View Single Post
  #82  
Old 12-20-2013, 11:59 PM
Harrison's Avatar
Harrison Harrison is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 7,010
Default

When I was considering a ProDisc-C with Dr Zigler in 2008, I quizzed him thoroughly (for a layman) about removing the ProDisc if something went wrong. He explained to me that the patient's situation would have to very bad for him to even consider explanting a ProDisc-L; saying that with lumbar, "we only get one shot". He contrasted the ProDisc-C saying that it comes out relatively easy and that each cervical level can be accessed multiple times. I've since learned that that means that provided that 1) there has not been excessive bone in-growth and that 2)during implantation if the surgeon also implanted a barrier to keep damaged tissue from growing together, that it is easy, relative to lumbar, to remove a ProDisc-C.

All I mean by all of that is that since your fusion wasn't done with BMP, that your disc 'might' not be prohibitively dangerous, or even hard, to remove???

__________________________

Jeff,

Helpful post, thank you as always.

Keeled designs are very invasive. I don’t speak with ortho surgeons much anymore, nor do I attend the spine conferences. I attended several years ago, which influenced my biases against keeled designs. I know that “marketing won” and keeled design rule, but they don’t account for the localized or systemic osteoporosis of the patient – which often have absolutely no root cause defined by any of the patients’ doctors.

I believe that the cause of these disease factors are trauma, infection and poor nutrition.

If the patient is healthy, their spine can compensate for minor (whatever that means, subject to interpretation) surgical placement errors.

Subsidence of devices, with or without axis placement errors, are probably the biggest problem. This is my opinion only, but based on observations within this community. If a patient has both problems, that may create the most obvious problems.

I also recall Dr. Zeegers in a SAS conference audience, responding to a panel of surgeons on the podium commenting as to how brittle the spinal vertebrae can be for revision patients – suggesting that keeled devices weaken the spinal bones. That really stuck with me, since the etiology of DDD is still overlooked – and the basic fact that bones that are cut are compromised in different ways. Patients tend to overlook this fact.

Jeff:

- Cervical kinematics are very different than lumbar as we know.
- Can you elaborate on this: barrier to keep damaged tissue from growing together. If this is being done on patients, it’s news to me. Are you referring to bone wax, which is not done in the US?

Good reference to Zeeger's opinion. Dated, but still valid: http://www.adrsupport.org/forums/f48...-testing-9161/ Sadly, his opinion is already outdated, since people in their teens, twenties and thirties have been diagnosed (DEXA et al) with both localized and systemic osteoporosis.

This is just my opinion and observations. Hope it helps.
__________________
"Harrison" - info (at) adrsupport.org
Fell on my ***winter 2003, Canceled fusion April 6 2004
Reborn June 25th, 2004, L5-S1 ADR Charite in Boston
Founder & moderator of ADRSupport - 2004
Founder Arthroplasty Patient Foundation a 501(c)(3) - 2006
Creator & producer, Why Am I Still Sick? - 2012
Donate www.arthropatient.org/about/donate
Reply With Quote