tridad3 wrote:
Google "sequential compression device", amazon has a 4 chamber full leg for $ 379.I looked into that one and gave up after discovering it has limited leg choices and concluding they were too short for me. I believe they were 30" max.
Quote:
This is old medical technology, but I bet it wold give you the vast majority of the recovery benefits-(Not targeted at you tridad, but more generally)
I'm still surprised and disappointed that everyone assumes that the "old technology" is worse, based on some combination of NormatTec's marketing, and the fact that some famous people are using it. There are numerous medical studies showing that the old style sequential compression devices are effective for various medical conditions. I've yet to find any medical studies showing that Normatec's technology is superior.
Normatec's site (and quite honestly, Rappstar's posts above, which even contain factual errors) have more marketing fluff than substance:
- It uses "old technology" as a negative term, implying anything new must be better
- Uses the fact that it's patented to imply efficacy, which is crap (you can patent bad ideas.. they just must be new)
- It's invented by a PhD - therefore the technology must be awesome?
It's also a potentially misleading description: Their writeup originally lead me to believe that NormaTec invented and patented peristaltic compression (where only 2 or 3 chambers are compressed at one time). This is not true. There are other units that have been doing peristaltic compression for a while now. NormaTec's patent is based on adding in the pulsing action combined with peristaltic compression.
I would love to see a study comparing:
1) Sequential compression vs peristaltic compression
2) Peristaltic compression with and without NormaTec's pulsing
Until then, it would be nice not to see everyone be dazzled by marketing info and propagating the "newer must be better" mantra, whether due to being sponsored or otherwise. It very well could be better, but we don't know that for sure, and the lack of published comparative studies makes me at least somewhat skeptical. (If it exists and I missed it, send me a link?)
Their FDA status is also meaningless in terms of arguing efficacy. Technically they are only "FDA Cleared" which does not involve any testing for safety and efficacy, but simply arguing that the product is similar to a device that has already been approved. Here's an example post in the Lymphedema community that expresses concerns over Normatec's marketing and efficacy.