Effects of experimental myofascial insults on cutaneous patterns of sympathetic activity in man

Paraspinal Muscles and Intervertebral Dysfunction: Part One

“…48 The greatest weakness in all models that attribute muscle spasm as the cause of altered tissue texture and joint motion loss is the lack of evidence of abnormal motor activity associated with these clinical findings. The studies by Denslow et al and Korr et al [37][38][39][40][41][42] are over 50 years old and were, by today's standards, poorly described with insufficient data reported and no statistical analysis. Slosberg 49 suggested that the diameter of the needles used by Denslow were larger and more disruptive than the fine-wire needle electrodes used today.…”

“…From the 1940s to the early 1960s, osteopathic researchers Denslow et al and Korr et al [37][38][39][40][41][42] conducted studies that they claimed provided evidence of segmental spinal cord hyperactivity, which Denslow first called the ''central excitatory state.'' They reported evidence of increased segmental muscle activity and segmental sympathetic nervous system output at spinal levels associated with clinically detected segmental dysfunctions.…”

Can we be more specific about back and neck pain?

“…22 In the 1940s and 1950s, American osteopaths performed simple experiments on the paravertebral muscles and electrical skin resistance of subjects' backs, and reported evidence of spontaneous EMG activity and increased sympathetic activity at segmental levels associated with signs of somatic dysfunction. [74][75][76][77][78] Korr and colleagues 77,78 proposed the concept of the 'facilitated segment' to explain these findings as follows. Minor trauma was proposed to cause increased afferent input from muscle spindles to the dorsal horn of the spinal cord.…”

Research and osteopathy: An interview with Dr Gary Fryer by Helge Franke

“…I think the profession became complacent following the pioneering research of Denslow, Korr and colleagues in the 1940s and 1950s (Denslow and Clough, 1941Denslow and Hassett, 1942;Denslow et al, 1947;Korr et al, 1962). The interpretation of these studies suited the profession, and many believed the osteopathic paradigm was proven and further research was not a priority.…”