ADRSupport Community  

Go Back   ADRSupport Community > General Discussion > New Member Introductions

New Member Introductions If you just joined, please introduce yourself here. Please add a signature describing your spinal history (use the "User CP) and ask us how we can help you get started.


Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #21  
Old 08-19-2016, 05:56 PM
phillyjoe phillyjoe is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 286
Default Disc size

Interesting comments by Dr Z. Can't say I disagree. Activ L does allow for repositioning, easier removal, more sizes. I rec'd the LL for cervical for M6, and it is still a little small according to Dr Clavel. It may not make any significant difference.

Lumbar and cervical are of course completely different but I think what we are all seeing is certain docs prefer certain ADR's. It goes back to what we have heard before....pick your surgeon first, disc second (unless you have metal issues etc).

Dr Clavel mentioned that M6C removal was challenging but could be done with minimal risk by a skilled surgeon ( I assume he meant himself but was too humble to say so)

Good luck.
Attached Files
File Type: pdf 1345111449M6-C Brochure.pdf (891.9 KB, 12 views)
__________________
Pre Surgery:
C3-C4:Mild disc osteophytes. Mild-moderate right facet arthrosis. Mild right foraminal stenosis.
C4-C5:Midline central disc protrusion, significant. Mild canal stenosis.
C5-C6:Moderate disc osteophytes. Mild-moderate canal stenosis. Moderate-severe bilateral foraminal stenosis.
C6-C-7:Mild-moderate disc osteophytes. Mild canal stenosis. Moderate left and moderate-severe right foraminal stenosis.
June 29,2016-3 level M6 (C4-C7) Dr. Clavel Barcelona
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 08-20-2016, 10:52 PM
nasakido's Avatar
nasakido nasakido is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 127
Default Completely Agree

@phillyjoe

I completely agree. If you do not have confidence in your doctor then you will not have confidence in what implant device your doctor chooses.

I chose Dr. Zeegers because he reminds me of my doctor here in Cali. He has been very easy to work with, but I learned something about him that I have come to respect. He is very detail oriented, and precise. He expects people to be more aggressive with their care in that they are proactive not reactive to what needs to happen with what testing, etc. needs to take place. It is always a good thing to let a doctor advise, but the lead should be driven by the patient.

I did not wait for him to tell me what needs to be done. I knew I needed a new MRI so I pursued it until it was approved. After I was forced to resign because of the settlement I applied for Medi-Cal, and they are so much easier to get things approved than BlueCross ever was. Next, I read that most of the doctors overseas like to see a Bone Density (DEXA) scan done, so I pursued it at the same time too, along with an X-Ray (AP/LAT/EX/FLEX). The only thing I paid for was the Orthopedic Analysis Metal-LTT test. This test is not full-proof as what I have learned it really reveals is a "potential" risk to hypersensitivity, but it does not necessarily mean you will develop hypersensitivity to a given metal. Especially if your test comes back with Normal or Mild-Reactive results.

I started pursuing my surgery more aggressively once I learned Workers Comp was going to settle. Just to be done with them and move forward with my care I settled for just enough to cover going overseas, and then for physical therapy afterwards. Once I knew the settlement was going to happen, contacted Dr. Zeegers on June 19th. Since then I have contacted a total of seven other doctors, and have kept all of them up-to-date on my care. In the end, after careful prayer and thought, I decided to go with Dr. Zeegers. I wire transferred the money to Dr. Zeegers for the diagnosis fee on July 20th, and then scheduled my X-Ray, MRI, Bone Density Scan and purchased the Metal-LTT test, and had everything done and reports uploaded to Dr. Zeegers by August 18th.

