Choosing ADR or fusion

[fuzzy]

Ok I was a little too general so I looked up the surgery report again. It took weeks for the anesthesia to wear off so it seems so all that is a little bit of a haze.

Yes, now after the surgery all my levels are the same, at about 12mm center height.

The ADR they implanted was only 8.5mm (and "XL" size) but the diskspace looks to be more then that now. I gained a couple of mm at the fusion level as it too was reduced, just not as bad as L4/L5 where I was hitting bone on bone on extension which must have sheared of some of the disc acc to DR. Z., causing the neuro problems. So now I gained a net of about 8mm at L4/L5. The fusion level was about 7mm and now is 12mm. Dr. Z. used a 11mm STALIF peek spacer with 12mm bone grafts...as per surgery report. So 8mm at ADR level + 5mm gain at L5/S1 comes out to 13mm which adds up exactly to the before and after change in my bodyheight and the xray looks nice and symmetrical. Now that it is all aligned right all kinds of problems are gone including all the "mechanical" ones. Bone on bone crunching, pain, "locking up", wrong move really bad pain etc totally stiff in low back (now gone). I think if one has these kinds of problems (for years...)then one might be a good candidate for ADR. I am sure that not having all that stiffness is better for the rest of my spine in the long term, lets hope.

Regarding the facets. I never had problems with the facets and my degeneration had been going on for years. I think my disc height had been reduced for 10 or more years with no damage to the facets, it seems. In fact when I fell off my motorbike as a teenager the ortho warned me that there was trouble ahead for my spine and to be careful what I do. This was in Germany at age 16.

[racergaldar]

Thanks for all your comparison info. I've started the same thing, but waiting for diagnostic testing approval through WC.

I was told yesterday by my dr. office that if I get a fusion and if I need the disc replacement later (for example fusion failed), that I would not be able to get the ADR at the same level.


BTW: Aetna, Kaiser Permanente and CIGNA cover the procedure, as well as Blue Cross Blue Shield plans in AR, NJ and MT.

[mmglobal]

Racer, welcome to the forum. Thanks for your reply on KL's work com thread. Having someone with your HR knowledge here will be great.

Regarding your post (above). If one would be a candidate for ADR in the future at the operated level... then they must be a candidate for ADR now. I agree that it is safe to assume that attempting fusion will certainly burn many bridges for less invasive and less severe procedures. If a less invasive or less severe procedure is in play... that should be entertained before fusion.

Mark

[racergaldar]

Mark; thanks for the welcome.

My surgeon gave me 2 brochures: 1) fusion and 2) ADR. Without a discography, we can't tell whether I'm a candidate for ADR. Based on MRI, xrays and MRI, I could be, but the MRI doesn't give enough info to determine that. I just found out that the discography has been denied (WC) so now I'm starting that battle.

The PA tried to convince me that fusion wasn't going to limit my flexibility, but she didn't succeed. Since the dr. gave me info on those two options, then I'm assuming I may be a candidate for ADR. My best friend had fusion and everytime I hear him tell me what he can't do, the more I'm convinced that ADR is the best choice for my lifestyle. I'm too active of a person to get fused and I'm afraid of the future risks and limitations. I have faith in new technology and willing to accept the risks for ADR. After all, I use to race mortorcyles against a bunch of guys going 160mph into a turn, ADR is nothing compared to that!