Frank Lanzisera, DC, Tampa, FL

Please note that these are spontaneous unedited responses from clinicians whom actively use the ATM Concept and ATM2 systems in their respective clinics. None of these clinical educators received any compensation for their endorsement. (The ATM2 was formerly called the PR3000T and Pelvic Restrainer).


I just wanted to let you know how pleased I am with the ATM2 device. As you might recall I have over 20 years experience using the MedX lumbar and cervical spine extension machines. These are terrific machines with a wealth of research behind their use from the University of Florida Center for Exercise Science and other universities around the country. I was in the first graduating class certified in the use of these machines. Two of these machines will cost a clinic $100,000 new.

In my short experience with the ATM2 I can say that it will do everything intervention wise that the MedX machines do at 16 times less the price. In fact when you consider that the ATM2 can work the shoulders, hips and knees you have much more clinical flexibility.

I have been very pleased with the results on the ATM2 such as a case I had today of a 50 year old female with acute lumbosacral spine pain of 3 days duration. Her pain occurred when she was bending over to lift a kitty litter box. The initial pain dropped her to the floor and had not changed much over 3 days. Her pain level was a 7/10 and using the Oswestry Pain Outcome Measure she exhibited a moderate degree of disability due to acute lumbar spine pain. Neurological examination was normal for DTRs, sensation and motor function in the lower extremities. There was muscle guarding to palpation over the L4-5-S1 paraspinal region bilateral. There was pain reproduction on all lumbar motions particularly in flexion. There was hypomobility in the upper left and right SI joints. The working diagnosis was acute lumbar facet syndrome L4-5-S1 with muscle spasm. Treatment was directed at mobilization of the SI joints to improve mobility. Following this treatment the patient noticed diminished pain but she continued to have pain on flexion.

She was stabilized in the ATM2 device and was able to achieve pain-free motion in flexion with two stabilizing belts applied during the set-up phase. Ten isometric flexion interventions were applied without pain. The patient was released from the ATM2 and her lumbar spine pain upon flexion was 100% gone. Her pain level was 0, and she could transition from sitting to standing without pain. Follow-up with the patient 7 hours later revealed she remained pain-free in flexion although she noticed some residual soreness in the area of complaint. She has opted to undergo 10 ATM2 sessions twice per week over the next 5 weeks to enhance her improvement.

In my opinion there are not many interventions that can reduce this degree of lumbar spine pain in such a short period of time that I have been able to witness during 30 years of clinical practice.

Frank Lanzisera, DC