18.根据美国食品和药物管理局保存的医疗器械报告,颈椎间盘关节置换术后进行翻修手术的原因

{"title":"18.根据美国食品和药物管理局保存的医疗器械报告,颈椎间盘关节置换术后进行翻修手术的原因","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.xnsj.2024.100356","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>BACKGROUND CONTEXT</h3><p>Cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA) was established in the last two decades as a motion-sparing alternative to anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) for degenerative cervical disease, achieving comparable patient-reported and clinical outcomes. Despite showing this outcome difference for various CDA models compared to ACDF, few studies have compared CDA models to one another. One study investigated the range of complications for the different CDAs based on reports from the Drug Administration's Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience (MAUDE) database until 2020, showing variability for each device. However, this study has not reported a detailed look at reported revision cases. To date, literature on complications associated with revision surgery for CDA is limited, mainly comparing CDA to fusion instead of comparing different CDA models to one another.</p></div><div><h3>PURPOSE</h3><p>To analyze revision cases due to complications related to CDA reported to the MAUDE database.</p></div><div><h3>STUDY DESIGN/SETTING</h3><p>Retrospective database review.</p></div><div><h3>PATIENT SAMPLE</h3><p>Nationwide database of reported revision cases related to CDA.</p></div><div><h3>OUTCOME MEASURES</h3><p>Factors associated with revision for CDA.</p></div><div><h3>METHODS</h3><p>The MAUDE database was queried for data from January 2005 to September 2023. All the reported complication entries for the nine FDA-approved CDA devices were analyzed. The full-text entries of all complications were analyzed, reported, and grouped depending on the revision surgery performed. For each revision case, the device used, the associated complication, the time until revision, and the type of revision surgery were collected. Those reports with insufficient information or were reported over social media were excluded.</p></div><div><h3>RESULTS</h3><p>In summary, 1,347 entries were analyzed from the MAUDE database, with the highest number of reports made to the database in 2018 (218). A total of 678 cases reported revision surgery for nine different CDA models: Mobi-C (239), M6 (167), Prodisc-C (88), Prestige (60), PCM (44), Bryan (35), Secure (23), Simplify (21) and Discover (1). The top three complications associated with CDA revision were implant migration (23.5%), neck pain (15.5%), and heterotopic ossification (6.6%). The top complication per device was migration for Mobi-C (26.4%), Prodisc-C (21.3%), Prestige (24.6%), PCM (84.1%), Bryan (48.6%), Secure (30.4%) and Discover (100%). For M6 the number one cause of revision was evenly split between osteolysis (18.6%) and neck pain (18.6%), while for Simplify, it was neck pain (23.8%). Of the reports that included the type of revision surgery, 283 (54.7%) were recorded as conversion to fusion.</p></div><div><h3>CONCLUSIONS</h3><p>The MAUDE database highlights complications related to revision cases for CDA, which may not receive sufficient emphasis in existing published studies and can vary depending on the device. Nevertheless, the primary complications linked to CDA revision consistently include implant migration, neck pain, and heterotopic ossification.</p></div><div><h3>FDA Device/Drug Status</h3><p>This abstract does not discuss or include any applicable devices or drugs.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":34622,"journal":{"name":"North American Spine Society Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666548424000490/pdfft?md5=0285d8ea43b5d60faa276998315508cf&pid=1-s2.0-S2666548424000490-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"18. Reason for revision surgery after cervical disc arthroplasty based on medical device reports maintained by the United States Food and Drug Administration\",\"authors\":\"\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.xnsj.2024.100356\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>BACKGROUND CONTEXT</h3><p>Cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA) was established in the last two decades as a motion-sparing alternative to anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) for degenerative cervical disease, achieving comparable patient-reported and clinical outcomes. Despite showing this outcome difference for various CDA models compared to ACDF, few studies have compared CDA models to one another. One study investigated the range of complications for the different CDAs based on reports from the Drug Administration's Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience (MAUDE) database until 2020, showing variability for each device. However, this study has not reported a detailed look at reported revision cases. To date, literature on complications associated with revision surgery for CDA is limited, mainly comparing CDA to fusion instead of comparing different CDA models to one another.