Cranio-sacral therapy has been a subject on this blog before, for instance here, here and here. The authors of this single-blind, randomized trial explain in the introduction of their paper that “cranio-sacral therapy is an alternative and complementary therapy based on the theory that restricted movement at the cranial sutures of the skull negatively affect rhythmic impulses conveyed through the cerebral spinal fluid from the cranium to the sacrum. Restriction within the cranio-sacral system can affect its components: the brain, spinal cord, and protective membranes. The brain is said to produce involuntary, rhythmic movements within the skull. This movement involves dilation and contraction of the ventricles of the brain, which produce the circulation of the cerebral spinal fluid. The theory states that this fluctuation mechanism causes reciprocal tension within the membranes, transmitting motion to the cranial bones and the sacrum. Cranio-sacral therapy and cranial osteopathic manual therapy originate from the observations made by William G. Sutherland, who said that the bones of the human skeleton have mobility. These techniques are based mainly on the study of anatomic and physiologic mechanisms in the skull and their relation to the body as a whole, which includes a system of diagnostic and therapeutic techniques aimed at treatment and prevention of diseases. These techniques are based on the so-called primary respiratory movement, which is manifested in the mobility of the cranial bones, sacrum, dura, central nervous system, and cerebrospinal fluid. The main difference between the two therapies is that cranial osteopathy, in addition to a phase that works in the direction of the lesion (called the functional phase), also uses a phase that worsens the injury, which is called structural phase.”
With this study, the researchers wanted to evaluate the effects of cranio-sacral therapy on disability, pain intensity, quality of life, and mobility in patients with low back pain. Sixty-four patients with chronic non-specific low back pain were assigned to an experimental group receiving 10 sessions of craniosacral therapy, or to the control group receiving 10 sessions of classic massage. Craniosacral therapy took 50 minutes and was conducted as follows: With pelvic diaphragm release, palms are placed in transverse position on the superior aspect of the pubic bone, under the L5–S1 sacrum, and finger pads are placed on spinal processes. With respiratory diaphragm release, palms are placed transverse under T12/L1 so that the spine lies along the start of fingers and the border of palm, and the anterior hand is placed on the breastbone. For thoracic inlet release, the thumb and index finger are placed on the opposite sides of the clavicle, with the posterior hand/palm of the hand cupping C7/T1. For the hyoid release, the thumb and index finger are placed on the hyoid, with the index finger on the occiput and the cupping finger pads on the cervical vertebrae. With the sacral technique for stabilizing L5/sacrum, the fingers contact the sulcus and the palm of the hand is in contact with the distal part of the sacral bone. The non-dominant hand of the therapist rested over the pelvis, with one hand on one iliac crest and the elbow/forearm of the other side over the other iliac crest. For CV-4 still point induction, thenar pads are placed under the occipital protuberance, avoiding mastoid sutures. Classic massage protocol was compounded by the following sequence techniques of soft tissue massage on the low back: effleurage, petrissage, friction, and kneading. The maneuvers are performed with surface pressure, followed by deep pressure and ending with surface pressure again. The techniques took 30 minutes.
Disability (Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire RMQ, and Oswestry Disability Index) was the primary endpoint. Other outcome measures included the pain intensity (10-point numeric pain rating scale), kinesiophobia (Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia), isometric endurance of trunk flexor muscles (McQuade test), lumbar mobility in flexion, hemoglobin oxygen saturation, systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, hemodynamic measures (cardiac index), and biochemical analyses of interstitial fluid. All outcomes were measured at baseline, after treatment, and one-month follow-up.
No statistically significant differences were seen between groups for the main outcome of the study, the RMQ. However, patients receiving craniosacral therapy experienced greater improvement in pain intensity (p ≤ 0.008), hemoglobin oxygen saturation (p ≤ 0.028), and systolic blood pressure (p ≤ 0.029) at immediate- and medium-term and serum potassium (p = 0.023) level and magnesium (p = 0.012) at short-term than those receiving classic massage.
The authors concluded that 10 sessions of cranio-sacral therapy resulted in a statistically greater improvement in pain intensity, hemoglobin oxygen saturation, systolic blood pressure, serum potassium, and magnesium level than did 10 sessions of classic massage in patients with low back pain.
Given the results of this study, the conclusion is surprising. The primary outcome measure failed to show an inter-group difference; in other words, the results of this RCT were essentially negative. To use secondary endpoints – most of which are irrelevant for the study’s aim – in order to draw a positive conclusion seems odd, if not misleading. These positive findings are most likely due to the lack of patient-blinding or to the 200 min longer attention received by the verum patients. They are thus next to meaningless.
In my view, this publication is yet another example of an attempt to turn a negative into a positive result. This phenomenon seems embarrassingly frequent in alternative medicine. It goes without saying that it is not just misleading but also dishonest and unethical.
The ‘verum’ group received 50 minutes ‘therapy’ – the ‘control’ group only 30 minutes (as Edzard points out).
200 minutes less – over ten sessions – 40%.
I would have expected the ‘verum’ group to have done even better still, given they had nearly twice as much ‘therapy’.
Whatever else this research was, it was not a ‘single-blind randomised controlled trial’ as its authors claimed. The groups were not comparable.
I am surprised that even the editors of the JCAM did not recognise this and decline to publish – or is there a conspiracy to deceive not only patients, but its own readers? Just asking.
[For the record: The “College of Medicine’s” first annual conference was held at the Mansion House by kind permission of the Lord Mayor whose wife (and opening speaker) was a cranio-sacral therapist.]
Such studies were very often cited to “proof” that craniosacral therapy or cranial osteopathy might have effects.
But if there might be movement then the question is what effects might have a touch on the skull outside and if so what for? To cure diseases? There has never ever been any evidence to cure any disease or mental illnes by doing this.
Besides touching head and sacrum might be a nice experience in times when nobody touches you at all and some psychatric departments use it to relax their patients and to help them to become touchable again. But does it heal any diseases? No never.
That’s also the result written down in the statement of the German Neuropediatric Association (Deutsche Gesellschaft für Neuropädiatrie)
The missing of any evidence of osteopathic manipulative medicine (craniosacral and visceral approaches included) was the result of the decision about osteopathic manipulative medicine of a Higher Court in Germany in November 14th 2014
I forgot to mention that movement in the cranial sutures is much smaller than the possibility of the two point discrimination of a human hand so it cannot be palpated at all.
just to add … I meant that departments of psychology and psychiatry in hospitals use this approach for patients to be become “tangible” again and to reduce symptoms of dissociation but this is independently from the esoteric and pseudoscientific explanations of this method. As far as the psychiatric physicians who use it in their departments are explaining it’s the whole mindfulness setting like in other equivalent methods (Feldenkrais, Alexander, MBSR a.s.o.. ) that helps a patient similar to
a Milton Erickson hypnotic therapy session .. there is nothing specific about this …