Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Cervical arthroplasty: what does the labeling say?
Turel, Mazda K; Kerolus, Mena G; Adogwa, Owoicho; Traynelis, Vincent C.
Afiliação
  • Turel MK; Department of Neurosurgery, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois.
  • Kerolus MG; Department of Neurosurgery, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois.
  • Adogwa O; Department of Neurosurgery, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois.
  • Traynelis VC; Department of Neurosurgery, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois.
Neurosurg Focus ; 42(2): E2, 2017 Feb.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-28142245
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE The aim of this paper was to comprehensively review each of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved labels of 7 total cervical disc replacements, assess the exact methodology in which the trial was conducted, and provide a broad comparison of these devices to allow each surgeon to determine which disc best suits his or her specific treatment goals based on the specific labels and not the studies published. METHODS The FDA-approved labels for each of the 7 artificial discs were obtained from the official FDA website. These labels were meticulously compared with regard to the statistical analysis performed, the safety and efficacy data, and the randomized controlled trial that each artificial disc was involved in to obtain the FDA approval for the product or device. Both single-level and 2-level approvals were examined, and primary and secondary end points were assessed. RESULTS In the single-level group, 4 of the 7 artificial discs-Prestige LP, Prestige ST, Bryan, and Secure-C-showed superiority in overall success. Prestige ST showed superiority in 3 of 4 outcome measures (neurological success, revision surgery, and overall success), while the other aforementioned discs showed superiority in 2 or fewer measures (Prestige LP, neurological and overall success; Bryan, Neck Disability Index [NDI] and overall success; Secure-C, revision surgery and overall success; Pro-Disc C, revision surgery). The PCM and Mobi-C discs demonstrated noninferiority across all outcome measures. In the 2-level group, Prestige LP and Mobi-C demonstrated superiority in 3 outcome measures (NDI, secondary surgery, and overall success) but not neurological success. CONCLUSIONS This paper provides a comprehensive analysis of 7 currently approved and distributed artificial discs in the United States. It compares specific outcome measures of these devices against those following the standard of care, which is anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. This information will provide surgeons the opportunity to easily answer patients' questions and remain knowledgeable when discussing devices with manufacturers.
Assuntos
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Doenças da Coluna Vertebral / Vértebras Cervicais / Substituição Total de Disco Tipo de estudo: Clinical_trials Limite: Humans País/Região como assunto: America do norte Idioma: En Revista: Neurosurg Focus Assunto da revista: NEUROCIRURGIA Ano de publicação: 2017 Tipo de documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Doenças da Coluna Vertebral / Vértebras Cervicais / Substituição Total de Disco Tipo de estudo: Clinical_trials Limite: Humans País/Região como assunto: America do norte Idioma: En Revista: Neurosurg Focus Assunto da revista: NEUROCIRURGIA Ano de publicação: 2017 Tipo de documento: Article