Gday,
Once you get to this stage you're wanting to know more than the average patient and you'll have to research. You're still in the same boat as everyone else with outcome uncertainty, but I spose at least you get some idea of what you're letting yourself in for.
You'll find even for something as seemingly simple to monitor as fusion rates there'll be a lot of conflicting literature. Patient outcome is even more of a mess. The key is to remember success is generally defined as some reduction of disability. ALIF and XLIF both leave plenty of vision for the surgeon to clear the disc space, with cages and instrumentation the fusion rates should be similar. They are generally very high these days.
The two big journals are spine and euro spine journal, so if you've got access to springer or something through work or uni you can have a read. Otherwise the abstracts aren't too bad, google scholar, pubmed etc. A lot of people have been down this path before, so you can search their posts and see them asking the same questions and finding answers on this forum and others like adrsupport etc. This can occasionaly be heartbreaking as you follow their story, other times great outcomes.
Elsevier
Good luck.
edit - just be aware that 6 or 7 years ago these geniuses thought it'd be a great idea to do fusion without instrumentation, the BAK cage. This is what the Charite was compared to in the FDA studies, and obviously the fusion rates were crap as nothing was screwed into place.



LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote
Referred to surgeon.

Bookmarks