TY - JOUR
T1 - Cervical arthroplasty
T2 - What does the labeling say?
AU - Turel, Mazda K.
AU - Kerolus, Mena G.
AU - Adogwa, Owoicho
AU - Traynelis, Vincent C.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© AANS, 2017.
PY - 2017
Y1 - 2017
N2 - 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.
AB - 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.
KW - Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion
KW - Cervical arthroplasty
KW - Food and Drug Administration
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85012031818&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85012031818&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.3171/2016.11.FOCUS16414
DO - 10.3171/2016.11.FOCUS16414
M3 - Article
C2 - 28142245
AN - SCOPUS:85012031818
SN - 1092-0684
VL - 42
JO - Neurosurgical focus
JF - Neurosurgical focus
IS - 2
M1 - E2
ER -