"Shock-absorbing" ADRs: Spinal Kinetics' M6 and NuVasive's NeoDisc

[jss]

Hmmm... That really makes me wonder which one he used on me; and hope that it's the Ostene. If I can find out I'll post it here.

[Tyler]

I've now completed consultations with eight different surgeons. Even docs who are here in the U.S. and therefore can't use Spinal Kinetics' M6 (some of whom participated in its U.S. clinical studies) are impressed by its functionality: some compressibility, natural movement, and "graded resistance" to motion (i.e. more resistance to motion as it increases) - all of which are attributes of the natural discs being replaced.

Although ProDisc-C would probably be fine, the discs I choose will (hopefully) be with me for life, and I'm definitely leaning to M6 - which means a trip to Europe.

The only question now is to choose the best site among several good ones...

[jss]

Originally Posted by Tyler

Although ProDisc-C would probably be fine, the discs I choose will (hopefully) be with me for life, and I'm definitely leaning to M6 - which means a trip to Europe.

The only question now is to choose the best site among several good ones...

Another very difficult question. I know that you're aware of the handful of surgeons discussed on this site regarding the M6. Two other tools that may be helpful in searching for a surgeon and facility are these two web sites; Healthbase and Planet Hospital. They may expose you to surgeons, and maybe even devices, that haven't received much attention here.

Good luck, Jeff

[JKDE302]

Originally Posted by Harrison

JK,

We discussed the reported (alleged) failures of the NeoDisc trial on another topic. Sorry you feel that way -- is your cervical spine hurting? Reactive arthritis under control? Any way, pls update us on your post-op outcome topic when you have some time, it's here:

http://www.adrsupport.org/forums/f47...prodisc-10557/

Hope you get better -- you've been suffering for years...

Harrison thank you for the support my friend, im gonna read about reactive arthritis right now b/c i have (0) nerve pain. I think the pain i have is from ddd and osteo-arth which is why the pro-disc did not help me much at all.

[JKDE302]

Tyler make sure you get both disc in your neck done at the same time. My insurance would only allow me to get my c5-c6 done with the pro-disc and im still in pain which could be from my c4-c5. IDK...

[Tyler]

Definitely having both (C5-6 and C6-7) done at the same time - anterior approach through the neck is not something I hope to repeat! And surgery is scheduled with Nick Boeree for August 27th - yikes...!

[Tyler]

So far so good!
http://www.adrsupport.org/forums/f47...743/#post87035

[Tyler]

More on why I eventually chose Spinal Kinetics' M6:

http://www.adrsupport.org/forums/f51...767/#post87156

[Rob Wilson]

This disc seems amazing for its simulating a real disc. I have had so many adjacent issues such as piriformis, SI joint, ligaments, etc that I would love this disc. However as a M6 for the lumbar I am scared if it would last. With 4 different parts and 4 different materials and with the lumbar having so much more load and torgue I would be scared of it. I liked the simplicity of the 2 part all steel Maverick. Any thoughts? Thanks

[Tyler]

Originally Posted by Rob Wilson

This disc seems amazing for its simulating a real disc. I have had so many adjacent issues such as piriformis, SI joint, ligaments, etc that I would love this disc. However as a M6 for the lumbar I am scared if it would last. With 4 different parts and 4 different materials and with the lumbar having so much more load and torgue I would be scared of it. I liked the simplicity of the 2 part all steel Maverick. Any thoughts? Thanks

Hi Rob,

First of all, I'm a biologist not a bio-engineer; and secondly, it's not clear how any disc will really act over very long periods of time within the setting of the spine.

That being said, I do think you're right in valuing simplicity. But I also strongly believe that an ideal for anything put into the body, especially something implanted within a system of 'moving parts' like the spine, is to follow as closely as possible the native structure and mechanics.

I would add that besides basic durability of the cores (which are evaluated by stress-testing in the lab with both applied loads and millions of movement cycles), other issues that are known to be important include the potential for wear microdebris from the core getting outside of it, cellular inward access to the core with potential for auto-fusion, and last - but definitely not least - the relative impact of the implant on the adjacent structures. It also seems that the discs, although they can have modest cushioning capability, are still largely transformers of load than bearers by virtue of the surrounding strucures incl. bone, ligaments and muscle.

My bottom line is that every spinal implant is in a complex environment and choice is a balance of projected durability (based on load testing) but just as importantly weighing how the implant interacts with the overall mechanics of the spine. In fact, the nature and 'quality' of interactions within the local environment would seem to be even more important if other parts of the spine are already affected as they are in many cases.

IMHO...

Best,
Tyler