Quote:
Originally Posted by mmglobal
J & J have nothing to do with ProDisc.
Suggesting that an individual case like this has to do with the design of the disc seems silly to me. I know hundreds of successful ProDisc patients. I know many failures of all device types. The ProDisc does not have a failure rate that is substantially different than the others.
I have never seen sloppy work from Dr. Bertagnoli. I have hundreds of clients who have been to him, and hundreds more that have been elsewhere. His output is uniformly excellent. Sadly, all spine surgeries come with substantial chance of failure. Unnecessary failures come from technical issues related to incorrect implantation. More unnecessary failures come from failed diagnoses that might have been avoided with more appropriate patient selection. There will still be a substantial percentage of failures that we don't understand. Many of the surgeons I now suspect that many or most of these failures would have failed regardless of the implant or type of surgery. I believe that is true. I have seen so many unexplained failed spine surgeries of all types.
Gotta go now... more later.
|
No two spines are alike. I am not just talking about the bones. The muscles, tendons and ligaments may be different. Some spines can compensate for fusions and ADRs and in the case of chronic over rotation hyper extension and hyper flexion in some spines nerves will get pinched, tendons and ligaments will be stretched and instability will occur. It is and it isn't rocket science. The fact that "they" can look at diagnostic studies and not see why something is failing tells me that they have a lot to learn. I apply commonsense. If the spine was working properly before there was a disk problem then there is a good chance that if the disk were to become normal the problem would go away. If a ball and socket were the best way do provide articulation for a spinal joint that is how God/Nature/Evolution would have made all the spine of the invertebrates. What we have is a flexible spacer that modulates movement and works in concert with all the other joints so that there is an even regulated articulation in all 6 axis.
IMO, based on commonsense, replacing a disk with a ball and socket is asking for trouble. I would ask surgeons why they would use what seems to me a Frankenstein when a virtual disk...the M6 is available. Simply put, why is a non shock absorbing disk that is unable to modulate motion better for me and my spine than a disk that acts like the real thing. If Dr B is reading this I would love to hear him explain it. He certainly did not explain it to Saud.
So Dr B if you happen to read this can you explain why you put to ball and sockets into this patient and can you explain why you are ignoring him?
Put another way, in your best medical judgement please justify the use of a B&S style ProDisc when the M6 was available.
I don't know the condition of this patient's spine pre or post surgery but you do Dr B. That being said can you explain under what conditions a ball and socket ProDisk is a better choice than the M6?