Cervies: finally some info on Mobi-C

I met with my NS again yesterday morning; much of that time was spent dicussing my case, the SAS conference, my NS's appreciation of the Mobi-C over the Prodisc, and LDR Spine's seeming
lack of communication regarding their product.

I also was finally able to call and speak to a representative of LDR spine, again thanks to my NS. The call lasted 45 minutes and I finally got some answers:

Prelimiary data on the first implantations having at least a full year of wear will be released shortly. LDR Spine chose to wait until the first 80 cases reached at least the 12-month mark, feeling that any previous data was premature. I was told that the results are nearly 100% positive: no protheses removed, no expulsions, no displacements. No sagittal fractures of the vertebrae due to the keel thus far as in some implants, possibly due to the more gentle insertion method of the Mobi-C.

Revision surgery; the Mobi-C is designed to be able to replace the polyethylene core, although wear has been tested in vivo anywhere from 40 to 600 years.

Why this extremely mobile core compared to other discs? The idea is that this less constrained concept not only allows more freedom to the surgeon placing it, but will limit wear on the core even more. The analogy I was given: if you roll an orange on the floor, it can roll a long time without the skin being worn; if you constrain it and make it roll, the skin will be worn much more quickly. LDR spine think they've got the balance right between freedom of movement and constriction.

As with any and all of the protheses available, only time will tell. I think it's also interesting to note that the designers of the Mobi-C had originally worked on the Prodisc.

I do have more info if anyone is interested, PM me.

Trace

[Harrison]

Trace, nice detective work. It's interesting to note the 40 to 600 years stat -- I wonder if the simulation machines are enhancing their test procedures (more on this soon in the form of a Q & A).

Well, a cervical year cycle is 350,000 revolutions (whatever that means) and this one was put through 15,500,000 or the equivalent of 40 years and lost barely one-tenth in disc height--so the rest is on some mathematical curve.

BTW, for all you 'combined therapy' cases out there (myself included): a prothesis--any prothesis-- placed next to a fused level will move a lot more. I was advised that when considering ADR over fusion, a fusion might actually be better if the diseased level is overly unstable, but that ADR would probably be a better choice if stability was less of an issue.

Trace