Less invasive surgery developed by Israel (Apifix implant)

[flerc]

Invasive is not term created by surgeons. All people has enough idea about what it means.. except that people as it seems.

[flerc]

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????

[Pooka1]

Sharon, the researcher in the interview (in those threads) did't say that fusion is not required when roads are removed????

Are you talking about Kiester? If so, three points...

1. Look at the MAGEC stuff, NOT Kiester's claims. If Kiester claims more than MAGEC then it didn't make it into the company literature. Some lawyers may have prevented the company from claiming MAGEC avoids fusion when there is not evidence it does.

2. Kiester makes A LOT of claims in that interview that are not supported by facts. One is that bracing makes AIS worse. I would like to see his data showing that. I seriously doubt bracing makes AIS worse.

3. Kiester appears to be somewhat wacky. He claims to be fighting with NASA about some data and claims his interpretation is more correct than that of the astrophysicists. I think he accused NASA of being dishonest about the data or something. Clearly nutty if true. Worse, I think Kiester might be a creationist based on the data issue and some other things he said he is working on. I don't think he likes the fact that the universe is about 13.7 billion years old. He may think it is only 6,000 years old which would fit the definition of beyond wacky if he believes it.

[flerc]

I need to reread the interviews again.. but anyway.. supposing that effectively he is claming that Magec avoid the need of other kind of surgery when the roads are removed, it would not be the same claim done about VBS? It not sounds logic that VBS may achieve that purpose and Magec not

[Pooka1]

I need to reread the interviews again.. but anyway.. supposing that effectively he is claming that Magec avoid the need of other kind of surgery when the roads are removed, it would not be the same claim done about VBS? It not sounds logic that VBS may achieve that purpose and Magec not

First, we can't necessarily assume Dingo correctly quoted Kiester unless Kiester typed that stuff to him and Kiester had a chance to look over it. I am not sure he would have wanted the NASA stuff and the biblical stuff to get out because it makes him look like a nut.

In the interview, he refers to MAGEC being used with AIS as I recall, not JIS which would be the situation with growing rods. I don't think he spoke about VBS. And apparently growing rods and VBS do have different end points... growing rods are explicitly only to delay final fusion whereas VBS is explicitly to avoid fusion. My guess is that final fusion always occurs after growing rods because there is always autofusion with them whereas that doesn't seem to occur with VBS. And again, MAGEC DOES NOT CLAIM to have solved the autofusion problem with growing rods. If they did solve the autofusion then that would be something and they would avoid final fusion perhaps.

Just remember, MAGEC is not MAGIC. It solves one (big) problem with growing rods (multiple surgeries) but doesn't solve another big problem (autofusion).

I think Kiester claims MEGEC does avoid autofusion but he can't have evidence for that if it was only starting clinical trials with humans then. And in fact the last time I checked the device literature they were NOT claiming autofusion was avoided with MAGEC.

[flerc]

I don't have idea about roads.. no much more that what everyone may imagine seeing a drawing or a video. Also I don't know if roads used in traditional and in (really) minimal invasive surgeries are the same (regardless the expansion capacity) and if VBS uses roads. I suppose this is the reason why I not imagine why the purpose of Vbs may be avoid fusion and of Magec only delay it.

[Pooka1]

I don't have idea about roads.. no much more that what everyone may imagine seeing a drawing or a video. Also I don't know if roads used in traditional and in (really) minimal invasive surgeries are the same (regardless the expansion capacity) and if VBS uses roads. I suppose this is the reason why I not imagine why the purpose of Vbs may be avoid fusion and of Magec only delay it.

The surgical approach (none versus minimal versus open) has ZERO NADA ZIP NOTHING to do with whether or not a treatment causes autofusion. How can it possibly be connected? It can't matter.

Autofusion is a function of the physics of the treatment. Growing rods (all of them) and VBS clearly have entirely different physical forces if one produces autofusion and the other doesn't.

[leahdragonfly]

VBS does not use rods

Flerc,

VBS does not use rods--it uses shape-memory alloy staples that are inserted across the growth pates. It is thought to work because the staples apply constant pressure to the growth plates of the vertebrae, thus slowing down the OVERgrowth of the vertebrae on one side, allowing the other side to catch up and ideally allow the curve to lessen some with growth. The staples are basically an internal brace that act to modulate the abnormal growth of the spine in scoliosis.

By the way, staples are not removed when growth is complete because that would incur the risk/pain/expense of another surgery. The staples so far are being left in once growth is complete, because they do not hurt anything where they are.

One last observation about the new expandable rod system mentioned (the Israeli one)--it appears to provide a two-dimensional action only, there is no contouring for normal lordosis/kyphosis of the spine. So I wonder if it would cause the same problems as the Harrington rod with flatback and saggital imbalance.

[flerc]

Well.. supposing that all of these minimal invasive surgeries (that is, without implicit fusion) achieve their respective purpose with the same effectiveness, VBS seems to be the best of all them.
What I cannot understand then, is why an important surgeon refers to Magec as something revolutionary, incredible, never seen before as I’m sure I have read.. he have never heard about VBS?? Is not serious.

