Todd Albert, MD, Spine Surgeon and President, Rothman Institute (Philadelphia). The short answer is there will be and there must be because this relationship is really important for innovation. We must figure out a way for surgeons to be involved and work in a compliant way with device companies. We acknowledge there is going to be a conflict of interest sometimes, but there's a difference between working with companies on innovation and being cheerleaders for a particular company. Many surgeons are developing devices that are a significant contribution and they hold patents on devices as their intellectual property.
Tom Hackett, MD, Sports Medicine Surgeon, The Steadman Clinic (Vail, Colo.). Absolutely, yes. I think the relationships are very important in terms of the development of new devices or improvements on old devices. I think those relationships, if they are managed properly, can be very fruitful, especially for patients. These relationships can also be beneficial for the surgeons and the device companies during product development. Many companies fund research and foster surgeon education. All of these relationships can be managed ethically by following the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons standards of professionalism. If surgeons follow those standards and adhere to the concept of full disclosure, there shouldn't be a problem.
Eric Muehlbauer, Executive Director, North American Spine Society. Absolutely! Innovation cannot take place in a vacuum. Through thoughtful and ethical collaboration, medical professionals and device companies can continue to improve patient care and advance medical science, including the development of cutting-edge devices in spine care.
NASS believes so strongly in the value of this type of collaboration that it has created one of the most stringent mandatory codes of conduct for itself, its members and outside companies conducting business with NASS. With clear, ethical guidelines before them, physicians can continue to share their expertise as inventors, scientific advisors and consultants to industry and provide patients with the very best spine care.
Bill Kolter, Corporate Vice-President of Government Affairs, Public Affairs and Corporate Communication, Biomet. It's going to remain necessary for orthopedic manufacturers to continue to have working relationships with orthopedic surgeons because we can't do our jobs without their input. There are several key areas where the involvement of orthopedic surgeons is necessary in order to address unmet clinical needs. Orthopedic surgeons provide essential input into the development of new products.
Before the devices can be made available to orthopedic surgeons for use with their patients, we need their input on how to design products that perform as intended in their hands. We also need their help to evaluate that performance. The population of clinical studies is also important. The Food and Drug Administration often requires clinical studies as part of submissions for clearance or approval to market new products. We need orthopedic surgeons who can conduct these studies and continue with post-market surveillance of those products.
Educating surgeons on the safe and effective use of the products is another critical area of interaction with surgeons. We frequently conduct cadaveric and other training on our products to teach surgeons about the safe and effective use of our products. In order to conduct these trainings, we need orthopedic surgeons to help lead these educational sessions. That's a critical part of our mission. We can't do our job without that kind of assistance and collaboration.
Bruce Darden, MD, Spine Surgeon at OrthoCarolina, Charlotte, N.C. I definitely think there is a place for orthopedic and spine surgeons to have a relationship with device companies in the future. There are a number of people in our group who work with companies and provide consultation. I think it's necessary to have physicians working with companies to design products because when we've had instruments designed by just engineers without a medical background, they don't always work well for physicians.
Where it becomes muddy is that some surgeons have consulting agreements where the guidelines aren't specific as to what they are doing with the company or whether they are adding value to the product. I think some of those relationships will die pretty quickly. At our practice, the basic premise that we use when we negotiate a consulting agreement is based on a numeric amount of what we generate — our value for one day of work. We document everything we are doing and we basically work on an hourly rate based on the number of hours we are working with the company, as opposed to some nebulous number. Everything is clean with that agreement and it's pretty clear what we are doing with the consulting firm. These are the types of relationships that will stick around in the future.
Bal Raj, MD, Orthopedic Surgeon, Beverly Hills (Calif.) Orthopedic Institute. Spine and orthopedic surgeons used to have a much closer relationship with device companies, but because of the potential bias these relationships have changed. There have been several issues in regards to these ongoing relationships, including surgeons who have benefitted from using the implants of companies they have a relationship with. We've seen a lot of these relationships dissipate and it's to protect patients.
I think surgeons and device companies will be able to have legitimate relationships in the future and we will get rid of the illegitimate relationships. Even when the relationship is legitimate, it is the surgeon's responsibility to disclose them publicly. The recent scrutiny on these relationships is great in the sense that it is protecting people. It's cleaning up the whole scenario — there are only a few bad seeds who have led to this problem. The surgeons in legitimate relationships with companies don't have anything to worry about.
