PDA

View Full Version : Are x-rays necessarys?



flerc
05-10-2010, 03:20 PM
When children are growing, the curve can grow with her body, so itís not possible to know if a height increase is accompanied by an increase in the curve or not.
But after growth is finish, the curve and the height are in an indirect proportionality, so an increment in height should to imply a decrease of the curve and vise versa. So measuring the height and making the plumb test should to be enough.. or not?

titaniumed
05-10-2010, 04:19 PM
No.

A plumb line will work for checking centerline. It will not tell you what is happening inside. I had two 70 degree curves with perfect plumb and very good saggital balance.

X-rays are the best way to see what's up. Now measuring them is a different story. A collection of x-rays will help average.

I have had many x-rays through the years. Probably a few too many as Linda pointed out once.
Ed

flerc
05-10-2010, 06:05 PM
No.

A plumb line will work for checking centerline. It will not tell you what is happening inside. I had two 70 degree curves with perfect plumb and very good saggital balance.

X-rays are the best way to see what's up. Now measuring them is a different story. A collection of x-rays will help average.

I have had many x-rays through the years. Probably a few too many as Linda pointed out once.
Ed

if your height is always the same, it means that if some curve increase, then other should to be decreased in the same scale. In fact I think that it should not happens very often and only in that case an x-ray would be necessary to know that a curve had increased. In other cases you should to be taller or lower (decrement or increment).
But could be that your height would be the same and you think that all is fine, but your axis turned to a side (in fact you should to be a little lower), so plumb test is necessary only to knowing that.

dailystrength
05-10-2010, 07:53 PM
Also bear in mind that height increases and decreases with the day's passing, similar to a curve perhaps. I'm sure you know this :). Also, I've heard others say that their height was better yet the curves were worse. So, I think it is not a reliable indicator.

flerc
05-10-2010, 11:16 PM
Also bear in mind that height increases and decreases with the day's passing, similar to a curve perhaps. I'm sure you know this :). Also, I've heard others say that their height was better yet the curves were worse. So, I think it is not a reliable indicator.

But the height was not measured while the x ray was taken. Much people does not know how to measure in a right way. There are an error because disk decompression in the morning, but it could be reduced measuring at he same hour. If the curve doesn't decrease, how could be height increase?

titaniumed
05-11-2010, 10:21 AM
My height used to fluctuate about 3 inches before my surgeries. I agree with Christina, it is just one very small factor.

The newer x-ray machines these days put out much less radiation than those years ago. One coronal should suffice. Itís the CT scans that cause some worry. There was a thread here a few months ago that pointed out that they are equal to 440 single x-rays.
Ed

debbei
05-11-2010, 08:44 PM
No.

A plumb line will work for checking centerline. It will not tell you what is happening inside. I had two 70 degree curves with perfect plumb and very good saggital balance.

X-rays are the best way to see what's up. Now measuring them is a different story. A collection of x-rays will help average.

I have had many x-rays through the years. Probably a few too many as Linda pointed out once.
Ed

My plumb line was perfect too; my body was so smart, it PERFECTLY compensated for my 66 degree Thoracic curve with a perfectly balanced 66 degree lumbar curve.

Ed's right, you can't see what's going on inside without the Xrays.

rohrer01
05-12-2010, 12:16 PM
As far as your question about height goes, you have to be talking about a skeletally mature person, right? No one knows how tall an adolescent would grow to be. Therefore, the growth rate would be measured on a growth curve but still wouldn't tell you anything about progression unless the adolescent started shrinking. Then you still wouldn't know how large the curve was.

dailystrength
05-12-2010, 02:55 PM
well, that makes a lot of sense!

flerc
05-13-2010, 10:48 PM
Thanks rohrer01, you have reason saying this about teenagers, but my daughter has the menarche at 12 years old and at least Riser 4 and in the last x ray it seems to be closed the cartilages. Anyway is true I should to be absolutely sure about growth.

flerc
05-13-2010, 11:10 PM
Assuming that growth is finished, I think the only reason that x rays may be needed to measure growth curve, is the subject of the disks in the morning. But that would only be relevant if decompression disks would be done in a way so that only could be grow in stature but the curve remained the same. There is some study about this? In other words:
degrees meassured in a x ray in the morning would be the same than measured more late with less stature?

rohrer01
05-14-2010, 01:04 AM
flerc,
It depends on who measures me, I measure anywhere between 5' 7" and 5' 7-1/2". Usually the latter. I progressed 6* and my height didn't appear to change. How do you figure that one? They would have never known if they hadn't taken an X-ray. I can't explain it.

flerc
05-14-2010, 11:40 AM
flerc,
It depends on who measures me, I measure anywhere between 5' 7" and 5' 7-1/2". Usually the latter. I progressed 6* and my height didn't appear to change.

