Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 52

Thread: FAO Dr. McIntire - interesting muscle study results

  1. #16
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    2,755
    Quote Originally Posted by sjmcphee View Post
    I think this is good research, but I canít see how it can be applied in a really useful manner for scoliosis.
    To me it just seems like the bodyís normal mechanism of healing itself from injury.
    I believe the same as with Dr McIntyre (hope I spelled your name correctly)
    QUOTE >>I would continue to operate under the assumption that AIS spinal muscles are otherwise normal and they have just atrophied for some reason.<<

    But I also would not be surprised if there is some form of damage to the muscle structure from overstretching. But the problem is that I think this would relate to progression itself Ė not necessarily a cause factor.
    If you do a study where you only take samples from patients at the point of surgery, and it shows there is damage to muscle, the only useful question is at what point does this damage occur? And in order to find that out you would also need to take samples from patients who are not yet at the point of requiring surgery. You need a control group of samples from AIS patients prior to spinal rotation to find out whether the damage is a result of progression (secondary) or some type of cause factor in itself (primary).
    All learning is useful, by learning what it isn't you get closer to finding out what it is.
    I just don't think they are going to find anything wrong as a cause factor here.
    - Scott
    Well, what I was trying to figure out is how to get samples from non-affected adolescents. I think that is nearly impossible. But a healthy non-affected college student? That's a great idea. I can see how getting samples from affected individuals with smaller curves could also be useful in determining if there is damage or some structural difference PRIOR to the damage that would be caused by the severe bending and twisting of the spine. If this group came back showing some deficit, then a genetc pathway could be sought out. It might even turn out to be in a group of muscular degenerative disorders that affects only certain muscles. Who knows?

  2. #17
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    9,196
    Quote Originally Posted by sjmcphee View Post
    I think this is good research, but I canít see how it can be applied in a really useful manner for scoliosis.
    I don't think there is any evidence that muscles are the primary cause of AIS. But that doesn't mean normal muscle can't be recruited by altering it to become like a brace perhaps. That is the present basis of PT treatment it seems. I am just suggesting that if it was possible to kick that approach up 10 notches by altering the muscle on a biochemical level. Stranger stuff has been suggested. :-)

    The main problem of course is that the primary cause of IS has still not been identified. Researchers are looking at very complex biochemical, endocrinal, etc. etiologies. But I think they will come up with a fix before they understand the etiology. The example I always use is lithium for folks with bipolar disorder or whatever. They still don't know how or why it works in some patients but it just does and is safe apparently. It would be sufficient to find something like that for IS even if they never figure out the etiology. IS is so complex that I think diabetes and certain other disorders will be solved way ahead of it.
    Sharon, mother of identical twin girls with scoliosis

    No island of sanity.

    Question: What do you call alternative medicine that works?
    Answer: Medicine


    "We are all African."

  3. #18
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    2,004
    Problem Solving concepts are needed to solve a problem, specially complex problems. Without them, of course scoliosis may be more difficult to solve than any other pathology or disease.
    A cause should to be seen as something that, in the case of suffering specific modifications, would lead to the elimination of the problem. We have indirect causes and direct causes. If the problem is not well known and the cause-effect chain may be really very large and with many variations according the particular case, not only Problem Solving but common sense suggest we should to begin with the direct causes. That is a Top Down approach instead of one Buttom Up (finding the first causes).

    I believe that surgeons, many decades ago used an extreme Top Down approach, thinking something as: The problem is that the spine cannot remains straight. Wich is the cause? Even if the spine would be enough flexible, so lying down the curve suffer a great reduction, standing up, the gravity force not have resistance because the vertebral bodies cannot remains aligned as being lying down, so this is the (direct) cause of the problem.
    So they replaced the problem 'the spine cannot remains straight.' by the problem 'the vertebral bodies cannot remains aligned'.
    Then they thought: may we does some modification in the interaction of the vertebral bodies, so them will remains aligned? that is, may we eliminate the cause? And then they arrived to fusion. Great reasoning for those times!

    But now, a modification not so extreme may be found, a cause not so direct may be analyzed, a satisfactory solution must be found.. What is happening with other tissues not allowing the vertebral bodies to remain straight?..
    Dr Kiester is a surgeon that seems to be in that line. The spine cannot remains straight because grows misaligned. Why? A ligament is so tense. May we does some modifications in ligaments? Yes..
    Instead of forcing the spine to growth aligned with a brace he thought in the cause. But he not thought in the cause of this cause, he only tried to eliminate it.

