As Bob eluded to. When posting, context is everything, Keano. Leaving a quick one liner post without details of the unique patient circumstances that surrounded the revision isn't of help honestly. As you noted, it only adds confusion.
Separating device failure, from surgical error, from poor patient candidacy is of utmost significance when talking revision. I've not heard of an M6 revision myself but the Charite and ProDisc revisions I'm aware of all included either a surgical mistake, poor candidacy (Anastasia), poor disc placement (Mark Perth), poor bone density overlooked (Jaime), Scoliosis (Liz), over sized implants, etc.
When mentioning revision know what were the patient(s) pre-existing issues? Were they a good surgical candidate? Was the disc implanted properly? Was the surgeon experienced? Did the patient have osteoporosis? Did the patient have overlooked arthrosis, etc.



LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote

, completely pain free still!




Bookmarks