> An interesting paragraph. If you think that 1mm of leg length
> discrepancycan be reliably detected with x-rays I guess we don't
> need the "Sensitive
> measurement tools, capable of detecting significant variations in
> alignmentof a segment or two from the normal range" Dr. Sahrmann
> says still need to
> be invented. Maybe someone should tell her.
I may be wrong on the 1mm but I don't think that it would be much more
than that. It can't be that hard to locate the end of the femur on an
x-ray. RSA is accurate to 0.1mm. Of course one dimensional measurement
of length is much different than the 3D measurement of the position of a
bone. The biggest problem with her hypothesis is that the range of
normal alignments is probably going to be much larger than the
pathological shift that she is theorizing.
>
> What exactly is the difference between the "cause" of something and "a
> factor in its development"? Are you assuming the origin of the
> problem can
> be known? (See "The End of Evaluation?" on my web site for more on
> this).
To me a cause is more definative than a factor. Not everyone with a lld
is going to develop a radiculopathy. Combine it with an out of shape
person who smokes, repetitively lifts while twisting, and then slips and
falls on his back, it could be a contributing factor. In this case many
people would consider the fall the cause. Its obviously going to be a
continuum, and in some instances it would be hard to label something as
either a cause or factor.
I'm not suggesting that the origin of the problem can be known. I'm
suggesting that there is a reason or reasons for the problem.
> When you say something is "postural" yet "structural" which do you
> mean? I
> am confused.
>
LLD is a structural difference. If someone with a lld is standing on an
even surface they will have a different posture than if they didn't have
an lld.
|