Entries by Lori Klink

Where does “evidence” come from?

Recent reviews have pointed out that most of our treatment-techniques are likely based on individual ‘convictions’ vs. valid, widely accepted protocols i.e. established evidence. Through studies (of numerous types) data is collected then eventually synthesized into reviews; meta-analysis or systematic. Theoretically these reviews create as definitive a representation of the knowledge available as is possible. […]

“Maintenance” Decompression

Post a treatment regimen (assuming the patient had a successful intervention with the traction component of care) invariably in my experience the patient asks about “continuing once a month…” If not the patient then clearly you or the staff needs to be suggestive about “minimal dose” decompression maintenance. We have typically ramped up the discussion […]

Stress in Lumbar Intervertebral Discs during Distraction

Spine J. 2008; 8(6): 982–990. A Cadaveric Study Ralph E. Gay, M.D., D.C et al RESULTS All distraction conditions markedly reduced nucleus pressure compared to either simulated standing or lying. There was no difference between distraction with flexion and distraction with extension in regard to posterior annulus compressive stress. Discs with little or no degeneration […]

Pain vs pathology in your report of findings (part 3 of 3)

Inevitably most patients seek health care based on fear of their condition worsening or being inherently too serious to self-treat. In presenting your ROF there needs to be some ‘directing’ of the patient toward understanding the “worst-case-scenario”. We also need the ability (confrontational tolerance) to “enhance” the story of their ‘problem’ and our ‘solution’ when […]

Pain vs. pathology in your ROF (part 2 of 3)

We have found 3 primary areas of focus to improve the Decompression ROF: Making the patient aware there is a disc “lesion” likely creating the pain. The lesion will benefit from the treatment modalities we offer because: “decompression (and Laser etc) enhances blood contact, reduces inflammation and can often reduce the size of the herniated […]

Pain vs. pathology in your report of finding (part 1 of 3)

As a doctor the ‘extent’ to which you promote treatment of a patient’s “pathology” (and the “fear” engendered with it) is inherently up to you. The interaction is almost always behind closed doors. The FDA however place severe limits on manufacturers (of FDA cleared devices) regarding what they claim the machine and procedure actually treat […]

The reduction of cLBP through control of early morning flexion Snook SH, et al Spine 1998 Dec.

Conclusions: “The treatment group was given instructions in reduction of morning flexion; the control group was given six exercises shown to be ineffective for LBP. Significant reductions in pain intensity were found in treatment group vs, control. After similar instructions to the control group the response was similar reductions in pain”.   Dr. Kennedy comment: […]

Posterior-to-anterior segmental testing in cLBP

Several studies have been published assessing the accuracy and association of pain with PA segmental motion testing (manual and algometry). An in vivo assessment in MRI in 2007 concluded lumbar-segmental hypermobility was likely associated with LBP. A PT study by Blinkley et al assessed inter-tester reliability of P-A testing and concluded; “there is poor inter-tester […]

IDAP/IDET & Discogenic pain

MD’s and engineers have worked for many years to try to unlock the mystery and treatment of discogenic pain. Annular tears and compromises of the outer annulus of degenerated discs arguably disable untold millions of 40-60 year olds. IDAP/Intradiscal annuloplasty (Smith & Nephew name brand: IDET/intradiscal endothermic therapy) is a 20 year old procedure which […]