Raindrop Therapy?

[Celia]

Celia,

Thank you... I think. It's hard for me tell if that was just sarcasm or if it was a genuine comment. I hope it was the latter...

Of course it was genuine!

[gerbo]

Structural; getting celia all lyrical; quite an achievement!

Now, back to basics

The initial question was

"does anybody know of anything besides surgery that actually has been proven to help reduce the curve?"

your answer was yes, I do.

What we than got stuck on was the relevance and nature of "proof" or "evidence"

I am sure that with your scientific grounding you are aware that in a properly conducted study you compare two similar groups, give one the treatment you want to know whether it does anything, and the other group you don't do anything about. In the end you compare outcomes.

The fact that in your treatment group one or two (or more) get better doesn't necessarily mean anything, as exactly the same could happen in the non-treatment group. This is why individual "successes" are maybe interesting, but never ever evidence of the effectiveness of a treatment.

Also, you need to define very clearly what outcome you are looking at, i.e. the feeling of well being after so many treatment sessions, or reduction of pain, or in our specific example; reduction of the curve. Even than, you still need to question whether it is the treatment which has worked or whether it is other factors playing a role. Homeopatic practitioners who work with diluted water, spiritual healers, chiropracters, reflexologists and raindroptherapists all will be able to point to individual cases of succes, (and consider that as evidence of succes) whilst in reality this succes is based on either spontaneous resolution, (lots of stuff gets better by itself), psychological factors or plain mass hysteria or deceit.

Does all this matter. Depends what your starting point is. In all fairness to you, once people have stopped growing it doesn't really matter what they try, as long as it makes them feel better, the method used isn't positively harmful (and i am sure that those criteria apply to SI) and as long that people understand that there is no proper evidence to suggest it will reduce the curve. And ofcourse that finance isn't an issue for the persons involved (and do some of these alternatives manage to extract large amounts of money out of their clients for no benefit (not saying you're doing that)

However, from the perspective of the parent of a young and still growing daughter it is a different matter. The window of opportunity to do anything constructive is very short and one cannot afford the luxury of just trying methods because of hearsay and the evidence of single cases. Time is of the essence, and any month spend on an eventually non effective treatment is potentially time lost. Worsening of the curve is not "just one of those things", it is a personal drame of individuals and families involved, surgery in that context is not " a scientific proven method" (which it is) but a failure in my and my daughters doctors attempts to contain the curve with nonsurgical methods

we cannot afford to get distracted by one of the multitude of unproven methods as the consequence could be; further deterioration!!! (unless we strike lucky; I am convinced that amongst all those unproven methods and techniques, there might just be the occasional one which actually can make a difference!!) There are many, many examples out there of people who have been taken in by good sounding stories, clever salespeople and plausible pseudoscience (not referring to you ofcourse) who ended up loosing lots of time, money and ended up needing surgery as their last resort following significant deterioration of their curves.

If you would read some of my posts in other forums you would see that i am not necessarily following the medically prescribed route, as if that was the case my daughter would currently still be wearing a hardbrace and nothing else would happen.

I look at all methods in as much detail as possible and anything what looks promising and reasonable logical (based on fairly detailed knowledge of anatomy and physiology) is considered and the evidence is examined as closely as possible. For this reason she wears a spinecor brace and not the commonly prescribed TLSO, she strengthens assymmetrical trunkmuscles by torsorotation exercises (only 2 small studies, each about 10 patients each) and i even try to deal with tight connective tissue (i believe that the fixed position of curves beyond which no correction seems achievable is partially due to contractures of intervertebral ligaments, (now, does that ring a bell!!)) by trying to "stretch" the convex side of the curve.

enough written, time to do something different now, very exhausting all this

best wishes

gerbo

[Celia]

Structural; getting celia all lyrical; quite an achievement

Am I the only one in the forum who felt Structural's quote rang true ? There are no guarantees to anything, however I don't see why one treatment has to be used to the exclusion of another.

[structural75]

Gerbo,

Thanks for the reply. We both find the "study" debate exhausting.... You brought up some different thoughts that seem worthy of discussion.

Can't speak of them much at the moment as time is limited, but...

I agree with fascial ligamentous contracture proposition as a partial cause of the fixation. But why are you "stretching" the "convex" side of her curve? That will surely worsen the situation by releasing the fixation that is trying to hold her up. Part of that fixation is put there by the bodies nervous system as a funtional, compensatory response to the spine deviating from the central axis of growth. It will create problems in the long run, but for the time being it is serving its purpose the only way it knows how. The CONCAVE aspect of the curve needs to be lengthened to encourage the spine to move into coronal balance, not the CONVEX. It is in fact the ligaments/myofascia/periarticular tissue on the concave, or shorter side (orinterior portion) of the curve that is in need of stretching. As a result of the relationship of the curvature to gravity the musculature and fascial smooth muscles on the concave side atrophy because if they were active to the same degree of tonus/strength as the convex side they would yank the spine further into its curvature. That's the simple version, but when you start working with the rotation as well then it does necessitate work on spedific regions of the convex side, in relation to the apex, or cobb angle, of each curve. What I do with folks is not unlike the torso rotations you're doing, but it's done with great specificity in precise areas.

Hope that helps.
structural

[gerbo]

oops, keep on confusing my caves and vexes, yes i am stretching the concave side. An area of agreement!! A breakthrough!!