</p></div><div><h3>PURPOSE</h3><p>To analyze revision cases due to complications related to CDA reported to the MAUDE database.</p></div><div><h3>STUDY DESIGN/SETTING</h3><p>Retrospective database review.</p></div><div><h3>PATIENT SAMPLE</h3><p>Nationwide database of reported revision cases related to CDA.</p></div><div><h3>OUTCOME MEASURES</h3><p>Factors associated with revision for CDA.</p></div><div><h3>METHODS</h3><p>The MAUDE database was queried for data from January 2005 to September 2023. All the reported complication entries for the nine FDA-approved CDA devices were analyzed. The full-text entries of all complications were analyzed, reported, and grouped depending on the revision surgery performed. For each revision case, the device used, the associated complication, the time until revision, and the type of revision surgery were collected. Those reports with insufficient information or were reported over social media were excluded.</p></div><div><h3>RESULTS</h3><p>In summary, 1,347 entries were analyzed from the MAUDE database, with the highest number of reports made to the database in 2018 (218). A total of 678 cases reported revision surgery for nine different CDA models: Mobi-C (239), M6 (167), Prodisc-C (88), Prestige (60), PCM (44), Bryan (35), Secure (23), Simplify (21) and Discover (1). The top three complications associated with CDA revision were implant migration (23.5%), neck pain (15.5%), and heterotopic ossification (6.6%). The top complication per device was migration for Mobi-C (26.4%), Prodisc-C (21.3%), Prestige (24.6%), PCM (84.1%), Bryan (48.6%), Secure (30.4%) and Discover (100%). For M6 the number one cause of revision was evenly split between osteolysis (18.6%) and neck pain (18.6%), while for Simplify, it was neck pain (23.8%). Of the reports that included the type of revision surgery, 283 (54.7%) were recorded as conversion to fusion.</p></div><div><h3>CONCLUSIONS</h3><p>The MAUDE database highlights complications related to revision cases for CDA, which may not receive sufficient emphasis in existing published studies and can vary depending on the device. Nevertheless, the primary complications linked to CDA revision consistently include implant migration, neck pain, and heterotopic ossification.</p></div><div><h3>FDA Device/Drug Status</h3><p>This abstract does not discuss or include any applicable devices or drugs.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":34622,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"North American Spine Society Journal\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666548424000490/pdfft?md5=0285d8ea43b5d60faa276998315508cf&pid=1-s2.0-S2666548424000490-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"North American Spine Society Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666548424000490\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"North American Spine Society Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666548424000490","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景康泰克颈椎间盘关节置换术(CDA)在过去二十年中被确立为治疗退行性颈椎病的前路颈椎椎间盘切除术和融合术(ACDF)的保留运动替代方案,患者报告的疗效和临床疗效相当。尽管与 ACDF 相比,各种 CDA 模式的疗效存在差异,但很少有研究对 CDA 模式进行相互比较。一项研究根据药物管理局制造商和用户设施设备经验(MAUDE)数据库中截至 2020 年的报告,调查了不同 CDA 的并发症范围,结果显示每种设备都存在差异。不过,这项研究并未对报告的翻修病例进行详细分析。迄今为止,有关 CDA 翻修手术相关并发症的文献很有限,主要是将 CDA 与融合术进行比较,而不是将不同的 CDA 型号相互比较。目的分析 MAUDE 数据库中报告的 CDA 相关并发症导致的翻修病例。对 FDA 批准的 9 种 CDA 设备的所有报告并发症条目进行了分析。对所有并发症的全文条目进行了分析、报告,并根据所实施的翻修手术进行了分组。收集了每个翻修病例所使用的器械、相关并发症、翻修前的时间以及翻修手术的类型。信息不充分或通过社交媒体报告的报告被排除在外。结果总之,从 MAUDE 数据库中分析了 1,347 个条目,其中 2018 年向数据库提交的报告数量最多(218)。共有 678 个病例报告了九种不同 CDA 型号的翻修手术:Mobi-C(239 例)、M6(167 例)、Prodisc-C(88 例)、Prestige(60 例)、PCM(44 例)、Bryan(35 例)、Secure(23 例)、Simplify(21 例)和 Discover(1 例)。与 CDA 翻修术相关的前三位并发症是植入体移位(23.5%)、颈部疼痛(15.5%)和异位骨化(6.6%)。Mobi-C (26.4%)、Prodisc-C (21.3%)、Prestige (24.6%)、PCM (84.1%)、Bryan (48.6%)、Secure (30.4%) 和 Discover (100%) 每种器械的首要并发症是移位。对于 M6 来说,骨溶解(18.6%)和颈部疼痛(18.6%)是造成翻修的主要原因,而对于简化来说,颈部疼痛(23.8%)是造成翻修的主要原因。结论MAUDE数据库强调了与CDA翻修病例相关的并发症,这些并发症在现有的已发表研究中可能没有得到足够重视,而且会因设备的不同而不同。尽管如此,与 CDA 翻修术相关的主要并发症始终包括植入物移位、颈部疼痛和异位骨化。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
18. Reason for revision surgery after cervical disc arthroplasty based on medical device reports maintained by the United States Food and Drug Administration

