PDA

View Full Version : "Bone-on-bone" procedure?



Back-out
06-28-2010, 08:34 PM
Late to the party as usual, reading David Wolpert's acclaimed book (and also a thread on this forum), I see there is a specialized technique pioneered by a Dr Gaines called "bone-on-bone:. David reports about it very favorably in his current edition and also in a few threads here which were controversial at the time.

They were posted in 2005, though, and I wonder whether any new developments on that front have occurred since then. I also see that one was posted in the kid forum which is probably meaningful.

I hope I haven't missed any more recent resolution in professional opinion about this approach (as reported here). but if the search engine is working, it appears to be an empty spot - at least on this forum. What happened between 2005 and now regarding "B-on-B"? Back then, Linda Racine reported that professional consensus was it carried a strong risk of leading to increased kyphosis. Is that still the last word on the subject?

LindaRacine
06-28-2010, 09:30 PM
Late to the party as usual, reading David Wolpert's acclaimed book (and also a thread on this forum), I see there is a specialized technique pioneered by a Dr Gaines called "bone-on-bone:. David reports about it very favorably in his current edition and also in a few threads here which were controversial at the time.

They were posted in 2005, though, and I wonder whether any new developments on that front have occurred since then. I also see that one was posted in the kid forum which is probably meaningful.

I hope I haven't missed any more recent resolution in professional opinion about this approach (as reported here). but if the search engine is working, it appears to be an empty spot - at least on this forum. What happened between 2005 and now regarding "B-on-B"? Back then, Linda Racine reported that professional consensus was it carried a strong risk of leading to increased kyphosis. Is that still the last word on the subject?

The fact that he hasn't published any long-term results is potentially a sign that the cynics were right.

LindaRacine
06-28-2010, 09:30 PM
By the way, this would have been a good example of using an older thread instead of starting a new one. :)

Back-out
06-29-2010, 06:14 AM
By the way, this would have been a good example of using an older thread instead of starting a new one. :)
I did a careful search, first, to see what it was all about. I was astonished to see no one had asked about it for FIVE years, especially considering what a Bible the Wolpert book is. :confused:

I didn't think reviving a thread that old made sense. The whole point was - what's happened re this technique for the last half decade? Surely, there's a statute of limitations. Old news is no longer news. :cool:

Yes? :eek: (No?)

LindaRacine
06-29-2010, 02:02 PM
I did a careful search, first, to see what it was all about. I was astonished to see no one had asked about it for FIVE years, especially considering what a Bible the Wolpert book is. :confused:

I didn't think reviving a thread that old made sense. The whole point was - what's happened re this technique for the last half decade? Surely, there's a statute of limitations. Old news is no longer news. :cool:

Yes? :eek: (No?)

If you were searching for something specific, wouldn't it be easier if all the results were in one thread instead of a bunch of different ones?

Susie*Bee
06-29-2010, 06:01 PM
Linda-- it seems like you're being kind of picky here-- I realize it's good to conserve on threads, but there are tons of duplicate threads out there, and obviously Back-out was curious/concerned because of the 5 year gap/silence and was just putting some feelers out there. I may be out of place by saying something, but it doesn't seem like something she should be chastised for.