05-06-2008, 10:50 PM
Studies continue to show similar outcomes in treating back pain with surgery vs without. Roughly the same amount get better in the same time frame with either surgical or nonsurgical treatments.
As to the original question about the decompression therapy, it has not been shown to be any more effective than traditional treatments that are less expensive and ARE covered by your insurance (and I include in that group manipulative therapy, accupuncture, etc.). It is basically a fancy new snake oil/tonic/miracle cure. There are no good studies that support the DRX decompression therapy. But it is highly advertised. The manufacturer usually provides a deal where they help the chiropractor with advertising costs and materials while they provide access to and use of the machine for a set lease fee and term (usually reduced fee the first 1-3 months). When people quit paying for the treatments, the machines become too expensive to keep and are removed from the offices (therefore the lack of current advertising on the above-mentioned website).
As to the original question about the decompression therapy, it has not been shown to be any more effective than traditional treatments that are less expensive and ARE covered by your insurance (and I include in that group manipulative therapy, accupuncture, etc.). It is basically a fancy new snake oil/tonic/miracle cure. There are no good studies that support the DRX decompression therapy. But it is highly advertised. The manufacturer usually provides a deal where they help the chiropractor with advertising costs and materials while they provide access to and use of the machine for a set lease fee and term (usually reduced fee the first 1-3 months). When people quit paying for the treatments, the machines become too expensive to keep and are removed from the offices (therefore the lack of current advertising on the above-mentioned website).