Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Some of you may want to read this, it even mentioned the arthroscopy "cleanups" which they did on me are worthless, which I've been thinking all along.
Suzy already pointed out the flaws with your link not least of which is the inherent “ bias “ of the authors who are looking only to gain market share with their own unproven treatments
Just want to highlight the fallacy of your remarks regarding the treatment of your supposed knee infection, if that is what you in fact had then arthroscopic debridement is the gold standard for treatment
Once again you are commenting on procedures you don’t understand
Suzy already pointed out the flaws with your link not least of which is the inherent “ bias “ of the authors who are looking only to gain market share with their own unproven treatments
Just want to highlight the fallacy of your remarks regarding the treatment of your supposed knee infection, if that is what you in fact had then arthroscopic debridement is the gold standard for treatment
Once again you are commenting on procedures you don’t understand
I believe the gold standard left my knee worse -- why couldn't they just stop with 2+ months of abx IV and leave some good tissue in my knee?
Debridement for an infection is totally different from debridement for arthritis. As both bluedevilz and I have shown it is the gold standard. It gets infected tissue out of a space that it is hard for antibiotics to get into.
The word infection is not mentioned a single time in your link.
Those who don't read the link this final paragraph is enough for me to believe the surgery probably should NOT have been done on my knee.
Other research since then has come to the same conclusion: there isn't enough clinical evidence that arthroscopic debridement is effective for osteoarthritis of the knee and it's not a recommended treatment.
And in my case the 2.5 months of ABX drugs could have been sufficient, but I'll never know and live with the damaged knee. ;
Those who don't read the link this final paragraph is enough for me to believe the surgery probably should NOT have been done on my knee.
Other research since then has come to the same conclusion: there isn't enough clinical evidence that arthroscopic debridement is effective for osteoarthritis of the knee and it's not a recommended treatment.
And in my case the 2.5 months of ABX drugs could have been sufficient, but I'll never know and live with the damaged knee. ;
The treatment you received was not for your arthritis. It was for your infection.
I had my right knee replaced in 2004 and the left in 2006. They were done in different hospitals, by different surgeons in Arizona. Both work flawlessly.
I had had an arthroscopic job in 1998 in St Petersburg which effectively was a delaying action before the main event. That was not worth it.
Good on your knee successes. I won't do the knee replacement. Had enough damage done with knee clean out from an infection, so live with it and manage. I know what I have and not what I may get. I had hope that a hip replacement was the answer, and it helped somewhat, but I'm left with surgery complications.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
