View Single Post
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 07-26-2008, 09:56 AM
mmglobal's Avatar
mmglobal mmglobal is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,511
Default

ans,

My guess is that it's similar to where it was when these papers were published. I don't believe the answer is in the data. We still see people presenting 25% screw loosening with Dynesys, while others with large Dynesys experience present almost nil.

I believe that we can't sort out the biases in the numbers.

>> reported correctly?

>> cherry picking surgeons vs. those who take on the tough cases?

>> talent difference?

>> System / hardware differences?

Last night, I was speaking to someone who is considering XLIF fusion at L4-5. Where he lives, experience w/XLIF is quite limited, but starting to become availalbe. I told him that I'd rather have an excellent PLIF or TLIF than a bad XLIF.

I belive the same thing for fusions that I do for ADR. If you are a good candidate and get a good job done, it doesn't matter which system or approach is used. Obviously, there are some issues that will make us want to move towards techniques that are more promising, but new techniques may still have hidden issues. Most importantly, there are issues and potential problems that are not represented in the data. Interesting discussion,

Mark
__________________
1997 MVA
2000 L4-5 Microdiscectomy/laminotomy
2001 L5-S1 Micro-d/lami
2002 L4-S1 Charite' ADR - SUCCESS!
2009 C3-C4, C5-C6-C7, T1-T2 ProDisc-C Nova
Summer 2009, more bad thoracic discs!
Life After Surgery Website
President: Global Patient Network, Inc.
Founder: www.iSpine.org

Last edited by mmglobal; 07-26-2008 at 09:59 AM.
Reply With Quote