Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
European Spine Journal
Published in: European Spine Journal 9/2016

Open Access 01-09-2016 | Health Technology Assessment & Transfer

Market approval processes for new types of spinal devices: challenges and recommendations for improvement

Authors: Arno Bisschop, Maurits W. van Tulder

Published in: European Spine Journal | Issue 9/2016

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Spinal pathology and related symptoms are among the most common health problems and are associated with high health care costs and productivity losses. Due to the aging population, these costs are further increasing every year. Another important reason for the increasing costs is the market approval of new technologies, such as spinal devices that are usually more expensive than the existing technologies. Previous cases of medical device failure led to concern about possible deficiencies in the market approval process.

Objective

The objective is to provide an overview of U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulation regarding spinal implants to delineate the challenges and opportunities that spine surgery currently faces.

Methods

In this paper, two cases of market entries of spinal devices are presented and evaluated to illustrate these deficiencies.

Results

Spinal implant regulation is facing several challenges. New spinal devices should increase patient outcomes and safety at reasonable societal costs. The main challenge is to have a rigorous evaluation before dissemination, while still leaving room for innovative behavior that thrusts the healthcare practice forward.

Conclusion

We have provided recommendations to enhance spinal implant regulation and improve and ensure the patient’s safety and the future of spine surgery.
Footnotes
Literature
1.
Murray CJ, Barber RM, Foreman KJ, et al (2015) Global, regional, and national disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) for 306 diseases and injuries and healthy life expectancy (HALE) for 188 countries, 1990–2013: quantifying the epidemiological transition. Lancet 61340-X
2.
3.
Martin BI, Deyo RA, Mirza SK et al (2008) Expenditures and health status among adults with back and neck problems. JAMA 299:656–664CrossRefPubMed
4.
Schemitsch EH, Bhandari M, Boden SD et al (2010) The evidence-based approach in bringing new orthopaedic devices to market. J Bone Joint Surg Am 92:1030–1037CrossRefPubMed
5.
6.
Simmonds MC, Brown JV, Heirs MK et al (2013) Safety and effectiveness of recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 for spinal fusion: a meta-analysis of individual-participant data. Ann Intern Med 158:877–889CrossRefPubMed
7.
Fu R, Selph S, McDonagh M et al (2013) Effectiveness and harms of recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 in spine fusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med 158:890–902CrossRefPubMed
8.
Rodgers MA, Brown JV, Heirs MK et al (2013) Reporting of industry funded study outcome data: comparison of confidential and published data on the safety and effectiveness of rhBMP-2 for spinal fusion. BMJ 346:f3981CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
9.
Carragee EJ, Hurwitz EL, Weiner BK (2011) A critical review of recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 trials in spinal surgery: emerging safety concerns and lessons learned. Spine J 11:471–491CrossRefPubMed
10.
Kirkpatrick JS, Stevens T (2008) The FDA process for the evaluation and approval of orthopaedic devices. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 16:260–267CrossRefPubMed
11.
Sheth U, Nguyen NA, Gaines S et al (2009) New orthopedic devices and the FDA. J Long Term Eff Med Implants 19:173–184CrossRefPubMed
12.
13.
Zucherman JF, Hsu KY, Hartjen CA et al (2004) A prospective randomized multi-center study for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis with the X STOP interspinous implant: 1-year results. Eur Spine J 13:22–31CrossRefPubMed
14.
Lee J, Hida K, Seki T et al (2004) An interspinous process distractor (X STOP) for lumbar spinal stenosis in elderly patients: preliminary experiences in 10 consecutive cases. J Spinal Disord Tech 17:72–77 (Discussion 78) CrossRefPubMed
15.
