There are several Cranial osteopathy practitioners in the UK, Germany, the US and elsewhere, who are adapting the biotensegrity mechanical model as the model for Cranial osteopathy. I believe Charles Cummings published an article on it in an Osteopathic journal and several others have written about it. I can forward some names of practitioners if you ask. Biotensegrity integrates fascia and the musculoskeletal system into a unified whole and shows how forces at one point can distribute throughout the system. For more on biotensegrity check my page in ResearchGate or my website, http://www.biotensegrity.com .

I think that, before going so deeply in the topic of how the cranial osteopahy works, which is a quite difficult topic, research should focus on its effect on health. It's a loss of time to study something that is not relevant ofr health! So, first we need to be sure the this treatment works, then we will try to explain how and why. Not the opposite.

Thanks for your response Fabio and I partially agree with you.

Partially because :

1. We are not trying to explain how cranial treatment works.

2. Conversely, we are trying to suggest that maybe osteopath are not handling with the head in the more rational and logical way (in terms of palpation pressure, movements etc.)

3. The article is exclusively about the set of sound evidences that support the fact that the head distorts, to what extent and under what kind of sollicitation

4. You cannot perform a manual treatment without having a theoretical model that guides (even tacitly) the way you practice. Providing manual therapists a new model for the diagnosis and the treatment of the head is not inconsistent with the idea of assessing these tools and their effects (or not) on patient's health.

To test an intervention, it is nevertheless indispensable to first define it. Even using a black box design, it would be very difficult to rely on an intervention that is not conceptually grounded. There is indeed no need to understand all underlying mechanisms, but it seems essential that what is taught is coherent with what is already known.

Totally agree with the argumentation of Marco but I only have a problem with the concept of "cranial osteopathy". I like to think that there is only "osteopathy". The models you mention are also applicable to my left foot or my right elbow. The same goes for the concepts of "visceral osteopathy", "cranial osteopahts", ... There is no historical and/or scientific basis for the construction of these concepts. It is my opinion that the profession would benefit by not using these concepts.

Thanks for your comment Patrick. That's exactly the point we try to emphasize. We suggest to reconsider the exceptional place the osteopaths have given to the skull. Bone of the skull are... bones, muscles of the head are... muscles, fasciae and skin of the head are still fasciae and skin. There is no histological neither anatomical justification to a special model for the diagnosis and treatment of the head.

But we also draw up a review of the mechanical properties of the head because it shows that many high quality studies have been made without any reference to PRM, CSF fluctuation or inherent mobility of the CNS.

We suggest to further explore the possibility of reversible alteration of the head structures following mild traumas or chronic conditions (bruxism for example) and to assess if a manual treatment may improve or speed up the return to a normal condition...

Dear Marco,

I like your point! Nevertheless, I'm afraid that the supporters of cranial osteopathy will not be in agreement and will continue to practice. We must remember that a treatment can work even if we don't know how, and since cranial osteopathy is one of the parts of the treatment, they will go on using it unless it will be demonstrated it doesn't work. I'm aware that it's the supporter of a techique's job to show it works, but this treatment is an everyday approach and not a new one, so things are a bit different.

Fabio, I do not agree with your point. Many practitioners will continue using principles they believe to work even if we are able to demonstrate they don't. So the issue here is not about actual practitioners that have been led in misbeliefs, it is about been more truthful for future osteopaths. Any teacher's effort should be in providing grounded theories that integrate empirical knowledge in the academic field - unless we are ready to accept that there is nothing more to osteopathy than faith.

I am a sceptic...

Thank to everybody for the answers and comments.

I agree with you Fabio, and while we work on this topic we focus our attention on education and forthcoming practitioners. Changing the way one already practices is probably too difficult a challenge for us, we prefer to bet on the forthcoming generations. Time will tell...