I'd be very interested in someone giving me a better idea of the difference between Chiropractors and Osteopaths. I've not had a particularly straight answer from either profession!
I work in a Phyio's and an Osteopath's as a sports masseur and I wasn't very impressed with the physio's attitude to Osteopathy. It was a shame because within the world of massage there seems to be lots of positive recognition for the different forms of treatment.
KW
In my massage practice, I refer to both a number of Osteos and Chiros. I did have a couple of clients comment on the shortness of their sessions with practitoners of both modalities; that they felt they weren't being given enough attention. I see BIA's point, if the appropriate treatment can be given in 10-15 mins then why prolong it for the sake of the client. But I can't help but empathise with the uncomfortable feeling my clients were left with.
Henry
Hi Henry
my clients report feeling exactly the same as yours hence my chiro methodology posting.
Regards steve
Originally osteopathy was a theory of disease and method of cure founded on the assumption that deformation of some part of the skeleton and consequent interference with the adjacent nerves and blood-vessels are the cause of most diseases, i.e. the body's well-being is dependent on the blood supply to the rest of the body
Chiropractic originally was a theory of disease and method of cure founded upon preventing mechanical disorders of the spine, and their consequent interference with the nervous system, the organs, glands and blood vessels supplied, and on general health, i.e. the body's well-being is dependent on the nerve supply to the rest of the body
Both professions enjoyed much success in these roles until the push in the last century by medicopharmeuceutical industry and the rush by both professions to cash in on the bonanza created by health care reimbursement for musculoskeletal problems.
There used to be chiropractic hospitals and mental institutions were people were successfully treated with chiropractic alone. Osteopathyand chiropractic enjoyed great success during the flu pandemic of 1917-1918 with massively lowered death rates recorded with both groups of patients versus those treated medically.
Today little separates the two professions from physiotherapy in the marketplace created by musculoskeletal disorders except for the fact that physiotherapy follows a traditional allopathic medical approach and many physios work in a medical setting.
The primary treatment objective of both osteopathy and physiotherapy is to remove bodily aches and pain.
Whilst some chiropractors concentrate on this as their primary objective many (about 50%) of chiropractors continue to focus on the function of the spine past pain and instead on the function, co-ordination and tone and their impact on whole body function and health. This has led to confusion with clients just looking their pain treated whilst the chiropractor is focusing on function past pain.
Training is different. In the UK both osteopathy and chiropractic are 5 year bachelors and masters degree courses. I assume this is the case for physiotherapy but I am not sure.
Whilst all osteopaths and chiropractors are trained in manipulation (in the case of osteopathy) and adjustments (in the case of chiropractic), physiotherapists are in general not and if so to a lesser degree.
Chiropractors are trained to take and interpret x-rays whereas osteopaths are trained only in their interpretation. For this reason, x-ray analysis is more widespread in chiropractic practice. Physiotherapists are not trained in either as far as I know.
Apart from manipulation, osteopaths use other physiotherapy techniques such as stretching, pressure and mobilization. Osteopaths are also trained in cranial osteopathy or cranio-sacral therapy, which is seldom used by chiropractors. In comparison to chiropractors, osteopaths tend to place more emphasis on soft tissue/muscle work and articulation/mobilisation of joints.
Neither chiropractor nor osteopaths in general are trained in therapy machines to the same levels as physiotherapists.
Can’t think of any other differences. As to whose best that is a minefield and it depends as much as what is wrong with you as the type of practitioner, your personal choice and recommendations.
Good post 1238; though I'd query a few things.
50% of chiropractors using the "Wellness" philosophy? not in the UK I think, in Aus it's probably up around 75-80%, in the states it's probably above 50%, but in the UK, I suspect it'd be closer to 25-30%
As far as I'm aware, osteopaths only train in cranial or cranio-sacral therapies post-grad; or just a basic grounding at under-grad level; much like chiropractic; and that cranial osteopathy is a branch of osteopathy, much like the Wellness is a branch of chiropractic - certainly not everyone does these.
Beyond that, chiropractors also use a lot of other techniques, such as stretching, massage, mobilisation etc - maybe marginally less than Osteopaths, but both having much greater variation within the professions than between them. Consequently, whilst osteopaths doing more soft tissue work than chiropractors is a gross generalisation, it's as true as any other gross generalisation - maybe a little in the past, but nothing significant.
