{"title":"颈椎人工椎间盘置换术(C-ADR):使用和趋势的全球视角。","authors":"John Rhee, Ellen M Van Alstyne, Andrea C Skelly","doi":"10.1055/s-0031-1298609","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Study design: </strong> Cross-sectional survey.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong> 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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong> 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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong> 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.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong> 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.</p>","PeriodicalId":89675,"journal":{"name":"Evidence-based spine-care journal","volume":"3 S1","pages":"53-8"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2012-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1055/s-0031-1298609","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Cervical artificial disc replacement (C-ADR): global perspectives on use and trends.\",\"authors\":\"John Rhee, Ellen M Van Alstyne, Andrea C Skelly\",\"doi\":\"10.1055/s-0031-1298609\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Study design: </strong> Cross-sectional survey.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong> 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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong> 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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong> 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.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong> 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.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":89675,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Evidence-based spine-care journal\",\"volume\":\"3 S1\",\"pages\":\"53-8\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2012-02-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1055/s-0031-1298609\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Evidence-based spine-care journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0031-1298609\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Evidence-based spine-care journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0031-1298609","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
Cervical artificial disc replacement (C-ADR): global perspectives on use and trends.
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.