Are all Cages Created Equal? Analysis of Cervical Cage Malfunctions Using FDA MAUDE Database.

STUDY

DESIGN

Retrospective case series.

OBJECTIVE

To characterize failure rates of cervical cages based on manufacturer and design characteristics using the nationwide database of reported malfunctions.

BACKGROUND

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) aims to ensure the safety and efficacy of cervical interbody implants postimplantation; however, intraoperative malfunctions may be overlooked.

MATERIALS AND

METHODS

The FDA's Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience database was queried for reports of cervical cage device malfunctions from 2012 to 2021. Each report was categorized based on the failure type, implant design, and manufacturer. Two market analyses were performed. First, "failure-to-market share indices" were generated by dividing the number of failures per year for each implant material by its yearly US market share in cervical spine fusion. Second, "failure-to-revenue indices" were calculated by dividing the total number of failures per year for each manufacturer by their approximate yearly revenue from spinal implants in the US. Outlier analysis was performed to generate a threshold value above which failure rates were defined as greater than the normal index.

RESULTS

In total, 1336 entries were identified, and 1225 met the inclusion criteria. Of these, 354 (28.9%) were cage breakages, 54 (4.4%) were cage migrations, 321 (26.2%) were instrumentation-related failures, 301 (24.6%) were assembly failures, and 195 (15.9%) were screw failures. Poly-ether-ether-ketone implants had higher failure by market share indices for both migration and breakage compared with titanium. Upon manufacturer market analysis, Seaspine, Zimmer-Biomet, K2M, and LDR exceeded the failure threshold.

CONCLUSION

The most common cause of implant malfunction was breakage. Poly-ether-ether-ketone cages were more likely to break and migrate compared with titanium ones. Many of these implant failures occurred intraoperatively during instrumentation, which underscores the need for FDA evaluation of these implants and their accompanying instrumentation under the appropriate loading conditions before commercial approval.