thoughts on cervical ADR?
 

Well it seems like the second generation cervical ADR's like prodisc-C, prestige LP etc. have been around for a reasonable while now, and there are a lot of people that have had them for various reasons.

I'm curious as to peoples general thoughts on how the cervical ADR vs fusion debate has changed over the past 12 months - are people feeling more strongly that ADR is a better option with the passage of time? Are those that had successful surgery still going well one or two years on? Have any new unforeseen drawbacks from ADR come to light?

I guess I'm interested in hearing general thoughts from people that have the first hand experience or have been researching/following this over the past while.

I'd also be interested in thoughts about the still newer discs like mobi-C vs prodisc etc.

thanks for any comments,
Rob

And here again...

I hope our docs don't get tired of us 'waffling'. I know I have already had Dr. Fenk-Mayer read three sets of films plus I have seen Dr. Bertagnoli. But it's getting on for 2 years since I saw him, almost a year since Dr. FM looked at films, and 3 years since I was told my case was 'urgent'. And I am that much better educated.

As so many say, it's not just the hardware that is critical, it's the surgeon too. When you research replacement hips and knees, (as I am, because I need one, and because I write about orthopedics) you don't generally find that much discussion about the 'Nestle' hip or the 'Heinz' hip. Once you have chosen your hip/knee surgeon, it's more about the doc's hardware preferences and your anatomy. And then there is the issue of the cemented versus the non-cemented implant (knee/hip). Nevertheless, the success rate stays pretty much the same and it's pretty high (90-95%).

In a way, spinies are luckier than other joint replacement patients, because 'soft' options like nucleus replacement are much further along than cartilage replacements.