, abnormal initial chest position (due to imbalanced activity between upper and lower chest fixators, with upper fixators dominating) and hyperactivity of the superficial spinal extensors can be observed. Kolar’s approach to Dynamic Neuromuscular Stabilization (DNS) explains the importance of the relationship and proper recruitment of all muscular interactions for dynamic stability of the spine and utilizes a series of systematic dynamic tests. The DNS is a complex approach, encompassing principles of developmental kinesiology during the 1st year of the life, defining posture, breathing stereotype and functional joint centration from a “neurodevelopmental” paradigm. The treatment approach is based on reflex locomotion principles and ontogenetic postural locomotor patterns.  The goal of this treatment approach is to optimize distribution of internal forces of the muscles acting on each segment of the spine and/or any other joint. In the DNS treatment concept, patient education is emphasized to restore ideal coordination among all stabilizing muscles. The DNS also involves assessment and treatment of cortical functions, a rather overlooked aspect in rehabilitation world.

During development, the motor control hierarchy starts from spinal and brain stem level, gradually approaching the highest level of control, i.e. cortical level. This highest, i.e. cortical, level of integration allows for the ability to adapt new skills to imagine and plan the movement. If this ability is disturbed, dyspraxia may be diagnosed.  Gnostic (sensory, perception) and motor (executive, expressive) dyspraxia can be distinguished. Gnostic dyspraxia is related to sensory processing of information either from one sensory system (one modality – proprioceptive, tactile, vestibular, optic, acoustic) or multi-sensory disturbances may take place.  Executive disturbance can be recognized as impaired selective movement, disturbed postural adaptation, inability to relax, disturbance of balance control, inadequate strength adaptation, poor fluency or rhythm adjustment. It is not easy to diagnose dyspraxia. The only standardized tests are the Movement Assessment Battery for Children (MABC) and Bruininks – Oseretsky Test of Motor Proficiency (BOTMP).

The lecture and the workshop will cover the following:

  • The basic principles of developmental kinesiology.
  • Development during the first year of life: stabilization of the spine in the sagittal plane, definition of ideal stereotype of breathing and functional joint centration, development of the phasic movements coupled with trunk rotation
  • The relationship between infant neuromaturation and adult locomotor system pathology.
  • Functional stabilization of the spine. Posture is addressed from a developmental perspective.
  • Correction of poor stereotypes of respiration.
  • The key principles of reflex locomotion:  locomotor patterns, stepping forward and support function, support/stimulation zones.
  • Definition and importance of cortical functions

During the workshops, the following will be demonstrated:

  • Skills to utilize the most important tests to evaluate the deep stabilizing system of the spine.
  • Skills for evaluation of breathing stereotypes.
  • The most important techniques used in treatment of the deep stabilizing system of the spine utilizing the principles of reflex locomotion.
  • Self-treatment techniques based on developmental and reflex locomotion principles
  • Assessment and re-education of the cortical functions.

The above knowledge and skills can clinically be utilized in:

  • Treatment of functional pathology of the locomotor system, vertebrogenic and radicular pain syndromes where the stabilizing system of the spine plays a crucial role.
  • Treatment of functional pathology of the locomotor system resulting from poor early development.
  • Treatment of many neurological, orthopedic and pediatric diagnoses like CP, poor posture, scoliosis etc.

For more information about the DNS please visit our website: www.rehabps.com

 

 

Charlie Weingroff Foot-Related Interview

I recently filled out a written Q&A for Dr. Kelsey Armstrong, who is a Podiatrist in Raleigh, NC. Dr. Armstrong recently became exposed to some of my messages and asked me to expand on some things for his Website.  What I just sent off to Dr. Amstrong is below.

http://www.armstrongpodnsportshealth.com

http://www.armstrongpodnsportshealth.wordpress.com

1) Tell us a little about yourself and why you chose to become a physical therapist?

I think like many of us in our profession, I began as an athlete playing ice hockey and baseball through high school.  I enjoyed weight training, and I found it very cool to be strong.  I used typical young bodybuilding approaches and had success at that time.  Going into college, I played baseball, but I knew that was done after college.  To stay in sports, I eschewed being an orthopedic surgeon since even though I was very good at carrying or moving large objects, I wasn’t very good at putting them together.  So I became set on being a Certified Athletic Trainer and go on to graduate school.  My undergrad had the same Premed program for the ATC program, so that also gave me all the prereqs for physical therapy school.  My advisor said I could still do everything I wanted to do as an ATC even if I went to PT school, and it would make me more marketable and  have a good backup plan as well.  So I graduated undergrad in ’96, got my ATC in ’97, MSPT in ’99, and DPT in January of 2010.

In the summer of ’98, I was working as a PT aide, and one of the referring physicians asked the owner of the PT office if they knew any ATCs interested in working with a minor league basketball team coming to the area.  I got that job while still in PT school, and after graduating, the connections from that minor league job got me to the New Jersey Nets for the ’99-00 season.  From 2000-03, I was a Head Athletic Trainer in the IBL and NBDL, which also included responsibilities of Strength Coach, Equipment Manager, and Travel Secretary.  In ’03, I got back to the NBA with the Philadelphia 76ers as Game Day Athletic Trainer and Rehab Consultant.  At that point, the 76ers did not have a Strength Coach, so given my build I think the players found some confidence lifting with my guidance.  That earned me Head Strength Coach and Assistant Athletic Trainer for the 76ers through 2006.  After not getting renewed in Philadelphia, I  moved to my home area in NJ where I became Director of Sports Performance and Physical Therapy @ CentraState Sports Performance, which is a hospital-owned sports training center where we trained and rehabbed folks as PTs, Personal Trainers, and Strength & Conditioning Coaches all as one entity.  Currently, my job title is Lead Physical Therapist for Marine Corps Special Operations Command (MARSOC).  At Camp Lejeune, NC, I am responsible for contributing and managing programming for both rehab and general physical preparedness for the PERRES program, which is MARSOC’s Performance and Resiliency Program.