[gerbo]

however I don't see why one treatment has to be used to the exclusion of another.

because within a given timescale there is only so much you can try

you choosing to use a spinecor is to the exclusion of milwaukee, boston, cheneau, pneumex etc etc

[Celia]

...you choosing to use a spinecor is to the exclusion of milwaukee, boston, cheneau, pneumex etc etc

I wasn't suggesting people should wear three different types of braces You'll find many parents already have their children enrolled in physio programs as an adjunct to bracing. So what is the big debate about ??????!!!

[gerbo]

So what is the big debate about ???

it is about focussing on proven and effective methods and not wasting precious time on unproven methods, (not saying anything about SI, as I want to be friends with structural) as there is only so much time in a day/week etc and only so much a child will tolerate in the way of methods. Surely you would not advice somebody to see a chiropracter, osteopath, reicki therapist, physio, raindroptherapist as one of them might just be of some benefit; you focus on the ones with the best chance of succes.

[MATJESNIC]

Structural,

I found the links very interesting. I am not familiar with SI. What do most orthopedics have to say about it? I will be interested to hear what our orthopedics have to say when I ask them about it in Dec.

Is this very different from the Schroth method?


Melissa

[pat]

Si?

Hi, I looked back at old posts, can't figure out what "SI" stands for; it's gonna be pretty obvious, right, once you tell me! I'm racking my brain!! Thanks! pat

[sweetness514]

Celia,


I also want to be clear to others reading these posts that I'm in no way shape or form opposed to surgical corrections. My point simply being that nothing is perfect, no matter what kind of evidence is used to support it.


Best Wishes,
structural

My ortho still swears that it is nearly impossible that when one fused patient has the hardware taken out, that the curve can come back. Funny how I have read many stories on this forum that prove the opposite. That's why I always say, nothing is ever set in stone, and doctors are not God. I trust myself, get as much info as I can and know that anything can happen(not just with scoli but any health issue for that matter).

[MATJESNIC]

Pat,

structural integration - If you go to number 2 of this thread and scroll down, you can find all of the links.



Melissa

[structural75]

Hi Folks,

Now we're getting somewhere!

Gerbo - Concave/Convex, I understand... it's an honest mistake. Keep up the work! As for "wasting time"... I see your point, you can't do it all at once. But I often read in this forum about advice that Doctors give to "wait and see" for 6 months to a year (or longer). I think that in those relatively frequent cases it would be perfectly feasible to "try" something different (in addition to wearing a brace for instance. As braces do not act dynamically with the body, they are static, forceful devices. It would be an excellent idea to have a trained professional doing very specific, interactive and responsive work with the fascial and membrane system of the body as well). As I said before, structural integration is not a hook, line and sinker therapy. Under the care of a competent practitioner they will only work with someone for brief and finite periods of time. It is imperative in this type of work that we give the body space and time to integrate, assimilate and adjust to the changes and input we give it. The body is quite adept at self-regulation, sometimes it needs a little encouragement and the removal of obstacles that are in its way. One usually will spend about 3 - 6 months with this approach (if it's working, you will know right from the start). I don't think time is so precious that two or three visits is going to close other doors of opportunity. This isn't something you do 3 times a week for the next year or more.

Matjesnic - Some Orthos are familiar with it and some aren't. Just the same, some will highly recommend it and others will not. Most of this has to do with their personal experience or awareness of the discipline. Many Doctors adhere quite rigidly to conventional approaches, much the way that some on this forum do. It's no different than Doctors debating amongst themselves about the legitimacy of "scientifically proven" methods. (Some Docs believe C-sections are harmless and should be performed routinely, others avoid it unless medically necessary. Both have there arguements, pros and cons alike)

Ask your Ortho next time you see him/her. Something worth keeping in mind for those searching for non-surgical complimentary care practices; Structural Integration practitioners come from a variety of backgrounds... many are also Physical Therapists, Osteopaths, M.D.s, PhDs, etc. If it comforts the more "study" or "scientifically proven" minded people, visit with an S.I. pract. who is also one of the above.

Heres a sight you might find informative. It covers a broader spectrum, but worth the look. http://www.somatics.de/

I wasn't familiar with the Schroth Method until you mentioned it. I looked it up... sounds really interesting and does seem to share some common threads with S.I. I could be totally wrong, but it looks as though there is a lot of assisted and non-assistive stretching involved. If so, it would be working with the same medium in the body that S.I. works with; the fascial network (myofascia, ligaments, tendons, joint capsules, visceral and cranial membranes). As I'm still not familiar with the Schroth Method entirely yet, I can only say that S.I. uses precise hands-on, slow manipulation of this network combined with small movements to reorganize tissue and neurologic movement patterns. Thanks for the mention of Schroth... I'm excited to learn more about it.

Do you have any experience with it?

Structural

[structural75]

Gerbo,

I'm very sorry to hear of you're frustrations with you and your daughters situation (curvature and emotional well being alike). I don't know very much about it, but you alluded to it in you last post to me. I sincerely hope you find what you need to make things better.

Gerbo you stated -

Worsening of the curve is not "just one of those things", it is a personal drame of individuals and families involved, surgery in that context is not " a scientific proven method" (which it is) but a failure in my and my daughters doctors attempts to contain the curve with nonsurgical methods

Without callous I would like to say just this. If you've tried many of the scientifically proven non-surgical approaches and achieved little or no success, then how are they any better than something that isn't in a "study" but has shown to be effective to certain degrees (at least slowing or halting the progression during growth spurts). I know you refuse to accept my clinical experience as having any ounce of truth (that's fine by me, I have nothing to "prove" to you), but when everything is failing to provide results maybe we should take a step outside the narrow confines of that box and take an educated chance. If not for ourselves, at least for our children.

With Kind Regards,
Structural

[pat]

Thanks Melissa, we're heading to Canada Thursday!!!
p