I don’t understand why VBS is called as an internal brace. I don’t see any similitude.
Braces uses external forces, having 3 pressure points.
There is possible (and should to) achieve reduction in brace (the curve is immediately lesser when it is adapted.
They support with that force, some percentage of the weight of the back.
They are removed after growth.

Nothing of all this seems to happen with VBS.

[leahdragonfly]

Well.. supposing that all of these minimal invasive surgeries (that is, without implicit fusion) achieve their respective purpose with the same effectiveness, VBS seems to be the best of all them.
What I cannot understand then, is why an important surgeon refers to Magec as something revolutionary, incredible, never seen before as I’m sure I have read.. he have never heard about VBS?? Is not serious.

I don’t understand why VBS is called as an internal brace. I don’t see any similitude.
Braces uses external forces, having 3 pressure points.
There is possible (and should to) achieve reduction in brace (the curve is immediately lesser when it is adapted.
They support with that force, some percentage of the weight of the back.
They are removed after growth.

Nothing of all this seems to happen with VBS.

Flerc,

If you don't understand VBS maybe you should read more about. It seems as though you like to argue for the sake of arguing here. There is plenty of info online if you are truly interested in educating yourself.

As a point of clarification, I believe VBS and Magec address two very different patients. VBS is for moderate curves in growing children (under 30-35 degrees), whereas Magec has a similar indication as growth rods, which are for much more severe curves in growing children.

Finally, "minimally invasive" refers simply to the size of the incisions. It has nothing to do with the actual invasiveness of the surgery itself. It is more accurately called "minimal incision." I think you are confusing that with "fusionless" which is entirely different.

[flerc]

If you don't understand VBS maybe you should read more about. It seems as though you like to argue for the sake of arguing here. There is plenty of info online if you are truly interested in educating yourself.

You are not the kind of member that someone may want to find in a Forum, a place where information is supposed to be shared, mainly when someone is saying to not having enough knowledge about the specific issue as I did before.
Before judge what others are doing here, try to read more about them.
In this thread you have the knowldge, I never discussed that, but return to the brace thread where you spoke without enough foundation or choice the thread that you want in which you may believe that I'm arguing without sense, and say me that again and we will see who will send the other to read info on line.

As a point of clarification, I believe VBS and Magec address two very different patients. VBS is for moderate curves in growing children (under 30-35 degrees), whereas Magec has a similar indication as growth rods, which are for much more severe curves in growing children.

Fine, this is the information I needed to understand the issue and to know why these surgeon said what he said.. apologies for him.
You didn't clarify me the similitude between Vbs and brace, that surely I'm not understanding but I prefer to recieve information from other kind of members or follow your suggestion.

Finally, "minimally invasive" refers simply to the size of the incisions. It has nothing to do with the actual invasiveness of the surgery itself. It is more accurately called "minimal incision." I think you are confusing that with "fusionless" which is entirely different.

I'm not confusing anything as you should to understand if you would have read what I wrote before in this thread. As I said, I will not participate in the hypocrisy of refering to a fusion surgery as minimally invasive.

[leahdragonfly]

Oh Flerc, I never said anything about fusion being minimally invasive. In fact it is extremely invasive. That's why I said you seemed to be confused between minimally invasive and fusionless. They are entirely different, which is all I was trying to say.

[Pooka1]

the similitude between Vbs and brace,

Verisimilitude of braces and VBS...

A brace is a word that means holding something in a certain position.

For scoliosis, there are braces that are used on the outside of the body (externally) to hold the spine in place such as hard and soft braces.

Then there are braces that are used on the inside of the body (internally) to hold the spine in place such as growth rods (like MAGEC) and stables (VBS) and titanium ribs (VEPTR).

I will not participate in the hypocrisy of referring to a fusion surgery as minimally invasive.

When talking about surgery, ANY surgery, the INCISION size is considered to be open (large) where the entire area is exposed or minimal (small slits) that they feed instrumentation through.

Fusions can be done either open or minimally. VBS and Growth rods are done minimally due to their nature.

As you can see, some minimal incisions result in fusion and some don't. All open surgeries tend to be fusion. There is no direct relation between size of incision (open versus minimal) and whether or not fusion is intended just as Gayle told you.

[flerc]

Oh Flerc, I never said anything about fusion being minimally invasive. In fact it is extremely invasive. That's why I said you seemed to be confused between minimally invasive and fusionless. They are entirely different, which is all I was trying to say.

For me all fusionless spine surgeries deserve to be named as minimal invasive (so is why I referred to them in this way), even if the invasion may be not so minimal, but surely anyway minimal compared with fusion.

[Pooka1]

For me all fusionless spine surgeries deserve to be named as minimal invasive (so is why I referred to them in this way), even if the invasion may be not so minimal, but surely anyway minimal compared with fusion.

It is okay to have your own private vocabulary. But you can't communicate widely with it.

Words have common meanings.