If for some unforeseeable situation should occur and I cannot continue with Dr. Zeegers, I at least am ready to pursue one of my other choices in the order I prefer, i.e. Dr. Biren Desai, Dr. Clavel, Dr. Bierstedt, Dr. Bertagnoli, Dr. Riiter-Lang, Wooridul Spine Center. I also was in touch with Dr. Rischke, but he is too expensive for me, and Dr. Andreas Schmidtz (never heard back even after four emails)

I also agree that the implant comes second after your choice of doctor; and after you factor in potential metal hypersensitivity. I don't think my test results really say that much in regards to metal hypersensitivity. I pose as a risk, but there is not enough evidence to support whether mild-reactive results really are a risk at all.

However, I still researched the snot out of all the current implants, and I would feel comfortable having the Activ-L, Baguera-L, Freedom or LP-ESP... still have my reservations about the M6-L being a viable option for the lower lumbar at the L5-S1 or L4-L5 level.

This has taken a lot of hard work, and as I posted on my blog you have to run like you know the end is near, the final sprint to the finish line. You simply cannot be lax or slow down no matter what. This is my opinion though, and this is me. Everyone is different and deals with situations differently. Being hurt has turned me into a fierce fighter for my health.
__________________
Injury 31-7-14
MRI w/o con. 30-8-14
RT L5-S1 Discectomy w/ RT S1 Foraminotomy 21-11-14
PT (50) 20-8-14 to 04-24-15
MRI w/ con 13-4-15
XR Pelvis 08-6-15
COR INJ 02-7-15
MRI 14-11-15
Discography w/ CT-Scan 19-1-16
QME 16-2-16
XR LL 29-4-16
Bone Density (DEXA) Scan 01-8-16
XR LL 01-8-16
Metal-LTT 12-8-16
MRI 17-8-16
EKG 21-10-16
2-LVL L4-S1 ADR LP-ESP 08-11-16
XR LL 24-11-16
A-THX (24) 12-12-16 to 24-02-17
XR LL 31-01-17
XR LL 08-5-17
CT-Scan 07-6-17

Last edited by nasakido; 08-21-2016 at 06:26 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 08-22-2016, 07:51 AM
phillyjoe phillyjoe is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 286
Default

Poster "henry4956", I believe, went with Dr Z and ActivL for lower back. You might consider reaching out to him, though he isn't very active on this forum anymore
__________________
Pre Surgery:
C3-C4:Mild disc osteophytes. Mild-moderate right facet arthrosis. Mild right foraminal stenosis.
C4-C5:Midline central disc protrusion, significant. Mild canal stenosis.
C5-C6:Moderate disc osteophytes. Mild-moderate canal stenosis. Moderate-severe bilateral foraminal stenosis.
C6-C-7:Mild-moderate disc osteophytes. Mild canal stenosis. Moderate left and moderate-severe right foraminal stenosis.
June 29,2016-3 level M6 (C4-C7) Dr. Clavel Barcelona
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 08-22-2016, 02:06 PM
nasakido's Avatar
nasakido nasakido is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 127
Default Dr. Rischke 2-Level ADR price confirmed

After emails back and forth over the last few weeks, my email this morning definitely confirmed Dr. Rischke's costs for a 2-Level ADR. He does seem like a great doctor, but here is my email sent this morning, and Dr. Rischke's response:

* MY EMAIL *

"I received an invoice in my email that was titled "Estimate" and it showed a quote for 38' 600 CHF for clinic costs. I then received a second invoice in an email titled "Microsoft Word - 9524_Honorarvereinb englisch Hull.docx.pdf" and it showed a quote for 39' 500 Swiss Francs for the total amount.

Is the 39' 500 the total amount for the clinic costs and the surgeon fees? So is this what I would pay should I agree to have the surgery? Or do I add 38' 600 and 39' 500 together which would equal 78' 100 CHF?

