"To finish, the patient, disgusted by all these mudslinging, has abandoned any treatment and waits the time of a surgical operation."
Η αντιπαράθεση δεν είναι Ελληνικό προνόμιο, χωρίς να μεταφράσω, χωρίς να σχολιάσω παραθέτω τα γραφόμενα του Dr Cheneau.
2 .Various corsets seeking to improve my system.

2.1. Place of the opening in front or behind
    As early as 1980, authors in evil to "new under their name" (Neugebauer, Rexing and some others), had used an opening which should be placed behind and presented this as something new and decisive. I would point out that, opening in front or behind each have advantages and disadvantages ; Concerning the effectiveness, Rexing claimed to have proved that the rear opening was more precise. But it is simply because he had not built his plate of opening in front with sufficient carefulness. None of neo-authors of publications had understood anything of my system they claimed to improve. Rexing presented a model which he named CBW (Cheneau-Boston-Wiesbaden), which was a mediocre copy from Boston. Although it has interesting elements, the Boston system is absolutely incompatible with the mine. Later, the Rexing model was a little changed in Dresden. Both are relatively summary executions, and take only few data into account. They recover often completely a bend on the front x-ray, but at the price of a considerable iatrogenic effect, including a hollow back. It makes me think to a reflection of Dr. Djeddou, then Chief Doctor at Algiers, in the congress of Berlin in 1990: “We get nothing. What one earns in angle of Cobb is lost in aggravated hollow back".

2.2. Various tests, particularly in Germany, hoping to "do better »
Note. I very much hope that somebody will do better, and I am sure this will happen, if not yet happened.

2.2.1.New informatic attempt
    In Germany is a very important center for the treatment of those suffering from scoliosis which deals with rehabilitation and is interested in many aspects of the treatment of scoliosis. His staff began, toward the year 2000, to launch in Rosenheim a computer manufacturing that copied and followed that I had tried to develop Luneburg, between 1990 and 98. The main cause of the failure of Luneburg was as follows : Some elements, several probably, industrial and anatomical, too complex to be developed here, were wrong. For instance, it happened often that the silhouette of the mold was totally different from that of the patient. Perhaps these elements have now been corrected, I expect that it will succeed a day or another. By contrast, the computer technology Rosenheim had failures because the doctor initiator and prescriber was based on data which were mine, but relatively old. I had recently resolved a lot of problems, that he did not take into account.
2.2.2. Other initiatives concerning computer helped manufacture.
    Other techniques of construction by computer have been developed thanks to the experience gained in Luneburg. One has been strongly sustained by me, thanks to a franco-german technician Freddy Hoeltzel. He is particularly worker and attentive. He has succeeded in triumph of almost all the obstacles and is very successful now. What it presents and sells, it is the almost perfect "corset of Cheneau ». I have never failed to recommend to potential customers.

2.2.3. The so-called “Cheneau light system”.
    The same German doctor who had launched the computer in Rosenheim sought to organize a series production of industrial type. For that he has launched a corset formed with the most active parts which I have developed, has separated them from one another and assembled them again on the patient, fixing them with screws on two uprights. At the beginning, the uprights were oblique. . The time to update on the patient was enormous. At present, it seems that the uprights are vertical : in fact, a modified Lyon’s. The time of work of fitting remains great, especially in case of a later readjustment if it is necessary.
Conclusion concerning the »Cheneau light ».

    First of all, it is not light as claimed its author. A product made of separated parts is more heavy than a monohull. Secondly, it is not sufficient that a thing is new, it has to be better. This seems not to be the case. Thirdly, does this type of device saves some time? I have confidential informations which indicate the contrary. Just look at the many holes who sign the successive locations of the plates. It took a lot of time to try to adjust this “Cheneau light”.

    I, too, I have developed a semi-modular system which attends to save time. A monohull corset as I indicated in all my written published is manufactured. If a region is ill-adapted, just cut, set the position on the patient then fix again the separate part on the rest of the corset by plastic bridges. I prefer this process (I used it already in 1970 but this had been overlooked) to what has been called "Cheneau light" without consulting me.