Quote:
Originally Posted by 2macinnis2
Both surgeries work very nicely. Fusion more rigid and stable, hence historically preferred for those engaged in more physically risky activities. Artificial disc carries a small but higher risk of device migration, which is bad if it happens.
Fusion alters biomechanics of the spine. This is usually not noticeable for the patient, but the changes in mechanics results in a slightly elevated risk of an adjacent disc degenerating (a domino effect). This risk is reduced by using an artificial disc which preserves mobility, if even at a level that the patient doesn’t notice. That’s the primary (and perhaps only real) rationale for doing artificial disc over fusion.
I’ve oversimplified to some extent, but hopefully this helps clear the air.
|
From my understanding the surgical procedures are low risk nowadays. However, the issue is how this fusion and replacement would hold up at the NHL level. Wonder what your thoughts are on that.