Overall, @Michiel Tack, I appreciate the time you've taken to advance this discussion forward
Thanks Jeff. I appreciate you having a look at my concerns.
I'm glad that some neurosurgeons are trying to decrease the complications of this type of surgery for example by no longer using rib harvest. I do not think however that it's best to eliminate the information about these complications if we do not exactly know if the alternatives are safe, effective and used by all of the neurosurgeons you listed. When Henderson et al. reported this complication earlier this year (the surgeries reported on, date back to 2011-2012), he did not minimalize these negative outcomes by saying that this is an outdated technique that he and his team would no longer use.
The most advanced fusion technique to date does not use a suboccipital plate instrumentation. And so, patients with the advanced condylar screw fusions do not have this problem. In short, with the right choice of neurosurgeon, this concern you listed here can be eliminated.
I seemed to have accidently shorted the quote in the first version of the text (this has now been corrected). The actual quote is:
'One to four years after the craniocervical fusion, some subjects developed pain over the suboccipital instrumentation (the "screw saddles") due to tissue thinning, and requested hardware removal (8/20 subjects).' So it were the screw saddles that were causing the pain. I'm not sure if this was due to plate instrumentation and that such complications do not occur with condylar screw fusions.
I focused on the Henderson study because this is often referred to, but the rate and type of complications are similar in other studies. So I don't think these concerns should be eliminated. In my text, I didn't quote from Ashafai et al. who published an updated review on occipitocervical fusion this year. So this is recent information. The reason I didn't quote it is because the segment is a bit long: but here is what it says:
"The general complication rate varies from 10% to 33% [25, 27]. Minor complications that are encountered are wound infection or dehiscence, dural tearing and cerebrospinal fluid leakage. OCF-specific complications concern proper head alignment. Excessive flexion results in the patient having an impaired line of sight and swallowing difficulties. Fixation in exaggerated extension results in poor visualization of the ground. Potential complications of major significance include meningitis, posterior fossa haematoma, and direct injury to neural structures and the vertebral artery by misplaced screws."
The complications you're detailing are not common when one enters the pre-op state with good hygeine, and when one chooses a highly-experienced specialist neurosurgeon.
Sorry Jeff, but this is not correct and it's exactly the reason why I wrote the text and used references to back my statements. The reviews I've listed all say that the "complications of occipitocervical fusion can be serious" and that the complications I've listed are common. These reviews used data from scientific studies on this intervention, so we can presume the surgeries were performed in a specialist setting (and that patients had good hygiene).
The statement that you challenge comes directly from Choi et al. 2013. "Surgical Outcomes and Complications after Occipito-Cervical Fusion Using the Screw-Rod System in Craniocervical Instability." According to the authors:
"commonly reported complications include vertebral artery injury, dura tear, cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) leakage, wound infection, nerve or cord injury, screw failure, and bone fusion failure."
I cannot, in good conscience, post this disclaimer -- because I believe it to be inaccurate.
My text is not focussed on whether CCI/AAI could cause ME/CFS symptoms or not, but on what the current evidence says; what is known and written down in scientific publications. This is not a matter of belief. So unless one provides scientific literature that suggests otherwise, one will have to accept that current evidence does indeed suggest the conclusions I've listed.
The disclaimer could be adjusted to emphasize that this is only current understanding in the scientific literature. So you could say:
"The current literature says ME/CFS and CCI/AAI cause symptoms that are quite different but I think there might be an overlooked connection because of reasons A or B..." Or:
"There is currently no scientific evidence to suggest that CCI/AAI surgery relieves ME/CFS symptoms, but researchers have only just started to look at this possibility and some EDS-researchers think it might be that this type of surgery also helps to relieve other symptoms such as fatigue or POTS."
Human beings are not a monolith, and it's great that we can present different perspectives on this board. It's up to each person to do their own risk-benefit analysis.
For a risk-benefit analysis, people need to have information about the current scientific understanding of CCI and the risks of surgery. I'm concerned that yours and Jennifers blogs focus mostly on the possible benefits without giving much information about the risks.
I appreciate the work you have put in this in providing information, helping others, having the courage the go through with such major surgery to get better. I find yours and Jennifers story intriguing and I sincerely hope that this can lead to a breakthrough in ME/CFS research. But I do find it concerning that your blog does not mention the costs and risk involved with CCI surgery. You tell your story in great detail with more than 6000 words but the seemingly severe complications you had due to surgery are not mentioned. Likewise, I think it is necessary to inform readers about the current scientific understanding of CCI and fusion surgery so that readers understand that the link between CCI and ME/CFS is not supported by the current scientific literature.
I do not understand why it is not possible to add a simple and short disclaimer about this at the top of blog posts. That would inform readers about the current scientific understanding of CCI and help make their own cost-benefit analysis.