rohrer01, I believe you, but it would be a mystery for me.
I allways measure the height, supporting the coxis and head on the wall, causing it to contact a plane perpendicular to the wall. I make two measurements: first, without stretching the back (as it should get the X-ray) and one with a good stretch of the spine. the difference is usually more than 2 cm.
I think what happens is that the two measures (height and curve), has a margin of error, which should be quite similar. So if there is nothing that can change the height (regardless decompression of the disc), unlike the curves of the spine, if those do not change, the height can not vary.
I think the X-ray also has to have a margin of error itself. The result would be obtained should be quite different if we remain in good standing in a frontal plane that if we stand at an angle. In this case, the curve could decline, perhaps even increase, I'm not sure.
May be I'm not taking something into account?

rohrer01
05-15-2010, 02:08 AM
rohrer01, I believe you, but it would be a mystery for me.
I allways measure the height, supporting the coxis and head on the wall, causing it to contact a plane perpendicular to the wall. I make two measurements: first, without stretching the back (as it should get the X-ray) and one with a good stretch of the spine. the difference is usually more than 2 cm.
I think what happens is that the two measures (height and curve), has a margin of error, which should be quite similar. So if there is nothing that can change the height (regardless decompression of the disc), unlike the curves of the spine, if those do not change, the height can not vary.
I think the X-ray also has to have a margin of error itself. The result would be obtained should be quite different if we remain in good standing in a frontal plane that if we stand at an angle. In this case, the curve could decline, perhaps even increase, I'm not sure.
May be I'm not taking something into account?
I believe you are correct. Posture does matter on X-rays. At least for the "flexible" areas of the spine. There are ALWAYS margins of error for ANY measurement. But it remains a mystery how I could have progressed 6* and not shrunk, although I was measuring 5' 7". When I was 15 and my scoliosis hadn't progressed (before diagnosis) I was 5' 8-1/2". At 16 I was 5' 7-1/4". Figure what they will. This does show definite shrinkage AND margins of error both. Therefore, you need to keep getting X-rays for your dear daughter as often as the doctors recommend.

flerc
05-17-2010, 10:34 AM
I believe you are correct. Posture does matter on X-rays. At least for the "flexible" areas of the spine. There are ALWAYS margins of error for ANY measurement. But it remains a mystery how I could have progressed 6* and not shrunk, although I was measuring 5' 7". When I was 15 and my scoliosis hadn't progressed (before diagnosis) I was 5' 8-1/2". At 16 I was 5' 7-1/4". Figure what they will. This does show definite shrinkage AND margins of error both. Therefore, you need to keep getting X-rays for your dear daughter as often as the doctors recommend.

Yes, Surely you are right. But it is so terrible the day of taking X-ray .. so much nervous .. It's not just the great concern about the radiation .. also is very stressful for my daughter and I think it's right about the theory Rpg emotions.
I also think is very important the unusual relationship with her Physio, but of course she want to see outcomes and after-last x ray, she loose some faith .. Now is all ok again, but it was something detrimental to all.
If x rays really would reflect the reality .. but still seems very strange that she has lost 10į and then recovered 9į as x rays showed.
X rays should to be taken in a perfect frontal plane and I believe pelvis was tilted relative to the torso, because one side of the pelvis seemed much smaller than the other one in some x rays.
There should to be a much more accurate method, but it's true that measuring height is neither, although I do two measurements (with and without stretch), which was not made with x rays.

rohrer01
05-18-2010, 07:26 AM
I agree about the radiation concern. I have had 6 miscarriages so far in my life and 3 living children. I often wonder if all of the radiation exposure had anything to do with that. In fact, I am convinced it did. So I agree with the concern of your daughter. She is young and may want children some day.

Science is only exact on paper. That is a lesson I learned all to quickly doing actual experiments and research. It would be nice if things turned out as we calculate they should, but they rarely do. That is why I believe there are things and discrepencies that we find hard to explain.

Again, best wishes to you and your daughter. :D

flerc
05-18-2010, 09:35 AM
I agree about the radiation concern. I have had 6 miscarriages so far in my life and 3 living children. I often wonder if all of the radiation exposure had anything to do with that. In fact, I am convinced it did. So I agree with the concern of your daughter. She is young and may want children some day.

Iím sorry to know about that.
Iím really worried about radiation. Itís really true that nobody could be sure what kind of damage could do. I heard that radiation is much lower than years ago, but I think itís not enough to run risks. Could I ask you have many x rays do you think you had until you have your children? My daughter had not so many radiation exposures because we were noticed about her scoliosis when she was 14, but I always think about risks.


Science is only exact on paper. That is a lesson I learned all to quickly doing actual experiments and research. It would be nice if things turned out as we calculate they should, but they rarely do. That is why I believe there are things and discrepencies that we find hard to explain.


I agree 100%
And I think there is a great delay between science and medical knowledge, practices and recommendations.

I really appreciate what you told me.
Best wishes for you and your children.

rohrer01
05-18-2010, 11:25 AM
Iím sorry to know about that.
Iím really worried about radiation. Itís really true that nobody could be sure what kind of damage could do. I heard that radiation is much lower than years ago, but I think itís not enough to run risks. Could I ask you have many x rays do you think you had until you have your children? My daughter had not so many radiation exposures because we were noticed about her scoliosis when she was 14, but I always think about risks.


I agree 100%
And I think there is a great delay between science and medical knowledge, practices and recommendations.

