Quote:
Trace raises some excellent points, though the “crusty” article from Ms. Davis praising Dr Rosen (a Medtronic consultant) is as one-sided as any “side” can be!
That said, it would be nice to move away from taking positions purely on anecdotal assessments.
|
Yup--it's crusty and it's one-sided all right. But then again, so are many 'pro-adr' articles. I believe I said that bias was common on both sides of the issue. I included it for MCAfee's (a well-respected surgeon in the field)comment on device longevity, not for Rosen's remarks on the CHARITE.
No 'postion' being taken here: the less-crusty H.A.S. report I posted on Arthroplasty Central has some overall satisfactory conclusions on the use of ADR (including CHARITE and PRODISC) and I'll be translating and posting those results as soon as I can as well...
However, I can't agree with your second statement: the issues raised in points one thru four are no more 'anecdotal' than any 'pro-adr' arguments or success stories out there. Try telling a failed ADR case he's an 'anecdote'. Those are real assessments made by real surgeons, based on real experiences with real people and concerns over what is yet unknown and unmastered concerning ADR.
You know as well as anyone that I'm a fusion patient strongly considering ADR--see signature--and also that I'm a strong believer that ALL arguments FOR and AGAINST should be readily and equally available for all patients, especially newbies. To each his/her soapbox.
Trace
PS am I the only one that sees a REALLY NASTY WORD every time you use the abbreviation 'mfrs' for manufacturers? Is it Freudian?