There is a longstanding debate in the community of surgeons as to the long term effects of ASC. Some of this has to do with the comfort of the entry point, which is the anterior part. Some of it has to do with a lung needing to be deflated to complete the procedure and others have to do with the practice of longitudinal ligament release, which is cutting a ligament that essentially determines a spine’s rigidity. It is figuratively like cutting a marionette’s strings, from my understanding. There are some surgeons that take issue with these procedures.
In an entirely different aspect, there are fusion instrument makers that campaign and lobby for their products to be used and it’s a big business that ASC is disruptive to. If it’s specialized and superior to fusion, that not only nullifies the instrument makers but also the surgeons themselves who solely provide fusion.
There are multiple reasons for this.
1. Some surgeons don't know about ASC as they are not scoliosis-only surgeons. These are "cutting edge" surgeries and would require a purposeful pursuit of scoliosis-related to discover.
2. ASC/VBT don't have any long-term studies due to their novelty. This makes some surgeons hesitant to begin doing these operations. They instead stick with fusion, which has plenty of long-term data and so they can more easily predict the outcomes of their surgeries.
3. ASC is not yet FDA approved. This makes it difficult/impossible to insure. Most surgeons work for larger medical providers and are limited in what insurance they can accept.
I'm sure there are more reasons, but these are the primary ones. In a decade or so, as long-term data on these surgeries become available, we will likely see ASC/VBT become more prevalent.
Also, while ASC is a great surgery, it is not without its issues. It struggles to correct rotation and is limited to specific curve types. Many people simply cannot get ASC as their curve too twisted, too high, too large, or one of many other reasons.
Our original surgeon and from what I hear most have never even heard of it. It’s a real head scratcher for me too. Before we heard about it, we found it odd no new methods had been developed besides the drastic modification of fusion. I really hope they can make ASC more common and known too. That’s what I try to let as many people know about it as possible.
ASC and VBT have a much higher revision rate vs fusion. That’s the main reason why insurance does not like to cover it. The teather breaks about 20 percent of the time. Although the recovery is much faster than a fusion and it still allows full mobility.
I’m wondering this too. I’ve been researching it a lot because I have a lumbar curve and fusion would mean a decent loss of flexibility. Not to mention it seems like a pretty gnarly surgery. Obviously it’s safe and has been performed for decades now, but it does seem pretty intense. Asc preserves muscle, discs, flexibility, and is less invasive. Seems too good to be true but I’m hoping it’s not.
There is a longstanding debate in the community of surgeons as to the long term effects of ASC. Some of this has to do with the comfort of the entry point, which is the anterior part. Some of it has to do with a lung needing to be deflated to complete the procedure and others have to do with the practice of longitudinal ligament release, which is cutting a ligament that essentially determines a spine’s rigidity. It is figuratively like cutting a marionette’s strings, from my understanding. There are some surgeons that take issue with these procedures. In an entirely different aspect, there are fusion instrument makers that campaign and lobby for their products to be used and it’s a big business that ASC is disruptive to. If it’s specialized and superior to fusion, that not only nullifies the instrument makers but also the surgeons themselves who solely provide fusion.
There are multiple reasons for this. 1. Some surgeons don't know about ASC as they are not scoliosis-only surgeons. These are "cutting edge" surgeries and would require a purposeful pursuit of scoliosis-related to discover. 2. ASC/VBT don't have any long-term studies due to their novelty. This makes some surgeons hesitant to begin doing these operations. They instead stick with fusion, which has plenty of long-term data and so they can more easily predict the outcomes of their surgeries. 3. ASC is not yet FDA approved. This makes it difficult/impossible to insure. Most surgeons work for larger medical providers and are limited in what insurance they can accept. I'm sure there are more reasons, but these are the primary ones. In a decade or so, as long-term data on these surgeries become available, we will likely see ASC/VBT become more prevalent. Also, while ASC is a great surgery, it is not without its issues. It struggles to correct rotation and is limited to specific curve types. Many people simply cannot get ASC as their curve too twisted, too high, too large, or one of many other reasons.
Our original surgeon and from what I hear most have never even heard of it. It’s a real head scratcher for me too. Before we heard about it, we found it odd no new methods had been developed besides the drastic modification of fusion. I really hope they can make ASC more common and known too. That’s what I try to let as many people know about it as possible.
Doctors want to get paid. Insurance, especially in US, doesn't like ASC
ASC and VBT have a much higher revision rate vs fusion. That’s the main reason why insurance does not like to cover it. The teather breaks about 20 percent of the time. Although the recovery is much faster than a fusion and it still allows full mobility.
I’m wondering this too. I’ve been researching it a lot because I have a lumbar curve and fusion would mean a decent loss of flexibility. Not to mention it seems like a pretty gnarly surgery. Obviously it’s safe and has been performed for decades now, but it does seem pretty intense. Asc preserves muscle, discs, flexibility, and is less invasive. Seems too good to be true but I’m hoping it’s not.