Posted by codeunknown:

Nixluva, I'm going to try not to be harsh on you because I know medicine isn't your field. But, pasting "conclusions" to articles you clearly haven't read closely is asinine. Neither article answers the pertinent questions and the second abstract is absolutely irrelevant. The relevant questions are: 1) what is the durabilty and 2) the perfomance differential of the patients pre and post-op.

You assume to much when you say that I didn't read the articles.
You are now attempting to change the argument by providing what you feel are the more pertinent questions. Who gave you that authority?

Posted by codeunknown:

The first abstract states that 5/14 (>35%) retire prematurely due to recurrent symptoms. That is, within 3 years of the surgery. BOOM - that should have hit in you in the face like a ton of bricks as soon as you read the article. Did you actually read the paper?

NOW DID YOU READ that of the 5 subjects that retired 4 had more serious back issues than the others who had no problems?
"Three of the athletes who retired underwent two-level procedures, and one had a percutaneous discectomy"
"For a single-level microdiscectomy, the success rate in elite athletes is excellent, with 90% of athletes able to return to a high level of competition. Two-level disease may be associated with a less favorable outcome."

Gee that's funny you want to discredit my attempt to provide information which is clearly not easy to find and yet you provide no proof of your own. Your arrogance is beyond annoying.

I read other studies and articles on the subject as well as other modern procedures that may have been used on Q. I'm not presenting this as the be all, end of all proof that Q will be 100% healthy from here on out. The 80-90% success rate is across the board representiing all patients. I then at least provided some data that would be good news as it relates to elite athletes. My point remains that from what seems to be the general consensus, he has a good chance to be healthier.

"The following case illustrates the unique demands
placed on the care of the athlete with lumbar disc herniation
and the results that can be achieved with an integrated team
of surgeons, trainers, and rehabilitation specialists.
Illustrative Case 1. This college All-American basket-
ball player reported the sudden onset of severe back pain
with radicular symptoms in the middle of conference play.
Examination revealed mild weakness of his left extensor
hallucis longus and an MR image revealed a desiccated
and herniated disc at L4–5 (Fig. 1) with L-5 root impinge-
ment. The athlete underwent surgery to expedite his return
to play, which was accomplished through a minimally
invasive discectomy; he recovered well and returned to
full competition in conference play 3 weeks later.
Conclusions
Athletes at all levels of competition sustain injuries to
the lumbar spine. The goals of treatment include allevia-
tion of symptoms and restoration of strength and flexibil-
ity so that full participation in sports can be resumed.
When surgery is required, minimizing tissue dissection
and strict adherence to an aggressive rehabilitation regi-
men may expedite an athlete’s return to play."



[Edited by - nixluva on 08-14-2007 8:43 PM]

Posted by nixluva:

Posted by codeunknown:

Nixluva, I'm going to try not to be harsh on you because I know medicine isn't your field. But, pasting "conclusions" to articles you clearly haven't read closely is asinine. Neither article answers the pertinent questions and the second abstract is absolutely irrelevant. The relevant questions are: 1) what is the durabilty and 2) the perfomance differential of the patients pre and post-op.

You assume to much when you say that I didn't read the articles.
You are now attempting to change the argument by providing what you feel are the more pertinent questions. Who gave you that authority?

Posted by codeunknown:

The first abstract states that 5/14 (>35%) retire prematurely due to recurrent symptoms. That is, within 3 years of the surgery. BOOM - that should have hit in you in the face like a ton of bricks as soon as you read the article. Did you actually read the paper?

NOW DID YOU READ that of the 5 subjects that retired 4 had more serious back issues than the others who had no problems?
"Three of the athletes who retired underwent two-level procedures, and one had a percutaneous discectomy"
"For a single-level microdiscectomy, the success rate in elite athletes is excellent, with 90% of athletes able to return to a high level of competition. Two-level disease may be associated with a less favorable outcome."

Gee that's funny you want to discredit my attempt to provide information which is clearly not easy to find and yet you provide no proof of your own. Your arrogance is beyond annoying.

I read other studies and articles on the subject as well as other modern procedures that may have been used on Q. I'm not presenting this as the be all, end of all proof that Q will be 100% healthy from here on out. The 80-90% success rate is across the board representiing all patients. I then at least provided some data that would be good news as it relates to elite athletes. My point remains that from what seems to be the general consensus, he has a good chance to be healthier.

"The following case illustrates the unique demands
placed on the care of the athlete with lumbar disc herniation
and the results that can be achieved with an integrated team
of surgeons, trainers, and rehabilitation specialists.
Illustrative Case 1. This college All-American basket-
ball player reported the sudden onset of severe back pain
with radicular symptoms in the middle of conference play.
Examination revealed mild weakness of his left extensor
hallucis longus and an MR image revealed a desiccated
and herniated disc at L4–5 (Fig. 1) with L-5 root impinge-
ment. The athlete underwent surgery to expedite his return
to play, which was accomplished through a minimally
invasive discectomy; he recovered well and returned to
full competition in conference play 3 weeks later.
Conclusions
Athletes at all levels of competition sustain injuries to
the lumbar spine. The goals of treatment include allevia-
tion of symptoms and restoration of strength and flexibil-
ity so that full participation in sports can be resumed.
When surgery is required, minimizing tissue dissection
and strict adherence to an aggressive rehabilitation regi-
men may expedite an athlete’s return to play."



