Re: THE HISTORY AND DEVELOPMENT OF HARRINGTON INSTRUMENTATION

[Guest guest]

,

Interesting reading....from the perspective of where we stand now.

Criminy....having the surgery in 1972 we were still experimental for

all intents and purposes!

Who knew?

Cam

[Guest guest]

Reading through that, and seeing that it is almost purely chronological, I can't help but wonder if the date of 1962 is actually a typo, and should be 1952. He refers to 19 patients in these early trials (which presumably were the earliest ones, without fusion), and then further down refers to 50 patients having the more advanced systems designed with the grant made in 1954 to develop the system further, and this trial being completed in 1959. Certainly something is odd about the dates and numbers, and a typo would seem to fit this quite well.

titch-- The wages of sin are death, but by the time taxes are taken out, it's just sort of a tired feeling - a Poundstone

[Guest guest]

Unfortunately, I think we are still experimental.

>

> ,

>

> Interesting reading....from the perspective of where we stand now.

> Criminy....having the surgery in 1972 we were still experimental for

> all intents and purposes!

>

> Who knew?

>

> Cam

>

[Guest guest]

Hi Titch..

The only reference to 1972 that I can find is the date of the first

published study. Am I missing something?

--

>

> Reading through that, and seeing that it is almost purely

chronological, I

> can't help but wonder if the date of 1962 is actually a typo, and

should be

> 1952. He refers to 19 patients in these early trials (which

presumably were

> the earliest ones, without fusion), and then further down refers to 50

> patients having the more advanced systems designed with the grant

made in

> 1954 to develop the system further, and this trial being completed

in 1959.

> Certainly something is odd about the dates and numbers, and a typo would

> seem to fit this quite well.

>

> titch

>

>

> --

> The wages of sin are death, but by the time taxes are taken out,

it's just

> sort of a tired feeling - a Poundstone

>

[Guest guest]

Cam, ,

That brings up another question I never thought to ask as I felt I had no choice anyway but to do it: When did the docs start doing what we call revision surgery with fusion to the sacrum?

Bonnie

[ ] Re: THE HISTORY AND DEVELOPMENT OF HARRINGTON INSTRUMENTATION

,Interesting reading....from the perspective of where we stand now. Criminy....having the surgery in 1972 we were still experimental for all intents and purposes!Who knew?Cam

[Guest guest]

Hi Bonnie...

Since they were already fusing to the sacrum with H-rods in many

patients, I would assume that if needed, revisions included the sacrum

right from the start. In Mike LaGrone's paper in BackTalk, he compares

his current cohort to the cohort from his 1988 published review on

flatback. In the earlier study, he states that 66% of the 55 patients

had previously been fused to the sacrum. I'm guessing that means that

patients originally fused to the sacrum were more likely to have an

earlier onset of flatback.

Regards,

>

> Cam, ,

>

> That brings up another question I never thought to ask as I felt I had

no choice anyway but to do it: When did the docs start doing what we

call revision surgery with fusion to the sacrum?

>

> Bonnie

>

>

> [ ] Re: THE HISTORY AND DEVELOPMENT OF

HARRINGTON INSTRUMENTATION

>

>

> ,

>

> Interesting reading....from the perspective of where we stand now.

> Criminy....having the surgery in 1972 we were still experimental for

> all intents and purposes!

>

> Who knew?

>

> Cam

>

[Guest guest]

That seems very logical to me. I was originally fused to the sacrum,

and was not at all happy that I not only didn't have the lovely curve

at the back of my waist, but I actually had one side that lumped out!

I haven't been able to stand up straight since 1073.

In the earlier study, he states that 66% of the 55 patients

> had previously been fused to the sacrum. I'm guessing that means

that

> patients originally fused to the sacrum were more likely to have an

> earlier onset of flatback.

>

[Guest guest]

In a recent discussion regarding when Harrington rods started to be used, you mentioned this article and said that you thought it likely that it was in use at least by 1961-62, because the article mentioned a paper on an early group of patients being published in 1962 - specifically " There were 19 patients observed during this early phase, and these results were published in 1962. "

The previous sentence is related to the fact that this early hardware was made by hand by Thorkild Engen and himself, and it goes on to say the number of operations performed on patients over the next 2 years, and the following paragraph goes on to explain about the grant made in 1954 to develop the instrumentation for use in 50 patients (which of course is 2 years later, *if* 1962 is a typo which should read 1952), and would fit with the largely chronological format of the article.

