Abstract
Purpose: To investigate the effect of Matrix Repatterning®
techniques in a case of a long-standing, moderately severe case
of ankylosing spondylitis.
Methods: Matrix Repatterning uses a manual scanning
procedure to determine the location of primary restrictions, followed
by mechanical testing to determine specific vectors of fascial
tension. Treatment is applied manually with light force directed
into the resistance barriers. Four treatments were administered
over a period of three months. Measurements included occiput-to-door
(OTD) for determination changes in general range of spinal extension,
and fingers-to-floor (FTF) to determine changes in range of spinal
flexion. X-ray studies were also compared before and after the
treatment regime.
Results: OTD measurements were 28 cm. before treatment
regime and 12.7 cm. after the completion of treatment. FTF measurements
were 22.2 cm. before treatment and 12.7 cm. after the completion
of the treatment regime.
Conclusions: These findings suggest that Matrix Repatterning
procedures may be beneficial in the management of ankylosing spondylitis,
and suggest that a randomized controlled trial within a broader
population base would be indicated.
Key Words: Matrix Repatterning, primary restriction,
indicator, resistance barrier, induction, directional recoil
INTRODUCTION
Ankylosing spondylitis (AS) is a chronic inflammatory form of
arthritis that affects the spinal joints with the onset of symptoms
in the late teens to mid-twenties. The hallmark feature of AS
is the involvement of the joints at the base of the spine where
the spine joins the pelvis - the sacroiliac (SI) joints. Radiographic
findings include sacroiliac joint sclerosis and fibro-calcific
hyperproliferation of spinal joints. Laboratory findings include
an elevation of HLA-B27. The disease course is highly variable,
and while some individuals have episodes of transient back pain
only, others have more chronic severe back pain that leads to
differing degrees of spinal stiffness over time. In almost all
cases the disease is characterized by acute painful episodes and
remissions (periods where the problem settles). AS is three times
more common in men than in women. It typically affects young people,
beginning between the ages of 15 and 30. It may affect younger
people also, although in very young people it may take a slightly
different form, causing pain around the heels, knees, and hips
rather than beginning with the spine. Onset after age 40 is uncommon.
Indications for a diagnosis of Ankylosing Spondylitis:
- Frequent low back pain
- Back stiffness that lasts longer than 30 minutes first thing
in the morning or after a long period of rest.
- Pain and tenderness in the ribs, shoulder blades, hips, thighs,
shins, heels and along the bony points of the spine.
- In the early stages, there may be mild fever, loss of appetite
and general discomfort.
- The eyes can also be affected and symptoms can include eye
pain, watery eyes, red eyes, blurred vision, and feeling sensitive
to bright light.
Various mechanisms have been postulated for its etiology, including
genetic predisposition (Masi AT, King JR, Burgos-Vargas R 2001).
The condition is considered progressive, with increasing severity
of articular involvement, loss of mobility and the need for surgical
intervention in more severe cases. AS tends to run in families.
The tissue typing system is the Human Lymphocyte Antigen (HLA)
system. One of the tissue types, HLA-B27, is found in only 6%
of the broad population but occurs in approximately 93% of individuals
with AS. The HLA-B27 tissue type, while not causing AS, does predispose
individuals with the B27 tissue type to developing AS. Having
the tissue type itself does not necessarily indicate the presence
of AS, it simply increases a predisposition. Identifying the activating
agent, that later triggers AS, is the focus of much current research.
This case study suggests that altered biomechanics, due to a history
of significant trauma, may be one mechanism for the expression
of this genotypic pattern.
Matrix Repatterning® and The Tensegrity Matrix
Matrix Repatterning® is based on a revolutionary, new model
of the underlying structure of organic tissue – the Tensegrity
Matrix – that may explain the complex interrelationship
of all the structural components of the body. It extends the basic
concept of the tissue response to injury, beyond the level of
joint, muscle and ligament, to include all structures of the body
as potential sources of dysfunction.
According to a leading researcher in the field of cellular mechanics
and structure:
Re-evaluation of human pathophysiology in this
context reveals that a wide range of diseases included within
virtually all fields of medicine and surgery share a common feature:
their etiology or clinical presentation results from abnormal
mechanotransduction. This process may be altered by changes in
cell mechanics, variations in extracellular matrix structure,
or by deregulation of the molecular mechanisms by which cells
sense mechanical signals and convert them into a chemical or electrical
response. Molecules that mediate mechanotransduction, including
extracellular matrix molecules, transmembrane integrin receptors,
cytoskeletal structures and associated signal transduction components,
may therefore represent targets for therapeutic intervention in
a variety of diseases. (Ingber 2003)
Dr. Ingber goes on to state:
Mechanical forces are critical regulators of cellular
biochemistry and gene expression as well as tissue development.
