PRRT

PRRT (Full Version)

All Forums >> [RehabEdge Forum] >> Manual Therapy

Message

chadpueblo -> PRRT (January 27, 2005 7:18:00 AM)
I would appreciate any comments on the Primal Reflex Release Technique that I have recently heard a lot about. I sent for the home study course to find out more, but if someone has been using it successfully or unsuccessfully I would like to hear your opinions.

dosrinc -> Re: PRRT (January 28, 2005 11:09:00 AM)
I have had the opportunity to discuss the concept with the gentleman who developed it, John Iams, I think, and by all acounts it seems as if he has come across something very interesting, I have not, however persued things any further because I absolutely detest the way that he has advertised the home study course, if you have seen the ads you know what I mean. That being said, I would be interested to hear what you have to say after reviewing the material, please post a follow up, thanks! Rick

Alex Brenner PT MPT OCS -> Re: PRRT (January 28, 2005 11:04:00 PM)
Chad, Before you waste a bunch of money, read this previous thread on evidence based medicine. http://www.rehabedge.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=000508

Jon Newman -> Re: PRRT (January 29, 2005 3:06:00 AM)
Hi Chad, You're already on the right track by asking questions before dropping some cash or making significant shifts in your clinical practice. I've never heard of this personally so I googled it and read some of the stuff. Army has given you one reference to check up and here is another (my link was much less popular) [URL=http://www.rehabedge.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=25;t=001468]Evidenced Based Medicine[/URL] Since this fellow's technique is based on the basic sciences and has no published outcomes, then that is what you ought to expect if you go to this course. Like PT school, basic science gave you the foundation to understand why you do what you do. If you do not have unlimited time and finances, you have to decide for yourself what gaps need to be filled and to prioritize which gaps to fill first. I would ask, are you struggling, clinically, with the population this primal reflex guy is focusing on? Do some homework (like you are right now) and figure out whether you might benefit from the information in the course. One of the more valuable things that I take from any course I attend is the reference list the course provides. I'm wary when they provide no reference list. Maybe asking for a reference list from the course provider or someone else would give you enough to base a decision to attend or not. jon

Randy Dixon -> Re: PRRT (January 29, 2005 8:24:00 AM)
I will agree with the advice already given but since you asked for people's experience with it I will add more. My wife has taken two of the PRRT courses. I asked her the other night what was the best CE course she had ever taken, she asked me: "In what way? In the sense of actually getting results with my patients, the PRRT course". (In terms of learning things she didn't know she said Rocabado's TMJ course through the U. of St. Augustine.) She is not a new therapist, she has been practicing for about 20 years and has taken a lot of CE courses, I have the bills to prove it. Using PRRT she has gotten results with some patients that have been very exciting for her, having the patient leave thrilled with you is rewarding, and it has helped re-energize her clinical work. It is safe to say that she highly recommends it. There are some problems though that should be brought up. It doesn't work for everybody, the results aren't always lasting, I'm not comfortable with the explanation for many of the techniques, it's expensive and the marketing is sometimes over the top. Iam's claims that it is based on the princpiple that the CNS and particularly the ANS plays a greater part in peripheral dysfunctions than is generally recognized and that this influence can be changed through certain techniques. The science behind this seems sound and seems to be an emerging issue in pain and injury management. I'll give another ancedote and then end, I was visiting my sister in a small town in Arizona. I met some gentlemen there, farmers, and the subject of bad backs came up. They had no idea my wife was a therapist, and I didn't tell them. Two of them got excited and started telling me about their miracle therapist in a nearby town that had "fixed" them. It turns out to be an older therapist who had learned PRRT. I had never seen farmers bragging about their therapist before. What does that mean? I don't know that it should mean anything to you, but for me that was kind of neat. As for EBM and PRRT, I would feel a lot better if there were CCT done, I have asked my wife to consider doing some studies, but neither of us have a strong research background and I wonder about the relative lack of objectivity.

