Jeff:

< In light of
this, would you please explain how you can propose any logic based
course of treatment if most advocates of the SPT indicate that they can
not categorically state what causes the limitus in the SPT.  This would
seem to me to be a serious flaw in the theory. <

What the SPFMM does is identify the indicators of a sagittal plane
blockade and utilize the methods developed by Howard with the
technology to adjust or reinstate temporal progression, the pivotal effect
of the foot and hopefull encourage the foot to reinstate it's own auto
support mechanisms. SPT recognizes that there are gaps in our
understanding of absolute causes. Remember Jeff, that while I can not
categorically state what causes FHL neither can conventional theory
now categorically state what are the causes of stj pronation.
Assumption Vs Causation.

> In the classical biomechanical approach, we
have always attempted to identify the origin of any forces that we were
attempting to redirect or alter with intervention.  The SPT seems
lacking in this regard.  Is it wise to attempt intervention without a
proper diagnosis?<

The SPT does exactly this but we are looking at the results of our static
and dynamic assessments from a totally diferrent view point. I take into
consideration joint ROMs foot position, joint positions etc etc but will
interpret them within the spt and conventional theory seperately. As for
what is a proper diagnoses.....i will make a diagnoses based on
whichever theory I choose to apply to the presenting data. 

One set of data x ten theories = 10 diagnoses

( One set of data x one theory x ten clinicians = 10 or more Dx)!!!

A diagnoses is "proper" as long as it fits the assessment findings within
the  thoeretical model being used at that time. 

<A sagittal plane blockade could be structurally oriented such as a
severe osseous ankle equines or could be functional in nature such as a
tight calf muscle.  The treatment approach for a structural deformity
would differ from that of an acquired functional condition.  How might
the SPT address this issue.>

SPT attempts to utilize and encourage the motion available. Elements
such as fixed structural deformities would be accommodated the same
way as you would, ie heel lifts etc for a fixed osseous equinus. As for
an aquired functional condition the SPT will assess if this condition can
be reduced with manipulations or physical therapies whilst applying the
principals of motion enhancement as described earlier. SPT would argue
the cause of the functional condition may be different from a
conventional approach.

<it seems to me that the SPT must incorporate the classical approach,
not  replace it.  What are your thoughts on this?<

The SPT gives another view point and option. Pure application which I
use generally is not incorporated into the classical approach. Depending
on the functional presentation my orthoses prescriptions may indeed
closely resemble those of a more classical approach at times but it is not
the prescription which is important here but the reaoning and thought
process behind it.  This is the fundamental diference in the SPT and more
conventional approaches.

Hope this helps.

regards

Graham
Graham Curryer BSc(Hons) DPodM
Chiropodist
The Rehabilitation Centre
505 Smyth
Ottawa K1H 8M2
Canada
tel: (613) 737-7350
Fax:(613) 523-1571
e-mail [log in to unmask]

NONE OF US KNOW WHAT WE ARE DOING?

BUT SOME OF US KNOW MORE ABOUT WHAT WE ARE NOT DOING
THAN OTHERS!!!


%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%