LAUSR

STUDY DESIGN Retrospective case series. OBJECTIVE To characterize failure rates of cervical cages based on manufacturer and design characteristics using the nationwide database of reported malfunctions. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) aims to ensure safety and efficacy of cervical interbody implants post-implantation; however, intraoperative malfunctions may be overlooked. METHODS The FDA's Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience (MAUDE) database was queried for reports of cervical cage device malfunctions from 2012 to 2021. Each report was categorized based on failure type, implant design, and manufacturer. Two market analyses were performed. First, "failure-to-market share indices" were generated by dividing the number of failures per year for each implant material by its yearly U.S. market share in cervical spine fusion. Second, "failure-to-revenue indices" were calculated by dividing the total number of failures per year for each manufacturer by their approximate yearly revenue from spinal implants in the U.S. . Outlier analysis was performed to generate a threshold value above which failure rates were defined as greater than the normal index. RESULTS In total, 1336 entries were identified, and 1225 met the inclusion criteria. Of these, 354 (28.9%) were cage breakages, 54 (4.4%) were cage migrations, 321 (26.2%) were instrumentation-related failures, 301 (24.6%) were assembly failures, and 195 (15.9%) were screw failures. Poly-ether-ether-ketone (PEEK) implants had higher failure by market share indices for both migration and breakage compared to titanium. Upon manufacturer market analysis, Seaspine, Zimmer-Biomet, K2M, and LDR exceeded the failure threshold. CONCLUSION The most common cause of implant malfunction was breakage. PEEK cages were more likely to break and migrate compared to the titanium ones. Many of these implant failures occurred intraoperatively during instrumentation, which underscores the need for FDA evaluation of these implants and their accompanying instrumentation under the appropriate loading conditions prior to commercial approval. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE IV.