Shill -> Re: PRRT (January 31, 2005 3:07:00 PM)
Just curious, but I think PRRT is how you spell the sound made when one scoffs at something. How fitting.

apolipo -> Re: PRRT (February 3, 2005 3:54:00 AM)
Has anyone taken a PRRT course as well as taken Barrett Dorko's "Simple Contact" course? I am going to "Simple Contact" later this month and after reading some info about each, they sound as if they are coming from a similar point of view. mike t

KAK -> Re: PRRT (February 4, 2005 7:28:00 AM)
Mike, I took Mr. Dorko's course (Simple Contact) a few months ago. I found his theories very intriguing and truely believe there are pearls of truth in his ideas. However, putting any of course content into practice hasn't happened yet (apart from learning about this web site!). I explained the course to a colleague and she suggested bringing some of his references to a "journal club" we have monthly. A quick review of his references didn't find anything I felt would be helpful in determining the validity of the simple contact method. I walked away from the course thinking that there is so much we DON'T understand about the neurological influences on pain syndromes (complex regional pain syndrome for example). I was open minded during his course and actually enjoyed the practice session. I do think that there is a certain amount of faith needed to jump from his theory to practice. As of yet, I haven't felt the desire to take that leap. However, I remain open minded and have stored his ideas on Simple Contact in my tool box. I have not taken a PRRT course, but did see Mr. Iam's article in ADVANCE (Jan.17,2005). I also thought that there might be some similarities to Mr. Dorko's work. I may take his home course to further "explore" the neurological influences on pain. Maybe Mr. Dorko could share regarding any similarities between his work and PRRT? Kathy

gary s -> Re: PRRT (February 4, 2005 5:11:00 PM)
Kathy, Your post puzzles me. I can understand your not putting the Dorko material to clinical use because of a lack of desire, but I differ with you when you say it takes a leap of faith concerning theory to practice. You made somewhat of a "leap" during the hands on session. I'm sure that you saw that a good deal of the attendees were not too different from the patients you treat. My own decison to employ Barrett's methods occurred 17 years ago. It didn't require any leap of faith. A short time after leaving a Barnes MFR course totally shell shocked I purchased an APTA convention tape of Barrett and Duane Saunders presenting their differing approaches to treating spinal pain. Barrett's presentation made sense to me and I slowly started to change my metod of treatment. I emphasize "slowly". I recall taking a McKenzie course years before where the instructor told us to start out with "easy" patients in order to build up our confidence. I did the same here, choosing patients who I had an exceptionally good rapport with. Over the years I took a few of Barrett workshops, stayed in contact with him, read new material and practiced. Like everyone else I've had amazing successes and resounding failures. It's the nature of the work. I'm still learning, I think. Gary

Barrett -> Re: PRRT (February 5, 2005 3:44:00 AM)
Kathy, As I said here on Rehab Edge soon after watching Iams demonstrate his work, he's found a path to the nervous sysytem, as have others, and for his patients with neurologic problems that's a good thing. His problem seems to be that he doesn't know (or chooses not to explain) how he got there. If there's a coherent theory in his work connected to the origins of pain I haven't heard it. My own ideas attend to this carefully, and maybe your failure to understand that is a reflection of my own failing as a teacher. I am perhaps confused about your definition of the word "validity." Not finding any references for your group astonishes me. What exactly qualifies? Isn't Patrick Wall's work good enough? As I often say, I never ask my students to have any sort of "faith" in what I say, and if anyone asks me to keep an "open mind" I immediately grow suspicious. I am personally critical, skeptical and, as a practitioner, conservative. I never ask for belief, only understanding. This will require study, couriosity, persistant interest and the willingness to be openly mistaken and then corrected. Clinical science has at its center a patient in pain, and many of these people are therapists themselves. It isn't a tea party.