Regards,
Nathan"


* RESPONSE *

"Dear Mr. Hull,

that’s correct. The amount of all clinic costs and the amount of the surgeons fees ( two surgeons and assistance!) summarize to 78’100,- CHF.

best regards"
__________________
Injury 31-7-14
MRI w/o con. 30-8-14
RT L5-S1 Discectomy w/ RT S1 Foraminotomy 21-11-14
PT (50) 20-8-14 to 04-24-15
MRI w/ con 13-4-15
XR Pelvis 08-6-15
COR INJ 02-7-15
MRI 14-11-15
Discography w/ CT-Scan 19-1-16
QME 16-2-16
XR LL 29-4-16
Bone Density (DEXA) Scan 01-8-16
XR LL 01-8-16
Metal-LTT 12-8-16
MRI 17-8-16
EKG 21-10-16
2-LVL L4-S1 ADR LP-ESP 08-11-16
XR LL 24-11-16
A-THX (24) 12-12-16 to 24-02-17
XR LL 31-01-17
XR LL 08-5-17
CT-Scan 07-6-17
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 08-22-2016, 03:29 PM
nasakido's Avatar
nasakido nasakido is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 127
Default Activ-L

I love to research prosthesis devices to find all the ins-and-outs of the implant. The Activ-L is different than I thought with what materials make up this implant. There is Nickel in this device. I received an email back from Aesculap today confirming this.

I posted some very helpful brochures in General Discussion >> Manufacturer Product Information >> Aesculap (Activ L):

http://www.adrsupport.org/forums/sho...369#post114369

- - - - - - -

Main Website: Aesculap Activ-L

Patient Website for Activ-L: So Active, So Fast


Attached are brochures and information regarding the Aesculap Activ-L (pictures without any information were deleted within some of the .pdf attachments to shrink the overall size, ONLY if they were not necessary for product marketing):
  • Attachment #1: Lumbar Total Disc Replacement Reimbursement Resources
  • Attachment #2: Lumbar Total Disc Replacement A Patient’s Guide
  • Attachment #3: Lumbar Total Disc Replacement A Patient’s Tool "Motion Loss Index"
  • Attachment #4: Patient Information For the activL Artificial Disc Spike Endplate

Material Breakdown:

ActivL Superior and inferior end-plates
  • Chromium: 26-30%
  • Molybdenum: 5-7%
  • Iron: 0.75%
  • Manganese: 1% max
  • Silicon: 1% max
  • Carbon: 0.14% max or 0.15-0.35%
  • Nickel: 1% max
  • Nitrogen: 0.25% max
  • Cobalt: Percentage left
Coating over superior and inferior end-platesCore Insert
  • Polyethylene. "Polyethylene is a light, versatile synthetic resin made from the polymerization of ethylene," and "is of low strength, hardness and rigidity, but has a high ductility and impact strength as well as low friction. It shows strong creep under persistent force."

Additional Information:

Bioactive porous coating

Plasmapore® coated orthopaedic implants have been used successfully in joint replacement arthroplasty since 1986. The cementless implants are coated with a layer of fine titanium powder applied in a plasmaspray process under vacuum. The Plasmapore® pore sizes range from 50 to 200 μm with a microporosity of 35 % and a thickness of 0.35 mm.

These characteristics are optimal for bone ingrowth. Plasmapore® is a very rough surface and supports primary stability better than alternative coatings.

Highly crystallized calcium phosphate (CaP) is used as the bioactive material for Plasmapore® μ-CaP. The Plasmapore® surface is combined with a very thin CaP layer of 20 μm, which is applied electrochemically. This Plasmapore® μ-CaP surface accelerates direct bone-implant contact and resorbs without giant cell reactions within 8-12 weeks.


Plasmapore® with Dicalcium Phosphate

The well-known characteristics of calcium phosphates such as HAC (hydroxylapatite) and TCP (tricalcium phosphate), and various HAC/TCP combinations led to Aesculap’s selection of dicalcium phosphate dehydrate (CaHPO4 x 2H2O) for use with Plasmapore®.

Dicalcium phosphate dehydrate (DCPD) is very soluble in vivo, and dissolves into calcium and phosphate ions. During the acellular dissolving process, calcium and phosphate ions are continuously released in a ratio of 1:1, which are then available for bone modeling.

