Results 1 to 15 of 63

Thread: Less invasive surgery developed by Israel (Apifix implant)

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    4

    Less invasive surgery developed by Israel (Apifix implant)

    Hi everybody

    I would like to share an article with you on the ApiFix implant.

    The link is http://israel21c.org/health/medical-...osis-solution/ and the video is http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=chfQ5GSXhFs

    The company is now starting clinical trials

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    2,004
    Hudger, Magec not use also only roads?

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    2,004
    It seems Im not understanding something.. Magec is a reversible fussion less surgery.. as I know when the roads are removed, the spines remains as if surgery were never done.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    2,004

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    8,901
    Quote Originally Posted by flerc View Post
    But if it would be true, I believe those threads would have not any sense.
    Fer,

    Two points that will clear up your confusion I hope...

    1. MAGEC makes ONE claim that is different from claims of traditional growing rods... that they can be extended without surgery. They do NOT claim they are better than traditional growing rods in any way OTHER than being able to extend them without surgery. They do NOT claim they avoid fusion. Please read what they are actually claiming. I don't know where you got the idea that they work in a fundamentally different manner than traditional growing rods OTHER than in the way they are lengthened. Where did you get that idea? You cannot claim they said something and get mad that they didn't perform when they actually didn't say what you thought they said.

    2. Spinal flexibility and amount of correction in brace were NOT correlated with bracing success in everyone's favorite bracing study (Katz et al., 2010). Here is a quote from that article:

    "Curve flexibility as measured on the basis of the in-brace correction was similar for both patients with progressive curves and those with non-progressive curves (47% compared with 43%; p = 0.25). Brace wear also was not associated the degree of in-brace correction (p = 0.126)."
    We found no relationship between curve flexibility in the brace and the number of hours of brace wear or outcome.
    They admitted this was not what others have found and suggested number of hours of brace wear has a much stronger effect than flexibility.

    Now although it is everyone's favorite brace study, it is just one study and has its faults so they didn't PROVE that flexibility is unrelated to bracing success.
    Sharon, mother of identical twin girls with scoliosis

    No island of sanity.

    Question: What do you call alternative medicine that works?
    Answer: Medicine


    "We are all African."

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    2,004
    Quote Originally Posted by Pooka1 View Post
    1. MAGEC makes ONE claim that is different from claims of traditional growing rods... that they can be extended without surgery. They do NOT claim they are better than traditional growing rods in any way OTHER than being able to extend them without surgery. They do NOT claim they avoid fusion. Please read what they are actually claiming. I don't know where you got the idea that they work in a fundamentally different manner than traditional growing rods OTHER than in the way they are lengthened. Where did you get that idea? You cannot claim they said something and get mad that they didn't perform when they actually didn't say what you thought they said.

    2. Spinal flexibility and amount of correction in brace were NOT correlated with bracing success in everyone's favorite bracing study (Katz et al., 2010). Here is a quote from that article:


    They admitted this was not what others have found and suggested number of hours of brace wear has a much stronger effect than flexibility.

    Now although it is everyone's favorite brace study, it is just one study and has its faults so they didn't PROVE that flexibility is unrelated to bracing success.
    Sharon, the researcher in the interview (in those threads) did't say that fusion is not required when roads are removed????

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    2,004
    I believe that what might be happening is that the researcher is sure that fusion is not necessary but he has not enough cases yet to demonstrate it.
    Anyway, roads seem to not break and fusion is not necessary to hold the spine straight, unless until growht finish.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    reno,nevada
    Posts
    3,531
    Its body looks stout and looks as if the weak point would be at the head of the screw just under the attachment point. It will break at its weakest point. I have read 1 million cycles to breakage, but if needed, a screw could be replaced...

    I wonder if this will require two small 1 cuts? Or a single 5 cut? And how long they expect this device to stay in?

    This looks very interesting since the surgery or invasiveness is minimal....I also wonder how many levels they can do? It looks like 3, which seems short.

    Ed
    49 yr old male, now 58, the new 53...
    Pre surgery curves C12,T70,L70
    ALIF/PLIF T2-Pelvis 01/29/08, 01/31/08 7" pelvic anchors BMP
    Dr Brett Menmuir St Marys Hospital Reno,Nevada

    Bending and twisting pics after full fusion
    http://www.scoliosis.org/forum/showt...on.&highlight=

    My x-rays
    http://www.scoliosis.org/forum/attac...2&d=1228779214

    http://www.scoliosis.org/forum/attac...3&d=1228779258

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •