[bwink23]

Harrison,

I'm not gonna pretend to be an expert on the Activ-L, but isn't the "myriad of configurations available" for the Activ-L kind of tit-for-tat with the M6's greater number of parts? In contrast, the Activ-L doesn't match up to the M6's ability to mimic what it's replacing, it appears to me that variety of dimensions only improves the surgeons ability to find that holy grail of "center of rotation". The extra configurations available only prove useful in highly experienced hands would they not ? At the end of the day, it's still ball and socket. As far as limiting HO, the occurrence of that in lumbar spine from what I have read is very rare, never to the extent of mechanical failure. I do fully understand the reasoning behind "Less is more", but if that were the case, then the first generation devices would have been all one ever needed for high rates of successful outcomes. A guy like Zeegers would have no problem finding a customizing a disc or placing it. I just wonder level of expertise the surgeon must attain to get significant improvement with all those configs available in the Activ-L...Law of Diminishing Returns. I do believe though it's a better alternative to the Prodisc-L, and nice to see it's in clinical trials in the U.S. but finding a quality, experienced surgeon in the U.S. to use it would still prove difficult. Would be nice not to have to jump ship overseas to better ensure quality work is done.