{"title":"肌肉骨骼医学的现状","authors":"M. Hutson","doi":"10.1179/1753614614Z.00000000081","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Musculoskeletal medicine, as practised by dedicated musculoskeletal physicians, provides an opportunity for translating conceptual beliefs into medical practice. Given the current level of angst regarding the National Health System (NHS) in the UK, it also offers me the opportunity for reflection. I would initially like to review some aspects of the evidence for our practice. How did we obtain and how do we continue to obtain evidence? Do we believe that evidence-based medicine, as it has been understood since its formal inception, still works for us? Despite the plethora of published scientific evidence and guidelines over the last 20 years, it is tempting and possibly true to state that the ‘evidence’ that we hold dear to us and use consistently in our medical practice comes primarily from those teachers with whom we had our first contact. There are still diverse beliefs, even a sectarian divide, among the musculoskeletal/manual medicine community. Within that community, decades ago, James Cyriax had (and indeed continues to have) many advocates. I have often used the term ‘structuralism’ to describe his approach, based on patho-anatomy and a beautifully devised examination system. ‘Across the divide’ is the traditional osteopathic approach (which Cyriax so despised) that is centred on somatic dysfunction, with its more subtle manual diagnostic findings, which can also be appealing too. Polarization of approaches to health issues have been present since the days of Asclepius (God of Medicine) and his daughter Hygiea (Goddess of Health) in Ancient Greece, though it is gratifying that in musculoskeletal medical practice in the UK over the more recent decades during which Still, Cyriax, and Lewit have been pre-eminent, there has developed a realization that we can live together, learn from each other, and practise the medical creed in which we have most belief, while acknowledging and implementing beliefs from ‘the other side’. The international situation, particularly in Europe, with respect to musculoskeletal/manual medicine is much the same. Followers of gurus throughout Europe created sects, to the extent that in some countries opinions have been very much divided as to the direction that manual medicine should take, based on their initial teaching. However, this appears to have gradually changed, leading to combined efforts being made to establish an accepted subspecialty of manual medicine within the European Union of Medical Specialists (UEMS). In the UK, 1991 was a momentous year when the Institute of Orthopaedic Medicine (based on the Cyriax approach) held talks with the British Association of Manipulative Medicine, which was based on a pragmatic approach, and the London College of Osteopathic Medicine, based on traditional osteopathic concepts, and agreed to form British Institute of musculoskeletal medicine (BIMM), in which there would be full recognition of and acceptance of underlying concepts as described. BIMM has continued to promote this eclectic system ever since. But what about evidence, which on a personal basis, tends strongly to be influenced by our formative years in which we become convinced of ‘truth’ and systems that make most sense to us? My personal career may illustrate the situation well. Having been a dedicated Cyriax disciple in my early years of medical practice, I became exposed to and used manual techniques associated with international osteopathic and manual medicine concepts, notably from the USA and from the Czech Republic. My mind broadened, and I believe that I have expanded my understanding of functional musculoskeletal problems considerably and am a better doctor for it. However, it is unwise to anticipate that one viewpoint or one sect will always be in the ascendency. The world does not work that way. There will always be clinicians practising musculoskeletal medicine whose views will differ conceptually from others, exemplified particularly by the difference in emphasis between those adhering strongly to structural pathology and those who accept the dysfunctional concept. In the UK, the GPWSI (general practitioner with special interest in musculoskeletal medicine) is in an advantageous Correspondence to: Michael Hutson, Village House, Owthorpe, Nottingham NG12 3GE, UK. Email: mahutson@aol.com","PeriodicalId":88907,"journal":{"name":"International musculoskeletal medicine","volume":"59 1","pages":"85 - 86"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2014-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1179/1753614614Z.00000000081","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The current state of musculoskeletal medicine\",\"authors\":\"M. Hutson\",\"doi\":\"10.1179/1753614614Z.00000000081\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Musculoskeletal medicine, as practised by dedicated musculoskeletal physicians, provides an opportunity for translating conceptual beliefs into medical practice. Given the current level of angst regarding the National Health System (NHS) in the UK, it also offers me the opportunity