Mechanotransduction – the process by which cells sense and
respond to mechanical signals – is mediated by extracellular
matrix, transmembrane integrin receptors, cytoskeletal structures
and associated signaling molecules.
Many ostensibly unrelated diseases share a common feature that
their etiology or clinical presentation results from abnormal
mechanotransduction. Mechanotransduction may be altered through
changes in cell mechanics, extracellular matrix structures or
by deregulation fo the molecular mechanisms by which cells sense
mechanical signals or convert them into a chemical response.
Molecules that mediate mechanotransduction may represent future
targets for therapeutic intervention in a variety of diseases.
Insights into the mechanical basis of tissue regulation also may
lead to development of improved medical devices, engineered tissues,
and biomimetic materials for tissue repair and reconstruction.
Masi (2003) also implicates axial muscular dysfunction in the
development of the joint pathology in ankylosing spondylitis.
These factors may play a role in the transmission of excessive
force directly to the spinal articular structures, leading to
some the local pathophysiology (Hatfaludy, Hannsky, Vandenburgh
1989; Lewitt 1985).
METHODS
Subject
A 51-year-old male presented to our clinic with a long-standing
history of back, hip and neck pain as well as severe loss of spinal
and pelvic mobility and significant hyperkyphosis of the thoracic
spine. His history included a fall from a cliff from a height
of 30-40 feet at the age of 10, with multiple injuries, and a
fall off a ladder onto his back at the age of 15. He developed
progressive pain and limitation of motion during his mid to late
teens. He was formally diagnosed with AS at the age of seventeen.
The patient was assessed posturally and orthopedically in order
to determine the extent of functional biomechanical limitation.
All ranges of spinal and pelvic motion were severely restricted
as well as global hip movement, especially on the right. Overall
height was measured at 5 feet 9 inches (175 cm.). Occiput-to-door
(OTD) was measured at 28 cm. Fingers-to-floor (FTF) was measured
at 22.2 cm. Right hip movement was measured using visual references,
at 10 degrees of flexion, 5 degrees of external rotation, 0 degrees
of internal rotation and 5 degrees of abduction. Neck range of
motion, other than flexion and extension, was 0 degrees of right
rotation, 3 degrees of left rotation, 3 degrees of right lateral
flexion and 0 degrees of left lateral flexion.
Procedures
The Matrix Repatterning assessment involves the use of touch
or pressure (induction or recoil) on various parts of the body
to elicit a response in another standardized area of the body
(the indicator), in order to determine the site of the primary
sites of tissue pathophysiology (primary restrictions). This process
is based on the premise of the fascial continuity of the tensegrity
matrix, as postulated by Ingber, Levin and others (Levin 2002).
From this assessment procedure, certain areas of primary involvement
were determined as potential treatment sites. These included the
spine, the pelvic bones (ilium, pubis, ischium) and the fascial
structures associated with several internal organs, namely the
heart, liver, kidneys and spleen.
These areas were treated using a minimal application of manual
force into the areas found from the assessment, using vectors
determined by the use of the indicator response. The mechanism
of conversion of the pathophysiological state to one of more normal
tone due to the application of manual methods has been speculated
on several researchers (Marsland, Brown 1942; Tanaka 1981; Oschman
2000). A total of four treatments were applied over a three-month
period. The protracted nature of the clinical course was mainly
the result of the patient’s rather busy work schedule.
RESULTS
OTD measurements were 28 cm. before treatment regime and 12.7
cm. after the completion of treatment. FTF measurements were 22.2
cm. before treatment and 12.7 cm. after the completion of the
treatment regime. Right hip movement was 30 degrees of flexion,
10 degrees of external rotation, 10 degrees of internal rotation
and 20 degrees of abduction. Neck range of motion, other than
flexion and extension, was 10 degrees of right rotation, 10 degrees
of left rotation, 10 degrees of right lateral flexion and 10 degrees
of left lateral flexion. The patient’s overall height was
remeasured following the course of treatment at 5 feet 11 inches
(180.34 cm.). No data analysis was carried out at the time of
this report.
