[annapurna]

To comment exclusively about waiting vs. getting surgery immediately: We've always been an advocate of getting your ducks in a row about which surgeon and what surgical repair you want as soon as you can then waiting until your personal condition reaches the point where you decide for yourself that it's time for surgery. Assessment of risks and a personalized cost/benefit analysis is just that, personalized, and you can seek advice to help make that decision but you need to make it for yourself.

What we've failed to point out and want to expand on here is the effect of the treatment type. The surgeons who offered fusion suggested waiting; the ones who offered ADR suggested immediate surgery. It make sense based on what the surgery needs for success. On the scale of intervention, non-surgical techniques pretty much need to be pursued immediately upon diagnosis because they can't heal all that much, work very slowly and need everything other than the one thing they're addressing to be in as good a shape as possible or else they'll have very limited effect. Fusion, on the far opposite hand, can "fix" extremely damaged structures but can't ever get you back to 100%. That's why it makes sense to hold out until you're sure it's time for surgery. ADR falls between the two. If the structures in your spine are too degenerated, it can't work. It can get you closer to 100% than fusion if it does work.

I don't know if this helps but it does give you some idea of why you'll get the "surgery right now" and "hold off as long as possible" answers as you talk with docs.