I'm a C5/C6 about to get either fusion or ADR. And I can't decide! Here's how I see the issues:
1) Go with fusion. It's a known technique, gets rid of the pain/numbness. Downsides are less mobility and increased stress on adjacent disks (perhaps less so with cervical fusion due to the lesser weight involved). Upsides are it's a known technique and doesn't require all the followups and nukings (X-rays) post-op.
2) Go with chance at an ADR. Downsides are it's not as well-known (how long HAVE the Europeans been at this??) and may carry additional risks (displacement, particulate matter, etc). Another downside is the followups post-op for 2 years.
So... go with fusion and get it over with and hope none of the other disks deteriorate (but if they do, by then perhaps disk replacements will be the norm and not in trials), OR try for the ADR and have a speedier recovery and chance for better long-term outcome (assuming the above-mentioned items don't come to pass)?
My question to all of you (besides help me make my decision ;-) is this:
If you had it to do over again, what procedure would you choose (and, of course, which did you have done)?
|