Training the baddest badasses on the planet.

2)Your knowledge of the human body goes beyond any physical therapist that I know.  What drives you to this level of understanding?

I’m not sure there is a becoming or humble way to answer this question.  Learning, integrating, and clinically growing all will lead me to both the status and quality I want to achieve and more importantly, a level of provision and service to the folks that trust me with their body.  I don’t want to be good at what I do.  I don’t even want to be the best I can be.  I strive to be the best to ever live.  While that is likely an unattainable goal, if that is indeed the goal, then the best I can be and good are automatic.  I just want to be the equivalent of every great athlete and historical figure put together.

I guess I blame and credit my parents and coaches and mentors that have held my hand for the past 34 some years.  And also the confidence that the folks that trust me with training and education have had a huge impact on my continued development.

What we gonna do tonight, Brain?

3) Tell how devastating to the body is limited motion of the big toe joint (hallux limitus)?  And what is your usual protocol for treatment?

To begin the explanation globally, the body’s appropriate mobility is set up to allow stability to drive propulsion.  Propulsion is the ultimate goal in any of its forms, such as locomotion, pushing, pulling, squatting, stepping, etc.  Like most primitive movement patterns, the mission is thoroughly ingrained in our neural programs of the CNS.  So regardless of the quality of our mobility and stability, the CNS will usually succeed in driving propulsion or locomotion in this case.  Win if you can.  Lose if you must.  But always cheat.  That is the CNS’s way.

So like with many other ingrained movements patterns, the brain will find a way, and it doesn’t always care if the pattern is mechanically efficient.  It only cares if it is neurologically efficient.  Neurological efficiency equates to motor learning and associated feedback.  If there is success in the ultimate goal, going back to this case of forward locomotion, the brain registers efficiency, quality, and begins to cement that pattern in the brain.

So the first thing to consider with a loss of big toe mobility, if it is not dominant enough to 1) cause enough nociception for failure, or 2) limit a compensatory pattern for success, the dysfunctional pattern will begin to revise and/or cement the motor pattern.  And as the mobility loss causes an inefficient pattern, this pattern alters the motor program that can be very challenging to change even when/if mobility is restored.  This is more principle-based than specific to the big toe, but the key is to acknowledge that regardless of mobility or stability qualities, an altered motor program will  continue unchanged until motor learning is reinstalled with new success and feedback.

Any time a joint system does not explore its full range of motion on some level of regularity, and yes, the joint surfaces will degenerate.  The full exploration of as much of the joint surfaces as possible is the “swishing” mechanism that flushes synovial fluid through the joint.  Synovial fluid is the motor oil for the joints, and the value of joint mobility AND using it to some degree through appropriate natural and free movement (i.e. yoga) is joint health.  A loss of mobility in the big toe, from a joint or soft tissue restriction, will accelerate DJD at this local level.

Next at the regional level, the minimization of plantarflexion can cascade into a number of reactions.  Some things don’t have to do as much of what they should do, and others may have to do too much.  Regional can be defined in a number of different ways, but in considering regional, we will call that the lower quarter continuing to the hip.  There is a litany of issues that can evolve all based on the individuals’ specific stiffness through the chain.  Where the final stress is funneled or funneled away from is very specific to the individual.  It can be predicted with screening, but not without some individual analysis.

The mid-foot will not have the proprioception to stabilize which can lead to plantar fasciitis or medial arch stress.  Deep foot musculature may become long and tight with a lack of reactive stabilization in the mid foot.

Ankle mobility into dorsiflexion may become limited as the stride will reflexively shorten.  As a part of an altered motor pattern, the stride length will shorten in an effort to limit hip extension on the stance side.  This creates what the CNS perceives as neurological efficiency as now the big toe will not have to extend as much to locomote.  With less hip extension, less dorsiflexion is required to establish foot flat.  This scenario welcomes the lunacy of wearing heel lifts, Nike Shox, and rocker bottom shoes to accommodate for the biomechanical scenario.

A loss of hip extension mobility in this chain can be straight extension, or it can be expressed through a toe out posture from hip external rotation, which in turn can lead to a loss of mid-foot stability that we mentioned previously.

Dropped arch from tight hips. Who ever would have thought?

The potential for anterior knee pain can also result.  The sagittal restriction from the toe can translate into further sagittal movement at the knee.  If this is accompanied with a dorsiflexion loss, the process of stabilizing the lower quarter can fall onto the bony stability between the femoral heads and the retro-patella.  The body again will find a way to gain forward propulsion.  The toe can be the initiator, or it can be the reaction, but it all leads to this loss of mobility or stability at the segments that should allow these expressions.

I have discussed before how something like big toe dysfunction can correlate to distant dysfunction of the upper quarter or cervical spine as well.  Aside from the specific biomechanics that are addressed in the lower quarter, looking at mobility loss more globally will always relate to an anterior weight shift.  It is such as struggle for me to discuss with folks that suggest biomechanics and posture don’t matter.  Any loss of mobility, be it from tone, shortening, or joint restriction, will result in an anterior weight shift.  Repetitive function with an anterior weight shift yields facilitation and inhibition in a very predictable pattern.  Where the foci results is not as predictable as I mentioned before, but in this case, propulsion without big toe extension can result in a resting or compensated upper-crossed syndrome.  It can happen anywhere along these same lines.