    A perfect knowledge would be needed to find the first cause.. or a great lucky to find the way to eliminate one of the cause of the cause-effect chain, without understanding it.
    If the direct cause may be solved in a satisfactory way, then we have the solution to the problem, but if we cannot do that, we must to try with the cause of that cause.. this is the iteration needed to solve the scoliosis problem, that is an iterative TopDown approach.

  4. #19
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Brisbane, Australia
    Posts
    147
    Perfect Knowledge hey flerc... one day I hope to find out...
    Thanks everyone for your replies and interesting conversation.

    Hi Rorher, good idea with the college students.
    That would be a good way to get the extra samples I suggested.
    It might still be tricky and a little slow collecting the right candidates, but I think it could be done.
    Don't get me wrong there with my comment (nothing really useful) There's plenty of stuff to test and learn here and I like your thinking.
    If I was a scoliosis reseracher I'd be wanting to test all these things, signalling, muscle structure etc.
    When it comes to scoliosis biomechanics topics, sometimes I can be a little blunt - I have a habit of just quickly pushing things to the side I don't think are going to amount to anything and moving onto the next question.
    Truthfully I really enjoy the discussion, but it's kind of say weird for me.
    I get a little scared I'm going to get drawn in some deep discussion - it's hard to explain.
    It's because I can take it soo far... but not that last tiny little bit.
    Thanks for your reply.

    Hey Pooka,
    Also a good idea, making the spines muscles act as a brace.
    Firstly though we have to think about our current knowledge regarding the effectiveness of bracing?
    Or the ineffectiveness of bracing - whichever you prefer.
    Why is bracing sometimes ineffective - why isn't it effective all the time?
    - Well the easy answer is that researchers do not fully understand the exact biomechanical mechanisms responsible / in relation to scoliosis.
    I think its been more of a hit and a miss thing. They tried something in the hope it would work. Sometimes they got good results sometimes they didn't.
    The fact that sometimes they did get results further warranted use - (even just from the possibility of slowing or halting curve progression through the growth stage)
    - But they've never really understood the biomechanics of scoliosis well enough to create a brace that is effective all the time.
    Although, over time I think simply from practice they've learned how the thing they are doing that is working - how to make that thing work better.
    Some people seem to think that bracing may not be effective at all, I havent looked into the research too much.
    I wouldn't want to speculate on this.
    Years ago I would have said stood by the opinion that bracing wont work, but after seeing the xrays and images of cole from the recent scoliosis book fundraiser (Cole and the Crooked Flower) - who had a corrective serial plaster cast, I'm not 100% sure anymore. I know this is Infantile Scoliosis and maybe they are different things altogether but maybe some form of fixing the spine can work.
    Anyhow basically what I'm trying to say is that I think its a good idea but say we take it a step further assume we CAN manipulate the muscle into doing whatever we wanted, we still have to know exactly HOW to manipulate it in such a fashion that the curve will reverse.
    I guess it's something they could look into, but I'm not sure what it would feel like to be wearing a brace that worked from the inside...
    My personal opinion is that understanding the exact biomechanics of scoliosis is the missing link - or glue - they need to make any of these ideas really be effective.
    Other than that, it's a good idea, the concept of somehow being able to manipulate muscle better will prove surely prove useful to scoliosis, but I think that they really need to understand exactly how the biomechanics of scoliosis works before it these ideas can be REALLY effective. Getting better in the understanding of the muscles of AIS as a whole should slowly send them in the right direction though.
    You think they will come up with a fix before before they understand the etiology, you're right, - and you know what they have already, its called scoliosis surgery. lol
    A real fix, I don't think it's possible without understanding the exact biomechanics - it's like my comment yesterday on the other thread about thinking you could understand how a microwave works without first understanding microwave radiation. Metaphorically.
    I don't like to disagree with you about the cause of IS being a hugely complex thing, it is definitely a complex thing, but for me, it's not as complex as everyone makes out.
    Its not a problem of everyone bashing their heads against a wall. For me there are easy ways forward. It's almost as easy as multiple choice questions.
    It's because I knew these ways forward but couldn't achieve them on my own that I am the way I am with respect to scoliosis research. ( I avoid it.)
    Your saying they might find something that works but not exactly know how it works. It's certainly possible, I don't wan't to destroy peoples hopes, but I think its unlikely.
    If it did work, then great, who cares less how it works? surely no-one in this forum - or maybe there'd be a few who'd still be curious, maybe me, and I expect Dr McIntyre would too.
    (I hate to say this but I can't help it - You said you think IS is so complex that diabetes and other disorders will be solved way ahead of it - I think - yes Im bias -100% bias. I think IS would be solved by New Years if I had a decent chance.)
    Sorry, I know how you are with the whole folk medecine thing. Please don't bite... hard.
    Thanks for commenting your good ideas.

