When the woodcarver Geppetto created his wooden puppet Pinocchio he was a true visionary in the sense that as far back as 1883 he knew the day would come when a modern day Pinocchio would surface. Unlike this fictional character, today we have a real life character that is currently working at the Nebraska Spine Center, situated in Omaha.
So the question must be asked of our readers, can we believe anything that is said about a product when the ultimate authority fails to disclose his financial ties to an organization? Is this an example of medical marketing at its best? With proper disc space and end plate preparation have we ever had a problem with traditional TLIF's? One must admit that most interbody products are packed with enough of magic dust, whether it be a synthetic or BMP, to enhance the fusion process.
So in closing, one must ask the penultimate question, is it new, is it true and will it really make a difference in the outcome? TSB wants to know what our readers think?
TSB, you made me read McClellan's, the IIIrd, quote again: “The larger footprint and ability to better position the interbody in the disc space has the potential to offer patients a reduction in post-operative pain and a quicker return to work”, commented John McClellan, M.D., of the Nebraska Spine Center, in the news release. “We are excited about the initial outcomes and are examining how this device may improve fusion rates as well.” To be fair, Hoffheinz quoted a news release, and probably did not interview him directly. However, claiming that the insertion of this device has the potential to make a noticeable difference in post-operative pain and RTW compared to other MIS devices is obviously completely speculative and without a shred of proof. And a possible improvement in future fusion outcomes? Entirely possible, as long as you stay away from a prospective comparative study and don't include independent review of your films by properly trained skeletal radiologists. I agree with you that these legally carefully crafted statements have nothing to do with science and everything with dollars. One more center to add to the 'not recommended' list?
ReplyDeleteShame, shame, shame, shame on you!
ReplyDeleteInteresting that no one wants to refute what was stated about McClellans interest in Custom Spine.
ReplyDeleteThat is probably because no one has any interest in Closet, I mean, Custom Spine.
ReplyDeleteHow can you tell if a sales rep, I mean surgeon is lying? Easy, when they speak.
ReplyDeleteDoes anyone know how many other surgeons have invested in this company? I would be interested in knowing how much of their revenue comes from investors in comparison to non-investor business. Anyone have a split on this number?
ReplyDeleteThe wave of the future - surgeon owned device companies and distributorships. What was that, someone asking about conflict of interest?... pay not attention to the man behind the curtain.
ReplyDeleteIsn't this the company that terminated its agreement with its distributor in Omaha only to hire scrub techs in its place? Now there's a company I want to work for
ReplyDeleteThat distributor her in Omaha actually has/had stock in the company (along with about 5 other drs here). There are other surgeons up in Sioux City, Iowa that have ownership, and I go up to do a cases with the non-owners and word is that custom is getting rid of that distributor as well. One of mine does occassional cases with him. They only allow Custom and Stryker in at one of the hospitals and it doesn't matter if we are one of the top & up-&-coming spine companies, very convenient for CS.
ReplyDelete