New spine implants and surgical technologies promise better outcomes, but surgeons say early warning signs can outweigh the need for definitive long-term data. From unexpected complications and implant failures to questionable industry relationships, surgeons are drawing firm lines on when innovation becomes a patient safety risk.
Here are the red flags that would prompt five spine surgeons to stop using a device or technology before long-term evidence is available.
Ask Spine Surgeons is a weekly series of questions posed to spine surgeons around the country about clinical, business and policy issues affecting spine care. Becker’s invites all spine surgeon and specialist responses.
Next question: Where do you think spine surgery is still overtreating patients, and where are payers now making appropriate surgery unnecessarily difficult to justify?
Please send responses to Sophie Eydis at seydis@beckershealthcare.com by 5 p.m. Central time, Sunday, Nov. 15.
Editor’s note: Responses have been lightly edited for clarity and length.
Question: What warning sign would make you stop using a spine implant, device or surgical technology before definitive long-term data are available?
Bryce Basques, MD. Spine Surgeon and Director of Minimally Invasive and Endoscopic Spine Surgery at Brown University (Providence, R.I.): The moment patient safety or outcomes are compromised, that is a hard stop for a new implant or technology. Innovation in our field is critical, but not every new technology has real clinical merit. Truly disruptive technology tends to spread quickly because it actually works. I hesitate to use a product when the only champions for a new implant are those with direct financial ties to the product’s success.
Issada Thongtrangan, MD. Endoscopic and Minimally Invasive Spine Surgeon at MicroSpine (Scottsdale, Ariz.): For me, it’s a signal of harm that doesn’t match the expected learning curve — specifically, complications that are worse than the established alternative, not just different.
Early on with any new implant or technique, you expect longer operative times, a steeper learning curve, maybe more technical failures. That’s normal. But if I’m seeing higher infection rates, more reoperations for hardware failure or unexpected modes of failure — that’s when I pause.
The classic example is artificial disc replacement. Short-term data looked promising, but we learned that some designs had higher revision rates at five to 10 years due to heterotopic ossification and adjacent segment issues that weren’t apparent in early trials. The ideal framework for surgical innovation specifically warns that long-term surveillance is “imperative even if short-term benefit has been established” because device markets exceed $150 billion and post-market monitoring often fails to catch late failures.
With smart spine implants and sensor-enabled devices, I’d be watching for data integrity issues and false clinical dependencies, if the implant tells me fusion is happening but the patient isn’t improving, or worse, if I delay intervention because I’m trusting the sensor over the patient.
The red flag is unexplained divergence from expected outcomes, when your complication profile doesn’t look like the learning curve, it looks like a design problem.
Alex Vaccaro, MD, PhD. President of Rothman Orthopaedics (Philadelphia): The warning sign that would cause me to cease use of a spinal implant, device or surgical technology would be when there exists a reproducible pattern of adverse events related to the technology, which occur in greater frequency relative to the potential benefits from the technology’s use; this includes occurrences where no long-term, definitive data exist. Specifically, I would be concerned about any of the following as evidence of harm: unanticipated neurologic deficits resulting from the technology; implant migration or failure; progressive bone loss; infection; or an identifiable trend of early reoperation(s) due to technological failure. One adverse event could likely represent an isolated occurrence. However, when the same method of failure appears consistently across different surgeons or institutions with respect to the technology used, then I do not believe that one can simply dismiss such a trend based on lack of availability of randomized trials or long-term follow-up studies.
Additionally, I would stop when technology makes it difficult or impossible to reverse the problems it causes. For example, when an implant permanently changes anatomical structures in patients undergoing spinal surgery, limits the ability to pursue reconstructive procedures at some time in the future, and/or converts what might otherwise be a more straightforward treatment option into a potentially significantly more complicated revision treatment option.
As noted earlier, innovation will always include some degree of uncertainty; however, uncertainty should never justify ignoring emerging safety signals. If the downsides associated with being incorrect result in permanent neurologic injuries or in creating a far more complex salvage procedure for subsequent treatment, I would prefer to terminate my use of a particular technology at an early stage and identify the mechanisms contributing to the failure of the technology prior to pursuing further development, rather than waiting for long-term data to provide validation for what the preliminary clinical experiences were indicating.
David Weiner, MD. Assistant Professor at Georgetown University Medical School (Washington, D.C.) and Orthopedic Spine Surgeon at MedStar Health (Columbia, Md.): A pattern of unexpected neurologic injury, migration, breakage, loss of correction or early revision would make me pause use of a device while the signal is investigated. I would also pay attention when performance in routine practice diverges sharply from the results presented during a product launch. An individual adverse-event report does not establish causation, but waiting for definitive long-term data is not a reason to ignore a credible early safety pattern. Surgeons should document and report concerns and be willing to return to a more established option.
Christian Zimmerman, MD. Spinal Neurosurgeon at St. Alphonsus Medical Group and SAHS Neuroscience Institute (Boise, Idaho): Inferred convention of industry-based safety issues concerning surgical technology are conjointly associated with presupposing confidence by both physician and patient alike. Alliance of assurances is expected through a company’s due-diligence in research and demonstration of product performance. Deviation in its slightest articulation spell irremediable detriment and distrust of current and future relationships. In my working in this field, only a handful of trust-breaking breeches come to mind because of so many regulatory oversights. Yet, ominous and revealing red flag issues relating to maintenance contracts and representative laxity come to mind as warning signs for company reliability and future use. The non-negotiables and expectancy of readily available service personnel and upkeep are propriety and consonant.
At the Becker’s 32nd Annual Meeting: The Business and Operations of ASCs, taking place October 29-31 in Chicago, ASC leaders, surgeons and healthcare executives will explore strategies to drive growth, enhance operational performance, navigate reimbursement challenges and prepare for the future of ambulatory surgery. Apply for complimentary registration now.