    Ahh Flerc, Problem Solving... How ironic your post topic... Its all just falling into my hands...
    Because we're going to do some Problem Solving right now... just for fun... I'll try not to get too serious with it.
    This post is getting long anyhow.
    Direct causes - Indirect Causes - I've heard that before, maybe some crime show...
    I'm an idiot... (yes Linda, I admit it. lol)
    When I did my thing studying my scoliosis I refered to the same concept in a different way - Primary causes and Secondary causes.
    Excellent comments too QUOTE>>What is happening with other tissues not allowing the vertebral bodies to remain straight?..<<(I'll get to that)
    >>A perfect knowledge would be needed to find the first cause.. or a great lucky to find the way to eliminate one of the cause of the cause-effect chain, without understanding it.<<
    The only way to eliminate a cause that would affect the cause effect chain in scoliosis is to find the reason why it progresses, understand it, and then attempt to apply the exact same laws of physics in reverse - but bone remodelling may hinder the possibility of this and it may prove to be impossible - for curves badly affected by factors relating to growth.. And thats before you even get to DNA...
    But that doesnt mean we can't or shouldn't find out either way anyhow.
    Thanks for your post.

    - PROBLEM SOLVING -
    If we take what we know about scoliosis biomechanics...
    and we take what we know about scoliosis curve patterns where does that bring us??
    a/ The exact biomechanics relating to scoliosis are not known, however it is known that the biomechanics of scoliosis patients are different to that of normal patients.
    b/ Scoliosis; and Scoliosis progression follows a number of predetermined curve patterns.
    So where does logic leave us with these 2 simple well known facts.?
    Forget everything else you know - EVERYTHING - and just focus on these 2 things.

    It tells ME that THE BIOMECHANICAL COMPONENT (which is not well understood by researchers) which relates to SCOLIOSIS and SCOLIOSIS PROGRESSION – whatever it is
    (I know what it is but I’m saying it for readers benefit)
    – MUST A/ EXIST and B/ MUST FOLLOW A PARTICULAR PATH IN WHICH CAN ACCOUNT FOR THE EXISTANCE OF CURVE PATTERNS.
    FORGET EVERYTHING ELSE YOU KNOW AND HAVE READ
    THESE ARE THE RULES OF THE GAME…

    Without it, it's like - Do Not Pass Go - Do Not Collect $200
    All the crazy ideas really are far fetched I'm sorry in the face of these 2 facts, what they mean, and the fact the exact biomechanical components for scoliosis aren't known...
    (And to add that I have a sound concept to account for this...)

    The simplest and most logical answer often proves to be correct.
    Don't think scoliosis is any different.

    Well that’s my layman’s take on it.
    I’ll write more and finish this tomorrow… or soon...
    -Scott
    Last edited by sjmcphee; 12-24-2011 at 06:37 AM.

  5. #20
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    2,004
    Hi Scott
    Quote Originally Posted by sjmcphee View Post
    >>A perfect knowledge would be needed to find the first cause.. or a great lucky to find the way to eliminate one of the cause of the cause-effect chain, without understanding it.<<
    The only way to eliminate a cause that would affect the cause effect chain in scoliosis is to find the reason why it progresses, understand it, and then attempt to apply the exact same laws of physics in reverse -
    Thanks for your post.
    We may says that a mix of both (knowledge and lucky) may also works. Knowing the relashonships among causes and effects without really understanding the connection, may lead to a solution.
    For instance knowing genetic involved in IS and the way to modify that genetic. But something as scolioscore is not used as Iknow to get a solution, only to 'administrate' the current ones.

