Cervical artificial disc replacement (C-ADR): global perspectives on use and trends

ABSTRACT

Study design: Cross-sectional survey.

Objectives: To obtain information from the global community regarding cervical artificial disc replacement (C-ADR) use and trends before and after US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval of devices in 2007 and summarize available information on utilization and government approval for devices.

Methods: Data on utilization and approval were sought from PubMed, Google, FDA, and manufacturers’ websites. The 6195 members of AOSpine International were invited to participate in a survey to assess global C-ADR use and trends.

Results: Publically available data on utilization, trends, and approval outside of the US and Europe is limited. No studies of utilization were found. Of 1479 professionals responding to the survey, 50% had C-ADR specific training and reported ever performing C-ADR. Most respondents believed that C-ADR was safe and effective, but approximately one quarter responded that they did not know. Of those who had done C-ADR, 49% reported performing ≥ 1 before December compared with 92% after January 2008 and 51.3% indicated that all their C-ADRs were placed in a single level; 27% reported ≥ 1 failures that required revision. The majority foresee that C-ADR use will increase in the next 5 years. Most respondents believed that the best indication is radiculopathy from soft-disc pathology rather than myelopathy or disorders arising from spondylotic (hard-disc) pathology.

Conclusion: More C-ADR has been performed after January 2008. Most respondents expect the number to increase. There may be differences in failure rates when performed inside or outside of a sponsored research trial.

• REFERENCES

• 1 Whang PG, Simpson AK, Rechtine G et al. 2009; Current trends in spinal arthroplasty: an assessment of surgeon practices and attitudes regarding cervical and lumbar disk replacement. J Spinal Disord Tech 22 (1) 26-33
• 2 Murrey D, Janssen M, Delamarter R et al. 2009; Results of the prospective, randomized, controlled multicenter Food and Drug Administration investigational device exemption study of the ProDisc-C total disc replacement versus anterior discectomy and fusion for the treatment of 1-level symptomatic cervical disc disease. Spine J 9 (4) 275-286
• 3 Heller JG, Sasso RC, Papadopoulos SM et al. 2009; Comparison of BRYAN cervical disc arthroplasty with anterior cervical decompression and fusion: clinical and radiographic results of a randomized, controlled, clinical trial. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 34: 101-107
• 4 Mummaneni PV, Burkus JK, Haid RW et al. 2007; Clinical and radiographic analysis of cervical disc arthroplasty compared with allograft fusion: a randomized controlled clinical trial. J Neurosurg Spine 6 (3) 198-209