In contrast, the poorly soluble hydroxyapatite (HAC) releases only calcium ions from non-HAC calcium compounds (CaO) resulting from the manufacturing process, but almost no phosphate ions.

The resorbable tricalcium phosphate (TCP) stimulates giant cell reactions, and is therefore not optimal for use with orthopaedic implants. In orthopaedic implants the transition between primary and secondary implant stability is a continuous process of bone remodeling, characterized by apposition and resorption at the implant surface. The DCPD layer supports the continuous release of calcium and phosphate ions and encourages the formation of new bone structures at the bone-implant interface. Due to the continuous dissolving process of the calcium phosphate, the pores of the Plasmapore® coating remain open for bony ingrowth.


Improved bone contact

The features of thin calcium phosphate surfaces are important in the short postoperative term. The dicalcium phosphate μ-CaP layer is resorbed within 8-12 weeks in vivo. The dissolving process takes place without any giant cell activity. Simulation tests of the solution behavior of HAC and μ-CaP show a different ion release of μ-CaP in comparison to hydroxylapatite ceramic surfaces. HAC surfaces do not release phosphate ions but in the initial solution phase, calcium ions are released from non-HAP calcium compounds (CaO) resulting from certain manufacturing processes. In contrast, μ-CaP dicalcium phosphate releases phosphate and calcium ions during the entire resorption period with a ratio of 1:1. These ions are available for bone synthesis. Due to the osteoconductive characteristics of calcium phosphate, the bone is brought into direct contact with the implant surface.
__________________
Injury 31-7-14
MRI w/o con. 30-8-14
RT L5-S1 Discectomy w/ RT S1 Foraminotomy 21-11-14
PT (50) 20-8-14 to 04-24-15
MRI w/ con 13-4-15
XR Pelvis 08-6-15
COR INJ 02-7-15
MRI 14-11-15
Discography w/ CT-Scan 19-1-16
QME 16-2-16
XR LL 29-4-16
Bone Density (DEXA) Scan 01-8-16
XR LL 01-8-16
Metal-LTT 12-8-16
MRI 17-8-16
EKG 21-10-16
2-LVL L4-S1 ADR LP-ESP 08-11-16
XR LL 24-11-16
A-THX (24) 12-12-16 to 24-02-17
XR LL 31-01-17
XR LL 08-5-17
CT-Scan 07-6-17

Last edited by nasakido; 08-23-2016 at 10:05 PM. Reason: Referring to other post
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 08-22-2016, 03:56 PM
nasakido's Avatar
nasakido nasakido is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 127
Default Spine Art Baguera-L

I added information to General Discussion >> Manufacturer Product Information >> Spine Art Baguera-L

See http://www.adrsupport.org/forums/sho...371#post114371

- - - - - - -

Website: Spine Art Baguera-L


Material Breakdown:

The BAGUERA inferior and superior end-plates
  • Titanium Alloy (Ti-6Al-4V ELI), Grade 23 (6% Aluminum, 4% Vanadium, 0.13% (maximum) Oxygen)
Thin layer over superior and inferior end-platesThe nucleus
  • Polyethylene. "Polyethylene is a light, versatile synthetic resin made from the polymerization of ethylene," and "is of low strength, hardness and rigidity, but has a high ductility and impact strength as well as low friction. It shows strong creep under persistent force."
__________________
Injury 31-7-14
MRI w/o con. 30-8-14
RT L5-S1 Discectomy w/ RT S1 Foraminotomy 21-11-14
PT (50) 20-8-14 to 04-24-15
MRI w/ con 13-4-15
XR Pelvis 08-6-15
COR INJ 02-7-15
MRI 14-11-15
Discography w/ CT-Scan 19-1-16
QME 16-2-16
XR LL 29-4-16
Bone Density (DEXA) Scan 01-8-16
XR LL 01-8-16
Metal-LTT 12-8-16
MRI 17-8-16
EKG 21-10-16
2-LVL L4-S1 ADR LP-ESP 08-11-16
XR LL 24-11-16
A-THX (24) 12-12-16 to 24-02-17
XR LL 31-01-17
XR LL 08-5-17
CT-Scan 07-6-17