    Quote Originally Posted by sjmcphee View Post
    but bone remodelling may hinder the possibility of this and it may prove to be impossible - for curves badly affected by factors relating to growth.. And thats before you even get to DNA...
    But that doesnt mean we can't or shouldn't find out either way anyhow.
    Bone remodelling in adults would be needed to get a perfect solution, but I believe that nobdy are expecting that.

    See you.

  6. #21
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Brisbane, Australia
    Posts
    147
    Hey Flerc,
    Excellent comment again.
    I always think in terms of genetics and scoliscore as just a diagnosis tool.
    I actually feel somewhat ignorant because I'm not sure I've ever really considered this before...
    - What if a few years down the track with a lot more study from a lot of dedicated people they figure out how to build on the knowledge from scoliscore the diagnosis tool and go on to create a DNA based treatment option?
    Now even I will wave the white flag for that one.
    You Win - No Contest. I'll throw in the towel.

    A DNA based treatment option to stop scoliosis before it even happens would alleviate any neccessity to bother trying to understand scoliosis biomechanics.
    Except I'd still probably be curious to find out if I was right.

    You got me.
    That's never happened before.
    Im truly impressed.

    Merry Christmas or Happy Holidays or whatever your custom is everyone.
    Especially you Flerc.

    - Scott
    Last edited by sjmcphee; 12-24-2011 at 11:53 AM.

  7. #22
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    2,755
    Quote Originally Posted by Pooka1 View Post
    I don't think there is any evidence that muscles are the primary cause of AIS. But that doesn't mean normal muscle can't be recruited by altering it to become like a brace perhaps. That is the present basis of PT treatment it seems. I am just suggesting that if it was possible to kick that approach up 10 notches by altering the muscle on a biochemical level. Stranger stuff has been suggested. :-)
    Pooka1,
    Mechanical methods have already been tried and failed. An example is electrical muscle stimulation (I was put through this treatment). As far as approaching it from the biochemical level, the goal would be the same as the mechanical method only using a different approach. For example, you would be using a chemical inducer to make the muscle stronger instead of an electrical one. We all know that the best way to build muscle is mechanical, or to use it, which in turn causes the biochemical changes that build muscle. So the ultimate goal, either way would be to build muscle. Now what I don't know is if the electrical approach actually succeeded in building muscle. If it did, then it would be a moot point to try to build muscle either way, as it would not work for whatever reason. Maybe some studies have been done or need to be done to determine whether the muscles were actually affected by the electrical stimulation. I would think that there would be enough evidence in that direction to know the results. On the other hand, it could be that external stimulation of the muscles simply just isn't enough to stimulate the correct muscles needed to straighten out the spine. If that is the case, it would be easier to insert internal electrical muscle stimulating probes to strengthen the necessary muscles.

    I believe that surgeons, many decades ago used an extreme Top Down approach, thinking something as: The problem is that the spine cannot remains straight. Wich is the cause? Even if the spine would be enough flexible, so lying down the curve suffer a great reduction, standing up, the gravity force not have resistance because the vertebral bodies cannot remains aligned as being lying down, so this is the (direct) cause of the problem.
    So they replaced the problem 'the spine cannot remains straight.' by the problem 'the vertebral bodies cannot remains aligned'.
    Then they thought: may we does some modification in the interaction of the vertebral bodies, so them will remains aligned? that is, may we eliminate the cause? And then they arrived to fusion. Great reasoning for those times!
    Flerc,
    Those surgeons were actually using the "bottom up" approach. Scoliosis is the effect of the BIG cause that researchers are trying to figure out. They were in effect fixing the effect (scoliosis) and not the cause (unknown). The whole reason for scoliosis research is to find the cause and treat it, therefore eliminating the effect, scoliosis.