Superficial Back Line via Thomas Myers’ Anatomy Trains linking the foot to the Thoracic and Cervical spines.

Limitations that do not register as pain or go unnoticed as dysfunction can also expose limitations in power expressions such as vertical jump as and sprint speed as well.

4) I believe that your view of flat feet is quite on the mark.  Please explain your view about flexible flat feet and how you would treat it?

Flexible flat feet get trained.  That’s all there is to it.  You find the weak link from a corrective standpoint, and you train the system.

If posting or foot-based compensations are required for end-stage function, then by all means, please use them to get the job done.  We should not be holding people out of games if a heel lift allows them to play full speed.  Sometimes we can even forego training in-season and treat symptoms and then regroup when we have a more amenable schedule.

In the end, the foot is the reaction.  If the foot is truly supple, and the Cyriax Evaluation yields nothing remarkable (assuming the assessment is not during a state of previous irritation), it can’t be the foot’s fault. But because the foot has such a pliability, it can compensate from what can be a litany of up the chain dysfunction.  When stability is lost through the chain, the brilliant foot can find it through reacting with the floor and stealing its ultimate stability.

Find the corrective strategies that provide the most efficient proprioceptive environment to get the quality to appear.  Keep in mind, this is primarily focusing on stability and/or motor control training.  We identified that the foot was flexible, so there were no mobility issues.  Also consider what looks mobile may not always be mobile.  Consider the big toe, mid-foot, subtalar, talo-crural, and even the proximal and distal tib-fib joints.  And always consider mobility through the chain before asking for stability.

Getting to 1- and 2-leg level changes to drive the foot is where the training path takes you: Squats, Split Squats, Step-ups, Deadlifts, Jumps, Lands.

Try these for your little “flat” feet.

5) Barefoot running is the hottest thing right now in the running community and podiatrists’ offices.  Tell me what do you think about this “movement” and it proposed goal to reduce running injuries?

I think it is an excellent addition to a corrective or conditioning catalog.  Unfortunately though, I am seeing this more in theory than in practice.  Just because it is a good thing doesn’t mean it’s a good thing for everybody.  If indeed it is deemed a good thing for you, it may just not be a good thing for you……yet.

People like to do.  They like to add and complement.  No one likes to be told to stop or told that there are things that they can’t do.  So in terms of barefoot training, it has a positive attachment, so everybody tries it.  But this is without screening or assessment when required.  This is a major mistake.  Barefoot training is a great tool, but it must be instituted with attention and progression.

When mobility and stability are proper, even the deconstructed sneakers have some level of stability.  With a fantastically stable barefoot, there is brilliant proprioception sent up the chain creating fantastic reflexive stabilization elsewhere.  Consider the homunculus of the brain, where we see the feet holding larger surface area of the motor cortex than other areas outside of the face and hands.  When the foot does the right thing, lots of good things happen in the brain.

Yeah, the first picture for homunculus in Google Images probably wouldn’t be the best choice.

Training barefoot in itself may be the access point for proprioception to improve function.  Or it may not, and I think this is the more likely senario.  Not everybody should be wearing Vibrams just yet, and certainly nobody should be taking them off the shelf and going into big cleans and 10 mile runs.

I like the blue camo better.

6) In a similar-related question, what functional problems do you usually see in runners and what can they do about them?

Runners are typically prototypes for Stratified Syndrome, which is concurrent Upper and Lower Crossed Syndromes.  These are Vladimir Janda terms as he used these postural presentations to categories movement disorders.

Tight hips and tight ankles dominate because long-distance runners (assuming this is who you mean by “runners”) engage in a plodding pattern of very short amplitude.  This short amplitude isn’t the problem per se.  The 15,000 steps in a “short run” is the problem in terms of minimal requirement of mobility, so the limited excursion locks in at a soft tissue level and a motor control level.  The incredible repetition of running is the deadbolt to the key of the shortened pattern of running.  But proper training against the evils of running does not need to be on a rep to rep basis.  Training 2-3 times a week with corrective approaches and large amplitude conditioning will easily keep long distance runners away from problems.

Poorly executed or uncoached running can be considered a controlled fall where you let the body drop forward and catch it with the other leg reaching the ground.  When the body senses the fall, there is both a biomechanic reaction to facilitate and inhibit muscles of the Upper and Lower Crossed, but we should also consider the Startle Response.  What we overtly recognize as running may be recognized as a threat to the body.  The brain thinks we are falling and further supports the CNS to go into protective mode, the Upper and Lower Crossed.

Fix the crosses, and you save the world. Or at least change American orthopedic healthcare.

7) I am a big proponent of integrating collective knowledge of medical specialties to achieve long-lasting total health to the patient population.  How can we realistically achieve this in this present healthcare system?

I think this issue starts and ends with like minds.  People have to agree on a system of training and divide up the work.  Obviously this also includes this “team” to all be comfortable with how the money is divided up from providing this service.

I think finding like minds is a challenge, but it is far more challenging to find that group of clinicians that can also agree to freely refer and consult and share clients and patients.

The healthcare customer is the most misinformed customer in the market.  They are not ignorant or undereducated.  I think they really do do their homework.  They are just getting poor and subjective information in choosing their clinicians.  A key to making it all happen is that when you get these folks into your system, you hit a home run every time, and allow their feedback to others to drive the goals of working with your team.

Amigos

 

8) What have you been up to lately?

