Characterization of Spine Implant Device Recalls: A 21-Year Analysis.

IF 3.5 2区 医学 Q2 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY Spine Pub Date : 2026-02-15 Epub Date: 2025-02-18 DOI:10.1097/BRS.0000000000005304
Haseeb E Goheer, Mina Botros, Yasmine S Ghattas, Phillip T Yang, Rebecca M Irwin, Varun Puvanesarajah
{"title":"Characterization of Spine Implant Device Recalls: A 21-Year Analysis.","authors":"Haseeb E Goheer, Mina Botros, Yasmine S Ghattas, Phillip T Yang, Rebecca M Irwin, Varun Puvanesarajah","doi":"10.1097/BRS.0000000000005304","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Study design: </strong>Observational epidemiological study.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To identify and comprehensively assess reasons for recalls of spinal implant devices used in patients over the past 21 years.</p><p><strong>Background: </strong>The number of spine implant devices on the market continues to rise. Although the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulates the safety of these devices, there is a paucity of literature on the reasons spine implant devices are recalled.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>The FDA device recall database was queried using the search term \"spine\" for recalls between 2003 and 2024. Data were collected regarding recall class, recall reason, FDA 510(k)/premarket approval decision date, product manufacturer, and device indication. The data were then reviewed to identify recalls for spine implant devices.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 386 spine implant devices were identified between January 2003 and December 2024. Among all recalls classified, 3.4% (n = 13) were class I, 88.1% (n = 340) were class II, and 8.5% (n = 33) were class III. The most common reasons for recall were \"Device/Component Design\" (52.8%) and \"Packaging and Processing Control\" (24.1%). The median number of devices recalled by manufacturers included in the study was 2, with the highest being 41 devices.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Overall, 76.9% of spine implant recalls reviewed were primarily due to issues with device design and processing control. Of recalls, 88.1% were classified with a class II FDA designation. This is the first study to present a retrospective regulatory analysis of FDA spine implant recalls and highlights the importance of premarket analysis and postmarketing surveillance to improve device safety.</p><p><strong>Level of evidence: </strong>Level IV.</p>","PeriodicalId":22193,"journal":{"name":"Spine","volume":" ","pages":"E107-E111"},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2026-02-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Spine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000005304","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/2/18 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Study design: Observational epidemiological study.

Objective: To identify and comprehensively assess reasons for recalls of spinal implant devices used in patients over the past 21 years.

Background: The number of spine implant devices on the market continues to rise. Although the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulates the safety of these devices, there is a paucity of literature on the reasons spine implant devices are recalled.

Materials and methods: The FDA device recall database was queried using the search term "spine" for recalls between 2003 and 2024. Data were collected regarding recall class, recall reason, FDA 510(k)/premarket approval decision date, product manufacturer, and device indication. The data were then reviewed to identify recalls for spine implant devices.

Results: A total of 386 spine implant devices were identified between January 2003 and December 2024. Among all recalls classified, 3.4% (n = 13) were class I, 88.1% (n = 340) were class II, and 8.5% (n = 33) were class III. The most common reasons for recall were "Device/Component Design" (52.8%) and "Packaging and Processing Control" (24.1%). The median number of devices recalled by manufacturers included in the study was 2, with the highest being 41 devices.

Conclusions: Overall, 76.9% of spine implant recalls reviewed were primarily due to issues with device design and processing control. Of recalls, 88.1% were classified with a class II FDA designation. This is the first study to present a retrospective regulatory analysis of FDA spine implant recalls and highlights the importance of premarket analysis and postmarketing surveillance to improve device safety.

Level of evidence: Level IV.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
脊柱植入器械召回的特征:21年分析。
研究设计:观察性流行病学研究。目的:确定并综合评估过去21年来患者使用的脊柱植入装置召回的原因。背景资料摘要:市场上脊柱植入装置的数量持续上升。尽管美国食品和药物管理局(FDA)规定了这些器械的安全性,但关于脊柱植入物被召回的原因的文献很少。方法:使用检索词“spine”查询2003年至2024年FDA器械召回数据库中的召回信息。收集的数据包括召回类别、召回原因、FDA 510(k)/上市前批准决定日期、产品制造商和器械适应症。然后审查数据以确定脊柱植入装置的召回。结果:2003年1月至2024年12月共发现386个脊柱植入装置。在所有分类的召回中,3.4% (n=13)为ⅰ类召回,88.1% (n=340)为ⅱ类召回,8.5% (n=33)为ⅲ类召回。召回最常见的原因是“器械/组件设计”(52.8%)和“包装/加工控制”(24.1%)。研究中包括的制造商召回的设备中位数为2台,最高为41台。结论:总体而言,76.9%的脊柱植入物召回主要是由于器械设计和工艺控制问题。88.1%的召回被归类为FDA指定的II类。这是第一个对FDA脊柱植入物召回进行回顾性监管分析的研究,并强调了上市前分析和上市后监督对提高器械安全性的重要性。证据等级:4。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Spine
Spine 医学-临床神经学
CiteScore
5.90
自引率
6.70%
发文量
361
审稿时长
6.0 months
期刊介绍: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins is a leading international publisher of professional health information for physicians, nurses, specialized clinicians and students. For a complete listing of titles currently published by Lippincott Williams & Wilkins and detailed information about print, online, and other offerings, please visit the LWW Online Store. Recognized internationally as the leading journal in its field, Spine is an international, peer-reviewed, bi-weekly periodical that considers for publication original articles in the field of Spine. It is the leading subspecialty journal for the treatment of spinal disorders. Only original papers are considered for publication with the understanding that they are contributed solely to Spine. The Journal does not publish articles reporting material that has been reported at length elsewhere.
期刊最新文献
Inpatient and Outpatient Palliative Care Utilization Rates of Patients With Spine Metastases. Breaking Down Instability: The Associations Between Muscle Health, Facet Joint Morphology, Spinopelvic Alignment, and Stability Status in Degenerative Lumbar Spondylolisthesis. Posterior Spinal Fusion With Rib Resection Allows for Improved Deformity Correction as Well as Patient Satisfaction. The Relationship of CT Hounsfield Units at UIV+1 and UIV+2 Relative to UIV Predicts Proximal Junctional Kyphosis in Patients With Long Spinal Constructs. Preoperative Predictors of Poor Outcomes Following Lumbar Discectomy. A Study Based on the National Finspine Registry.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1