KAK -> Re: PRRT (February 6, 2005 7:54:00 AM)
Gary, Thanks for your reply. Maybe a “step” of faith would have been a better word. By faith I mean: a belief in something for which there is no proof. In this case, a belief that a treatment method will be beneficial to the patient I am treating. I think trying any new treatment modality requires a certain amount of faith until you have personally seen its effectiveness (proof) with patients. I appreciated your advice on beginning slowly to gain confidence. When the right patient comes along I may take the step. Kathy Barrett, Thanks for your reply. I’m sure the best of instructors always have a few dense students! I think I grasped a basic understanding your theory: The culture suppresses iatrogenic movement. Iatrogenic movement will instinctively reduce mechanical deformation (therefore pain). Simple contact gives the patient permission to move in iatrogenic ways to reduce the deformation and pain. The autonomic response associated with simple contact (parasympathetic) will improve the patient’s adaptive potential as well. I think validity might have been the wrong word on my part. I think your theory seems well grounded and justifiable. I guess I was looking for something (reference) which addressed the method’s effectiveness. If I missed it (very possible) please direct me. I don’t remember you asking us to be open minded, but I think that is a necessary prerequisite to hearing new information and understanding it. Then come skepticism, study, testing and deeper understanding /conviction of whether something is likely “true” or not. I guess by open minded, I meant not discounting your method (because it is unique from our usual practice techniques) until I understood and took the time to further study your ideas on my own. Being conservative myself (these are hurting people we deal with-“not a tea party”), I don’t want to try something until I believe that it is going to benefit them. Since, I can not really have any proof of this benefit until I try the method; there is a certain amount of faith involved! Kathy

Barrett -> Re: PRRT (February 6, 2005 9:05:00 AM)
Kathy, I spent a day talking about and pointing you toward references to IDEOMOTOR movement and three times in your reply you call it something else. Forgive me, but I have to wonder what you might have read in the course manual provided or in the references since last year. I point out that movement will be necessary to relieve pain secondary to mechanical deformation (this isn't mentioned by Iams, to my knowledge) and that therapists and patients look for this movement at every treatment session, or at least they should be. As far as I know, this isn't a bizzare concept. Simple Contact doesn't relieve pain, the patient's own movement does. The parasympathetic increase associated with a reduction in mechanical deformation-NOT Simple Contact-helps, of course. Nothing more than that.

gary s -> Re: PRRT (February 6, 2005 11:17:00 AM)
Kathy, I really don't mean to belabor this. Although I wasn't at your course I'm guessing that Barrett worked on one of the attendees who was in pain and that the person reported pain relief. Again, what makes this person much different from one that you'd see in the clinic? I think you're confusing lack of desire (your post) with lack of proof. Gary

KAK -> Re: PRRT (February 6, 2005 2:16:00 PM)
Barrett I attended your course this past fall and admittedly I have not taken the time YET to further look at it (other than a quick skim of the references as I stated before). I shared only from my basic understanding from the course. I am so embarrassed that I used the wrong word that it is taking all my courage to post again! I even wondered if it was right as I typed, but was so interested in doing this, that I didn’t want to wait till I got back to the clinic next week to double check. I didn’t find your concept bizarre. I vividly remember an instructor in PT school saying that we don’t heal people. He said that we try to create an environment which allows the body to heal it’s self. Simple Contact creates an environment which allows the body to move it’s self in ways to reduce mechanical deformation, thus bringing about resolution of the painful stimulus (healing, if you will). Do I understand this correctly? Gary There were demonstrations at the course, but not as you described. I checked with a colleague who attended the same course (not trusting myself after messing up on ideomotor) and she concurred with me. I don’t think I’m confusing the two. I think if I had “proof” I’d have a stronger desire to try it. I will further study, E-mail Barrett with questions and when ready to try Simple Contact, I’ll watch for the right patient to begin with. Thank you both for your time! Kathy

Page: [1]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5.5 Unicode

0.078