Quote:
Originally Posted by cherylstewart67
if i had gone by the symptoms rather than what they looked at the mri and said was my cause i'd be better off. they did fusion on the levels that were not the problem. i know those areas needed something, but my problem has always been c6/7. i told them i was having problems with my forarms and hand and which fingers and it pointed to 6/7 t1 but they did fusion on 4/5/6 because of what they saw in the mri. now i am still not better. they nere even did a discogram or however it spelled to see what levels were causing my pain.  they did not tell me all of my options for adr vs fusion and at that time i did not have a home computor to research it for myself. clearly adr would have been better for me, the fusion has lead to more ddd from the stress and additional surgeries. |
Cheryl, I don't trust most doctors to have the patient's best interest at heart or always tell the truth. I report on abuse by members of the medical industry. Orthopedics has its share of charlatans.
The docs that push fusions are the ones who do fusions.
Fusions almost always lead to more DDD and osteo arthritis. That means more surgeries and more money. ADRs were being implanted in 1955. I really suspect that the design for the neo disk has been around for decades.