I really appreciate what you told me.
Best wishes for you and your children.

I really don't know how many X-rays I had. They started when I was 16 and I would go every couple of months to start, then every 3 to 4 months until I was 18. I also had a CT scan which emits I've heard on this forum the radiation of like over 400 X-rays (again I can't remember which thread it was).
I am also concerned about cancer. My chiropractor told me that you get more radiation flying on a commercial jetliner than you do with an X-ray. I'm not so sure I believe that.

I went through a period of time from 1988 to 1994 where I had no X-rays. But now, my doctors X-ray me every time I get hurt or have to go to the ER because they are scared that I am more susceptible to a back injury. So I have had a LOT of exposure.

It's good to weigh the risk benefit ratio when you are dealing with ANY medical procedure. But, unfortunately, this is one disorder that cannot be followed without the use of X-ray. :(

flerc
05-20-2010, 02:51 PM
rohrer01, thanks for tell me this. You not began earlier with x rays. I think we need to read the thread recommended by Ed in this thread, when he said about CT. I cannot believe it could radiate more than 440 x rays..
Yesterday an ex surgeon, said me that is not good to take more than 1 x ray each 2 years..everybody seems to have a different opinion..

Pooka1
05-20-2010, 03:08 PM
everybody seems to have a different opinion..

la gente sabe nada!

flerc
05-21-2010, 12:43 PM
I can not believe that this issue is debatable. There must to be some Institution or something to say exactly how is this issue. If it is true, they should indicate the CT only in very extreme cases, or in fact x ray is as negligible radiation,so 440 of them do not imply a serious risk concern.

diane2628
05-23-2010, 08:55 PM
There probably is some risk, with multiple, repeated xrays each year. But there are also some things that xrays are necessary for. You have to weigh the relative risks, and the benefits. If a single xray will help to diagnose progression of a curve, and potentially lead to treatment that can prevent pain, then that benefit might be greater than the very small increase in risk in cancer that results from that particular xray. My sense is that there's little evidence of increased cancer risk from xrays - but if it was something I was concerned about, I wouldn't necessarily say a blanket 'no' to all xrays, rather I would think about each one individually and decide if it was necessary. In my opinion, a periodic xray to assess progression of scoliosis is necessary. There's really no other way to accurately assess it.

flerc
05-24-2010, 05:10 PM
Diane, thanks for your opinion,, I really donīt know what to do .. I just read this:
'The X-ray irradiation can cause asymmetrical epiphyseal growth. "
It's true I can not be sure my daughter will not grow (your spine must not be extended) any more, so measuring their height would not be an indication very reliable but I do not think she can grow so much and it seems to be unclear risks with x-rays.
There is no doubt that in adulthood, logic indicates that if the height is not reduced, the sum of the curves can not have increased, though it could not be proved. I think taking pictures with the vertebrae painted, the height measure, the test of the plumb line and the rotation, should to give a very rough idea.
Surely the margin of error is much larger in the flexible curves and nothing can give a reliable picture of what happens, not even the x rays.
And Indeed .. I have not idea what I could do after knowing the outcome of the x ray. In fact, when it gave 10ļ less and then 9ļ more, we did not do nothing very different from what we are doing.

diane2628
05-24-2010, 09:47 PM
Where is that quote from, the one that you posted? What is the source, and are they reliable?

I googled that quote, and the only links that came up are related to radiation therapy for cancer - not xrays.

Here are a couple of interesting articles:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/09/health/09scanner.html
http://www.physics.isu.edu/radinf/risk.htm

Most research I've seen seems to indicate that the risk of exposure to radiation from natural sources such as radon is much greater over a lifetime than what comes from xrays. There was some research about breast cancer, but the findings were limited to women who already had the breast cancer gene, not all women.

Nobody can tell you what to do. But to me, the increased risk of cancer from a single xray - or even a few of them over the course of a couple of years - sounds like it is incredibly, incredibly, incredibly tiny. But the benefits of getting a good diagnosis far outweigh that.

flerc
05-26-2010, 09:12 AM
Where is that quote from, the one that you posted? What is the source, and are they reliable?

I googled that quote, and the only links that came up are related to radiation therapy for cancer - not xrays.

Surely you are right and not exists any evidence. I can not say this page could be reliable.
http://www.puntofape.com/columna-vertebral-escoliosis-428/comment-page-1/#comments
(La irradiaciůn con rayos X puede causar un crecimiento epifisiario asimťtrico)




Most research I've seen seems to indicate that the risk of exposure to radiation from natural sources such as radon is much greater over a lifetime than what comes from xrays. There was some research about breast cancer, but the findings were limited to women who already had the breast cancer gene, not all women.

Nobody can tell you what to do. But to me, the increased risk of cancer from a single xray - or even a few of them over the course of a couple of years - sounds like it is incredibly, incredibly, incredibly tiny. But the benefits of getting a good diagnosis far outweigh that.

Thanks and I hope would be true what you say. It seems to have sense.. but I think that with my daughter Iíll need a lot of x rays to arrive to some conclusion. All height measures Iím doing are different, so surely all x rays will differ as the lasts two.