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA) was established in the last two decades as a motion-sparing alternative to anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) for degenerative cervical disease, achieving comparable patient-reported and clinical outcomes. Despite showing this outcome difference for various CDA models compared to ACDF, few studies have compared CDA models to one another. One study investigated the range of complications for the different CDAs based on reports from the Drug Administration's Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience (MAUDE) database until 2020, showing variability for each device. However, this study has not reported a detailed look at reported revision cases. To date, literature on complications associated with revision surgery for CDA is limited, mainly comparing CDA to fusion instead of comparing different CDA models to one another.

PURPOSE

To analyze revision cases due to complications related to CDA reported to the MAUDE database.

STUDY DESIGN/SETTING

Retrospective database review.

PATIENT SAMPLE

Nationwide database of reported revision cases related to CDA.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Factors associated with revision for CDA.

METHODS

The MAUDE database was queried for data from January 2005 to September 2023. All the reported complication entries for the nine FDA-approved CDA devices were analyzed. The full-text entries of all complications were analyzed, reported, and grouped depending on the revision surgery performed. For each revision case, the device used, the associated complication, the time until revision, and the type of revision surgery were collected. Those reports with insufficient information or were reported over social media were excluded.

RESULTS

In summary, 1,347 entries were analyzed from the MAUDE database, with the highest number of reports made to the database in 2018 (218). A total of 678 cases reported revision surgery for nine different CDA models: Mobi-C (239), M6 (167), Prodisc-C (88), Prestige (60), PCM (44), Bryan (35), Secure (23), Simplify (21) and Discover (1). The top three complications associated with CDA revision were implant migration (23.5%), neck pain (15.5%), and heterotopic ossification (6.6%). The top complication per device was migration for Mobi-C (26.4%), Prodisc-C (21.3%), Prestige (24.6%), PCM (84.1%), Bryan (48.6%), Secure (30.4%) and Discover (100%). For M6 the number one cause of revision was evenly split between osteolysis (18.6%) and neck pain (18.6%), while for Simplify, it was neck pain (23.8%). Of the reports that included the type of revision surgery, 283 (54.7%) were recorded as conversion to fusion.

CONCLUSIONS

The MAUDE database highlights complications related to revision cases for CDA, which may not receive sufficient emphasis in existing published studies and can vary depending on the device. Nevertheless, the primary complications linked to CDA revision consistently include implant migration, neck pain, and heterotopic ossification.

FDA Device/Drug Status

This abstract does not discuss or include any applicable devices or drugs.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
71
审稿时长
48 days
期刊最新文献
Genetics and pathogenesis of scoliosis Incidence of temporary intraoperative iliac artery occlusion during anterior spinal surgery The hidden risk: Intracranial hemorrhage following durotomies in spine surgery Sequential correction of sagittal vertical alignment and lumbar lordosis in adult flatback deformity Spinal alignment and surgical correction in the aging spine and osteoporotic patient
×
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:481959085
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