Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 29 of 29

Thread: UK neurologist Dr. Peter M. Smith asks why syringomyelia surgeries are failures

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Bowers Gifford, Essex, UK.
    Posts
    1,798

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Janelise View Post
    I don’t really see the point of asking questions on this forum
    I think the answer to that is fairly clear Jane. This same link was shared by the same person, at the same time, but on 'that talk forum' we don't mention by name here..... and guess what... 34 people have looked at his post on that forum, but not one single person has commented on it .... and that might just be food for thought next time a link is shared by a certain member of this forum.

    Veronica.

  2. #22

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Janelise View Post
    ... I don’t really see the point of asking questions on this forum, nor do I see the point of posting the information on a web site if the owner of the website is unhappy with it.
    Jane, you don't see the point of posting information on a website if the owner of the website is unhappy with it? I don't follow you. The purpose of my original posting in this thread was to inform the viewers of Dr. Smith's views about past CM/SM research and what he thinks should be the focus of future research. This section of the bulletin board is titled "Syringomyelia". This certainly seems to be an appropriate forum to post such information.

    As for my questions, they were listed in response to an inquiry by another poster on this thread.
    Rod Russell

  3. #23

    Default

    OK, I’ll put it another way: it seemed to be an interesting and refreshing viewpoint being presented in a negative manner.

    I read the section entitled Research News; October 2013, on the Cavalier health website and which basically gives the information that Doctor Peter Smith asks questions, but states that he does not seem to mention any research he has done. There is an expression “Damning with faint praise” which is what this article seems to do. It is also a little frustrating that the article refers to an editorial that Dr Smith wrote in the “Veterinary journal” but doesn’t state WHICH veterinary journal; there are several!

    I do find it EXTREMELY refreshing that there is a neurologist who is asking questions and suggesting better understanding. The statement that he is “seeming to criticize others’ studies” is negative, especially when coupled with the statement that he does not offer any new strategies.

    Here is how it struck me, précis:

    NEGATIVE : UK's Dr. Peter Smith seems to criticize others' studies
    POSITIVE : He suggests the need to understand why the syrinx forms, in order to improve surgical treatments and strategies aimed at preventing development of the syrinx.
    NEGATIVE : He does not mention any findings that decompression surgeries have not been successful. (my question: why was this rather unwieldy wording used?? It would have been simpler to say “have been unsuccessful”.) *
    NEGATIVE : Dr. Smith does not offer any new strategies aimed at preventing development of syrinxes or achieving better understanding of the pain suffered by affected dogs.

    *I found this information on Ms Rusbridge’s own website:
    “Cranial/cervical decompression surgery is successful in reducing pain and improving neurological deficits in approximately 80% of cases and approximately 45% of cases may still have a satisfactory quality of life 2 years postoperatively (Rusbridge 2007). However surgery may not adequately address the factors leading to syringomyelia and the syrinx appears persistent in many cases (Rusbridge 2007).“

    I do not, therefore, think Dr Smith needed to mention it, as other neurologists would, or should, be aware.

    Hi Veronica, if the same post went to another forum and no-one commented it could be that they just weren’t interested enough, or that they were dismayed to think there may be other ideas floating around.

    Jane

  4. #24

    Default

    The title of this thread "UK neurologist Dr.Peter M Smith asks why syringomyelia surgeries are failures"

    .....Suggests to me a talking point, an open minded invitation for discussion.

    An 'opinion' would need a hypothesis no doubt closely followed by a method .....which would need subjects, time and considerable finance.
    Early days perhaps?

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Bowers Gifford, Essex, UK.
    Posts
    1,798

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Janelise View Post

    Hi Veronica, if the same post went to another forum and no-one commented it could be that they just weren’t interested enough, or that they were dismayed to think there may be other ideas floating around.
    IMHO Jane, I think it's more about who comes out to play. 'They' decide to ignore this poster, but we take the bait

    Warm regards,
    Veronica.

  6. #26

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Janelise View Post
    ... It is also a little frustrating that the article refers to an editorial that Dr Smith wrote in the “Veterinary journal” but doesn’t state WHICH veterinary journal; there are several!
    Actually, there is only one veterinary journal with the name "The Veterinary Journal". http://www.journals.elsevier.com/the...inary-journal/

    Quote Originally Posted by Janelise View Post
    ... I do find it EXTREMELY refreshing that there is a neurologist who is asking questions and suggesting better understanding. The statement that he is “seeming to criticize others’ studies” is negative, especially when coupled with the statement that he does not offer any new strategies.
    Is a "negative" observation about Dr. Smith's negativity such a bad thing that it should not be published? The fact is that he criticizes the CM /SM researchers published work for continuing to focus upon morphology. In another section of his editorial, he writes that Dr. Colin Driver's article being published in the same issue of The Veterinary Journal "highlights our tendency as a profession to focus on morphological measurements in affected dogs." His comment suggests that the researchers are mired in a knee-jerk, simplistic approach, that "morphology" is passé. So, Dr. Smith is being "negative" in his commentary.

    He asks: "Why, then, does the syrinx not collapse in dogs that undergo decompressive surgery? Perhaps surgery fails to address the key problem in affected dogs." He suggests that the presence of subarachnoid adhesions may play a significant role in syrinx formation -- based upon human studies -- as if no such studies have been made of their role in dogs. In fact, there have been such canine studies of cavaliers, dating back to at least 2006.

    What about his surgeries? Has he explored the subarachnoid and found adhesions? Has he tried to resolve them during those surgeries? Or has he, too, failed to address this "key problem"?

    He concludes: "We should not only aim to understand why some dogs that undergo surgery fail to resolve their syrinx, but perhaps also try to pre-empt the development of the syrinx in the first place." That's fine, but I wonder, who are the "we"? Where has "he" been all this time? What does "he" plan to do about this in the future?
    Rod Russell

  7. Default

    Well, I'll venture to suggest why a syrinx doesn't collapse after surgery. The 'wall' of a syrinx is obviously (it would seem to me) a weaker spot in the 'pipe' because otherwise the syrinx wouldn't have formed there in the first place. Fluid continues to go through and will fill up any spaces it finds that offer no resistance - that's the nature of a fluid.

    I would also venture to suggest that it's possible that the pressure on the 'wall' isn't as great and therefore can reduce the discomfort. I'm not aware of the author suggesting any time periods for shrinkage of a syrinx? It may be that a syrinx will over time become smaller after surgery.
    Sheena Stevens

  8. #28

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Madam Grump View Post
    Well, I'll venture to suggest why a syrinx doesn't collapse after surgery. The 'wall' of a syrinx is obviously (it would seem to me) a weaker spot in the 'pipe' because otherwise the syrinx wouldn't have formed there in the first place. Fluid continues to go through and will fill up any spaces it finds that offer no resistance - that's the nature of a fluid.

    I would also venture to suggest that it's possible that the pressure on the 'wall' isn't as great and therefore can reduce the discomfort. I'm not aware of the author suggesting any time periods for shrinkage of a syrinx? It may be that a syrinx will over time become smaller after surgery.
    Dr. Smith cites articles about human syrinxes collapsing after surgery. That seems to be the genesis of his suggestion. Also, I've heard that syrinxes collapse upon death, thus hindering research during necropsies.
    Rod Russell

  9. Default

    Well, it's unsurprising to me that a human's syrinx collapses after surgery given the angle to the ground.

    A syrinx will eventually collapse after death, but my experience is not for at least six to eight hours.
    Sheena Stevens

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •