Braces effectiveness was showed in the last braist study
I have read researches and surgeons comments, but just only one or two comments about why may be more effective in some cases than in others. Nobody seems to think in the principles behind braces. Why they works!? What is needed to work in a better way!
Originally Posted by flerc
I have seen a document about different kind of braces used in different centuries and countries. We are talking about an invention done thousands of years ago!! (not ‘just only’ a half millennium ago as I supposed).
Certainly, (maybe except for comfortableness issues) they were not very different to current braces and surely more effectives!. How many exceptions we may say there are? I don’t consider The Spinecor, because I believe is based over a something different principle.. I’m not sure if we may say this new brace is really very different to every predecessors http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/arti...MC3490735/#B38
But principles behind braces were used in some kind of fusionless surgeries as Vbs.
What happen? Good non surgical inventions (or improvements) are not allowed in official medicine in this surgical age?
Braces seem to have been reinvented through ages, implementing the intuitive concept behind it in different ways, depending mainly on the technology available.
How much better in every sense should to be a brace ‘reinvented’ in the XXI century!!? Why they are just only more comfortable?
To hold the spine straight was always the purpose and the use of external forces through braces was the way found to do it. During growth, external forces may redirect the spine, not allowing the curve to progress, even forcing it to be reduced (because obvious physical reasons). Certainly we may see as external forces, every force not emerging from the body itself, so they may be out of the body (as the brace walls) or inside it (as the staples used in Vbs, the ‘internal brace’). In every case, external forces can hold the spine straight (pushing the vertebras or holding close the adjacent convex vertebra sides) and redirecting the growth.
But why are needed external foreces? Why the spine cannot remains straight by itself? If flexibility is not enough, internal forces are the reason. Muscles, ligaments, fascias, rib cage.. something is not allowing to straight the spine.
But if flexibility is enough, gravity force is the cause. So antigravity could be the solution. But we cannot live in the moon yet, so it should to be simulated in some way. Nothing in this century is doing this.. I cannot be sure if Copes brace did it or not, anyway it seems to not exist anymore. Current Braces are only counteracting the horizontal decomposition of the gravity force, which we may say is applied over head and shoulders. So counteracting that force directly applied to shoulders (which in turn is applied over the spine) would be a way of really simulating ‘antigravity’. External forces can be used to do it, certainly I saw the design of a real ‘Super Brace’ used some centuries ago. It combined the ‘antigravity’ effect with forces on vertebras as current braces does and as I read, it was very much effective; I believe it was the most effective of all the times! But it was done with iron, surely no so much comfortable and not allows many movements.
How many months may take to a team of engineers, physiatrists/surgeons/osteopaths.. to do such Super Brace of the XXI century, also allowing movements, probably combined with the principle (I believe) is behind the Spinecor? How much money may require?
But I haven’t really much money and we live in the official medicine surgical age!.
Finally I saw it and if it is really as I think it is, certainly there is another principle behind it, something really incredible Probably something similar there was some centuries ago, but I cannot imagine nothing better than this 'brace'.. I think that nobody can. At least for adults with a flexible spine, I believe Spinecor is the super brace of the XXI century!
Originally Posted by flerc