Wiseman CM, Lindsey DP, Fredrick AD et al (2005) The effect of an interspinous process implant on facet loading during extension. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 30:903–907CrossRef
16.
Lindsey DP, Swanson KE, Fuchs P et al (2003) The effects of an interspinous implant on the kinematics of the instrumented and adjacent levels in the lumbar spine. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 28:2192–2197CrossRef
17.
Richards JC, Majumdar S, Lindsey DP et al (2005) The treatment mechanism of an interspinous process implant for lumbar neurogenic intermittent claudication. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 30:744–749CrossRef
18.
Miller LE, Block JE (2012) Interspinous spacer implant in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis: preliminary results of a multicenter, randomized, controlled trial. Pain Res Treat 2012:823509PubMedPubMedCentral
19.
Anderson PA, Tribus CB, Kitchel SH (2006) Treatment of neurogenic claudication by interspinous decompression: application of the X STOP device in patients with lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis. J Neurosurg Spine 4:463–471CrossRefPubMed
20.
Hsu KY, Zucherman JF, Hartjen CA et al (2006) Quality of life of lumbar stenosis-treated patients in whom the X STOP interspinous device was implanted. J Neurosurg Spine 5:500–507CrossRefPubMed
21.
Zucherman JF, Hsu KY, Hartjen CA et al (2005) A multicenter, prospective, randomized trial evaluating the X STOP interspinous process decompression system for the treatment of neurogenic intermittent claudication: two-year follow-up results. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 30:1351–1358CrossRef
22.
Stromquist B, Svante B, Paul G et al (2013) X-Stop versus decompressive surgery for lumbar neurogenic intermittent claudication: a randomized controlled trial with 2 years follow-up. Spine (Phila Pa 1976)
23.
Patel VV, Whang PG, Haley TR et al (2014) Two-year clinical outcomes of a multicenter randomized controlled trial comparing two interspinous spacers for treatment of moderate lumbar spinal stenosis. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 15:221. doi:10.​1186/​1471-2474-1115-1221
24.
Patel VV, Whang PG, Haley TR et al (2015) Superion interspinous process spacer for intermittent neurogenic claudication secondary to moderate lumbar spinal stenosis: two-year results from a randomized controlled FDA-IDE pivotal trial. Spine (Phila Pa) 40:275–282
25.
Lonne G, Johnsen LG, Rossvoll I et al (2015) Minimally invasive decompression versus X-Stop in lumbar spinal stenosis: a randomized controlled multicenter study. Spine (Phila Pa) 40:77–85
26.
Burnett MG, Stein SC, Bartels RH (2010) Cost-effectiveness of current treatment strategies for lumbar spinal stenosis: nonsurgical care, laminectomy, and X-Stop. J Neurosurg Spine 13:39–46CrossRefPubMed
27.
Skidmore G, Ackerman SJ, Bergin C et al (2011) Cost-effectiveness of the X-Stop(R) interspinous spacer for lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 36:E345–E356
28.
Lonne G, Johnsen LG, Aas E et al (2015) Comparing cost-effectiveness of X-Stop with minimally invasive decompression in lumbar spinal stenosis: a randomized controlled trial. Spine (Phila Pa) 40:514–520
29.
Verhoof OJ, Bron JL, Wapstra FH et al (2008) High failure rate of the interspinous distraction device (X-Stop) for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis caused by degenerative spondylolisthesis. Eur Spine J 17:188–192 Epub 2007 Sep 2011 CrossRefPubMed
30.
Deyo RA, Martin BI, Ching A et al (2013) Interspinous spacers compared to decompression or fusion for lumbar stenosis: complications and repeat operations in the medicare population. Spine (Phila Pa 1976)
31.
Issack PS, Cunningham ME, Pumberger M et al (2012) Degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis: evaluation and management. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 20:527–535CrossRefPubMed
32.
Lexchin J, Bero LA, Djulbegovic B et al (2003) Pharmaceutical industry sponsorship and research outcome and quality: systematic review. BMJ 326:1167–1170CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
33.
Christie SD, Song JK, Fessler RG (2005) Dynamic interspinous process technology. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 30:S73–S78
34.
35.