    If we take what we know about scoliosis biomechanics...
    and we take what we know about scoliosis curve patterns where does that bring us??
    a/ The exact biomechanics relating to scoliosis are not known, however it is known that the biomechanics of scoliosis patients are different to that of normal patients.
    b/ Scoliosis; and Scoliosis progression follows a number of predetermined curve patterns.
    So where does logic leave us with these 2 simple well known facts.?
    Scott,
    These are some very important observations. For example I have a King class 5 curve, the rarest of the rare when it comes to curve patterns. For conversation sake it could be that we are dealing with five different variants of the same disease that actually have different etiologies. I have chosen the King classification over the Lenke classification based on information from the National Institute of Health, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12782983. But it could be more complicated than both or a combination of both. So, if this is the situation, then research should be done on each independent curve pattern, although I know that I have read some research on the left thoracic curves, but not on other curve patterns individually. But maybe someone somewhere is doing distinct investigations on the different etiologies of the curve patterns. I am by no means an expert on research. Nonetheless, it would be an important avenue to follow. Just as there are different forms of MD (look up the Muscular Dystrophy Association and see the long list), scoliosis could be similar in nature. They are doing a fine job in cracking the etiology of MD and I'm sure that they can do the same with scoliosis. However, the problem remains. There is no "cure" for MD and it may just remain that there will be no cure for scoliosis, even if the etiology is found. We expect a lot of ourselves, but finding ways to manage these diseases may be all it boils down to because of the mulivariable chain of events that occur. It may be impossible to do interventions at every step of the way. For example:
    1. genetic predisposition
    2. environmental trigger #1,2,3,..........,n.
    3. scoliosis
    The curve pattern may depend on the type of genetic predisposition OR certain environmental triggers. I would conclude that the environmental triggers have more to do with the curve pattern than the genetic component based on MZ twin studies and family pedigrees. Curve patterns don't seem to match to the degree one would expect if strictly genetics were involved. However, studying individual curve patterns could lead ones to avoid certain triggers, although there is absolutely NOTHING that can be done about in-utero triggers that are non-nutrative.
    See, this is getting so complicated already. There are just so many directions that this could go. Is there muscle differences among the curve types? That would be VERY important information.

    My mind is spinning with too many ideas, some conflicting. So I'd better stop here. But one final note on this. That is why we have so many researchers doing different things. Some ideas contradict others. But in the end, if you put them all together, we will hopefully get a clearer picture of what is actually happening on the biological front before the scoliosis develops and perhaps we will be able to prevent some and more effectively treat others.

  8. #23
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    2,004
    Quote Originally Posted by rohrer01 View Post
    Pooka1,
    Flerc,
    Those surgeons were actually using the "bottom up" approach. Scoliosis is the effect of the BIG cause that researchers are trying to figure out. They were in effect fixing the effect (scoliosis) and not the cause (unknown). The whole reason for scoliosis research is to find the cause and treat it, therefore eliminating the effect, scoliosis.
    Roher, seeing the entire cause-effect chain, we have in the bottom the first cause (genes, emotions, bacterias, fungis, hard metals..???) and in the top the last effect (yes), the curve, but what is avoiding the possibility to reducing it in a permanent way? The impossibility to vertebral bodies to remains aligned. So this is the most direct and inmediate cause, closer to the problem, and it seems they realized that fixing those vertebral bodies, the spine could remain straight by herself. Is an old reasoning so it may seems obvious but I think it was not something evident in those times.

    Even Magec we may say is the outcome of a Top Down approach. The spine grows misaligned. Why? Because a ligmament is too tense.
    How many links should to be descended in the cause-effect chain to know why the ligament is tense? But instead of asking this, he thought how to eliminate that current cause.

    Quote Originally Posted by sjmcphee View Post
    Merry Christmas or Happy Holidays or whatever your custom is everyone.
    Especially you Flerc.
    - Scott
    Scott, the same for you and everyone here!!

  9. #24
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    2,755
    Yes, Flerc, I understand what you are saying now. We are both thinking the same way but expressing it differently. I think of 1 being top and 2,3,.....,n going down. But you are right, if we were to graph mathematically 1 is at the bottom 2,3,....,n would be graphed in the UP direction. It get's a bit confusing. I wish I could express in drawing what I think, like in terms of animal classification. We would start at the top and end up at the bottom. But if that is the way the makers of MAGEC term it, then your use of the terminology is correct and mine is wrong. Thank you for clarifying.

