Talk:Spondylosis

Suggested template for articles about Orthopaedic Conditions
I have been going through the list of orthopaedic conditions listed as stubs and suggesting this template for Orthopaedic Conditions (see Talk:Orthopedic surgery) Name Definition Synonyms Incidence Pathogenesis and predisposing factors Pathology Stages Classification Natural History/Untreated Prognosis Clinical Features Investigation Non-Operative Treatment Risks of Non-Operative Treatment Prognosis following Non-Operative Treatment Operative Treatment (Note that each operations should have its own wiki entry) Risks of Operative Treatment Prognosis Post Operation Complications Management Prevention History --Mylesclough 06:33, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Translation
If anyone could improve this page by bringing information from the German version, that'd be great. Rares 04:50, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Definition
Good page but why are there two different definitions in a row? Slightly confusing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.53.51.110 (talk) 19:09, 13 January 2007 (UTC).

Chiropractic treatment
I just read the first linked paper --[http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/164/18/1985?ck=nck ''Arch Intern Med. 2004;164:1985-1992'' Comparative Analysis of Individuals With and Without Chiropractic Coverage] -- and the efficacy claims for chiropractic treament in this article are not the same claims made there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ojingoh (talk • contribs) 02:45, 27 May 2008‎ (UTC)

To whomever added the pseudo-disambiguation
This med student thanks you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.43.94.219 (talk) 16:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Manipulative therapy and chiropractic therapy
I think the passage should be changed to include the views that manipulative therapy is no better than a sham treatment, as outline in many studies (please see references in the following: Bogduk N. Management of chronic low back pain. Med J Aust 2004; 180:79-83.) Instead, massage therapy as well as mobilisation seem to work much better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.184.237.163 (talk) 10:05, 4 November 2006‎ (UTC)

This section sounds like an advertisement for chiropractic therapy, and the claims about reduced cost to the american medical system have little to do with the disease. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.21.40.108 (talk) 17:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the above sentiments This statement: "Majority of mild and moderate cases of neck or low back pain can be relieved without the use of drugs or surgery" is clearly true - a large evidence base supports this statement.

This statement: "Chiropractic is fast becoming the most popular, safe, and acceptable treatment of choice", is neither supported by literature or our experience. There are many treatment modalities that can help this condition and Chiropractic is not the safest, most popular, or the most acceptable mode of treatment. These kind of unsupported advertisement-type statements unfortunately contribute to the chiropractic profession's poor reputation amongst health professionals in my country. 123Paul456 (talk) 07:58, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

This article rings false
It looks like a thinly disguised apologia and advertisement for chiropractic, not an objective description of spondylosis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.173.54.12 (talk) 21:18, 28 July 2008‎ (UTC)

^I agree - that and a host of other dubious alternative treatments. I'm attempting to figure out how to draw attention to that fact through some kind of template or header, but my editing skills are minimal. Snake mistakes (talk) 21:41, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Definition: Spondylosis is not degenerative arthritis
Arthritis is inflammation of a joint, and spondylosis is neither inflammatory nor does it involve joints.

Rather, spondylosis is bony overgrowths arising  at the anterior, lateral, and, less commonly, posterior aspects of vertebral bodies. In the lumbar region, spondylosis is a common and probably inevitable consequence of age and typically does not produce any symptoms.

See:

Once you understand the definition, it becomes clear the remainder of the article is misleading and incorrect.

Cervical spondylosis is somewhat different in that it can cause symptoms of pain and spinal cord compression as one part of a clinical syndrome with several speciifc pathologic changes.

Loupe (talk) 19:18, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

The confusion over the definition of spondylosis and therefore it's diagnosis and treatment is not limited to this page. It is a very loosly used term refering to degenerative changes in the spinal column. Some people include joint disorders, some include disc disorders and some include bony overgrowths. Due to this confusion the term is losing favour with people who care about this sort of thing and they are referring to the individual pathologies instead.

As has already been pointed out, the vast majority of older people have these changes without having any symptoms. Any treatments offered for back or neck pain must be targeted at the exact cause of pain and not the myriad of common changes refered to as spondylosis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.209.90 (talk) 10:41, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

What is the difference between Cervical spondylosis and spondylosis...???
are they synonymous to each other...??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.67.212.89 (talk) 09:59, 21 May 2009‎ (UTC)
 * The condition is called cervical spondylosis when the changes are located in the cervical region of the vertebral column(ie., the uppermost seven vertebra of the spinal column). It is referred to as lumbar or lumbosacral spondylosis when the changes are located in the region of the spine defined by the 1st lumbar vertebra through the sacrum. DiverDave (talk) 19:55, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

MRI result interpretation
mri shows mild cervical spasm. mild cervical spondylosis c6/7. c5/6 disc spac is mildy hyointense. can anyone interpret this for me? tq — Preceding unsigned comment added by Irene wgc (talk • contribs) 02:44, 8 November 2009‎ (UTC)

Spondylosis is not always painful
The assumption is made in most of the article that findings of Spondylosis will always result in pain. However, in the vast majority of cases, spondylosis is just an incidental finding and is NOT associated at all with pain. Some studies on middle-aged subjects has found the prevalence of spondylosis to be as high as 75% in the pain-free population. Recognising that patients might read "spondylosis" as a finding on their CT or MRI results, I would suggest that the article needs to be re-written to reflect these facts. This article might inadvertently lead a patient to think that the scan is showing the reason for their pain and they may mistakenly seek surgical intervention to "Fix" their spondylosis. The "Treatment" section should point out that only severe spondylosis has been associated with pain and that mild and moderate spondylosis is very common and will usually not cause pain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.151.242.69 (talk) 09:58, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Picture is not sufficiently helpful
The picture does not help the average viewer see what is wrong with cervical spine. A chart or other figure would be more helpful than a X-ray. (Sbrunner44 (talk) 03:51, 19 February 2012 (UTC))

The abnormal appearance of the c-spine film would be more obvious if a normal film could be shown next to it. (talk) 11:07, 30 April 2014 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:0:480:5C5:34E8:74C6:A9FB:E299 (talk)

Needs clarification
"It is often argued, however, that the cause of spondylosis is simply old age, and that posture modification treatment is often practiced by those who have a financial interest (such as Worker's Compensation)[2] in proving that it is caused by work conditions and poor physical habits."

First, I can't find anything in that source to support the statement given. Second, I'm not sure what they are saying. Worker's Comp insurance has an incentive to argue that spondylosis (and any other physical malady) is unrelated to the job because then it would not be paid for by comp. Insurance companies look for ways to avoid payment, not ways to shoehorn in questionable injuries. Now, certain medical providers may have an incentive to attribute spondylosis to the person's job in an attempt to get reimbursed under the comp rates rather than health insurance rates, but seeing how worker's comp reform is bringing down reimbursement rates in much of the country, even that is arguable. In my state, providers almost prefer to submit to health insurance than to jump through all the comp hoops for payment that is marginally better than health insurance.

Basically, what I am saying is the statement is unclear and the source cited does not support it. 71.200.19.170 (talk) 21:16, 28 July 2014 (UTC)