Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 1 of 1 items for :

  • Author or Editor: Mena G. Kerolus x
  • Neurosurgical Focus x
  • Refine by Access: user x
Clear All Modify Search
Free access

Cervical arthroplasty: what does the labeling say?

Mazda K. Turel, Mena G. Kerolus, Owoicho Adogwa, and Vincent C. Traynelis

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.