Last edited by nasakido; 08-23-2016 at 10:04 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 08-22-2016, 07:08 PM
nasakido's Avatar
nasakido nasakido is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 127
Default AxioMed Freedom Lumbar Disc

I added information to General Discussion >> Manufacturer Product Information >> AxioMed Freedom Lumbar Disc

See http://www.adrsupport.org/forums/edi...&postid=114375

- - - - - - -

Website: AxioMed Freedom Lumbar Disc


Attached are the Whitepapers for the AxioMed Freedom Lumbar Disc:
  • Attachment #1: Biocompatibility of the Freedom Lumbar Disc and Freedom Cervical Disc
  • Attachment #3: Fatigue Characterization of the Freedom Lumbar Disc
  • Attachment #4: Freedom Lumbar Disc - Clinical Outcomes Benchmarked Against All TDRs in the SWISSspine Registry
  • Attachment #5: Freedom Lumbar Disc Wear Testing and Evaluation of Wear Debris in an Animal Model
  • Attachment #6: CarboSil Thermoplastic Silicone Polycarbonate Polyurethane (TSPCU)

Material Breakdown:

The FLD retaining plates and end caps
  • Titanium Alloy (Ti-6Al-4V), Grade 5 (6% aluminum, 4% vanadium, 0.25% (maximum) iron, 0.2% (maximum) oxygen, and the remainder titanium) (ASTM F136)
Rails and bead-coated superior and inferior end-plates
  • Commercially Pure Titanium (T40), Grade 2 (ASTM F67)
Bonded FLD Core & titanium retaining plates
  • "Proprietary" urethane adhesive
Elastomeric FLD core
  • CarboSil TSPU, a silicone polycarbonate urethane polymer with silicone surface-modifying end groups
__________________
Injury 31-7-14
MRI w/o con. 30-8-14
RT L5-S1 Discectomy w/ RT S1 Foraminotomy 21-11-14
PT (50) 20-8-14 to 04-24-15
MRI w/ con 13-4-15
XR Pelvis 08-6-15
COR INJ 02-7-15
MRI 14-11-15
Discography w/ CT-Scan 19-1-16
QME 16-2-16
XR LL 29-4-16
Bone Density (DEXA) Scan 01-8-16
XR LL 01-8-16
Metal-LTT 12-8-16
MRI 17-8-16
EKG 21-10-16
2-LVL L4-S1 ADR LP-ESP 08-11-16
XR LL 24-11-16
A-THX (24) 12-12-16 to 24-02-17
XR LL 31-01-17
XR LL 08-5-17
CT-Scan 07-6-17

Last edited by nasakido; 08-23-2016 at 10:04 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 08-23-2016, 08:55 PM
nasakido's Avatar
nasakido nasakido is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 127
Default FH Orthopedics LP-ESP

I added information to General Discussion >> Manufacturer Product Information >> FH Orthopedics LP-ESP

See http://www.adrsupport.org/forums/sho...184#post110184

- - - - - - -

Main Website: FH Orthopedics LP-ESP

Patient Website for LP-ESP: Elastic Spine Pad [ESP]


Attached is information regarding the FH Orthopedics LP-ESP:
  • Attachment #1: Elastic Spine Pad A unique concept to replace lumbar and cervical discs and preserve spinal motion
  • Attachment #2: The lumbar LP-ESP® disc prosthesis Lumbar disc prosthesis – elastic spine pad Patient’s Leaflet

Material Breakdown:

