Please click on the links below to learn more about KDT and the clinical studies that have been conducted.
"Serial MRI of 20 patients treated with the decompression table shows in our study up to 90% reduction of subligamentous nucleus herniation in 10 of 14. Some re-hydration occurs detected by T2 and proton density signal increase. Torn annulus repair is seen in all.
Eyerman, Edward MD. Simple pelvic traction gives inconsistent relief to herniated lumbar disc sufferers. Journal of Neuroimaging. Paper presented to the American Society of Neuroimaging, Orlando , Florida 2-26-98.
"Eighty-six percent of ruptured intervertebral disc (RID) patients achieved 'good' (50-89% improvement) to 'excellent' (90-100% improvement) results with decompression. Sciatica and back pain were relieved." "Of the facet arthrosis patients, 75% obtained 'good' to 'excellent' results with decompression."
C. Norman Shealy , MD , PhD, and Vera Borgmeyer, RN, MA.
Decompression, Reduction, and Stabilization of the Lumbar Spine: A Cost-Effective Treatment for Lumbosacral Pain. American Journal of Pain Management Vol. 7 No. 2 April 1997
"Results showed that 86% of the 219 patients who completed the therapy reported immediate resolution of symptoms, while 84% remained pain-free 90 days post-treatment. Physical examination findings showed improvement in 92% of the 219 patients, and remained intact in 89% of these patients 90 days after treatment."
Gionis, Thomas MD; Groteke, Eric DC. Surgical Alternatives: Spinal Decompression. Orthopedic Technology Review. 2003; 6 (5).
"All but two of the patients in the study improved at least 30% or more in the first three weeks.""Utilizing the outcome measures, this form of decompression reduces symptoms and improves activities of daily living."
Bruce Gundersen, DC, FACO; Michael Henrie, MS II, Josh Christensen, DC. A Clinical Trial on Non-Surgical Spinal Decompression Using Vertebral Axial Distraction Delivered by a Computerized Traction Device. The Academy of Chiropractic Orthopedists, Quarterly Journal of ACO, June 2004
Studies on disc surgery emphasize inappropriate patient selection as the cause for surgical failure. (11,16,30,44) In Kramer's address to the International Spine Society he emphasized that the surgical failed back syndrome is the worst possible scenario a spine surgeon faces. (22) In North America the incidence for this iatrogenic disease is about 15%, compared to 5% with most European countries.(28) Comparisons between the United States and Europe indicate that the frequency of surgery in the U.S. is four times greater.(11) Statistics from the Back Pain Outcome
Assessment Team compiled from 1979 to 1987 indicate a rapidly growing number of disc excision and fusion operations performed each year, further escalating the cost. (11,44)
Studies of the various surgical procedures largely lack validity and controlled prospective studies are rare .(7) A randomized study by Revel demonstrated percutaneous discectomy has little value (32) and the same is true for laser discectomy.
Chemonucleolysis is superior to saline injection but inferior to surgical discectomy. While chemonucleolysis had its followers for a period of time, it has fallen into disrepute because of the serious side effects including anaphylaxis and myelitis and should no longer be considered an option. There are not any studies demonstrating the superiority of one particular surgical intervention and there is no support for adding a fusion to a routine discectomy. (11,27,28)
spinal decompression research
Gur A, Karakoc M, Cevik R, Nas K, Sarac AJ, Karakoc M.Lasers Surg Med. 2003;32(3):233-8. doi: 10.1002/lsm.10134.PMID: 12605431 Clinical Trial.
Djavid GE, Mehrdad R, Ghasemi M, Hasan-Zadeh H, Sotoodeh-Manesh A, Pouryaghoub G.Aust J Physiother. 2007;53(3):155-60. doi: 10.1016/s0004-9514(07)70022-3.PMID: 17725472 Clinical Trial.
Huang Z, Ma J, Chen J, Shen B, Pei F, Kraus VB.Arthritis Res Ther. 2015 Dec 15;17:360. doi: 10.1186/s13075-015-0882-0.PMID: 26667480 Free PMC article. Review.
Bjordal JM, Couppé C, Chow RT, Tunér J, Ljunggren EA.Aust J Physiother. 2003;49(2):107-16. doi: 10.1016/s0004-9514(14)60127-6.PMID: 12775206 Review.