NY Times recent article about some surgeons and their relation to ADR
 

Please read teh link below below

My intention is not to discourage anyone out there. I am still a strong believer in ADR but it's good to keep this info in mind.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/30/bu...tml?ref=health

Wishing painless days to everyone

Sonata

Sonata, thanks for the post. That's a great article. It demonstrates serious questions about how we develop products and potential conflicts of interests.

I learned very early on in my career as a spine patient that all the data should be taken with a grain of salt. There are huge amounts of money at stake and there are serious problems with some of the data. I'm not saying that the system is broken, but it's VERY far from perfect.

I'm going to add the article to the library here, so if the link disappears, it will still be available. (Won't happen till next week... it's after 4am her in Straubing and I'm still working...)

All the best... talk to you soon,

Mark

Same goes for some journals where authors are not obliged to reveal industry funding sources, re: a semi-recent NIH scandal. Much less energy not to lie/conceal.

Hmm, wonder if this goes for fusion devices, etc.

I am sure it goes Ans.

Unfortunately greediness is everywhere on this planet. I have lost so much faith in MDs (except the ones who are my relatives or good friends!) after finding out about my condition and the different "solutions" I was offered. You really wonder about that oath they take after they graduate from medical school. Luckily some of us are educated enough to make a through research and become our own advocates, and take the decision. Or some are lucky to meet people like Mark to get informed about all aspects of different brands and what the surgery might bring or not bring.

Wishing painless days to everyone

Here is an excerpt from an email I received from a client.... one of my favorite quotes:

Once again as I read the posts on this site I am amazed at how unfortunately ignorant the patient population is to much of the care available to them (even in the age of Web MD). That being said, it is NOT the fault of the patient when the only solution to spine pathology presented to them by suposed learned surgeons is fusion. We know the dismal results of this procedure and while other treatment options exist, endoscopic discectomies, ADR's, etc., because of the trial lawyers, FDA, and insurance companies, surgeons will more often than not recommend the only thing they get paid for...fusion-even as these other therapies are available. I've talked about this before on this post, my practice is full of patients that have failed surgical therapy, or the surgeon refuses to address adjacent level (fusion) degeneration. I can often improve the patients clinical picture with minimally invasive surgical or interventional procedures, but there are other times when more extensive surgery is needed (like in the case of ADR)...but if you're not getting paid for them, and may infact may get sued for doing an "experimental" treatment, it is hard to argue against performing a tried and true albeit archaic procedure like fusion. So Mark, to address one of your other posts about "depression," it may well be that the interventionalist (pain doctor) is out of interventional options and the surgeon simply will not address the issue-I see it all the time.