Talk:Piriformis syndrome

Recent edits

The recent changes by "DonTigny" had several major flaws. They obviously were not "previewed", as they were weirdly formatted, and ran all over the page. "Pathophysiology", even in musculoskeletal conditions, is still a/the standard term, not "pathomechanics". The editor also espouses as fact what appears to be some peoples' theories, apparently including his own. Also a large section of these theories appears to relate not to piriformis syndrome per se, but to disk disease. Sfahey 04:51, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Recently edited the Treatment section of this page to elaborate on stretches and physical therapy. PiriformisRT (talk) 22:07, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Is MRN experimental

Many insurance companies classify MR Neurography as experimental. This a vague an undefined assessment. MR Neurography and DTI (one of its components) are the subject of over 6,000 peer reviewed publications over the past 17 years involving more than 100,000 patients. The techniques are not experiments but are in routine medical use. The designation by insurance companies affects reimbursement to their clients. Most insurance companies do reimburse treatments that are labelled experimental if properly appealed. A policy that Americans can only obtain diagnosis by methods known 20 years ago is an intentional impediment to innovation. The medical literature and physicians rely of formal large scale peer reviewed outcome studies to decide what diagnostic methods to use and what treatments to prescribe. There is no specific relationship between what an insurance company classifies as experimental to try to avoid paying for it (to increase their profits), and what a given physician or medical body considers as experimental. The major textbooks in neurosurgery treat MR Neurography as a routine clinical technique.Afiller (talk) 20:06, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Recent Edits

Recent edit to highlight which nerve is affected. Holisticdan85 (talk) 22:08, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

n-1 Degrees of freedom

Folks: I have just given this article a pretty major overhaul, removing a number of unsubstantiated claims and pointing out a number of glaring methodological flaws with several of the referenced research studies (all primary sources— I am just going to move on and overlook that) claiming to have explanations and treatments for piriformis syndrome, whatever that is. This article is not meant to be a self-help guide put together by several well-meaning chiropracters or their assistants or patients with helpful suggestions and some plausible ideas about where such pain comes from and how to treat it, it needs to be RE-focused on specific and methodologically sound (and esp. WP:SECONDARY) reviews of the ins and outs of the condition... to the extent that any ever manage to surface...

...Everything else is "woo", and does not belong on Wikipedia (if I begin listing the guideline and policy pages here that make this abundantly clear, I will grow old and die doing nothing else, and i had hoped to move on to some articles on Central American monkeys and quarks before I was through!). Before you revert ANY of my recent edits (if you were considering doing so at all) please reflect on all that unmentioned policy before deciding to add back anything I have decidedly and deliberately removed or, adding in new information you just found that is anything less than the result of some meaningful, significant, and especially secondary findings in reliable, independent, verifiable sources (Oh, please: things like individual case studies are absolutely pointless here: a sample size of "one" means that there are n-1=ZERO statistical degrees of freedom and therefore NO REPORTABLE FINDINGS which just makes my brain robot blow a fuse or two and he's not easy to get up and running again when this happens). THANK YOU! Yours truly, The well-intentioned but sometimes sanctimonious and occasionally disappointingly abrasive user known as KDS4444 (talk) who despite his presentation-of-self really has only the best of intentions, swear it!! 12:51, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Struck out comment by blocked sock. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 06:57, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't understand if the sock was just playing with us, or if they were truly delusional.

I know, I'm not a RS, but over 20 years as a Physical Therapist, and I never heard this was a controversial diagnosis. Standard textbook stuff in school and a good differential diagnostic tool. If the patient didn't respond in one or two treatments, then proceeded with looking for disc pathologies, like spinal disc herniations (my article) and other possibilities. Treatment results are often instantaneous. The biomechanics and anatomy are clear and easy to understand. A tight piriformis is easy to stretch.

But, I'm not a RS here. One source says controversial, so it's labeled controversial. Hmmm... Maybe that one source is ignorant? Physicians and researchers who are not physical medicine specialists often fail to understand this stuff. They really should stick to their specialties and not play experts in other areas. Just sayin' -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 06:57, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Missing or problematic references; noted during an exercise of "learning by example"

• Article's Reference #6 only has a single web link; it no longer works. Missing pdf for "Piriformis Syndrome (Hip/Buttocks Pain)"TomStonehunter (talk) 16:50, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
• The article's reference #8 (PMID: 12766656) appears to be a Primary reference, not a Secondary reference, based on its introduction "The authors performed a cadaver study and noted anatomic variations..." TomStonehunter (talk) 17:29, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
• The article's reference #14 (PMID: 19011229 )has two links. The first is broken, no longer vectoring to the article. The second uses PMID and leads to the reference document. Abstract of the doc reads like a Primary reference, not a Secondary reference; "The authors review the anatomic and clinical features of this condition, summarizing the osteopathic medical approach to diagnosis and management."TomStonehunter (talk) 17:29, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
• The article's reference #15 (PMID: 20180984) reads like a Primary reference, not a Secondary reference. E.g., the authors summarized their 3550 patients complaining of sciatica, Dx'ing 26 cases as piriformis syndrome. They considered current diagnostic focus on H reflex of tibial nerve, preferring and recommending that <quote> "the H reflex of the peroneal nerve should be given more importance, because it demonstrated in our study more specific sign." </ quote> TomStonehunter (talk) 17:44, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

• • Yes reference #6 (which was this, was a WP:Bareurl. I rescued it via internet archive. It fails MEDRS and I removed it.
  • PMID 12766656 (formerly ref #8) has review elements.... more to come...Jytdog (talk) 02:57, 14 May 2018 (UTC)