for reflection. I would initially like to review some aspects of the evidence for our practice. How did we obtain and how do we continue to obtain evidence? Do we believe that evidence-based medicine, as it has been understood since its formal inception, still works for us? Despite the plethora of published scientific evidence and guidelines over the last 20 years, it is tempting and possibly true to state that the ‘evidence’ that we hold dear to us and use consistently in our medical practice comes primarily from those teachers with whom we had our first contact. There are still diverse beliefs, even a sectarian divide, among the musculoskeletal/manual medicine community. Within that community, decades ago, James Cyriax had (and indeed continues to have) many advocates. I have often used the term ‘structuralism’ to describe his approach, based on patho-anatomy and a beautifully devised examination system. ‘Across the divide’ is the traditional osteopathic approach (which Cyriax so despised) that is centred on somatic dysfunction, with its more subtle manual diagnostic findings, which can also be appealing too. Polarization of approaches to health issues have been present since the days of Asclepius (God of Medicine) and his daughter Hygiea (Goddess of Health) in Ancient Greece, though it is gratifying that in musculoskeletal medical practice in the UK over the more recent decades during which Still, Cyriax, and Lewit have been pre-eminent, there has developed a realization that we can live together, learn from each other, and practise the medical creed in which we have most belief, while acknowledging and implementing beliefs from ‘the other side’. The international situation, particularly in Europe, with respect to musculoskeletal/manual medicine is much the same. Followers of gurus throughout Europe created sects, to the extent that in some countries opinions have been very much divided as to the direction that manual medicine should take, based on their initial teaching. However, this appears to have gradually changed, leading to combined efforts being made to establish an accepted subspecialty of manual medicine within the European Union of Medical Specialists (UEMS). In the UK, 1991 was a momentous year when the Institute of Orthopaedic Medicine (based on the Cyriax approach) held talks with the British Association of Manipulative Medicine, which was based on a pragmatic approach, and the London College of Osteopathic Medicine, based on traditional osteopathic concepts, and agreed to form British Institute of musculoskeletal medicine (BIMM), in which there would be full recognition of and acceptance of underlying concepts as described. BIMM has continued to promote this eclectic system ever since. But what about evidence, which on a personal basis, tends strongly to be influenced by our formative years in which we become convinced of ‘truth’ and systems that make most sense to us? My personal career may illustrate the situation well. Having been a dedicated Cyriax disciple in my early years of medical practice, I became exposed to and used manual techniques associated with international osteopathic and manual medicine concepts, notably from the USA and from the Czech Republic. My mind broadened, and I believe that I have expanded my understanding of functional musculoskeletal problems considerably and am a better doctor for it. However, it is unwise to anticipate that one viewpoint or one sect will always be in the ascendency. The world does not work that way. There will always be clinicians practising musculoskeletal medicine whose views will differ conceptually from others, exemplified particularly by the difference in emphasis between those adhering strongly to structural pathology and those who accept the dysfunctional concept. In the UK, the GPWSI (general practitioner with special interest in musculoskeletal medicine) is in an advantageous Correspondence to: Michael Hutson, Village House, Owthorpe, Nottingham NG12 3GE, UK. Email: mahutson@aol.com\",\"PeriodicalId\":88907,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International musculoskeletal medicine\",\"volume\":\"59 1\",\"pages\":\"85 - 86\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2014-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1179/1753614614Z.00000000081\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International musculoskeletal medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1179/1753614614Z.00000000081\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International musculoskeletal medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1179/1753614614Z.00000000081","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
