Medtronic may have a great device, but...

[Harrison]

In recent posts, we talked about the �good, bad and the ugly� with respect to the quality and accuracy of information. The following page is rather remarkable in terms of its bias. Bear in mind that this comparative review is written by Dr. Peloza, a lead investigator for the Maverick (Medtronic Sofamor Danek) artificial disc. I am not questioning Maverick�s design, just the tactics that are used here -- positioning fact, opinion and fear in such an authoritative manner. Recall the article I posted last week, which also involved Medtronic?!

I love the idea of an overview or comparison of discs, but this one goes a little far. I invite all patients and medical professionals to scrutinize the accuracy of any of the claims...

[Alastair]

I think that reading this article is good, the comments and criticism about various forms of ADR should bring to the mind of all our members that this surgery is not guaranteed, it does have its risks, and it does have its failures.
Best,
Alastair

[queenofhearts]

The author does sound biased...I'd be interested to see the study from Charite Hospital in Berlin - I've never heard of it in all my research. Anyone else?

Its good to get the good, bad and the ugly on ADR technology, but it would be better if it was data that can be proven, not just one Maverick trial surgeons statements.

If he could back up his "guaranteed to fail" and other "predictably" statements with some hard data and studies (other than just the recent short-term US studies), he might sound more credible and not like a Maverick salesman.

[mmglobal]

Attending the conferences, you would not believe how fierce the spin wars are. Some surgeons are presenting interesting cases, facts and figures that represent unbiased study. But, so many are presenting, "My disc is better than your disc, and here is how I was able to torture the data to make it seem so!" This is just more of the same.

Don't be surprised if this doc soon goes to Charite' training. You would not believe how many of the "Charite' sucks... my disc is great" doctors will be implanting Charite's next month.

Mark

[Mariaa]

Reading the intial body of the article prior to getting into the ADR comparisons seems like good information and not something we haven't gathered from our experts here that pass on information as it either happens to them or it is somehow gathered.
My OSS believes the Maverick will be the best for endurance thru the years because of no polyethalene (sp). He just thinks the Pro disc won't last...

[Harrison]

These guys (Medtronic Sofamor Danek) are smart. In many regards, they are the antithesis of other device companies -- at least on the "playing field." E.g. they own www.back.com. In other words, they know how to play chess on the spinal device game board.

I have more to say but I'll bite my tongue. For now.

[mmglobal]

Much of what is said on this page is BS. He's reporting on cases with complications due to malplacement or other surgeon's errors, and making it sound like deficiencies in the devices.

Well, you know what... if you implant a Maverick incorrectly, there will be similar complications. When I did most of my research, there were 3500 Charite's implanted worldwide and only 400 Prodiscs. Now, how many Charite's and ProDiscs have been done... 20,000? (I'm making this figure up, but I doubt it's far off.) So, anyone who wants to assemble Charite or ProDisc horror stories has a pretty easy time of it. How many do we know already. I can tell you that the Maverick patients I know represent what we'd expect them to represent... the learning curve.

As I've always said, properly implanted in a properly selected patient, all of the current designs will probably be successful. Improper implantation or inproperly selected patients, will generate failures... for any of the discs.

Perhaps one or more of the designs are superior or inferior. We won't know for many years. I'm just thankful for the last 2+ years that I've had. I hope I have more to come... but if I go south tomorrow... I've already gotten my money's worth!

Mark

[Richard]

This article is of concern to me. For months now I've been looking for negative reports regarding ADR and have found very little. This article makes me wonder about ADR. I'm waiting to hear back from Dr. Fenk-Mayer as to when I'll be scheduled for 2 level cervical ADR C5-6 and C6-7. From what I understand, most of the history in Europe has been with Charite and the Prodisc is really relativly new, 3-4 years, is this correct? Or is it that the Prodisc has been used for some time but just more recently in the cervical area? Can anyone give me some more history with Prodisc, this article has me unsettled. I also sent this article to Dr. Yue, in hopes that he will take some time to read and respond with what he knows.

[Richard]

Mark, do you think this article bases it's conclusion on results from the FDA clinical trial? If so, would it also stand to reason that many of the ADRs that have and are being done under the trial are done by Drs. with little experience? As apposed to Dr. B.? (See my previous post).

[Harrison]

Richard, both the Charite and the ProDisc have been in development (in use, in iterative development and implanted in patients!) for 15+ years - at least the lumbar designs. In terms of longevity, consider this from the Depuy Charite site:
_________________________________________________

How long will the disc last?

Many implants have been functioning properly for over 17 years in vivo. Laboratory testing has also demonstrated remarkable durability over time, assuming an average of 125,000 significant bends each year or approximately 340 per day. As with any implant however, patient activity levels and life style can have an impact on the actual results.
______________________________________________

I've already commented on the bias of the Medtronic-sponsored articles, and can only offer redundant thoughts on their "fear-based" marketing.