Related Articles on Orthopedic Device Market:
Growth in Nonfusion and Artificial Discs Expected as Spinal Implant Market Flattens
Medtronic Held 44% of the Bone Graft Substitute Market in 2010
Gene Therapy and Stem Cell Research Drive $5.8B Orthopedic Biomaterials Market
Will There Be a Place for Orthopedic and Spine Surgeon Relationships With Device Companies in the Future? 6 ResponsesWritten by Laura Dyrda | Friday, 22 July 2011 16:09
Six orthopedic and spine surgeons and industry members discuss the current state of surgeon relationships with device companies and what might be in store for the future.Last modified on Monday, 01 August 2011 18:35
© Copyright ASC COMMUNICATIONS 2016. Interested in LINKING to or REPRINTING this content? View our policies here.
Top 40 Articles from the Past 6 Months
- 22 spine surgeon leadership awards | 2016
- Has Xenco Medical Ushered in the Future of Spine Surgery?
- Where global spine market leaders are headed: 7 key notes on Medtronic, DePuy Synthes, Stryker & more
- 21 smart spine surgeons with gifted business minds
- PODs under attack again: 5 key notes from the Senate Finance Committee's report
- Top 12 most-liked spine surgeons on the internet
- 20 new MIS spine devices in 2016
- Consumer Reports: 34 top-rated US hospitals for hip replacements
- Siemens, Ziehm, GE, Hologic, OrthoScan & Medtronic: 26 O-arm & C-arm systems
- Dr. George Rappard performs 1st US MIS procedure with Sony heads-up display: 5 observations
- Orthopedic surgeons leave Salina Regional over on-call payment dispute: 5 things to know
- 44 MIS spine devices to know | 2016
- Zimmer Biomet to acquire LDR in $1B transaction — 9 things to know
- Annual & hourly orthopedic surgeon salary — 10 latest statistics
- How Responsive Orthopedics defied the industry norm to make knee, hip devices more affordable — 6 key insights
- Trusting a robot — Dr. Juan Torres-Reveron on performing 1st US ROSA Spine surgery
- 87% of solo practitioners to face MIPS penalty in 2019 — 6 statistics on how Medicare's new payment model may impact solo physicians & small practices
- The low hanging fruit of HIPAA compliance: 8 best practices
- Paradigm Spine pays $585k in False Claims Act settlement; denies allegations: 5 things to know
- ISSCR updates stem cell research guidelines; warns against stem cell medical tourism — 5 insights
- Police investigate death of American Spine Center's physician accused in federal kickback scheme: 6 things to know
- 12 statistics on social media's presence in the healthcare space
- 5 key notes on the Zimmer Biomet-LDR acquisition & its impact on Texas
- Surgeon entrepreneur: Dr. Kern Singh's quest to make lateral spine surgery more accessible
- MIS spine's promising future — Key insights from SMISS President Dr. Greg Anderson
- UPMC to pay $2.5M+ to settle neurosurgery-related False Claims Act violation allegations: 7 things to know
- 5 key points on Midwest Orthopaedics at Rush's bundled payments making healthcare affordable & transparent
- Oregon spine surgeon implicated in $22M lawsuit for paralyzing patient with dropped instrument: 5 things to know
- US News & World Report: Top 10 hospitals for orthopedics
- Bundled payments to account for 30%-45% of spine reimbursement in 3 years: 4 insights
- 4 North Carolina orthopedic practices merge to create EmergeOrtho: 5 key notes
- Dr. Gregory Sherr sues HealthEast, CentraCare & 6 neurosurgeons for allegedly ruining his reputation & career — 6 things to know
- 7 things to know about Mazor Robotics & Medtronic's plans to roll out Mazor X
- 'Spare the scalpel' — Dr. Brian Cole sheds light on the future of orthopedic medicine in TEDx Talk
- The state of minimally invasive spine surgery: Dr. Frank Phillips on devices, payment & outpatient ASCs
- Suicide likely cause of Dr. Sandeep Sherlekar's death, police report shows: 6 things to know
- 36 female spine surgeon leaders to know
- How did 5 orthopedic device giants fare in the most recent fiscal period? 45 notes on Stryker, Medtronic & more
- Orthopedic surgeon Dr. Michael Russin dies following plane crash: 5 key notes
- Zimmer Biomet jumps into robotics with MedTech acquisition: 5 things to know