As the article then also goes on to explain how between 1954 and 1959 the design was refined to it's eventual ratchet format, and the addition of fusion to maintain the correction, with this study being completed in 1959, again it suggests to me that either the date of 1962 is a typo, or the results of treatment of those earliest patients was delayed by many years. It also reads to me as though the eventual Harrington rod procedure of instrumentation, fusion and casting, was fully established, at least for patients with polio, if in limited numbers, before 1960, possibly by as early as 1955 or so.

Of course I could have misread it and be talking utter nonsense (wouldn't entirely surprise me, it's so ridiculously hot here [i arrived at work at 7.45am this morning to an office temp of 31°C/88°F] that brain power and clear thinking is at a premium right at the moment), but in case I wasn't I thought I would share what I had taken from the article as it seems relevant to that recent conversation here.

I'll shut up now, anyway ;o)

titch-- The wages of sin are death, but by the time taxes are taken out, it's just sort of a tired feeling - a Poundstone

[Guest guest]

I wouldn't be able to stand up straight either if it was 1073..I had to

read that twice..HAHA!!! Vonnie -

-- In , " SB " <bahadreama@...> wrote:

>

> That seems very logical to me. I was originally fused to the sacrum,

> and was not at all happy that I not only didn't have the lovely curve

> at the back of my waist, but I actually had one side that lumped

out!

> I haven't been able to stand up straight since 1073.

>

>

>

>

> In the earlier study, he states that 66% of the 55 patients

> > had previously been fused to the sacrum. I'm guessing that means

> that

> > patients originally fused to the sacrum were more likely to have an

> > earlier onset of flatback.

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Is anyone else having a hard time getting messages posted today?

Hi Titch...

I think the confusion may come from the fact that the first patient with

idiopathic scoliosis wasn't done until 1960 or 1961. Up until then, the

surgery was only performed on polio victims.

Regards,

>

> In a recent discussion regarding when Harrington rods started to be used,

> you mentioned this article and said that you thought it likely that it was

> in use at least by 1961-62, because the article mentioned a paper on an

> early group of patients being published in 1962 - specifically " There were

> 19 patients observed during this early phase, and these results were

> published in 1962. "

>

> The previous sentence is related to the fact that this early hardware was

> made by hand by Thorkild Engen and himself, and it goes on to say the

number

> of operations performed on patients over the next 2 years, and the

following

> paragraph goes on to explain about the grant made in 1954 to develop the

> instrumentation for use in 50 patients (which of course is 2 years later,

> *if* 1962 is a typo which should read 1952), and would fit with the largely

> chronological format of the article.

>

> As the article then also goes on to explain how between 1954 and 1959 the

> design was refined to it's eventual ratchet format, and the addition of

> fusion to maintain the correction, with this study being completed in 1959,

> again it suggests to me that either the date of 1962 is a typo, or the

> results of treatment of those earliest patients was delayed by many years.

> It also reads to me as though the eventual Harrington rod procedure of

> instrumentation, fusion and casting, was fully established, at least for

> patients with polio, if in limited numbers, before 1960, possibly by as

> early as 1955 or so.

>

> Of course I could have misread it and be talking utter nonsense (wouldn't

> entirely surprise me, it's so ridiculously hot here [i arrived at work at

> 7.45am this morning to an office temp of 31°C/88°F] that brain power and

> clear thinking is at a premium right at the moment), but in case I wasn't I

> thought I would share what I had taken from the article as it seems

relevant

> to that recent conversation here.

>

> I'll shut up now, anyway ;o)

>

> titch

>

> --

> The wages of sin are death, but by the time taxes are taken out, it's just

> sort of a tired feeling - a Poundstone

>

[Guest guest]

Fair enough - I thought the question was just as regards when Harrington instrumentation started to be used overall. I'm still curious whether it is a typo regarding 1962 though, as it doesn't seem to fit the timeline otherwise given in the article.

titch-- The wages of sin are death, but by the time taxes are taken out, it's just sort of a tired feeling - a Poundstone

[Guest guest]

Hi Titch...

Sorry, I get it now. It definitely shows 1962 in the monograph, but I think you’re right that it must be a typo.

--

On 7/27/06 1:41 AM, " oojackapivvy " <oojackapivvy@...> wrote:

Fair enough - I thought the question was just as regards when Harrington instrumentation started to be used overall. I'm still curious whether it is a typo regarding 1962 though, as it doesn't seem to fit the timeline otherwise given in the article.

titch