Sengupta DK, Herkowitz HN (2012) Pedicle screw-based posterior dynamic stabilization: literature review. Adv Orthop 2012:424268. doi:10.​1155/​2012/​424268. (Epub 422012 Nov 424228)
36.
Mulholland RC, Sengupta DK (2002) Rationale, principles and experimental evaluation of the concept of soft stabilization. Eur Spine J 11(Suppl 2):S198–S205PubMedPubMedCentral
37.
Stoll TM, Dubois G, Schwarzenbach O (2002) The dynamic neutralization system for the spine: a multi-center study of a novel non-fusion system. Eur Spine J 11(Suppl 2):S170–S178PubMedPubMedCentral
38.
Schmoelz W, Huber JF, Nydegger T et al (2003) Dynamic stabilization of the lumbar spine and its effects on adjacent segments: an in vitro experiment. J Spinal Disord Tech 16:418–423CrossRefPubMed
39.
Yu SW, Yang SC, Ma CH et al (2012) Comparison of Dynesys posterior stabilization and posterior lumbar interbody fusion for spinal stenosis L4L5. Acta Orthop Belg 78:230–239PubMed
40.
Welch WC, Cheng BC, Awad TE et al (2007) Clinical outcomes of the Dynesys dynamic neutralization system: 1-year preliminary results. Neurosurg Focus 22:E8CrossRefPubMed
41.
Shen M, Zhang K, Koettig P et al (2011) In vivo biostability of polymeric spine implants: retrieval analyses from a United States investigational device exemption study. Eur Spine J 20:1837–1849CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
42.
Ko CC, Tsai HW, Huang WC et al (2010) Screw loosening in the Dynesys stabilization system: radiographic evidence and effect on outcomes. Neurosurg Focus 28:E10CrossRefPubMed
43.
44.
Schaeren S, Broger I, Jeanneret B (2008) Minimum four-year follow-up of spinal stenosis with degenerative spondylolisthesis treated with decompression and dynamic stabilization. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 33:E636–E642
45.
Grob D, Benini A, Junge A et al (2005) Clinical experience with the Dynesys semirigid fixation system for the lumbar spine: surgical and patient-oriented outcome in 50 cases after an average of 2 years. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 30:324–331
46.
Carragee EJ, Deyo RA, Kovacs FM et al (2009) Clinical research: is the spine field a mine field? Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 34:423–430
47.
Weiner BK, Levi BH (2004) The profit motive and spine surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 29:2588–2591
48.
Shah RV, Albert TJ, Bruegel-Sanchez V et al (2005) Industry support and correlation to study outcome for papers published in Spine. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 30:1099–1104. (Discussion 1105)
49.
Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE et al (2008) GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ 336:924–926CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
50.
Kavanagh BP (2009) The GRADE system for rating clinical guidelines. PLoS Med 6:94CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Market approval processes for new types of spinal devices: challenges and recommendations for improvement
Authors
Arno Bisschop
Maurits W. van Tulder
Publication date
01-09-2016
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
European Spine Journal / Issue 9/2016
Print ISSN: 0940-6719
Electronic ISSN: 1432-0932
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-016-4606-1

Other articles of this Issue 9/2016

European Spine Journal 9/2016 Go to the issue

Letter to the Editor

Letter to the Editor concerning “Virtually bloodless posterior midline exposure of the lumbar spine using the ‘paramidline’ fatty plane” by Moghimi MH, Leonard DA, Cho CH, et al. (Eur Spine J (2016) 25;956–962)

Original Article

Tennis is not dangerous for the spine during growth: results of a cross-sectional study

Original Article

Multivariable modeling of factors associated with spinal pain in young adolescence

Original Article

Analysis of the impact of the course of hydration on the mechanical properties of the annulus fibrosus of the intervertebral disc

Original Article

Distinguishing characteristics of stem cells derived from different anatomical regions of human degenerated intervertebral discs

Letter to the Editor

Is duration of preoperative anti-tuberculosis treatment a risk factor for postoperative relapse or non-healing of spinal tuberculosis: response to comments by Li et al.