A multi-center retrospective observational study was conducted to obtain post-market clinical data for medtronic spine implantable devices.This data was queried and grouped based on the specific medtronic system used in the surgical procedure and analyzed to establish real-world evidence (rwe) for the performance and safety of the device in question when used as part of standard clinical practice.This data collection is one part of ongoing post-market clinical surveillance activities that are intended to confirm and monitor the safety and performance of the device.This report summarizes the clinical data obtained by medtronic as part of this retrospective observational study.Data obtained as part of this study was provided to in a de-identified format and thereby provides no patient or product specific identifiers.Patient demographics: no.Of patients- 42, gender- female(male- 19, female-23), age- 66.21 years pre op diagnosis: degenerative disease (29 patients), failed fusion (2 patients), deformity (11 patients) procedure involved: plif; psf, psf, tlif, tlif; psf, levels implanted: lumbar, lumbar; sacral, thoracic; lumbar, thoracic; lumbar; sacral.It was reported in clinical study that a total of 42 patients met the minimal inclusion criteria of having a clinical diagnosis and documented surgical implantation of spinal system.Based on the charted diagnoses, patients were stratified into one of three evidence groups for analysis: degenerative disease (n = 29), failed fusion (n = 2), and deformity (n = 11).Summary data of postoperative radiographic notes with fusion assessments were available for 6-months, 12-months, and 24-months follow-up time points.Of the 29 patients in the degenerative disease group, 19 patients had radiographic notes specifying fusion status in at least one of the follow-up time points.For patients with fusion status recorded at 12- and 24- month follow-up, 13 of 14 (92.9%) and 4/4 (100%) were noted as having a successful fusion, respectively.Successful fusion was indicated for 17 of the 19 patients at the last available radiographic assessment noting fusion status.Both patients in the failed fusion group were recorded as having a successful fusion at 12 -months post-operative.Of the 11 patients in the deformity group, 8 had radiographic notes specifying fusion status in at least one of the follow-up time points.Successful fusion was indicated for 8 of 8 (100%) patients at the last available radiographic assessment noting fusion status.In the degenerative disease group, 16 of 29 patients were recorded as having an adverse event.38 aes of 26 different type were reported.1 patient suffered atrial fibrillation with rapid ventricular response, 1 patient suffered chest pain, 1 patient suffered congestive heart failure and 1 patient suffered transient ischemic attack.One patient recorded with revision surgery due to some unknown reasons.The revision surgeries are not anticipated to be related to the concerned spinal device system.Some of the aes are as: lower back pain (2), lower extremity pain (5), and lower extremity swelling (1), surgical wound, complications (5), anemia (1), electrolyte imbalance (1), falls (1), hyponatremia (1), reflex sympathetic dystrophy (1), urinary tract infection (1), and weakness (1).In the failed fusion group, 1 of 2 patients were recorded as having an adverse event.In the deformity group, 7 of 11 patients were recorded as having an adverse event.19 aes of 16 different types were reported.1 patient suffered cardio-respiratory failure.Aes related to device are as: adjacent segment changes (1), fracture (1), lumbar degenerative disease (1), and pedicle fracture (1).Other aes are as: lower back pain (1) and lower extremity pain (1), surgical wound complications (2), falls (1).Overall, the results from this retrospective observational study indicate that concerned spinal system is safe and effective when used as intended.No new or emerging risks were identified.
|