TMJ Concepts Patient-Fitted Temporomandibular Joint Reconstruction Prosthesis System: Results From a Food and Drug Administration Postmarket Surveillance Prospective Cohort Study

Zahid Afzal; Mikhail Umorin; Louis G Mercuri; Gary Warburton

doi:10.1016/j.joms.2024.10.002

TMJ Concepts Patient-Fitted Temporomandibular Joint Reconstruction Prosthesis System: Results From a Food and Drug Administration Postmarket Surveillance Prospective Cohort Study

J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2024 Oct 11:S0278-2391(24)00851-6. doi: 10.1016/j.joms.2024.10.002. Online ahead of print.

Authors

Zahid Afzal¹, Mikhail Umorin², Louis G Mercuri³, Gary Warburton⁴

Affiliations

¹ Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeon, Private Practice, Birmingham, UK. Electronic address: [email protected].
² Assistant Professor, Department of Biomedical Sciences Texas A&M University, Dallas, TX.
³ Visiting Professor, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, IL.
⁴ Professor and Chair, University of Maryland Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Baltimore, MD.

PMID: 39490003
DOI: 10.1016/j.joms.2024.10.002

Abstract

Background: Custom-designed and patient-fitted temporomandibular joint replacement (TMJR) devices are used to manage end-stage temporomandibular joint (TMJ) pathology, distorted bony TMJ architecture, or in patients who have undergone multiple prior failed TMJ surgeries.

Purpose: This study aimed to measure the frequency of revision or replacement over time, estimate the 1-, 2-, and 3-year survival rate of implants, and determine what demographic, anatomical, or operative variables may be associated with a device adverse event (AE).

Study design, setting, sample: A prospective cohort study was conducted on consenting adults who could read English, implanted with the TMJ Concepts TMJR prostheses between 2013 and 2015 by private or academic surgeons. Patients under the age of 18 and those who were incapable, unwilling, or unable to complete the perioperative forms were excluded.

Main outcome variable: The primary outcome variable was the frequency of AEs, which is defined as device revision or replacement. The secondary outcome variable was the survival rate for the TMJ Concepts devices.

Analyses: Device survival at 1, 2, and 3 years was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier methodology. Cox proportional hazards regression was used to analyze the effects of the predictor variables for the device survival rate. A P value of <.05 was considered significant.

Results: A total of 738 subjects (1,098 joints) were enrolled in the study with 102 (14%) males and 636 (86%) females. The mean age was 45.4 (+14.8) years. The median follow-up period was 36.2 months (95% CI: 36.1 to 36.2 months). A total of 187 subjects (25.3%) were lost to follow-up during; the study period. Forty-nine devices (4.46%) were associated with an AE at 3 years. The; 3-year device survival was 95.1% (95% CI: 93.6 to 96.3%). The only significant risk factor for an AE was the asymmetry of the mandible (hazard rate ratio = 1.989, P = .03). The primary diagnosis was not associated with the time to an AE (P value = .8685). Infection (44.7%, 21 joints) and material sensitivity (12.8%, 6 joints) were the most common reasons specifically for device removal/replacement in the study cohort.

Conclusion and relevance: Infection was the primary reason reported for device revision or replacement followed by material sensitivity. In the study cohort, the device survival following implantation of the TMJ Concepts prosthesis was not significantly different than reported by the TMJR stock device.