Well, actually this week (week of 8.30), I started with MARSOC that I mentioned before.  This is a big time for me in terms of a new job and all the social changes coming with moving 500 miles away from home.  Outside of this, my DVD, Training = Rehab, Rehab = Training is set to go to final any day now.  I was hoping for an end of the summer release, but we all would rather it be as close to perfect as we can get it.  The information will still be very contemporary, and my marketing guy is very exciting about what we can do with it.  Please look out for it athttp://www.charlieweingroff.com, my Facebook updates, and the affiliates that we will be working with to get the product out there.

 

Share and Enjoy:

Video from DNS Vancouver 2011

During the DNS course in Vancouver a few participants shot some short video’s of Dr. Winchester teaching some exercise techniques. The quality isn’t great but hopefully this will help you.

Prone on Table Modified Reflex Creeping Technique – Dr. Winchester 2011

Quadruped Crawl with Reflex Stimulation – Dr. Winchester 2011

Quadruped Crawl with Reflex Stimulation 2 – Dr. Winchester 2011

 

 

All Great Clinicians Ask This Question

A few weeks ago I received this amazing email from a Chiropractor:

“Thanks again for helping me realize how little I know.  I was much more content when I knew everything but I credit you as the guy who got me moving again.  Thanks man.” Dr. Z

Dr. Zattended his first Somatic Senses course earlier this year and liked it so much he decided to attend three more! A successful Chiropractor and Active Release practitioner Dr. Z is no slouch, but something amazing happened for him this year. He began to ask the most important question in clinical practice (again); he began to ask the question “why?”.

The failure to ask “why?” will inevitably lead to a stagnant mind, a stagnant practice, and average results.

Life may appear easier when we are content “knowing everything”, but let’s be honest, this can get pretty boring. As we place our hands on tight and tender muscles and perform our soft tissue techniques, or when we determine a joint is “stuck” and prepare to manipulate or mobilize it, are we asking the most important clinical question:

  • WHY is this muscle tight? Am I treating a muscle that is tight by intention?  Is the nervous system purposefully engaging this muscle to compensate for the lack of activity (i.e. inhibition) or stability elsewhere?
  • WHY is this joint fixated? Is this a primary joint fixation or is this joint fixated by intention? Is this joint fixated because the nervous system has intentionally restricted the degrees of freedom of this joint to provide some sense of stability?
  • WHY!?
It is through our questions that we learn. Unfortunately, we don’t always know we need to ask the question.
Stages of Learning:
1) Don’t know what you don’t know (a dangerous place to be)
2) Know that you don’t know (asking the question “why?”)
3) Know that you know (still asking the questions, but coming up with the answers)
4) Don’t know that you know (at this stage the knowledge and skill is automatic)
A great continuing education course will answer many questions, but more importantly, it will make you realize the questions you didn’t have and should. This past weekend I hosted 30 fortunate clinicians in Vancouver for an introductory DNS course that did exactly this. I went into the DNS course with high expectations. I wanted to better understand human movement, the neuro-developmental process, and refine my knowledge of the “why” muscles become tight, hypertonic or fibrotic, and why joint and joint systems loose mobility or become fixated. My expectations were so high I was a little worried I might be disappointed. Thankfully, I was pleasantly surprised at how much I learned and more importantly, all the new questions I began asking. I am excited about going through the DNS courses over the next couple years and I hope you will join me in Calgary on March 16-18, 2012, or Vancouver on November 16-18, 2012 (note: Vancouver ‘A’ course just confirmed and will be added to site in the new year).

Interview with Dr. Andreo Spina

Dr. Spina talks about what’s been missing in soft tissue treatment education, how his courses through Functional Anatomy Systems fill in the gaps, the importance of palpation and some common mistakes that are made by clinicians, how his Functional Range Release system works, and more…

Dr. Andreo A. Spina B. Kin, DC, FCCSS(C), D.Ac, CPT
Sports Specialist Chiropractor, Medical Acupuncturist
Certified Personal Training Specialist
Director – Sports Performance Centres Ltd.
Creator/CEO – Functional Anatomy Seminars.com
Creator & Head Instructor of Functional Anatomic Palpation Systems™
Creator & Head Instructor of Functional Range Release™

Dr. Andreo SpinaDr. Spina holds a Bachelor of Kinesiology degree from McMaster University. He later graduated with summa cum laude and clinic honors from the Canadian Memorial Chiropractic College as a Doctor of Chiropractic and subsequently completed the two-year post-graduate fellowship in sports sciences. Being the recipient of the ‘John W.A. Duckworth Award’ for the highest standing in Human Anatomy and Histology, Dr. Spina became the first pre-graduate student to tutor in the cadaver laboratory in the Dept. of Human Anatomy at the Chiropractic College, a position he continued throughout his post graduate fellowship program.

In addition to being both the creator and head instructor of Functional Anatomic Palpation Systems (F.A.P.)™ and Functional Range Release (F.R.)™ Techniques, Dr. Spina has also authored chapters in various sports medicine textbooks, is a published researcher, and an international speaker on the topics of fascia, soft tissue assessment and treatment, flexibility training, and physical conditioning.

Click on this link to listen to the Interview with Andreo Spina

Dr. Spina was also kind enough to shoot a short video presentation. Check it out and let us know what you think.

 

 

 

 

 

The Plantarflexion for Dorsiflexion Paradox

The limitation of dorsiflexion range of motion as a result of an anterior subluxated talus and/or limited posterior glide of the talus has been described as one of the primary factors associated with CAI. I have previously discussed the anatomy, biomechanics and faulty mechanics associated with Chronic Ankle Instability (CAI) in addition to the research demonstrating improved function and reduced CAI with effective manual therapy interventions. In this article I discussed the anatomy, biomechanics and patho-mechanics associated with Chronic Ankle Instability (CAI) in addition to the research demonstrating improved function and reduced recurrence of CAI with effective manual therapy interventions. In summary, restoring the posterior glide of the talus using accessory joint mobilizations with and without movement has demonstrated positive results in regards to improved dorsiflexion range of motion and reduced CAI. Additional interesting but inconclusive evidence suggests that mobilization of an anterior fibula may also be important to the restoration of dorsiflexion range of motion.

