Literature DB >> 23972533

Utilization trends of cervical artificial disc replacement during the FDA investigational device exemption clinical trials compared to anterior cervical fusion.

Sheeraz A Qureshi1, Steven M Koehler, Young Lu, Samuel Cho, Andrew C Hecht.   

Abstract

While anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) is the gold standard surgical treatment for cervical disc disease, concerns regarding adjacent segment degeneration lead to the development of cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA). This study compares the utilization trends of CDA versus ACDF during the period of the Food and Drug Administration Investigational Device Exemption clinical trials from 2004 to 2007. The Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project Nationwide Inpatient Sample database was used to identify CDA and ACDF procedures performed in the USA between 2004 and 2007. The prevalence of CDA and ACDF procedures was estimated and stratified by age, sex, diagnosis, census region, payor class, and hospital characteristics. The average length of hospital stay, total charges, and costs were also estimated. The number of CDA surgeries significantly increased annually from 2004 to 2007 and mostly took place at urban non-teaching hospitals. There were no regional differences between CDA and ACDF utilization. There was no difference between sex or admission type between CDA and ACDF patients. ACDF patients were older and had more diabetes, hypertension, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. CDA patients were more likely to be discharged home and had shorter hospital stays but had a higher rate of deep venous thrombosis than ACDF patients. Significantly more CDA patients had private insurance while more ACDF patients had Medicare. The average cost was higher for ACDF than CDA. While ACDF dominated surgical intervention for cervical disc disease during the trial period, CDA utilization increased at a significantly greater rate suggesting rapid early adoption.
Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion; Cervical disc arthroplasty; Clinical trials; Cost; Demographics; Nationwide inpatient survey

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23972533     DOI: 10.1016/j.jocn.2013.03.002

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Neurosci        ISSN: 0967-5868            Impact factor:   1.961


  5 in total

1.  Commentary: Utilization Trends of Cervical Disk Replacement in the United States.

Authors:  Panagiotis Kerezoudis; Mohammed Ali Alvi; Anshit Goyal; Daniel S Ubl; Jenna Meyer; Elizabeth B Habermann; Bradford L Currier; Mohamad Bydon
Journal:  Oper Neurosurg (Hagerstown)       Date:  2018-10-01       Impact factor: 2.703

Review 2.  Artificial disc replacement in spine surgery.

Authors:  Yahya A Othman; Ravi Verma; Sheeraz A Qureshi
Journal:  Ann Transl Med       Date:  2019-09

3.  Placing ball and socket cervical total disc replacement using instant center of rotation.

Authors:  Kingsley R Chin; Fabio J R Pencle; Amala Benny; Jason A Seale
Journal:  J Orthop       Date:  2019-05-01

Review 4.  Durability of cervical disc arthroplasties and its influence factors: A systematic review and a network meta-analysis.

Authors:  Chao Chen; Xiaolin Zhang; Xinlong Ma
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2017-02       Impact factor: 1.889

5.  Cervical Footprint Anthropometry in Indian Population: Implications on Design of Artificial Disc Replacement Devices.

Authors:  Arvind Gopalrao Kulkarni; Vishwanath Mahabaleshwar Patil; Shashidhar Kantharajanna Bangalore; Abhishek Saraf
Journal:  Asian Spine J       Date:  2016-02-16
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.