Editor:
I appreciate receiving AANS Neurosurgeon and read with enthusiasm
the contents thereof. There are a couple of items [in AANS Neurosurgeon 16(4),
2007–2008] which caught my attention and I believe may be worth commenting
on.
The first item relates to instrumentation and neurosurgeons with respect to commentary made on page 11. There will always be a conflict of interest if a neurosurgeon is using instrumentation provided by a commercial company that attempts to market to the same neurosurgeon. One can only hope that [neurosurgeons] will not take bribes or bribe-like phenomena, thereby offering their patients not necessarily optimal but certainly “available” solutions.
The other item is in regard to Dr. Perez-Cruet’s article on minimally invasive surgery [page 14]. As an enthusiast of minimally invasive surgery, I found it almost ridiculous that minimally invasive spine surgery is considered instrumentation using a stereotactic or other approach. To me, minimally invasive surgery is the antithesis of spine fusion surgery. I find it a bit unsettling that this instrumentation surgery is called minimally invasive.
Kenneth P. Burres, MD
Montclair, Calif.
Send Your Comments
Letters can be sent to [email protected]. Please include your full name, city and state, as well as disclosure of any conflicts of interest that might have bearing on the content of your letter. Correspondence selected for publication may be edited for length, style and clarity. Authorization to publish the correspondence in AANS Neurosurgeon is assumed unless otherwise specified.