The LP-ESP superior and inferior end-plates
  • Titanium Alloy (TA6V or Ti-6Al-4V), Grade 5 (6% aluminum, 4% vanadium, 0.25% (maximum) iron, 0.2% (maximum) oxygen, and the remainder titanium)
Coating of superior and inferior end-plates
  • Commercially Pure Titanium (T40), Grade 2
Coating on top of the undercoat of CPT T40 Inner Core
  • Silicone (elastic nucleus)
Outer Core
__________________
Injury 31-7-14
MRI w/o con. 30-8-14
RT L5-S1 Discectomy w/ RT S1 Foraminotomy 21-11-14
PT (50) 20-8-14 to 04-24-15
MRI w/ con 13-4-15
XR Pelvis 08-6-15
COR INJ 02-7-15
MRI 14-11-15
Discography w/ CT-Scan 19-1-16
QME 16-2-16
XR LL 29-4-16
Bone Density (DEXA) Scan 01-8-16
XR LL 01-8-16
Metal-LTT 12-8-16
MRI 17-8-16
EKG 21-10-16
2-LVL L4-S1 ADR LP-ESP 08-11-16
XR LL 24-11-16
A-THX (24) 12-12-16 to 24-02-17
XR LL 31-01-17
XR LL 08-5-17
CT-Scan 07-6-17
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 09-13-2016, 01:10 PM
nasakido's Avatar
nasakido nasakido is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 127
Default update on Dr. Rischke

I have posted some very helpful information about Dr. Rischke in regards to surgery costs, etc.:

http://www.adrsupport.org/forums/sho...542#post114542

We stopped communicating back on August 22nd, but started again on September 7th.
__________________
Injury 31-7-14
MRI w/o con. 30-8-14
RT L5-S1 Discectomy w/ RT S1 Foraminotomy 21-11-14
PT (50) 20-8-14 to 04-24-15
MRI w/ con 13-4-15
XR Pelvis 08-6-15
COR INJ 02-7-15
MRI 14-11-15
Discography w/ CT-Scan 19-1-16
QME 16-2-16
XR LL 29-4-16
Bone Density (DEXA) Scan 01-8-16
XR LL 01-8-16
Metal-LTT 12-8-16
MRI 17-8-16
EKG 21-10-16
2-LVL L4-S1 ADR LP-ESP 08-11-16
XR LL 24-11-16
A-THX (24) 12-12-16 to 24-02-17
XR LL 31-01-17
XR LL 08-5-17
CT-Scan 07-6-17
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 09-13-2016, 03:25 PM
nasakido's Avatar
nasakido nasakido is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 127
Default where has Dr. Zeegers gone?

So I guess I fall into the a familiar camp of being unhappy with Dr. Zeegers. Did something happen to him... is he okay or is this normal? It is now 7 weeks today from when he said he would have my diagnosis done.

I will be brief, because dwelling too much on negative things impacts your overall well being which can effect your health, and the way your body responds to pain. However, I did decide to use some humor below using "Smiles." I can assure you though that I do not get angry like where I placed the "Smiles." At my worst I may have a look of disgust, but I rarely say anything, and if I do it is just to express dissatisfaction. But even that is done so with care. I do not think holding onto anger is a good nor godly character quality to have. It is better to let things be, and simply move on. Besides, life is too short to be concerned about everyone else's behavior... enjoy what time you have been given because you never know when you are going to die. Enjoy the "Smiles" though anyway.

