Issue link: https://beckershealthcare.uberflip.com/i/704577
15 PRACTICE MANAGEMENT SPINE DEVICE & INNOVATION Evolutionary vs. Revolutionary: The Future of Surgical Devices and Spine Surgery By Brian Zimmerman T he world of spine surgery is one of rapid growth and controlled chaos. e field is rich with discursive topics both specific to the field and emblematic of broader healthcare trends — mini- mally invasive surgery and innovation's relationship to pricing are two pieces of the complex, evolving healthcare sphere of spinal surgery. At Becker's 14th Annual Spine, Orthopedic & Pain Manage- ment-Driven ASC Conference + e Future of Spine in Chicago, panelists Vladimir Sinkov, MD, orthopedic spine surgeon with New Hampshire Orthopaedic Center in Nashua; Michael Hasz, MD, orthopedic spine surgeon with Virginia Spine Institute in Reston; Michael Butler, president and CEO of Life Spine, headquartered in Huntley, Ill.; and Jason Blain, president of Spinal Elements, headquar- tered in Carlsbad, Calif.; participated in a lively discussion regarding issues pertaining to the current development and future of spine surgery medical devices. e topic hit on first and returned to oen was the growing develop- ment and demand for minimally invasive spine surgery. "Probably the biggest emerging trend — I'm not sure you can even call it emerging anymore — is minimally invasive surgery," said Dr. Sinkov. "is is becoming more of a routine procedure and less of a scary procedure, because we can do so much more without having to do collateral damage to the surrounding tissue." ere was some semantic debate regarding the term "minimally invasive." Dr. Hasz took issue with the imprecise parameters of the medical idiom, citing his preference to use specific referents for different procedures. He did, however, acknowledge the term's use as necessary so that the panelists and experts could conduct a conversa- tion surrounding the matter. MIS-supporting research has enhanced the technique's reputation, with benefits including: • Less pain • Lower infection and complication rate • Less blood loss: According to a recent Spine study, patients under- going minimally invasive fusions experienced lower blood loss (88.7 percent lower) than the open procedure group. • Shorter hospital stays: e hospital stays among the minimally in- vasive group were 64 percent shorter than hospital stays in the open procedure group, according to a Spine study. • Quicker recovery ough these minimally invasive procedures are not always appropri- ate when treating certain neck and back issues, there is a growing pa- tient demand for the procedures and a growing fiscal need for device companies to produce equipment that can meet said demands. "As the market tells us we need to be less invasive with treatments and figure out solutions, we will respond and do that," said Mr. Blain. e topic of device innovation was also hotly discussed by both panelists and audience members. e continuum of care across the board is using procedural information to create standardization — this impacts medical device pricing. is issue becomes particularly thorny when considering medical devices for spinal surgery, which is complicated by nature. "What's interesting about spine is chaos, that's what makes it fun," said Mr. Butler. "But we really don't have any data ... And that's one of the things we're investing in doing is getting data about the outcomes of our procedures to fight for better pricing ... ere's a difference in innovation between revolutionary and evolutionary. Most of our innovation right now is evolutionary because that gets funded." n Stryker Voluntarily Recalls Some Target Nano Coils Due to Stretching: 6 Things to Know By Megan Wood S tryker implemented a voluntary recall for some of its Target Nano neurovascular coils, according to Mass Device. Here are six things to know: 1. Stryker said it is recalling some of its coils due to poor stretch resistance. 2. During manufacturing, some of the coils' sutures may have been damaged. 3. When left in the blood flow, the stretched coil may cause thrombus formation. However, Stryker said there is a "remote potential" of this occurring. 4. The recall notice included 28 catalog numbers, with about 1,500 lots of items impacted. 5. Stryker contacted the FDA about the issue. 6. So far, 10 customers have complained about the coils, but Stryker has received no reports of adverse events. n