With the literature focused on these elements of dorsiflexion (i.e. posterior talocrural capsule, anterior talar subluxation, fibularis longus/brevis/tertius, deep posterior compartment and soleus, proprioception, hip and core) I want to bring up a couple case examples demonstrating a limitation of plantarflexion associated with anterior capsular/soft tissue restriction as the primary cause of dorsiflexion restriction. I refer to this as the plantarflexion for dorsiflexion paradox, i.e. getting more plantarflexion to restore dorsiflexion.

Both patients incurred grade 2 inversion ankle sprains with grade 1 “high” ankle sprains resulting in moderate-severe dorsiflexion restriction (equal to or less than 1.5 inches closed chain dorsiflexion on injured side compared to 4+ on un-injured side). In each case, posterior mobilization (with and without movement) of talus and fibula in addition to soft tissue techniques for capsular and muscular restrictions resulted in restoration of respective accessory glides but only modest and short term improvements in closed chain dorsiflexion range of motion and overall function (ability to walk, squat, lunge, jump and run). In each case a switch to plantarflexion mobilization and soft tissue techniques for the anterior and anterior medial talocrural joint capsule (and junction between tibialis anterior and capsule) resulted in a significant and lasting improvement in dorsiflexion range of motion and improved function.

How do we explain this? My theory is that the sticky bit (call it an adhesion if you want) between the anterior medial capsule and tibialis anterior were blocking the posterior glide at the medial talus.

I have to admit it was really easy for me to get sucked into the literature and short term gains observed with the traditional and accepted techniques for the restoration of ankle function; another reminder to stay objective and engaged in the clinical audit process. It reminds me of one of my mentors, Dr. Dale Buchberger, when he said to me “good young Jedi, good…” Meaning, no matter how good you are, you still have a lot to learn!

The Effect of Hip Flexor Stretching on Gait in the Elderly

Dr. Kerrigan Interview with Rick Kaselj

Full article: The Effect of a Hip Flexor Stretching Program on Gait in the Elderly

Background Info

Age-related changes in gait kinetics and kinematics indicate fundamental changes in movement capabilities. Dr. Kerrigan’s initial research sought to examine the cause of age-related changes in gait. Prior literature supported her finding that age-related changes in gait are due to a reduction in peak hip extension (with an associated increase in anterior pelvic tilt) and reduced peak ankle plantarflexion. Dr. Kerrigan also established a correlation between falls in the elderly and peak hip extension, hip extension range of motion, and contralateral step length. In other words, a reduction in hip extension range of motion leads to reduced peak hip extension during gait and reduced step length of the contralateral leg and an increased risk of falling in the elderly. Based on this preliminary data Dr. Kerrigan hypothesized that age-related changes in gait are a result of a static hip flexion contracture; and a hip flexor stretching program will reverse the hip flexion contracture, improve peak hip extension during gait, reduce the anterior pelvic tilt, and improve ankle plantarflexion during gait.

Results

The authors measured hip extension during gait, hip extension torque, pelvic tilt, ankle plantarflexion, and ankle plantar flexion torque. They assessed these measures at a “comfortable” walking speed and a “fast” walking speed.

Hip flexor stretching improved static hip extension range of motion (2 degrees), peak hip extension during gait (2 degrees), and a reduction in anterior pelvic tilt. Hip extension and ankle plantarflexion torque minimally improved at a comfortable walking speed with no changes during a fast walking speed.

Note: Dr. Kerrigan reported an average reduction of 5 degrees in hip extension during gait.

Comments

Despite the favourable findings, Dr. Kerrigan was disappointed with the modest improvements in hip extension gained from the hip flexor stretching program. After reviewing the stretching technique and protocol used during the study she believed a more aggressive approach with better instruction would have improved the results.

Indeed, proper instruction and technique are very important, as well as an appropriate intensity and hold time for achieving change in length. However, a lack of torque and dynamic hip extension during gait requires a compliment of mobility and stability. Mobility is certainly essential for strength and stability, so if a limitation of hip extension is the primary lesion a progressive mobility program aimed at improving hip extension range of motion would be essential. However, a secondary loss of stability and extensor strength would be likely and therefore, a complete program would include a progression of exercise from mobility, i.e. hip flexor stretching:

Hip Flexor Stretch

to stability, i.e. back bridge, bird dog, half kneeling lift and press, etc:

Bird Dog 4pt to 3pt with Resistance

Half Kneeling Lift and Press

and functional patterning, i.e. single leg RDL, split stance press, etc:

Single Leg Supported RDL

Split Stance Press

Objectivity, Evaluation, Management & Seniors

A while back I starting seeing a patient, who we  ll call Mrs. H, with some pretty serious concerns. Due to a series of unfortunate accidents and injuries over the course of the previous 9 years, the formerly active and otherwise healthy Mrs. H had found herself unable to walk or stand without pain and extreme difficulty. What I found more unfortunate about Mrs. H’s story was the level of care provided throughout her journey. Let me explain.

Upon my evaluation it became very clear that Mrs. H had lost a significant amount of muscle mass and strength (i.e. sarcopenia), most notably of the spinal extensors and lumbo-pelvic-hip complex. Unable to lift her torso into an upright position or adequately stabilize her pelvis due to a serious strength deficiency, Mrs. H was essentially hanging on her ligaments and bones. Indeed there were significant soft tissue and joint restrictions that contributed to the problem but without a doubt the limiting factor for Mrs. H was STRENGTH.