  10. #25
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Brisbane, Australia
    Posts
    147
    Hi everyone,
    There's a few things you've both mentioned that I'd like to respond to, but being Christmas, the rellies, visitors, social drinks with friends, and Merry Christmas txt msgs I dont have a real lot of time.
    I did spend 20 mins this morning creating this image that shows my logic behind different curve patterns.
    I don't know this stuff for sure, but it outlines my assumptions...
    - Scott

    http://www.scoliosisbiomechanics.com/images/svc.png

    A couple of things I'd like to add - I'm assuming some physical change takes place - It's my own Bias.
    One line of thinking against this might be that there was no physical change and it was like this - wrong - in the first place.
    In which case, I'm wondering has there been anything that shows whether or not people with IS had spinal biomechanics that was intact prior to scoliosis - I guess not, but it's something I should bring attention to.
    Also, the second diagram - the image shows another 2nd upwards arrow in the lumbar - It would have been much the same thing if I'd have drawn a yellow downward arrow in cervical - to match the first diagram.
    In any case - the concept is that the loading is not balanced in the same way.
    Last edited by sjmcphee; 12-25-2011 at 02:05 AM.

  11. #26
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    2,004
    Quote Originally Posted by rohrer01 View Post
    Yes, Flerc, I understand what you are saying now. We are both thinking the same way but expressing it differently. I think of 1 being top and 2,3,.....,n going down. But you are right, if we were to graph mathematically 1 is at the bottom 2,3,....,n would be graphed in the UP direction. It get's a bit confusing. I wish I could express in drawing what I think, like in terms of animal classification. We would start at the top and end up at the bottom. But if that is the way the makers of MAGEC term it, then your use of the terminology is correct and mine is wrong. Thank you for clarifying.
    Hi Roher, certainly is a matter of notation, so it's no important an certainly I prefered to use the same notation you was using and talk about (as Scott) primary causes, secondary causes.. causes of order n http://www.scoliosis.org/forum/showt...classification But I change it since it seems to be more frecuent to talk about the first cause as the unknown trigger of the curve. .

    A complex problem need the managment of a serious Project taking in mind an unified Body Knowledge, collecting all the significant assumptions, requirements, restrictions.. conclusions as the graph showing the relashionship among causes of different levels.. something like this:
    _______________________curve
    _________________________/
    _____________________ low tone
    _______________________/
    _____________________bad posture
    ______________________ /______ \
    ________vestibular problems altered proprioception
    ___________________________________ \
    __________________________neurological or neuromuscular problems

    I hope that someone may be thinking in this way.

  12. #27
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Brisbane, Australia
    Posts
    147
    Yeah that's a good idea Flerc,
    I guess the experts have already tried.
    One step leads to another like a chain of events.
    Consider every possible outcome for every association.
    Look for the most logical answer.
    Find the puzzle piece that fits.
    Thats what I did, but not on paper.

  13. #28
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Brisbane, Australia
    Posts
    147
    Hey Everyone,
    Rohrer
    For conversation sake it could be that we are dealing with five different variants of the same disease that actually have different etiologies. I have chosen the King classification over the Lenke classification based on information from the National Institute of Health, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12782983. But it could be more complicated than both or a combination of both. So, if this is the situation, then research should be done on each independent curve pattern, although I know that I have read some research on the left thoracic curves, but not on other curve patterns individually.
    That's one way of putting it. - Problem Solving Again.
    1+1=2
    If we associate (the knowledge of) Scoliosis Biomechanics with Curve Patterns - (as previously mentioned) we get a phyical change of some kind.
    2+1=3
    Now we need to associate a physical change that can account for C and S curve patterns.
    This is how I came to the conclusion that the location of such a physical change would likely determine a curve pattern.

    I'm pretty dumb when it comes to full articles of scoliosis research papers.
    Mostly all I ever read was abstracts - not the full research documents.
    Would you be able to source the documents for me regarding these classifications of scoliosis, I'd like to see what they say.
    Also a link to understand these Top down & Bottom up approaches so I don't get left behind.

    Rohrer - Yes Excellent - Scoliosis research should be curve pattern specific.
    Mines a Right Thoracolumbar, I think it's one of the most common curve types.
    Doesn't it stand to reason that if we could fully understand the biomechanics of just 1 curve pattern type, that we could use that knowldge to understand all the other curve patterns types as well?

    NOTE TO MODERATOR:
    I feel like I'm leading people down the garden path towards my research.
    It's really not my fault - This is where the scoliosis questions lead anyway.
    I promise I'll try not to discuss the specifics of my ideas and hijack other forum threads.
    I'll try to keep the conversation as per the original post.
    Do you have any suggestion as what to do when conversations start to veer off topic?
    Should we start new threads for new topics?
    Please add Comment and advise on this.

