Utilization Trends of Cervical Artificial Disc Replacement After FDA Approval Compared With Anterior Cervical Fusion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: Epidemiologic study. OBJECTIVE: To compare the utilization of anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) versus cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA) in terms of patient and hospital characteristics during the 3 years after Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval of CDA devices in 2007. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: There was a surge in CDA adoption in the 3 years prior to FDA approval of CDA devices in 2007. However, utilization trends of CDA versus ACDF since the FDA approval are unknown. METHODS: The Nationwide Inpatient Sample database was used to identify CDA and ACDF procedures performed in the United States in the 3 years after FDA approval of CDA devices (2008-2010). The frequencies of CDA and ACDF were estimated, stratified by patient and hospital characteristics. Average length of hospital stay and total charges and costs were estimated. Multivariable analysis was performed to identify patient and hospital characteristics associated with CDA utilization. RESULTS: In the 3 years after FDA approval of cervical disc devices, population-adjusted growth rates for CDA and ACDF were 4.9% and 11.8%, respectively (P = 0.6977). Female, African American and Medicaid patients were less likely to receive CDA. CDA was less likely to be performed in patients with cervical spondylotic changes and more likely to be performed in younger and healthier patients. CDA was less likely to be performed in the Midwestern United States or in public hospitals. CONCLUSION: The prevalence of CDA increased in the 3 years after FDA approval with a growth rate that is approximately twice than that for ACDF. Although there seems to be CDA adoption, CDA growth seemed to have reached a plateau and ACDF still remained the dominant surgical strategy for cervical disc disease. Possible regional, racial, and sex disparities in CDA utilization and a more strict approach in the selection of CDA over traditional ACDF may have impeded rapid adoption of CDA. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".