Phoenix-based Additive Implants has announced the first surgeries using its new SureMAX-SA line of cervical interbody spine implants.
First Surgeries Using Additive Implants’ Cervical Spacer
1 min read Premium comments
#spinesurgerySecondary#additiveimplants#cervicalspacer
The SureMAX-SA Cervical Standalone is the third system in the family of SureMAX Cervical Spacers. According to the company, all of these implants are 3D printed titanium devices.
Dr. Pawel Jankowski at Hoag Hospital in Newport Beach, California, was the first to perform a series of surgeries using the new cervical spacer. He said that spacer was very stable upon implantation and maintained initial surgical alignment during post-operative healing.
“The device end plates have a unique surface finish that will help facilitate the bone-implant interface. The large lateral window will allow me to visualize and follow the healing process. Instrumentation is extremely well thought out and one of the best I have seen making the procedures to go very smoothly.”
The SureMAX-SA Cervical Standalone has also been used in surgeries performed by Dr. Harvinder Bedi at Banner Boswell in Sun City, Arizona.
He said, “The addition of the cervical standalone system really simplifies life for me and my surgical team. The implants are sterile packed and with one set of instruments for all three systems, I can easily change from standalone to a space and plate without opening additional trays.”
The SureMAX, SureMAX-X and SureMAX-SA family of spacers include a wide range of spacer sizes including 7, 10, and 14 degree lordotic angles; footprints of 12 x 14mm, 14 x 16mm, 15 x 8mm, 15 x 20mm; and heights of 5 through 12mm.
The SureMAX-SA also features proprietary designs to maximize stability and reduce rotation and flexion and comes with fixed, variable and helical and anchor options. One set of instrumentation is used for all three systems.
React:
Discussion
This is a fascinating development. In my practice we've seen similar outcomes with the revised protocol. The key differentiator seems to be patient selection criteria. Has anyone else noticed the correlation with BMI thresholds?
Great point. I'd push back slightly on the conclusion, the sample size in the cited study is too small to draw population-level inferences. That said, the directional signal is compelling and worth a larger RCT.
We implemented a similar approach last year. Early results are promising but we're still gathering 12-month follow-up data. Happy to share our protocol if anyone is interested.
Join the conversation
Orthopedic professionals are discussing this. Sign in and upgrade to read every comment and add your voice.