As for electrotherapy, I can't comment for osteopaths, but chiro.s certainly are trained in it, though very marginally; a lot of us go on to learn more post-grad however, and boost our ability with electrotherapy to equivalent standards as phsyios (though many provate practices simply can't afford the big ones that physios will use).
I certainly agree with you last paragraph
Some interesting posts here... I've always been worried about getting a stroke from chiropractic manipulation of the back
Hi Bod8,
That's an interesting comment. Why?
Adam
Some interesting posts here... I've always been worried about getting a stroke from chiropractic manipulation of the back
odd one to be concerned about.
You won't get a stroke from treatment to your back.
It is theoretically possible to from treatment of the neck; but no-one knows how likely as they are so uncommon (as in, barely more common than having a stroke in any other given week). Probablilty from the neck being treated is generally etimated somewhere between 1 in 3 million to 1 in 20 million; and there are tests that tend to be done to see if you're chances are increased. Unfortunately, the chances of having a stroke from the test are are between 1 in 500k and 1 in 6-7million. Other risks factors are previous history of stroke, family history of stroke, and the usual (smoking, hormonal meds etc). These raise your chances to a level that any orthodox medic would completely ignore as being of no value whatsoever; and predominantly raise your risks because they raise your risk of having a stroke in any other given risk.
As a rule of thumb, if you can reverse your car or get your hair washed at a hairdresser, without having a stroke, then you can have chiropractic/osteopathy on your neck without having a stroke.
Hi BIA,
I would argue those figures are high!! There have never been any cases of osteopathic patients suffering a stroke caused by cervical manipulations. If there have been cases of strokes happening with chiropractors then I'm sure the figure is representative of the fact that there are a lot of chiropractors and a stroke can happen anywhere.
Adam
Hi BIA,
I would argue those figures are high!! There have never been any cases of osteopathic patients suffering a stroke caused by cervical manipulations. If there have been cases of strokes happening with chiropractors then I'm sure the figure is representative of the fact that there are a lot of chiropractors and a stroke can happen anywhere.
Adam
Estimates are always high.
And yes, I'm unaware of any incidences which have been proven to be a result of chiropractic manipulation, but a few that have happened within a week or so of chiropractic, so the chiro got blamed and successfully sued.
The largest study of it's kind (I believe) was published recently (Thiel H W, Bolton J E, Docherty S & Portlock J C. Safety of Chiropractic Manipulation of the Cervical Spine. Spine 2007; 32(21):2375-8.)
They sent a questionnairre out to something like 1/3 the chiro.s in the UK, the study says 377 responded, and we noted down every Cx manipulation over a 6 week period, and any side-effects, from soreness to death. Looking at it now, 19,722 patients were involved for 50,276 manipulations, in 28,807 treatment visits.
"No significant adverse reactions were reported" so statistically it's considered that the risk of "significant adverse reaction" is 1 in 9600 for each manipulation; that's what gives the 95% confidence interval.
In other words, 0 cases from 50,276 gives an official stat of 1 in 9600.
I hate statistics.
Out of interest the %ages for reported side effects (including aggravation of existing symptoms); first %age is immediately reported, bracketed is for on follow-up (sample size of 15,520):
Neck pain = 2.12% (7.31%)
Shoulder, arm pain = 1.2% (4.78%)
Reduced neck, shoulder, arm movement, stiffness = 0.92% (3.94%)
Headache = 0.87% (3.90%)
Face pain, numbness, tingling = 0.24% (0.39%)
Numbness, tingling upper limbs = 0.73% (1.27%)
Upper, mid back pain = 0.89% (2.51%)
Numbness, tingling lower limbs = 0.14% (0.33%)
Fainting, dizziness, light-headedness = 1.79% (1.11%)
Ringing in ears, tinnitus = 0.16% (0.32%)
Nausea, vomiting = 0.17% (0.59%)
Visual problems = 0.26% (0.21%)
Other = 0.5% (1.90%)
In other words, 0 cases from 50,276 gives an official stat of 1 in 9600.
:confused::confused::confused:
Interesting stuff... Thanks BIA