Sunday, October 27, 2013
The mechanical, physiological, and systemic implications of neurodevelopmental disorders (NDD) are far to complex to discuss in any realistic time frame or space, however there are some conceptual frameworks that should ultimately serve to direct and "mediate" any given formulation with respect to long-term strategic planning. I have classifed them into a "Top 3" list to keep an otherwise overwhelming topic relatively light and easily "digestible".
1. Be humble...it's not something we can "control"
The most common error with respect to management and strategy is to naively assume that NDD's can be selectively controlled and managed. This is a reflection of a relatively simplistic "mechanistic" perspective that essentially extrapolates simple singular solutions to complex systemic and mechanical challenges. This does not mean that we are completely helpless...rather it means that our ultimate effect is minimal if we attempt to "fix" things by addressing them as a group of exclusive problems. It is, in my view, far more efficient to support the biological systems that serve to facilitate and potentiate self-healing and self-regulation (respiration, digestion, lymphatic drainage, immune function). In essence, the small increments of support to self-regulation ultimate yield exponential benefit due to the body's ability to convert microstimulus significantly more efficiently and therefore increase it's ability to intrinsically heal itself. This is a more "organic" approach and, in conjunction with some carefully selected mechanistic interventions, effectively activates the infinite potential within the human organism itself to contribute to development and enhancement.
2. Mix it up
One of the most overlooked realities within the biological perspective is paradoxically a well understood fundamental concept: the body responds to imposed stimulus and demands. Despite this intuitive statement, it somehow loses it's way as soon as the issue of NDD's enters the discussion. One of the most insightful and informative fundamentals reaches back to the topic of evolution...we are essentially designed to survive. Therefore the human organism thrives and adapts to stimulus in order to accomplish this survival mechanism. Furthermore, and perhaps more importantly, it responds to randomness, variability, and volatility. The necessity for improvement and "strengthening" is a function of the imposed stimulus...therefore the long term strategy should reflect a certain randomness (implementation in irregular cycles), variability (changes in frequency, duration, etc), and volatility (variations in intensity expressed within the parameters of the overall strategy). These are obviously meant to be implemented in small degrees and expressed in MICRO-changes...
3. Systemic focus is a "win-win" situation
Whenever in doubt, or in the most difficult of situations "when all else fails", it is important to remember that the development, nourishment, and activation of systemic function ALWAYS yields positive results. In reality, the eventual "success" of any intervention relies on the intrinsic ability if the human organism to recieve, absorb, and assimilate any given stimulus...therefore the systemic competence essentially serves as the modifier for overall efficiency. If systemic competence and homeostasis is poor, then the ability to absorb and assimilate is low...resulting in significant reduction in "investment of stimulus". However, a robust systemic performance serves to potentiate and expediate the process of healing and development...which is achieved via more efficient oxygen exchange, improved lymphatic performance, increased nutrient absorption, and metabolic competence...to name a few.
In summary, a compartmentalized and mechanistic perspective is exponentially more effective when the organic evaluation and strategy has been considered and put into place.
Friday, October 25, 2013
The title of this post is relatively self explanatory: There is an intrinsic "disability" that exists within the diagnostic framework that is systemic and often leads to confusion and, in some cases, mis-interpretation of information.
This "disability" takes many forms...no standardized diagnostic "language", established uniform standards of measurements, and obvious rampant objective differences. Gracovetsky points this out rather explicitely in alot of his work...although he doesn't refer to "diagnostic disability", he often demonstrates the simplicity of past and current assessment protocol. This isn't, in my view, and effort to discredit...rather to highlight that a more focused effort is required along with more broader perspectives of evaluation and assessment. I will refer to work he formulated regarding the spinal "engine".
QUESTION: What is the function of the spine?
This SHOULD be an explicit and straightforward question...however, you would find that even among the "experts" you would have some objective differences and responses. You would encounter some within the "spine is a supportive structure" camp...and you would also find some heavily entrenched within the "spine is a functional unit that generates movement"...and as expected, some would attempt to skirt this line.
REALIZATION: If we cannot agree on the function, how can we decide on how to treat or do surgery?
This is quite thought-provoking in my view. How can a standardized protocol of practice and intervention be implemented when the function of a given biological unit cannot be unanimously understood and percieved? We therefore come to the most popular diagnostic tool that has been the standard since it
was discovered in 1895...the X-Ray.
It is used very frequently as a diagnostic tool...which is something I have written about in the past...and this strategy is fundamentally flawed. The most significant failure of this strategy is that it is a 2-dimensional representation of a 3-dimensional system...therefore a great deal of information is missing. The explicit example of how much information is left out is one that almost everyone can relate to: What is the difference between looking at a picture of a mountain top and actually being there live? The difference is exponentially different and distinct! Further, it is fundamentally almost impossible to gauge function and movement potential from a still image...therefore as Gracovetsky postulates:
Function cannot be deduced by radiology
One of the most impacting realizations I have experienced came from one of his presentations on "The Spinal Engine". He posted an image of a spine and asked a straightforward question: Can this person lift 10 lbs?
The answers were understandibly varied...some refering to some degenerative symptoms that were observable, some refered to issues of alignment, etc. Here is the "punch-line":
This is an x-ray of a cadaver
Gracovetsky: If radiology cannot determine if a patient is even alive...why is it used in disability assessment?? Quite insightful...
He goes on to stipulate that one of the most common errors made within the evaluative paradigm (and which is one that I have shared and expressed for quite some time) is the assumed link between anatomy and function. In other words, the anatomical and topographical representation is a reflection of functional competence...and this is a simplistic and formally inefficient strategy. Therefore the "Gracovetsky effect" results in a paradoxically simple rule:
Function must be measured independantly as part of a comprehensive investigation of injury or dysfunction
I'm hoping that this insight results in similar broadening of perspective...even if only slightly.