    -Scott

    P.S. Can Someone Please PM me and teach me how to quote others properly.
    I'm not using this forum properly and I'd like to write my posts in the correct manner.
    Last edited by sjmcphee; 12-25-2011 at 09:35 PM.

  14. #29
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    6
    I'm new to this forum, and have read so much that my head is spinning. Your conversation is very interesting, and caught my attention since I have scoliosis (surgery in 1993), and all my 3 kids, ages 12, 14, 16 have it too. I'm screwed, live with so much muscular pain, wish that I could sleep 24/7 so I wouldn't feel the spasms, shooting pain, etc. Had the spinal fusion in 1993, and rods removed in 2002. Now, more and new pain, spasms, sleepless nights, and tears from fear that my kids might have the same future as I have.
    I fear for my kids. My 2 daughters, Darah and Lena (at age 9, and 12) were in the Spinecor brace. I can honestly tell you that I believe that the effectiveness of soft or hard bracing, or any other treatment, all depends on the individual body you're treating. Scoliosis is so unpredictable, "stubborn" at times, and very frustrating trying to figure out what the right thing is do.
    For my youngest with the main curve at 19 degrees, the Spinecor brace was amazing: she loved wearing it, and after wearing it for a year, her curve went down to 2 degrees. At that time we took her out of the brace, knowing that she's not out of the woods yet since she was still very young. Now, at the age of 12, about to go through her biggest growth spurt, the scoliosis has returned, but the curve is still below 20 degrees thank God. I'm not surprised obviously. Unfortunately the insurance company won't pay for it. Ching ching... We have no choice. I realize that the most important way to go about scoliosis is to try to keep the curve as little as possible before the bones have matured, hopefully preventing the scoliosis curve to get any worse in her adult life.
    My oldest daughter was in the Spinecor brace too, but I had her put in the hard brace after wearing it for 2 years. Might have been the biggest mistake I ever made. In the Spinecor brace her curvature never changed: it didn't improve, but it didn't get worse either. I was worried about her posture, which was totally tilted over to the side. The Spinecor brace wasn't "tough" enough in my eyes. As soon as I changed her over in the hard brace, her back got worse, and worse... She's done growing now, but deals with daily headaches, caused by her scoliosis. Not many are convinced that that's the reason for her headaches. A neurologist is about to rule out other causes since you don't take any risks when it comes to the brain.
    My son, age 14, just had an increase in curvature too. Yes, I knew that boys get it often at later age, but I could see from early age on that there was misalignment of the muscles, shoulder blades, and unlike my family, I knew that that was already a sign for the future.
    Within the next month I'll have my 12 and 14 year old in the Spinecor brace: why do I believe in it? The brace holds the spine in a much straighter position, sometimes even as straight as a yardstick! As the spine is held straight by the brace, the muscles are being used while being in the corrected spinal position: the muscles do adjust, while actively being used unlike in a hard brace where in my opinion the muscles go "dormit", or get weak.
    Thinking about my muscular pain, and the reason why: I was an adult when I had the spinal fusion, main curve (S) being corrected from 50 degrees to 10 degrees, the muscles undergoing a major transformation. The muscles that have been elongated are screaming now! The side where they now have "more room" are in better shape...
    I'm a lot less educated on this topic than some of you. Your vocabulary actually intimidates me a bit: the medical terminology, your knowledge...
    One thing though: if there's ever a study being done in the future that has to do with muscular damage due to fusion, I'm volunteering! My kids would too: they hate seeing me in pain, and they hate seeing I can't do the things I love to do....
    Wishing you all a good holiday, good health, and a happy New Year.

  15. #30
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Brisbane, Australia
    Posts
    147
    Hi Scoliosisfamily,
    Thanks for posting.
    I feel your tears.
    It's torture enough having to suffer and live with it yourself, but then also being also be forced to watch it unfold for your kids.
    Unimaginable torture i'd assume.
    I think at some point I might have to create a website for scoliosis braces.
    I think we need a dedicated site comparing braces, providing info, and with comments and feedback from people who've used them.
    Thanks for the excellent comment regarding muscle damage due to fusion.
    -Scott
    Last edited by sjmcphee; 12-25-2011 at 10:01 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •