un moment stp.... tu paye sur un temps pour eichel ..... drouin ok kk ok (pour un joueur comme eichel) mais apres norlinders et 2 choix 1 .... pour moi norlinders est un intouchable ... le kid a des skyle de fou .. si il faut ca ce transfere dans la nhl il deviendra une machine. pour moi eichel est un gros ? je n'ai aucun proble a donné des prospect b (b+) et choix mais faut pas devenir fou

Eichel trades do not make sense until he is fully recovered from his surgery. There is just too much risk (15-25% chance of surgery failure) for a team to give up major assets to acquire Eichel. I would suggest that you forget Eichel until at least next years deadline.

There is no risk, its not as big a deal as the rumor community has morphed it into

Going to have to add Suzuki. Mtls pick this year is basically valueless

ENOUGH WITH THESE EICHEL TRADES.
The only way a deal happens is if Montreal starts with Suzuki and that's not happening so just move on and forget about it.

There is a 75-85% chance of a successful surgery (no surgery is RISK FREE). That literally means there is a 15-25% chance of failure. If you ask me that is the very definition of RISK.

Based on what. Its not an experimental surgery, its been around for over a decade and has been performed on multiple pro athletes. Blowing it out of proportion doesnt discount Eichels value nor does it mean he wont get traded

How about the following study which actually calculates the odds of failure at 26%. Care to argue that there is no risk some more?

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28632563/

Theres this thing that happens on this site, mostly with hockey stats but now medical information i guess, where people go diving for stats and post things they dont fully comprehend to back up their statement. This is a 4 year old survey of 91 specific patients. Thats the failure rate of that group, not the surgery as a whole. Not only that we have no idea who the patients are or their lifestyle. This surgery has been around since the early 80s with 100s of thousands of patients. Declaring a 26% total failure rate based on the study of 91 patients is asinine

First you claim that the surgery has been around for 10 year now ist more than 30. Make up your mind buddy. So a 4 year old study is obsolete just because it doesn't support your narrative. How do you think they actually determine the success rates of surgeries? They do these kinds of studies and monitor the results with follow up appointments.

Over a decade = more than 10 years. I was suprised it went back 40 but knew about surgeries from the mid 2000s, hence over a decade. That was a stretch to call out. I didnt say it was obsolete, i said it was statistically irrelevant, it has nothing to do with narrative its simple analytics.

"How do you think they actually determine the success rates of surgeries? They do these kinds of studies and monitor the results with follow up appointments."
I dont know what youre trying to get at with this, but youve been grasping at straws the whole time so ill chalk it up to that. I know thats how they determined the success rate of this study because i read the article and they explicitly stated so. Along with explicitly stating this is a study of 91 people

Ok you didn't like that study how about a report that took the results of 13 different independent studies involving 946 patients? The failure rates of the studies ranged from 0-34.4% and the re-opperation rate was 12.1% in a 3 year span. Given that this study is also 3 years old you can assume slight increases to the success and decreases to the failure rates but I would guess not much more than say 5%

https://josr-online.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13018-018-1032-6

You say I am grasping at straw by proving actual data to backup my comments yet you have yet to provide any data to suggest "there is no risk". It is you who is grasping at straws and trying to downplay his condition just like the Sabres GM is. Try providing proof that there is "no risk".

So no rebuttal then? Guess that means you concede the argument and are admitting the risk of ADR surgery is between 15 and 25%. Thank you for playing!

Edit** I never even considered checking the re-opperation rate for ADR until I found that in the report on the 13 studies. 12.1% in a 3 year span is an even bigger risk than the 15-25% success rate as that means that even after a successful surgery his career may end or he may have to have additional surgeries before his current contract expires.

Sorry im actually reading the article, not just copying and pasting it from google

I read it too, in fact because I have degenerative disc disease in my lower back I have read quite a few of these studies over the years. I have contemplated surgery multiple times.

Also, theres a massive difference between 15% and 25%, for reference ACL reconstruction surgery has a success rate of 80-90%, which is a failure rate of 10 to 20%, so a failure of 15%-20% puts the lumbar surgery in the same acceptability range as ACL reconstruction

LMAO, so now you are changing your stance from "no risk" to "acceptable risk"! How many ACL patients have to have a second operation in less than 3 years due to deterioration of the prosthesis? How about how many ACL patients have to have a second surgery within 3 year period? Acceptable risk for ACL surgery is not the same as acceptable risk for TDR. That is like comparing brain surgery to having your appendix removed. I guess when the data doesn't support your claim of "NO RISK" you have to try to deflect and minimize the results of 13 independent studies.

well that 5% was a guess and it was wrong, they provided the chart (Table 4): 134 failures out of 841 patients for a 16% failure average overall, 3 studies being omitted as they did not have that data available (one of those studies was the Meir et al. which was using a faulty device that accounted for the majority of its re-ops. That device was later discontinued). 31 of those failures were related to the physical act of the surgery (which is a risk in literally every surgery), and 23 were related to a faulty device, one such device that the article notes was discontinued. That leaves 80 patients of the 841 where the treatment itself was just a failure in alleviating the pain and increasing mobility, for a failure rate of 9.5%. Significantly smaller failure rate on a much larger scale, proving my point that the first study was statistically irrelevant, and even this is a small sample size compared to all of the surgeries that have been preformed.

No that was just an aside as you tried to move from 26% failure to 15-25% failure. ACL reconstructive surgery is probably the most common surgery in the NHL I would guess, no one argues with it, so it seems like a good contrast

OMG are you serious right now?! You can't throw out the surgeries that failed because of device failures (even the discontinued devices because all of the devices had some failure) or surgery complications just to lower the failure rates in your favor. These risks still apply, they will not magically disappear JUST because you want them to.



My original statement was 15-25% then you questioned my numbers so I provided the data saying 26% and you questioned that study saying it was a small sample size and data was irrelevant as it was 4 years old and blah blah blah. Then I provided a report that took into account 13 independent studies that looked at the mid to long term recovery rates which showed a much wider failure rate of 0-35%. I maintain that you have to toss out moth ends of the spectrum because there is absolutely no way there can be 100% success rates as all surgeries have failures. Also there is no way a doctor can have a career with a 35% failure rate, he wouldn't be able to find patients to preform surgery on with slightly over 50% success rates lol.

You are the one who keeps changing his narrative as you get educated on the subject. From your first comment of:



To your latest of:



BTW even a failure rate of 9.5% means that 1 out of every 10 surgeries fail to alleviate pain or increase mobility. It's not like we are talking about 1 in 100 or 1 in 1000 failure rates here its 1 in 10. That is not "" as you are trying to make it our to be.

Yikes bro. You know your grasping at straws, learn to take an L, ive debunked literally everything you put up. I havent changed any narrative, youre comparing my hyperbolic speak to your exact 26% based on a trash study then gave me another article that proved me right and all you got is "bUt yOu SaId No RiSk"

I would like to know how my study proved that there was NO RISK as you stated when it literally says the failure rate is between 0-35%? I think you parties one too many times with Kuznetsov! Wipe the powder from your nose and move along little boy! Eichel will not get you a great return until he is fully recovered!