Talk:Spinal decompression

Merge proposal
I have proposed a merge. See the tag in the article. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:25, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

--- definitions --- Add links to the definitions of the annulus fibrosis and nucleus pulposus Wind-down (talk) 10:31, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Note the spelling mistake: pulposus, not pulposis Wind-down (talk) 10:31, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

-- that Non-surgical spinal decompression be merged into Spinal Decompression article --- I agree, or make it a sub-article. If so, the classic or 'linear' decompression needs to be explained in as much detail, and both need to be compared. Wind-down (talk) 10:31, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

--- on anecdotal evidence and its validity --- Add a reference (new research article published 8 July 2010, still in 'provisional' form): 'Restoration of disc height through non-invasive spinal decompression is associated with decreased discogenic low back pain: a retrospective cohort study.' Christian C Apfel, Ozlem S Cakmakkaya, William Martin, Charlotte Richmond, Alex Macario, Elizabeth George, Maximilian Schaefer and Joseph V Pergolizzi, BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders 2010, 11:155 doi:10.1186/1471-2474-11-155 Wind-down (talk) 10:31, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

-- For a discussion, I suggest the following comparison: Comparing the two techniques and their explanations leads to some remarks not obvious in medical and alternative literatures.

Classic mechanical traction (newly branded basic or linear decompression) uses a device to pull the head up and lengthen the whole spine, in order to reduce pressure on the intervertebral discs. This is not a surgical procedure but a physio-therapeutic technique, sometimes [confirm this] applied after surgery, for rehabilitation. Compared to the second technique, it applies an extra-discal pull that reduces directly external mechanical pressure on the discs, thus reducing the source of damage sustained from gravity or from swelling and inflammation.

‘Non-surgical spinal decompression’ is a new therapeutic technique aiming to replace surgery. It applies to the discs themselves to create a vacuum ‘pull’ on the annulus, thus allowing the nucleus to retract inside the annulus. Combining this with the infusion of nutrients into the disc, ‘to heal’, thus ‘creating an osmotic gradient which helps bring nutrients and water into the disc’ comes down to increasing internal fluid pressure inside the disc and reactivating a failing healing mechanism. The various forms of this therapy and its instruments would suggest to call it a ‘variagated’ technique, as opposed to the first, linear technique. Diverse specifications due to slightly different perspectives probably explain the differences between the instruments and their particular effects on ‘spinal areas and tissues’ in different locations.

The two techniques have similarities but rely on different perspectives and rationalisations, and different effects. The first assumes that removing external pressure reduces damage, and the hidden notion that the body is a machine that can be fixed periodically by external intervention. The second assumes that increasing internal pressure reverts damage and that healing is an inherent process that comes to fail and needs to be reactivated periodically. The effects on low-grade ‘early signs’ would, however, be quite different. Not allowing a source of damage is not the same as fixing what triggers a chronic compensation that has negative long-term effects, and not the same as countering these by encouraging an adaptive process that runs out of steam and has to be reactivated.

These frameworks leave unanswered questions that are little researched: The poor track record of the commonly prescribed treatment by traditional physiotherapy to strengthen postural and core muscles suggests that there are difficulties in practising to strengthen muscles (e.g. neuro-muscular problems or incapacity to keep up the exercises), as much as in the basic and common problem of resisting gravity in the long term. Does the first technique alter the contents of the disc (water, nutrients, electrolytes)? Why are the discs unable to withstand pressure in so many people? The second technique begs the question of why do the discs not display adequate osmotic gradients? These techniques agree on the misshaping of the disc, but do not explain why this damage is so common. Possible sources cited are gravity-related pressure [I would add: on discs lacking in water pressure], mechanical friction of surfaces [I would add: as occurs between dry rather than moist surfaces], inflammation related swelling [I would add: on surfaces irritated by friction]. These approaches and surgery do not deal with the relation to ‘nerve irritation’ and the possible role of osmosis and water metabolism in these many degenerative spinal conditions, nor with its direct relation with the most basic ‘stress system’, the hypothalamic osmostat, which controls osmolality and therefore swelling. Wind-down (talk) 10:31, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

-- see also entry "Osmostat" -- Wind-down (talk) 10:31, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Wind-down (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:28, 9 July 2010 (UTC).

Removed paragraph about "Articulating Spinal Decompression"
I have removed the paragraph about "Articulating Spinal Decompression". It reads as advertising, and is a possible conflict of interest as the IP address 65.34.221.171 from which the paragraph was added is with Comcast in Florida (see WHOIS for 65.34.221.171), the location of the chiropractic doctor "Dr. Bass" to whom the device is attributed (see About Us). --papageno (talk) 14:29, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Proposal: replace Vax-D with VD after 1st mention.
I propose that we replace Vax-D with VD after the first mention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.224.48.23 (talk) 19:08, 23 September 2014 (UTC)