I may have missed a few things, but I will do my best. So, here is the recap of our communication, and unless otherwise stated, all communication was done via email.
  • June 18th - started communication via email
  • June 19th - Dr. Zeegers responds
  • June 19th - 30 min. skype session
  • June 20th - sent first operative report
  • June 22nd - sent images via WeTransfer
  • June 23rd - Dr. Zeegers downloads images from WeTransfer
  • June 23rd - Dr. Zeegers replies to June 20th email
  • June 23rd - sent email explaining that I have to wait until June 28th for my settlement hearing before moving forward with diagnosis
  • June 29th - notified that settlement was finalized, and that I wanted to move forward with diagnosis
  • July 1st - asked to send invoice for diagnosis
  • July 6th - Dr. Zeegers sends invoice, and asks that I fill out a lumbar and neck questionnaire, make a timeline pain graph, and complete all homework requested
  • July 16th - paid diagnosis fee using World First
  • July 20th - payment received
  • July 20th - all homework to date, both questionnaires, and timeline pain graph sent, gave access to all medical files on Dropbox, and sent some image files via WeTransfer as well
  • July 25th - asked to please confirm receipt of payment so we can move forward with diagnosis
  • July 26th - Dr. Zeegers responds, and states "time frame 3 wks from now to review and analyse all data."
  • July 26th - Dr. Zeegers downloads my homework (pictures) and XR Pelvis from WeTransfer
  • July 29th - asked professional opinion about the different lumbar devices in use for ADR
  • July 29th - Dr. Zeegers responds, and states "Will send you biomechanic issues on ADR types soon .... end next week, traveling now"
  • August 4th - sent results for Bone Density Scan (DEXA) and XR (AP-LAT-EX-FLEX) (Bone Density was part of homework, XR stated as "only if applicable" but was never told to do this)
  • August 10th - notified of uploaded images for XR (AP/LAT/EX/FLEX)
  • August 10th - Dr. Zeegers responds, and states "full cd zip downloading now"
  • August 10th - Dr. Zeegers responds with images of XR, and states "obliquity / pelvic tilt left sided"
  • August 10th - asked if my leg perthes is an issue
  • August 10th - Dr. Zeegers responds, and states "No real issue"
  • August 12th - sent Orthopedic Analysis Metal-LTT test results (stated as "only if applicable" but was never told to do this)
  • August 12th - Dr. Zeegers responds, and states "you are in communication with mr. Bertagnoli and mr.Vicknair too?"
  • August 12th - I respond "Yes and No," and give Dr Zeegers a full discourse on why I am contacting other doctors
  • August 12th - Dr. Zeegers sends informational links about metal sensitivity
  • August 15th - asked about Baguera-L and LP-ESP since he never sent his biomechanic issue breakdown of ADR types he said he would send by the end of August 7th
  • August 15th - Dr Zeegers responds with a 115 words as to why he favors Activ-L, states he dislikes the M6-L, and never discusses anything about any other ADR device
  • August 16th - asked where he would perform the surgery, and for geographical information so I could start preparing for travel
  • August 17th - Dr Zeegers ignores my email from August 16th , but states "wondering where is your questionnaire? (which was sent in your homework email)"
  • August 17th - sent questionnaire a second time and did not make a big deal out of it, let it go, even though it took him 22 days to notify me of this from the date he said he started - July 26th
  • August 18th - notified of uploaded image for August 17th MRI (last of homework)
  • August 29th - asked for information on geographical information a second time (he never answered this question from August 16th, and he did not respond again)
  • September 1st - asked if he is getting my emails (he did not respond)
  • September 7th - asked for updated time frame of diagnosis (he did not respond)
__________________
Injury 31-7-14
MRI w/o con. 30-8-14
RT L5-S1 Discectomy w/ RT S1 Foraminotomy 21-11-14
PT (50) 20-8-14 to 04-24-15
MRI w/ con 13-4-15
XR Pelvis 08-6-15
COR INJ 02-7-15
MRI 14-11-15
Discography w/ CT-Scan 19-1-16
QME 16-2-16
XR LL 29-4-16
Bone Density (DEXA) Scan 01-8-16
XR LL 01-8-16
Metal-LTT 12-8-16
MRI 17-8-16
EKG 21-10-16
2-LVL L4-S1 ADR LP-ESP 08-11-16
XR LL 24-11-16
A-THX (24) 12-12-16 to 24-02-17
XR LL 31-01-17
XR LL 08-5-17
CT-Scan 07-6-17

Last edited by nasakido; 09-13-2016 at 04:35 PM. Reason: updated
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Tags
adr, clavel, surgery, wooridul, zeegers

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Need help and advice....UK patient camus New Member Introductions 1 10-25-2012 03:36 PM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:08 PM.


© Copyright 2006-2023 ADRSupport.org All rights reserved.