This report is being filed after the subsequent review of the following literature article; bertagnoli r (2006) ¿lumbar total disc arthroplasty utilizing the prodisc prosthesis in smokers versus nonsmokers: a prospective study with 2-year minimum follow-up.¿¿ pmid: 16641775 [pubmed - indexed for medline] spine vp;i,e 31, number 9, pp 992-997 2006, lippincott williams & wilkins, inc.This article reports on whether or not smoking is a negative predictor in fusion surgery.A prospective analysis was performed on 104 patients with disabling discogenic low back pain treated with single-level lumbar prodisc l total disc arthroplasty.34 smokers and 70 nonsmokers were assessed before surgery and after surgery using patient satisfaction.Additionally, preoperative and postoperative neurologic, radiographic, and pain medication assessments were performed at similar postoperative intervals.The results state patient satisfaction scores revealed statistical improvement beginning 3 months after surgery and were maintained at minimum 2-year follow-up.No cases of loosening dislodgement, mechanical failure, infection, or fusion of the affected segment occurred.Complications reported: intro-operatively there were 2 retroperitoneal hematomas requiring drainage and bladder laceration.Posy-operatively one patient had persistent leg pain following l5-s1 implant that required posterior exploration and decompression that revealed posterior subarticularar stenosis.This patient was unsatisfied with her outcome at 32 months post procedure.This is report for 3 of 3 items for (b)(4).Udi # unknown part number, udi is unavailable.This report is for an unknown prodisc l inlay implant, unknown part/unknown lot number.
|
Device was used for treatment, not diagnosis.This report is for unknown polyethylene inlay prodisl implant, unknown quantity, unknown item number and unknown lot number.Udi # unknown part number, udi is unavailable.(b)(4).Posterior exploration and decompression that revealed posterior subarticularar stenosis and patient was unsatisfied with outcome.The investigation could not be completed and no conclusion could be drawn, as no device was returned and no lot number or part number was provided.If information is obtained that was not available for the initial medwatch, a follow-up medwatch will be filed as appropriate.
|