The patient has also subjectively reported an increase in the
level of comfort in the activities of daily living as well as
in his rather demanding work as a finish carpenter. One of his
early indications of subjective improvement was that he was able
to see the top of the door-frame (see photographs below; this
is an 8 foot high door seen in these photographs) he was working
on for the first time in many years. He also stated that he no
longer needed to support himself using his hand against the mirror,
in order to shave in the mornings.
 |
 |
Posture before treatment |
Posture after treatment |
DISCUSSION
Symptoms, especially in chronic musculoskeletal conditions, may
often be the result of compensatory patterns of tension created
within the body in response to primary sites of tissue injury
in other locations within the kinetic chain (Ingber 2003). These
same mechanisms have been postulated in the use of other therapeutic
models (D’Ambrogio, Roth 1997). The primary lesion may often
be asymptomatic after the acute phase, as the brain adapts to
the continuing background stimulation from local pain receptors
(Wall 2000). The resulting alteration in range of motion may create
patterns of strain in secondary sites, resulting in painful movement
and inflammation.
Matrix Repatterning is a manual approach, aimed at addressing
the primary sources of tension in the connective tissue-fascial
system. It incorporates a novel approach to the determination
of the location of primary tissue response to injury (primary
restrictions). This approach is based on the application of the
principal of fascial continuity inherent in a new, proven model
of structure at the microscopic and macroscopic levels (Wang,
Butler, Ingber 1993; Ingber 1998; Levin 2002). Treatment is gentle
and painless, and can often result in global reorganization and
postural stabilization, encouraging the body towards normal, pain-free
function. It is currently in use by physical therapists, chiropractors,
physicians, osteopaths, athletic trainers, massage therapists
and veterinarians on five continents and ten countries around
the world. Matrix Repatterning courses are currently available
through The Matrix Institute.
The present discussion is limited to a case report on one case
of ankylosing spondylitis. In this current report, we have attempted
to apply the basic principles of Matrix Repatterning to a moderately
severe, long-standing case of ankylosing spondylitis. It has been
the author’s experience with other spinal and articular
conditions that joints are often under abnormal mechanical stress
due to primary restrictions exerting their influence throughout
the body. He has speculated that part of the compensatory mechanisms
inherent in the body include the ability of joints to tolerate
these disturbed mechanical forces through what has been described
as non-physiologic motion, sometimes referred to as joint play
(Zohn, Mennel 1976). It has been speculated that this feature
of joint function does indeed serve the role of maintaining a
degree of functional capacity, thereby allowing the organism the
ability to ambulate and pursue the necessities of life, despite
significant loss of function or mobility in other structures.
This could be viewed as a compensatory mechanism, which up to
a certain tolerance level, is capable of substituting additional
range in ancillary structures in order to complete desired tasks,
such as ambulation, manipulation of the environment and other
necessary functions. The fact that some of these aberrant functional
ranges result in strain to certain tissues, as well as pain, is
secondary to the fact that they may serve, in certain instances
to preserve life. It may also be conjectured that the price of
compromised or aberrant motion may result in abnormal stresses
on these secondary areas, thus resulting in the types of cellular
changes alluded to by Ingber and others.
It is this latter premise that is considered one of the possible
mechanisms in the development of ankylosing spondylitis. The fact
that the spinal and pelvis joints may be responding to local and
non-local sources of restriction within the overall continuous
fascial fabric (the matrix) of the body, may explain the cellular
and ultimately the physiological mechanisms, including genetic
expression prevalent in this disorder (Ingber 2003).
CONCLUSIONS
Our clinical experience has suggested that visceral sources of
primary restriction are often the sequelae to impact trauma. It
has been postulated that the fluid contained in these organs responds
by absorbing the energy of impact, thus leading to a hydrostatic
expansion exerted against the internal parenchyma and fascial
containment of these structures. The resultant force is therefore
presumed to exert a strong mechanical influence on the cellular
structure of these components, resulting in the development of
cellular/molecular mechanical distortion to the linearly-stiffened
status of the protein scaffold within the cells (Ingber 1998).
