Celling Treatment Centers

Celling Treatment Centers - Alternatives to Open Back Surgery & Alternatives to Spine Fusion

At Celling Treatment Centers, we specialize in non-fusion strategies for back pain, neck pain, sciatica and other painful spine problems.

We rpovide minimally invasive alternatives to open back surgery, open neck surgery and spine fusion for those with spine problems including spinal stenosis, degenerative disc disease, back pain, neck pain, herniated discs, sciatica, spondylolisthesis, SI joint pain, bone spurs, pinched nerves and spine arthritis.

We use contemporary, state-of-the-art minimally invasive spine surgery, endoscopic spine surgery and laser spine surgery procedures to treat conditions of the spine that historically would have been fused or treated with open back surgery or open neck surgery.

Our refuse-to-fuse philosophy is the hallmark of Celling Treatment Centers.

Before you have open back surgery or a spine fusion, read the data below. We can provide safe and effective alternatives to open back surgery and spine fusion. Our safe & effective procedures are performed on an out-patient basis without hospitalization.

Non-Fusion Strategies

In 2008, an important 5-year, multi-institution, research study looked at 3 of the most common back conditions - disc herniation, degenerative spondylolisthesis and spinal stenosis - and compared surgical treatment vs. non-surgical treatment. The research study was sponsored and approved by the National Institutes of Health (NIH).

The results from the Disc Herniation trial found that while both groups improved substantially after treatment, the improvement from standard surgery, a procedure called "discectomy", was more rapid and patients reported better results in physical function and satisfaction one and two years after the operation.

The results are from the Degenerative Spondylolisthesis trial found that patients with spinal stenosis accompanied by degenerative spondylolisthesis who were treated surgically showed substantially greater improvement in pain and function through 2 years follow-up compared to patients treated nonsurgically.

The results from Spinal Stenosis trial found that patients with spinal stenosis who were treated surgically showed significantly greater improvement in pain, function and disability through 2 years follow-up compared to patients treated non-surgically.

http://www.dartmouth.edu/~news/releases/2008/12/16a.html

http://www.dartmouth.edu/sport-trial/whatissport.htm

National survey data showed a rapid increase in the use of spinal fusion from 1996 to 2001 as a result of new technological advances, financial incentives, and controversial expansion of indications and a high rate of re-operations.  These increases were not associated with reports of improved efficacy of fusion techniques (Deyo, et al., 2004, 2005).  They further stated that, "Evidence-based practice for degenerative spine disorders might reserve the use of spinal fusions for spondylolisthesis and only rare cases of disk herniation or spinal stenosis without spondylolisthesis," and that "More evidence from clinical trials should be required for degenerative disk disease to be an accepted indication." 

Four randomized controlled trials comparing lumbar fusion to non-surgical treatments found that nearly 15% (58/399) of patients receiving lumbar fusion experienced complications.  The most frequent complications reported included re-operation (with rates ranging from 0% - 46.1%), infection (0% - 9%), device-related complications (0% - 17.8%), neurologic complications (0.7% - 25.8%), thrombosis (0% - 4%), bleeding/vascular complications (0% - 12.8%), and dural injury (0.5% - 29%).  In another study, a 12% two-year incidence rate of major complications following lumbar spinal fusion was reported, with a re-operation rate of 14.6% for that population.  Other complications reported in the literature include the potential for adjacent segment degeneration (development of disc degeneration, hypertrophic facets, dynamic instability, and/or spinal stenosis in adjacent levels), pseudoarthrosis, bone graft donor site pain and infection, instrumentation prominence or failure, neural injuries, and failure to relieve pain (Dettori, et al., 2008).

Alternatives to Open Back Surgery - Alternatives to Open Neck Surgery

Alternative to Spine Fusions