由专门的肌肉骨骼医生进行的肌肉骨骼医学为将概念信念转化为医疗实践提供了机会。考虑到目前人们对英国国家卫生系统(NHS)的担忧程度,这也给了我一个反思的机会。首先,我想回顾一下我们实践中证据的一些方面。我们是如何获得证据的?我们将如何继续获得证据?我们相信循证医学,就像它正式诞生以来所理解的那样,仍然对我们有效吗?尽管在过去的20年里发表了大量的科学证据和指导方针,但我们在医疗实践中所珍视和一贯使用的“证据”主要来自于我们第一次接触的那些老师,这是很诱人的,而且可能是正确的。在肌肉骨骼/手工医学社区中,仍然存在不同的信仰,甚至宗派分歧。几十年前,在这个社区里,James Cyriax有(现在仍然有)很多支持者。我经常用“结构主义”这个词来形容他的方法,这种方法基于病理解剖学和设计精美的检查系统。“跨越鸿沟”是传统的整骨疗法(Cyriax非常鄙视),它以躯体功能障碍为中心,采用更微妙的手动诊断结果,这也很有吸引力。自古希腊的阿斯克勒庇俄斯(医神)和他的女儿健神(健康女神)时代以来,健康问题的两极分化就一直存在,尽管令人欣慰的是,在英国的肌肉骨骼医学实践中,在最近几十年里,斯蒂尔、西里亚克斯和莱维特都非常杰出,人们已经认识到,我们可以共同生活,相互学习,实践我们最相信的医学信条。同时承认并执行来自“另一方”的信念。肌肉骨骼/手工医学方面的国际情况,特别是欧洲的情况大致相同。在整个欧洲,古鲁的追随者们创立了教派,以至于在一些国家,根据他们最初的教导,对于手工医学应该采取的方向,意见分歧很大。然而,这种情况似乎已逐渐改变,导致在欧洲医学专家联盟(UEMS)内共同努力建立一个公认的手工医学亚专科。在英国,1991年是一个重要的年份,骨科医学研究所(基于Cyriax方法)与基于实用方法的英国手法医学协会(British Association of Manipulative Medicine)和基于传统整骨疗法概念的伦敦整骨医学学院(London College of Osteopathic Medicine)举行会谈,并同意成立英国肌肉骨骼医学研究所(British Institute of muscle - skeletal Medicine, BIMM),其中将充分承认和接受所描述的基本概念。从那以后,BIMM继续推广这种折衷的体系。但是,从个人的角度来看,证据往往会受到我们形成时期的强烈影响,在这段时间里,我们开始相信对我们最有意义的“真理”和体系。我个人的职业生涯可以很好地说明这种情况。在我早期的医疗实践中,我一直是Cyriax的忠实弟子,我接触并使用了与国际骨科和手工医学概念相关的手工技术,特别是来自美国和捷克共和国。我的思维开阔了,我相信我对功能性肌肉骨骼问题的理解大大扩展了,我是一个更好的医生。然而,预期一个观点或一个教派将永远处于优势地位是不明智的。世界不是这样运转的。总是会有从事肌肉骨骼医学的临床医生,他们的观点在概念上与其他人不同,特别是那些坚持结构病理学和接受功能失调概念的人之间强调的差异。在英国,GPWSI(对肌肉骨骼医学有特殊兴趣的全科医生)有优势的通信:Michael Hutson, Village House, Owthorpe, Nottingham NG12 3GE, UK。电子邮件:mahutson@aol.com
Musculoskeletal medicine, as practised by dedicated musculoskeletal physicians, provides an opportunity for translating conceptual beliefs into medical practice. Given the current level of angst regarding the National Health System (NHS) in the UK, it also offers me the opportunity for reflection. I would initially like to review some aspects of the evidence for our practice. How did we obtain and how do we continue to obtain evidence? Do we believe that evidence-based medicine, as it has been understood since its formal inception, still works for us? Despite the plethora of published scientific evidence and guidelines over the last 20 years, it is tempting and possibly true to state that the ‘evidence’ that we hold dear to us and use consistently in our medical practice comes primarily from those teachers with whom we had our first contact. There are still diverse beliefs, even a sectarian divide, among the musculoskeletal/manual medicine community. Within that community, decades ago, James Cyriax had (and indeed continues to have) many advocates. I have often used the term ‘structuralism’ to describe his approach, based on patho-anatomy and a beautifully devised examination system. ‘Across the divide’ is the traditional osteopathic approach (which Cyriax so despised) that is centred on somatic dysfunction, with its more subtle manual diagnostic findings, which can also be appealing too. Polarization of approaches to health issues have been present since the days of Asclepius (God of Medicine) and his daughter Hygiea (Goddess of Health) in Ancient Greece, though it is gratifying that in musculoskeletal medical practice in the UK over the more recent decades during which Still, Cyriax, and Lewit have been pre-eminent, there has developed a realization that we can live together, learn from each other, and practise the medical creed in which we have most belief, while acknowledging and implementing beliefs from ‘the other side’. The international situation, particularly in Europe, with respect to musculoskeletal/manual medicine is much the same. Followers of gurus throughout Europe created sects, to the extent that in some countries opinions have been very much divided as to the direction that manual medicine should take, based on their initial teaching. However, this appears to have gradually changed, leading to combined efforts being made to establish an accepted subspecialty of manual medicine within the European Union of Medical Specialists (UEMS). In the UK, 1991 was a momentous year when the Institute of Orthopaedic Medicine (based on the Cyriax approach) held talks with the British Association of Manipulative Medicine, which was based on a pragmatic approach, and the London College of Osteopathic Medicine, based on traditional osteopathic concepts, and agreed to form British Institute of musculoskeletal medicine (BIMM), in which there would be full recognition of and acceptance of underlying concepts as described. BIMM has continued to promote this eclectic system ever since. But what about evidence, which on a personal basis, tends strongly to be influenced by our formative years in which we become convinced of ‘truth’ and systems that make most sense to us? My personal career may illustrate the situation well. Having been a dedicated Cyriax disciple in my early years of medical practice, I became exposed to and used manual techniques associated with international osteopathic and manual medicine concepts, notably from the USA and from the Czech Republic. My mind broadened, and I believe that I have expanded my understanding of functional musculoskeletal problems considerably and am a better doctor for it. However, it is unwise to anticipate that one viewpoint or one sect will always be in the ascendency. The world does not work that way. There will always be clinicians practising musculoskeletal medicine whose views will differ conceptually from others, exemplified particularly by the difference in emphasis between those adhering strongly to structural pathology and those who accept the dysfunctional concept. In the UK, the GPWSI (general practitioner with special interest in musculoskeletal medicine) is in an advantageous Correspondence to: Michael Hutson, Village House, Owthorpe, Nottingham NG12 3GE, UK. Email: mahutson@aol.com