Today's Quick Links come from Nick Tumiello, Science Direct, and In Touch PT.
What do you consider a successful treatment? Other than the obvious the patient feels/moves/performs better, what are your criteria? Dr. Harrison Vaughn outlines this in his latest blog post and for numbers 2 and 3, I am in absolute agreement.
There are groups out there that absolutely hate treating TrPs, do not "believe" in them, or the reliability in even finding them. I usually use IASTM to treat entire areas and adjacent areas and do not focus on points. Regardless, here is a study that shows people who have PF syndrome had a higher incidence of TrPs in the gluteus medius and QL than people without knee pain. However, the only measured hip abduction strength and the presence of TrPs for outcomes. I would have liked a measure of function and pain, but do not have the full study in front of me.
Nick Tumiello gives some compelling arguments against why we shouldn't use babies and their ability to do deep squats as a reference for adult movement. Sure they have different bone structure, more flexibility and less wear and tear. Their COG is also different, absolutely. My argument with this (as a proponent of the FMS and SFMA) is that it's not just babies, it's kids as well. My 6 year old has more of the proportions of an adult and can bust out a deep squat like it's no one's business. The deep squat is a useful screen for mobility, symmetry, and motor control, however I do not consider it an absolute requirement.
For argument 3, that is saying what a joint looks like on scanning matters for movement or motor control (and of course pain), and we all know that is not true. Gray Cook does say they have quite an extensive database of normative movement data from across the lifespan with very little variability, it's not just babies! In the end, I only use the DS as a reference movement test, not a measure of performance or a requirement for return to sport. My patients have to pass other tests as well.