Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 38

Thread: Is there any trial or treatment for our kind of injury?

  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Pakistan
    Posts
    1,113

    Is there any trial or treatment for our kind of injury?

    As i have compression fracture at L1 so can some one or Wise tell that if there is any trial of stem cell or something else forold lumbosacral injuries with compression?

    What is the future of Cure for old lumbosacral injuries with compression specially when patient like me is walking very well like normal person?

    Will decompression be needed before any treatment? How treatment will be managed?

  2. #2
    i wish they had something, i would settle for the pain reduction. I walk with a big limp and i leg is atrophied, but i was able to get rid of the AFO after 7 years and move down to an ankle brace, i still need the afo when it is snowy and icy as the ankle brace , even though it is the strongest type, my ankle and foot still collapse to the left. i found that out last week when i tried to walk in the snow with strong anti slip things strapped onto my boot.
    the pain and side effect are really ruining me.
    cauda equina

  3. #3
    Senior Member medic1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    New London, WI USA
    Posts
    1,125
    I had a L1 burst fracture. Same type of injury , I walk pretty well but still use crutches and chairs to get around. As far as I know and the research I have done we are too low of injury to be of any priority in research.

  4. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by medic1 View Post
    we are too low of injury to be of any priority in research.
    I wouldnt go that far. Lower lesions will likely benefit from the good work the ALS and SMA scientists are doing with regards to neuronal replacement. So all is not lost.

    I guess what we will be looking at is the convergence of therapies (CNS injury therapies and neuronal replacement therapies) which will then provide hope for lower lesions.

  5. #5
    Fly remember the similarites that Wise provided on all aillments; ms, als, cns, and spinal injuries. He clearly stated that cures or treatments for one will benefit others as well. So we must agree with your assessment. Als and acute trials are moving along nicely; we need to see positive outcomes. Slow, but cureently moving.

    keeping on

  6. #6
    Senior Member medic1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    New London, WI USA
    Posts
    1,125
    Quote Originally Posted by Fly_Pelican_Fly View Post
    I wouldnt go that far. Lower lesions will likely benefit from the good work the ALS and SMA scientists are doing with regards to neuronal replacement. So all is not lost.

    I guess what we will be looking at is the convergence of therapies (CNS injury therapies and neuronal replacement therapies) which will then provide hope for lower lesions.
    I guess I was refering to therapy trials and stem cell research trials. Our injuries are so low and most have a fair amount of function that the priority is to get higher ups use of arms and hands so that they can live more independently. Therefore, most trials and experimental treaments are for higher ups. We will benefit from the research, its just that they look at us and figure we are pretty good the way we are.

  7. #7
    Senior Member Foolish Old's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Florida Keys
    Posts
    16,412
    Quote Originally Posted by medic1 View Post
    I guess I was refering to therapy trials and stem cell research trials. Our injuries are so low and most have a fair amount of function that the priority is to get higher ups use of arms and hands so that they can live more independently. Therefore, most trials and experimental treaments are for higher ups. We will benefit from the research, its just that they look at us and figure we are pretty good the way we are.
    Without convincing evidence to the contrary, I would strongly doubt that level of function (need?) plays much of a role in deciding what areas of research get the juice.
    Foolish

    "We have met the enemy and he is us."-POGO.

    "I have great faith in fools; self-confidence my friends call it."~Edgar Allan Poe

    "Dream big, you might never wake up!"- Snoop Dogg

  8. #8
    Agreed.

    I did raise a point a few weeks ago suggesting that lower level incompletes should'nt be disregarded as low priority as they are potentially "quick wins" - many who have been working hell for leather on their bodies for umpteen years for small amounts of incremental functional return. These individuals are likely to be well-versed in rehabilitation techniques - self-starters if you will. Although high-level injuries will be an obvious priority maybe the candle can be burned at both ends to increase productivity.

  9. #9
    Senior Member medic1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    New London, WI USA
    Posts
    1,125
    Quote Originally Posted by Fly_Pelican_Fly View Post
    Agreed.

    I did raise a point a few weeks ago suggesting that lower level incompletes should'nt be disregarded as low priority as they are potentially "quick wins" - many who have been working hell for leather on their bodies for umpteen years for small amounts of incremental functional return. These individuals are likely to be well-versed in rehabilitation techniques - self-starters if you will. Although high-level injuries will be an obvious priority maybe the candle can be burned at both ends to increase productivity.
    Actually, it is oppisite from what I understand. The higher-ups will be the ones that will have a quicker recovery because of where the injury is. I know it sounds backwards but the lower u get on the spinal cord the more complicated things become.

    The higher ups have a clearer idea of where the problem is and the amount of spinal roots etc are far less. The lower you go on the spinal cord the more spinal roots there are and you have to remember the lower injuries are dealing with the spinal roots, caude equana, and the conus. All three of these can be involved for lower injuries making it more complicated as to what is injured and how badly it is injured.

    Believe me I hold out hope that something will come along for all of us. Maybe Wise can clear this up a bit as to where we stand/sit on the research with our levels of injury.

  10. #10
    Senior Member medic1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    New London, WI USA
    Posts
    1,125
    Quote Originally Posted by Foolish Old View Post
    Without convincing evidence to the contrary, I would strongly doubt that level of function (need?) plays much of a role in deciding what areas of research get the juice.
    Isnt the evidence in the fact that I have been unable to find a single clinical trail/experiment/research team, that has accepted a spinal cord injury that is low. They all seem to be cut off higher up than my injury. Not trying to argue just trying to figure things out. If there are any clinical trials etc for low level injuries I would love to hear of them!

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 8
    Last Post: 08-30-2006, 06:01 PM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 02-07-2005, 10:09 AM
  3. Replies: 5
    Last Post: 09-24-2003, 04:16 PM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-28-2002, 03:42 PM
  5. CRASH Trial: Methylprednisolone treatment of Head Injury
    By Wise Young in forum Clinical Trials
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-02-2001, 04:25 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
  •