Before I proceed I want to say, with much respect, I am a strong believer that we all have unique gifts that reflect our skill, approach, and personality. However, I am also a strong believer that objectivity in the evaluation and management of our patients is essential.

In the previous 9 years Mrs. H had consulted with several health care practitioners including a Medical Doctor, Registered Massage Therapist, Physiotherapist, a Traditional Chinese Medicine Doctor for Acupuncture, and a Chiropractor. Each practitioner evaluated Mrs. H and determined that the most relevant care for Mrs. H was pain medication, soft tissue massage, therapist guided stretching and low threshold strengthening exercise, acupuncture, and chiropractic manipulation. If it isn’t glaringly obvious, please note that each health care professional independently evaluated Mrs. H and determined that the best course of action was to do exactly what he or she “specialized” in. The medical doctor prescribed drugs; the RMT worked on the soft tissues; the Physiotherapist passively stretched her out and missed the boat on exercise prescription; the TCM performed dry needling; and the Chiropractor manipulated and mobilized her spine using a combination of activator and grade 3 mobilizations. All practitioners totally avoided talking about, teaching or prescribing strength and movement based exercise.

The Physiotherapist, who had been working with Mrs. H for 1.5 years, was the only practitioner to prescribe any home based care but unfortunately she had prescribed passive and low threshold (i.e. easy) strength exercises. Further, Mrs. H was actually taught how to slouch and hang on her ligaments and bones while standing up and sitting down. Let me say that again, Mrs. H was advised and instructed on how to get up and down without requiring ANY neuromuscular or anatomical integrity, and therefore, completely avoiding what Mrs. H needed the most. Without knowing the rationale for this I can only guess that it was assumed that Mrs. H was never going to regain her strength or function, so she might as well just get up and down the best she can. This is analogous to giving up before the battle ever began and it reminds me of the saying “failing to try is trying to fail”. There is solid research that demonstrates seniors, just like the younger population, have the ability to improve muscle mass and strength in response to high intensity strength training.

Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2011 May;108(21):359-64. Epub 2011 May 27.
The intensity and effects of strength training in the elderly.
Mayer F, Scharhag-Rosenberger F, Carlsohn A, Cassel M, Müller S, Scharhag J.
Abstract
The elderly need strength training more and more as they grow older to stay mobile for everyday activities. The goal of training is to reduce loss of muscle mass and the resulting loss of motor function. The dose-response relationship of training intensity to training effect has not yet been fully elucidated.

Results: Strength training in the elderly (>60 years) increases muscle strength by increasing muscle mass, and by improving the recruitment of motor units, and increasing their firing rate. Muscle mass can be increased through training at an intensity corresponding to 60% to 85% of the individual maximum voluntary strength. Improving the rate of force development requires training at a higher intensity (above 85%), in the elderly just as in younger persons. It is now recommended that healthy old people should train 3 or 4 times weekly for best results; persons with poor performance at the outset can achieve improvement even with less frequent training. Side effects are rare.

Conclusuion: Progressive strength training in the elderly is efficient, even with higher intensities, to reduce sarcopenia, and to retain motor function.

So my question to you is: How is it possible that everyone missed this? And, how is is possible that five health care practitioners evaluate one patient and come up with totally different management approaches and recommendations?

I believe that all practitioners who previously saw Mrs. H demonstrated a complete lack of objectivity in their evaluation, leading to biased treatment and overall poor management. Another way to say this is that a biased evaluation will lead to a biased treatment. This is totally fine if your bias lies close to the heart of your patients limiting factors and primary dysfunction, but it becomes a serious problem when these two things do not intersect. In this case, while many of the previous treatments had the potential to help Mrs. H, none of them had a remote chance at creating change to the exclusion of her practicing proper movement mechanics and getting stronger. It sickens me that this women had gone 9 years without anyone telling her she needed to get stronger and get serious about her strength training. Without anyone flat out saying “I understand your back hurts but it will never get better if we don’t get you stronger”. Without anyone saying “stand tall, get strong, hinge from your hip and sit your butt back and down… and stop slouching!”.

It is my opinion that we are often too easy on our aging population. How often do you hear someone say to their aging mother or grandfather “you are getting along in years so you should really take it easy”? Or “you work too hard, you should take it easy”? The problem with “taking it easy” is that this often means “sitting down and relaxing” and leaving out the necessary work needed to maintain mobility, strength, balance, and coordination. Indeed, hard work and training are relative to the individual and of course an aging individual has specific needs. However, the balance of mobility, stability and strength required for functional movement does not change from person to person. We all need to walk, squat, lift, push, pull, and lunge on a daily basis in order to get from ‘A’ to ‘B’, sit down and get up, lift and carry groceries, put dishes into a high cupboard, etc.

I should add that in the process of coaching Mrs. H on strength training and movement it was very important to educate her on what pain is, how it works, and how fear and excessive focus on pain can manifest in more pain. It was very important that I explain to her how strength training will not reduce her pain levels in the immediate future, but it is the only thing that will allow her to gain her function back. Only after months of improved strength and function would I expect a steady decrease in pain. In this case, pain could not be the outcome marker. For sure, we listen to it, but outside of flare ups or more sinister presentations of pain we would quickly brush it aside and put our focus on function… her ability to squat, stand, sit up, stand up from a seated position, roll over, reach into a cupboard, etc.

