Started By
Message

re: Thoughts on Bowl Game

Posted on 1/2/14 at 3:15 pm to
Posted by OBReb6
Memphissippi
Member since Jul 2010
41553 posts
Posted on 1/2/14 at 3:15 pm to
Because he was playing for Chip Kelly. Look what he's done with Nick fricking Foles
Posted by 478rebel
Oxford, ms
Member since Jan 2013
1008 posts
Posted on 1/2/14 at 3:26 pm to
Bo had a completely different surgery. It was an Expermential surgery, in which his arm may never be the same as it was when he first got to om. He really never had time to fully recover, and taking more hits (got hit one time in the mizz game I believe where he grabbed his shoulder and was clearly in pain). He could have benefitted from a red shirt year really just to recover.
Posted by dtmb
Member since Mar 2013
696 posts
Posted on 1/3/14 at 10:00 am to
quote:

Bo had a completely different surgery. It was an Expermential surgery, in which his arm may never be the same as it was when he first got to om.


From what I have read, I wouldn't necessarily qualify his surgery as "experimental." To me, "experimental" would suggest that it had never been performed at all - or at least on very few people. But it first approved in the U.S. in 2011. The surgeon who performed the surgery seemed pretty confident in the procedure. Here is a [link=( https://www.umc.edu/News_and_Publications/Centerview/2013-01-28-00_State-of-the-art_device_helps_Ole_Miss_QB_heal_from_shoulder_separation_surgery.aspx)]link[/link] to an article about it.

Personally, I don't know anything about his shoulder beyond what I have read. I'm open to being educated, if you wouldn't mind elaborating on what makes Bo's shoulder surgery "experimental," and why his shoulder may never fully heal. Is there a problem with the way his collarbone healed, or is it related to some connective tissue?
Posted by DrunkenStuporMan
The Mothership
Member since Dec 2012
5855 posts
Posted on 1/3/14 at 10:18 am to
quote:

From what I have read, I wouldn't necessarily qualify his surgery as "experimental." To me, "experimental" would suggest that it had never been performed at all - or at least on very few people. But it first approved in the U.S. in 2011. The surgeon who performed the surgery seemed pretty confident in the procedure. Here is a link to an article about it.


I would say any new, unconventional surgery is "experimental." I think it takes more than just one singular use of a particular method or even just several hundred uses before the entire medical community decides it is either a good or bad surgery and everyone should start doing it or should never do it again.

It's still experimental because they are waiting to see what the long term effects are across a adequate sample population.
This post was edited on 1/3/14 at 10:20 am
Posted by dtmb
Member since Mar 2013
696 posts
Posted on 1/3/14 at 10:35 am to
quote:

I would say any new, unconventional surgery is "experimental."


That's a fair statement. It just seems like that the only thing that is unconventional about the surgery is the method used to stabilize the clavicle. I'm not part of the medical community, so the idea that a surgeon would choose to regularly apply a procedure that could be classified as "experimental" is foreign to me. I'm not surprised that surgeons would adopt relatively new methods, because nothing would progress if they didn't. It just seems counterintuitive that such a procedure would be considered experimental when it has been approved for use. I understand your point, though.
first pageprev pagePage 6 of 6Next pagelast page
refresh

Back to top
logoFollow SECRant for SEC Football News
Follow us on X and Facebook to get the latest updates on SEC Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitter