Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
Dear Dr. Corenman,
thanks a lot for clarifying.
I’m trying to make a decision which way to go.
Since I dont have any radicular sypmtoms, wouldnt it be better to choose the posterior approach since it also addresses my congenital narrow canal ?
I’m just worried that if I get 2 fusions, which only address the disc
protrusions, I might end up again with myelopathy due to adjescent segment degeneration once the next disc will start to compress the spinal cord which then would require surgery again.
By doing a laminoplasty the whole canal is getting bigger and a 3mm disc protrusion most likely wont cause any symptoms and also wouldnt
cause adjescent level degeneration to that extent.
Is my thought process somewhere flawed ?Thank you so much and a Happy new Year !!
Dear Dr. Corenman,
thanks a lot for your detailed response !!!!
There were two things you mentioned I did not quite understand:
You said: The posterior approach can open the nerve hole but this can be ineffective to decompress the nerve as this spur projects from the anterior side.
1. Does this mean that in general the bone spurs are always projecting from the anterior side or does it mean that laminoplasty is ineffective IF the
bone spurs project from the anterior side ?
How do I know if foraminal stenosis is anterior or posterior ?2. If the foraminal stenosis can be addressed with a laminoplasty, wouldn’t that be the procedure to go with, since you avoid fusion and also adjescent segment degeneration ?
My biggest concern with the fusion is that I will need surgery again and again since the discs above and below have to endure more stress which I
thought could be avoided with a laminoplasty since there is no fusion.
Is my thought process flawed ?Thank you again !!
Sincerely,
Stefan
-
AuthorPosts