By this same mechanism, it has been speculated that bone, increased
in density relative to other tissues due to the deposition of
high concentration of mineral salts within and throughout its
collagen reinforcing elements, may also respond by absorbing a
significant amount of the energy of an impact into its cellular/molecular
structure (Duncan 1995). Certain other mechanisms of mechanical
stress on tissue may also be factors in the development this and
related conditions. Namely the hyperproliferative tendency of
the articular structures, may be associated with the aberrant
mechanical forces created the excessive mechanical stress placed
across them (Ingber 2000; Ko, Arora, McCulloch 2001).
This case demonstrates a possible link to the effects of injury
(impact and/or strain) to the musculoskeletal system and possible
internal injuries linked to the effects of impact, as mechanisms
in the etiology of the development of AS. The result of Matrix
Repatterning intervention appears to demonstrate a possible resource
in alleviating some of the mechanical effects of injury as they
may relate to the expression of ankylosing spondylitis. Future
studies may include specified controls and a more extensive subject
base.
References:
Duncan RL. 1995. Transduction of mechanical strain in bone.
ASGSB Bulletin 8:49-62.
Gould L. 1984. Magnetic field sensitivity in animals. Annual
Review of Physiology 46:585-598.
Hatfaludy S, Hannsky J, Vandenburgh HH. 1989. Metabolic alterations
induced in cultured skeletal muscle by stretch-relaxation activity.
American Journal of Physiology 256:C175-181.
Ingber DE. 1998. The architecture of life. Scientific American
278:48-57.
Ingber DE. 2002. Mechanical signaling and the cellular response
to extracellular matrix in angiogenesis and cardiovascular physiology.
Circulatory Research 91:877-887.
Ingber DE. 2003. Mechanobiology and diseases of mechanotransduction.
Annals of Medicine 35:1-14.
Ko KS, Arora PD, McCulloch CA. 2001. Cadherins mediate intercellular
mechanicl signaling in fibroblasts by activation of stretch-sensitive-calcium-permeable
channels. Journal of Biological Chemistry 276:35967-35977.
Levin SM. 2002. The tensegrity-truss as a model for spine mechanics.
Journal of Mechanics in Medicine Biology 2:375-388.
Lewitt, K. 1985. The muscular and articular factor in movement
restriction. Manual Medicine 1:83-85.
Marsland DA, Brown DES. 1942. The effects of pressure on sol-gel
equilibria, with special reference to myosin and other protoplasmic
gels. Journal of Cellular and Comparative Physiology 20:295-305.
Masi AT, King JR, Burgos-Vargas R. 2001. Novel concepts of severity
mechanisms in ankylosing spondylitis. J Rheumatol 10:2283-8.
Masi AT, Walsh EG. 2003. Ankylosing spondylitis: integrated
clinical and physiological perspectives. Clin Exper Rheum 21:1-8.
Oschman, James L., 2000. Energy Medicine: The Scientific Basis.
London: Churchill Livingstone.
Roth, George B. 2000. A New Approach to Frozen Shoulder: A Pilot
Study Using Matrix Repatterning®. Presented at the Conference
of Canadian Chiropractic Research Centers.
Tanaka T. 1981. Gels. Scientific American 244:124-138.
Wall, Patrick. 2000. The Science of Pain and Suffering. London:
Weidenfeld and Nicholson.
Wang N, Butler JP, Ingber DE. 1993. Mechanotransduction across
the cell surface and through the cytoskeleton. Science 260:1124-1127.
Waylonis GW; Perkins RH. 1994. Post-traumatic fibromyalgia.
A long-term follow-up. American Journal of Physical Medicine and
Rehabilitation 73(6):403-12.
Zimmerman J. 1990. Laying-on-of-hands healing and therapeutic
touch: a testable theory. BEMI Currents, Journal of the Bio-Electro-Magnetics
Institute 2:8-17.
Zohn DA, Mennell JM, 1976, Musculoskeletal Pain: Diagnosis and
Physical Treatment, Little Brown, Boston, pp 3-12.
Dr. George Roth, D.C., N.D.
is a practitioner with over 25 years experience in the field of
energy medicine. He has developed a number of leading-edge technologies
to assist individuals in the achievement of optimal wellness.
He lectures extensively to various groups and educational institutions
and is a published author.
For more information, or to make an appointment, please contact
Dr. George B. Roth,
The Matrix Wellness Centre,
33 Victoria Street, Aurora, Ontario, Canada, L4G 1R1
Phone: 905-726-8770
1-877-905-7684
Fax: 905 726-8575
Email: info@matrixrepatterning.com
Web site: www.MatrixRepatterning.com
Back to Articles &
Research Back to Top
|