I wasn't able to read the full article because of the paywall, but as someone who had back surgery and live with complications from it (mainly from spending a decade postponing going to a competent doctor to have a diagnosis and a healthy fear of hospitals - don't be me, if you feel regular back pain or if you sometimes feel back pain that is incapacitating, seek proper medical care - things tend to degrade, and I'm actually quite lucky I'm not in a wheelchair, not kidding) I think I'm entitled to say a thing or two:
We have a statistics problem. Thing is, the way successful surgeries vs botched procedures are measured isn't transparent; as an example, my mother died 2 years ago victim to a routine procedure; It was a combination of both "bad luck" (something went wrong with the procedure) with laxity (prolonged weekend, nobody cared about complaints). Because she didn't died on the table, instead from "complications in recovery" (fyi they accidentally perfurated the intestine during the procedure), its "natural causes".
Many years ago, my dad died from meningitis, 8-10 months after a surgery and a very long recovery. I'd bet a couple of fingers it was a hospital-contracted infection during either the surgery or the recovery. Again, a routine surgery took 8h instead of the expected 2.5-3h. Shit happens, we know - surgery is extremely dangerous, and there is a shit ton of stuff that can go wrong.
Thing is, none of this get into the statistics; There are no reliable survival metrics; The papers you sign are riddled with medical terms to isolate you from the consequences (would you do a non-critical surgery if you could end up shitting on a stomach bag for the rest of your life?), and many many doctors are quite happy into "selling you" their trade option. To be clear, the number any doctor presents you is *wrong*; it has no connection with reality; failure rates measure deaths on the table (the best kind of death, btw), and studies extrapolate from badly measured (per-hospital metrics) or non-existing data.
Tl,DR: avoid surgery if you can; If you really need it (after asking for at least 2 more opinions), your health (and often life choices) matter - bad kidneys, weak liver, etc may be the difference between someone rushing it up or giving an extra 20 min to ensure everything is kosher.
Counterpoint to this: I'm 37, premature wear on the hips. Saw 14 doctors before one took me seriously. 2 others wanted to do repair (labral tear repair, after 2 failures), one wanted to do big repair (PAO).
Eventually found a doctor at Mayo who looked at the x-rays differently. He replaced my hips and life is 100x better.
Very happy for you! Maybe I wasn't clear, Im quite better now thanks to surgery - still, because some damage is irreversible, I have nerve damage that creates a whole new set of problems; In my case, what the surgeon did was almost short of a miracle, given the state of my hernias. He would also agree with this assessment, btw; these things, in the state I was, usually end up much worse.
We have a statistics problem. Thing is, the way successful surgeries vs botched procedures are measured isn't transparent; as an example, my mother died 2 years ago victim to a routine procedure; It was a combination of both "bad luck" (something went wrong with the procedure) with laxity (prolonged weekend, nobody cared about complaints). Because she didn't died on the table, instead from "complications in recovery" (fyi they accidentally perfurated the intestine during the procedure), its "natural causes".
Many years ago, my dad died from meningitis, 8-10 months after a surgery and a very long recovery. I'd bet a couple of fingers it was a hospital-contracted infection during either the surgery or the recovery. Again, a routine surgery took 8h instead of the expected 2.5-3h. Shit happens, we know - surgery is extremely dangerous, and there is a shit ton of stuff that can go wrong.
Thing is, none of this get into the statistics; There are no reliable survival metrics; The papers you sign are riddled with medical terms to isolate you from the consequences (would you do a non-critical surgery if you could end up shitting on a stomach bag for the rest of your life?), and many many doctors are quite happy into "selling you" their trade option. To be clear, the number any doctor presents you is *wrong*; it has no connection with reality; failure rates measure deaths on the table (the best kind of death, btw), and studies extrapolate from badly measured (per-hospital metrics) or non-existing data.
Tl,DR: avoid surgery if you can; If you really need it (after asking for at least 2 more opinions), your health (and often life choices) matter - bad kidneys, weak liver, etc may be the difference between someone rushing it up or giving an extra 20 min to ensure everything is kosher.