I am passionate about this topic because I once had an aging grandmother who struggled in her later years. At that time, I wasn’t old enough or educated to help her. I am passionate about this topic because I have parents who are aging and I know now that their successful transition into their later years may very well depend on their ability to stay active and enjoy life with movement. Either way, I know that none of us, or our patients, can afford to loose 9 years like Mrs. H unfortunately has.

The Side Lying Leg Raise Test 

The side-lying leg raise is a commonly used test to assess gluteus medius strength  and coordination. The purpose of this article is to discuss the side-lying leg raise test including some false assumptions made in its interpretation.

Let’s first define the test:

Starting Position: The patient is positioned on  the side with bottom hip flexed to approximately 45 degrees and knee flexed to approximately 90 degrees so that the heel of the foot is in line with the torso. The body, from head to heel, is positioned in a perfect or best possible posture with a straight line passing through the external auditory meatus, shoulder and rib cage, greater trochanter, knee and lateral malleolus. The pelvis should be neutral with head supported by the bottom arm. The top hand rests on the floor. If you have a tough time visualizing this place the back of your head, mid-back, pelvis and heels flush up against a wall with bottom leg bent and top leg straight. Do not let an anterior pelvic tilt deceive you. The hip should be in neutral and this will not be true if the pelvis is in an anterior tilt and thus hip flexion.

Movement: From the starting position the patient is instructed to keep the leg straight and lift the leg straight up from the floor, pause on the top, and slowly lower. The clinician is observing for deviation of the body (tilt, shift or twist of the shoulders, rib cage, pelvis, etc.) or leg (bending of knee, rotation of femur/leg, anterior or posterior shift). The patient should be able to perform this movement with ease – straight up, pause, straight down – it should look easy. I ask my patients to perform three repetitions. You may ask for more but I would not recommend less than three or more than ten.

Manual Test; side-lying leg raise with manual resistance: Many clinicians will follow the side-lying leg raise test by adding manual pressure down on the leg. This is done without any support provided by the clinician to the patient’s body. Graded pressure is provided by the clinician until failure of form or involuntary lowering of the leg. As with the side-lying leg raise, observation of posture and strain are noted. It should look easy up until the point of failure. Keep in mind that the goal is not to “win” the strength test. The goal is to observe the ability of the patient to maintain postural and respiratory control while resisting a graded downward pressure on the leg. It should feel solid from you and your patients perspective.

Manual Muscle Test or Supported Side Lying Leg Raise with Manual Resistance: In manual muscle testing the goal is to isolate muscle function. Of course we know this is not entirely possible, but we do our best to stabilize the patient’s pelvis to “isolate” the gluteus medius while providing manual pressure down on the leg. This test is similar to the side lying leg raise with manual resistance, however, the clinician provides support to the patients pelvis to provide stabilization.

Interpretation of Findings: The following question might be obvious to you at this point. What’s the problem with these tests in isolation? Although my answer to this question is “nothing” I do believe there is a problem with the common assumption that the side-lying leg raise (SLLR) and side-lying leg raise with manual resistance (SLLR w/ Resistance) are gluteus medius or hip stability tests. In fact, I cringe when I here people say “the glut med is weak” or “there is a hip stability problem” in response to a failed SLLR or SLLR w/ Resistance.

Here’s the deal: The SLLR tests the ability to lift the leg straight up from a side lying posture. The SLLR w/ Resistance tests the ability to hold a straight leg up against manual resistance in a side lying posture. If your patient fails either of these tests you may conclude that “my patient has an inability to raise or hold a straight leg up in a side lying posture”. That’s it. That’s all. No more. Stop there… and please don’t make the assumption that your patient has a glut med weakness or hip instability and therefore needs hip or glut strengthening exercises (although this isn’t a horrible default).

The SLLR and SLLR w/ Resistance can effectively screen, and if positive, indicate the need for further testing to determine WHY the patient cannot raise or hold a straight leg up in a side lying posture. We then need to determine whether the positive test is a result of hip or core Stability and Motor Control Dysfunction. This is when we turn to the manual muscle test of the glut med or supported SLLR w/ Resistance. If this test is positive we may reasonably conclude (albeit vaguely) that there is a hip Stability and Motor Control Dysfunction. If the patient tests strong with support, or in other words the test is negative, we may conclude (with a little more certainty) that the positive SLLR and SLLR w/ Resistance were as a result of core Stability and Motor Control Dysfunction (SMCD). In other words, the hip is strong and the unstable core made it weak. Please note that we are looking for a significant change in strength with the supported SLLR w/ Resistance. It is normal to find increased strength with support but it shouldn’t be more than 10%.

What happens if your patient can not get into the starting position? If your patient cannot attain a neutral pelvis with the head, mid back, pelvis and heels against a wall or in a straight line you are probably looking at a deficit of thorax and / or hip mobility. You probably would have picked this up in your posture and movement assessment – specifically, in multi-segmental flexion and / or multi-segmental extension. Of course, you would break this out and isolate the mobility issue with further testing and if it turned out there wasn’t a mobility issue you may conclude that there is a SMCD… the location of which you would identify with tests such as that described in this article as well as the prone and supine straight leg raise (active, passive, resisted, assisted).

With all this confusion why not just use the manual muscle test of glut med? Well, because the hip never works in isolation during walking gait, squatting, crawling, stepping up, hip hinging or lunging. In other words, core stability and motor control is kind of important. Anecdotally, I have seen patients perform very poorly on the active and active resisted side lying, prone, and supine [straight] leg raise tests and not more than 3 minutes later, after performing some diaphragm and core activation exercise, perform them with impressive strength and ease. For this reason, I have some difficulty with the clinical evaluation and research that is guiding our endurance athletes to perform endless amounts of side lying leg raises and related exercises when the strength testing itself was performed in isolation. Actually, let me restate this, I have some difficulty with those who expand the findings of muscle testing to say what it really doesn’t say, especially when it has only shown correlation and not causation.  One possible scenario could be that hip weakness is predicated by core SMCD.