[Edited by - nixluva on 08-14-2007 8:43 PM]

First of all, those are the relevant questions whether you accept it or not. What would they be, if not those? You tell me. And I'm glad that you now understand why the second paper was so irrelevant. Its a step up. Now you can work on understanding why the 1st is irrelevant.

There is no post-return injury or performance report. 5 retired off the bat. In other words, NEVER RETURNED - even after 3 years. This is attrition before a return to competition. What happened afterwards to the 9 who returned is not even remotely addressed. Unless you persist with your retarded "across the board" percentage, you should quite easily realize that the percentage of sucessful returns will likely be lower than 9/11 from the paper. And don't quote an "across the board" percentage unless you're prepared to defend it. And I guarantee you aren't.

Whether Q has one or two herniated disks is unknown to me. The severity of each herniation is also not known to me because I'm not his doctor. So, why should I qualify the fact that 5 retired BEFORE EVEN RETURNING? You keep missing the point and you sound like a moron in the process. How can I get through to you? The 5 people are ones that never made it back at all. There is NO prospective report of the 9 returnees. Note also that a percutaneous diskectomy is a one-level operation.

I can't figure out for the life of me what is so hard for you to get. The papers you posted are garbage - flat out. Deal with it.

They're garbage because you say so? Screw you and your personal opinion. You have NOTHING so far to back up your statements. It's one thing to be an arrogant prick and yet another to crap on another professionals work. Who the hell are you?

This is as ridiculous as when you couldn't grasp the concept of an average. Its not so much that you're a mindless idiot that bothers me. Its the vehemence with which you spread misinformation.
I don't want to make you cry but my "personal opinion" is one of the most influential in research in the country and around the world. I'm sorry that you're too dumb to appreciate that. So please continue to educate us about Q's health.

Do you know how many papers are on pubmed? Do you know at what clip papers are plagiarized? Do you realize that most research is done so poorly that it is literally a waste of an instituion's money? Randomly selecting 2 papers is likely to net you garbage. So the work of those professionals, whom you seem to have a fetish for, needs to be scrutinized. Thoroughly. Or you'd end up taking drugs that would kill you before you could thank those researchers.

You are the one who said my points weren't valid and yet my points were based on the statements of those who've attempted to do the research. The studies may not have been exhaustive or met with your personal standards, but they did the work and the points they made are clear enough. WHAT EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE DO YOU HAVE TO CONTRADICT WHAT I'VE PRESENTED? IF you don't have anything, don't keep crapping on what i'm presenting and saying i'm wrong. Just because you say it, doesn't make it so.

This conversation keeps getting more bizarre. What evidence would you like me to present? To contradict what? Please tell me what you would like me to contradict. Remember that I first enlightened you with the 9% re-operation figure - a conservative figure that isn't applicable to athletes and does not encompass all chronic conditions. What you were wrong about was the nonsense about Q needing severe trauma to re-injure himself. Thats absolute bull****. Him having a "good chance to be healthier" is another vague and irresponsible statement you made. Without access to Q's images and with the dearth of information on professional athletes, I'm not sure how you can even pretend to believe that.

You presented data that deals with return rates - not the length or the success of the return. But we already know that Q will return for training camp. So why should I care? I shouldn't because its irrelevant.

I'm still waiting to hear why we should be "expecting" a recurrance for Q, which was my original point. If the percentages show 80-90% success rate and the few Elite athlete examples also show that most are able to resume their careers, why is it that we have to take a pessimistic view with regard to Q and his surgery. He's only used Non-Surgical methods like Therapy and Rest so far and we have the results of that method, but we have no idea how he'll respond to this other than what the percentages indicate for people who have this surgery and the words of hid doctor.

Stop arguing against a straw man. No one (either me or anyone else) suggested that we should "expect a recurrence." If you want to keep talking to yourself, we can create a separate thread for that. The only conclusion you can draw, since we don't know and never knew either the severity of the herniation(s) or the degree of removal, is that its a black box. He may be healthier. He may not be.

Q may eventually have another back problem. Maybe he's got a predisposition to developing problems. We don't know, but his doctor feels he should be able to resume his career and the medical data we have shows an 80-90% chance that he'll be healthier so why am I wrong?

The data doesn't show that. So you're wrong.


[Edited by - codeunknown on 08-15-2007 09:27 AM]

Posted by misterearl:

jared jeffries

just so long as he keeps the beard

ditto.

Who "should" start?

Or who is your personal favorite to start?

The dude who "should" start is the dude who comes in with the most fire in his belly. The past is in the past and the Summer won't mean a thing when the scrimmages start and the careers of executives are on the line. It's a new season.

None of them have proven a thing.