But wait, how did we get here in the first place? I mean, why were we doing these stupid tests to begin with? The answer is NOT “because we wanted to assess hip or core stability or glut med strength”. Nope, it’s not. The answer should be that in your movement assessment you determined that your patient could not walk, squat, stand on one leg, step up, lunge or perform a single leg squat, functionally. The foot collapsed, the knee rotated or shifted inward, the hip shifted lateral, tilted or rotated, the patient couldn’t breathe while performing any of these movements, etc. Each of these would be examples of dysfunctional movement patterns that need be broken down to determine causative and contributing factors. If I did not see dysfunction during these tests I could reasonably conclude that the SLLR tests would be barking up the wrong tree. And man-oh-man, dogs must be really disappointed when they find out the squirrel got away as they were barking up that proverbial tree.

Lastly, keep in mind that this logic applies to all movement, strength and stability tests. The active prone straight leg raise is only useful if we can determine WHY it is abnormal. Abnormal active prone straight leg raise = early and excessive anterior pelvic tilt, pelvic rotation or shift, and / or a deficit in hip extension range of motion.  Evidence has shown that there are various “normal” recruitment strategies employed and there is seemingly no “correct” pattern. However, there are aberrant movement strategies that have been correlated to increased risk for low back pain. Basically, assess movement,  not muscles,  and treat movement,  not muscles.

Sorry about the redundancy. If I wrote “the ability to lift the leg straight up from a side lying posture” one more time I was going to hit myself… wait a second, I just did…

Stretching: for good or for bad?

So stretching. For good or for bad people are doing it and Doctors are prescribing it. Have you ever heard someone say “I stretch all the time because I always feel tight”. Perhaps you have felt this way too? Every answer originates from a question but unfortunately some answers never come to fruition because the question is never asked.

Question: Are you tight? If yes, stretch.

But wait, we forgot a question. WHY are you tight?

First let’s describe what we mean by “tight”. “Tight” is a descriptive and general term that a patient may describe to you. We may even assess someone and say “man, you are really tight!”. Unfortunately the term “tight” is too vague to define appropriate action to resolve the problem because tightness can be a result of:

A) Hypertonicity (short and tight vs. long and taut)
B) Shortened tissue
C) Fibrotic Tissue
D) Spasm
E) Trigger Point
F) Joint Hypomobility Dysfunction (Functional) – abnormal glide, roll, spin.
G) Joint Hypomobility Dysfunction (Structural)
I) Other – because I am sure someone will add to this list.

Note that all of the above are intimately related and interconnected to movement, stability and motor control dysfunction.

One goal of the functional evaluation is to determine the imbalance of mobility and stability that may lead to pain, discomfort, dysfunction, or declined performance. Or in an injury risk evaluation the potential for pain, discomfort, and a decline in performance. When we see a deficit in mobility we need to determine what kind of mobility problem we are dealing with. Is it a structural or functional mobility deficit? If it is structural, don’t pass go until you address this problem. It if is functional, we need to determine what dysfunction is causing the hypertonicity, trigger point, or joint dysfunction. In the case of hypertonicity be assured that the root dysfunction is not “tightness” and is a stability and motor control dysfunction. The brain is simply recognizing the threat of instability (instability = unsafe = threat = danger = protective response) and taking appropriate action to remedy the problem, for good or for bad. This is why I always say “don’t make pain the bad guy, he’s just doing his job and letting us know there is dysfunction and that the dysfunction has reached the level of threat or danger”. The same could be said for “tightness” related to hypertonicity. Indeed, no one likes pain. In fact, most people down right hate it. But you don’t see too many people walking into your office saying “Doc, I am sick and tired of this stability and motor control dysfunction”. Thus, an important part of the treatment process is educating our patients.

Back to the issue of stretching. Is stretching good or bad? Well, what are we stretching? If you are simply loosening up a muscle that is purposely and appropriately “tight” to create stability in an unstable environment to the exception of creating stability and decreasing the demand for the “tightness” to exist in the first place, than I would say “bad”. But if you are lengthening a tight bit, mobilizing a dysfunctional bit, or relaxing a hypertonic bit to get the results of the stability work to follow, then I would say “good”. And of course, if you have true structural tightness don’t pass go until you have created the length necessary for stability in the neighbouring joint or joint systems (I may concurrently address true mobility deficit while adding stability and motor control exercise providing the movements we perform are within their functional base).

Another issue of stretching is how we stretch. Most people think stretching = relaxation. I would agree whole heartedly if this was in reference to the relaxation of mind, maintaining a relaxed and diaphragmatic breathing pattern, and avoiding unnecessary or aberrant tension. However, to gain length we need a stable base. To achieve a stable base we need co-contraction and activation. With all stretching or mobilization exercises you want to find an optimal balance of alignment and structural integrity with length and a relaxed diaphragmatic breathing pattern. Never sacrifice alignment or your breathing with the desire to stretch further, further, further. The goal is not to go further, rather, to find a balance of mobility within a base of stability. If you can do this you will achieve sustainable and desirable changes in length and not the artificial and temporary changes we see immediately after a manipulation or PIR stretch. Please don’t take this as “manipulation and PIR are not beneficial for joint hypomobility dysfunction or hypertonicity”. These are powerful tools when used appropriately and followed by the integration of stability and motor control.