0
The Orthopaedic Forum   |    
Graduated Introduction of Orthopaedic Implants: Encouraging Innovation and Minimizing Harm
Michael G. Zywiel, MD1; Aaron J. Johnson, MD2; Michael A. Mont, MD2
1 Division of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Toronto, 100 College Street, Room 302, Toronto, ON M5G 1L5, Canada
2 Center for Joint Preservation and Replacement, Rubin Institute for Advanced Orthopedics, Sinai Hospital of Baltimore, 2401 West Belvedere Avenue, Baltimore, MD 21215. E-mail address for M.A. Mont: mmont@lifebridgehealth.org
View Disclosures and Other Information
  • Disclosure statement for author(s): PDF


Disclosure: None of the authors received payments or services, either directly or indirectly (i.e., via his or her institution), from a third party in support of any aspect of this work. One or more of the authors, or his or her institution, has had a financial relationship, in the thirty-six months prior to submission of this work, with an entity in the biomedical arena that could be perceived to influence or have the potential to influence what is written in this work. No author has had any other relationships, or has engaged in any other activities, that could be perceived to influence or have the potential to influence what is written in this work. The complete Disclosures of Potential Conflicts of Interest submitted by authors are always provided with the online version of the article.

Copyright © 2012 by The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Inc.
J Bone Joint Surg Am, 2012 Nov 07;94(21):e158 1-5. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.K.01675
5 Recommendations (Recommend) | 3 Comments | Saved by 3 Users Save Case

Abstract

Abstract: 

There is continued pressure for the development of innovative orthopaedic surgical devices and techniques to meet the demands of increasingly younger and more active patients. However, as demonstrated by several recent orthopaedic implant withdrawals and recalls, clinically important unknown modes of failure for newly introduced devices may not become apparent for several years after widespread adoption, affecting a large number of patients. Different reasons have been implicated for this problem, including weaknesses in the United States medical device approval process, as well as deficiencies in mechanisms for postapproval implant performance monitoring. Several remedies have been proposed over the past decades. We aim to stimulate discussion concerning the adoption of orthopaedic technology by describing the concept of a graduated implant approval process for orthopaedic devices that builds on recommendations previously made by other authors; by explaining how this will benefit patients, surgeons, and device manufacturers; and by clarifying why the time has come for the orthopaedic community to reconsider the adoption of such a process.

Figures in this Article
    Sign In to Your Personal ProfileSign In To Access Full Content
    Not a Subscriber?
    Get online access for 30 days for $35
    New to JBJS?
    Sign up for a full subscription to both the print and online editions
    Register for a FREE limited account to get full access to all CME activities, to comment on public articles, or to sign up for alerts.
    Register for a FREE limited account to get full access to all CME activities
    Have a subscription to the print edition?
    Current subscribers to The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery in either the print or quarterly DVD formats receive free online access to JBJS.org.
    Forgot your password?
    Enter your username and email address. We'll send you a reminder to the email address on record.

     
    Forgot your username or need assistance? Please contact customer service at subs@jbjs.org. If your access is provided
    by your institution, please contact you librarian or administrator for username and password information. Institutional
    administrators, to reset your institution's master username or password, please contact subs@jbjs.org

    References

    Accreditation Statement
    These activities have been planned and implemented in accordance with the Essential Areas and policies of the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education (ACCME) through the joint sponsorship of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons and The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Inc. The American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons is accredited by the ACCME to provide continuing medical education for physicians.
    CME Activities Associated with This Article
    Submit a Comment
    Please read the other comments before you post yours. Contributors must reveal any conflict of interest.
    Comments are moderated and will appear on the site at the discretion of JBJS editorial staff.

    * = Required Field
    (if multiple authors, separate names by comma)
    Example: John Doe





    Dan A. Zlotolow, MD
    Posted on December 02, 2012
    Graduated Introduction
    Shriners Hospital for Children of Philadelphia

    There are very few devices that have advanced care so dramatically that keeping them from widespread use would have been a disservice to our patients. Most devices offer an incremental improvement, at best, and could do with a limited and gradual introduction. I have been involved in the development of the Scapho-Lunate Axis Method (SLAM) for scapholunate ligament reconstruction (Arthrex, Inc.), and have learned much from the process. Despite over 40 cadaveric trials with biomechanical testing and optimization of the technique in the lab setting, we have seen that surgeons in the real world with real patients are encountering difficulties with the device. Fortunately, most of the difficulties stem from a failure to follow the surgical technique and from user error. However, this raises a serious question: if a successful outcome of a procedure requires strict adherence to the technique, yet most surgeons in real life situations for whatever reason cannot or do not follow the technique, is that device suitable for widespread introduction into the armamentarium? We have pursued a very conscious limited release of our device and have made participating in a webinar mandatory prior to allowing a surgeon to use our device. Despite this, we are seeing surgeons make the same mistakes we made early on in the cadaver lab before working out the kinks. We are now considering making a cadaver lab mandatory before release of the system. Charnley had even more strict requirements, and his hip replacement not only became reproducible, but it also changed Orthopaedics forever. As we are now learning, patience and good stewardship is the key for not only ensuring the safety of a device for our patients, but also for ensuring that well conceived but rapidly introduced devices do not end up on the rubble heap of failed implants.

    Related Content
    The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery
    JBJS Case Connector
    Topic Collections
    Hip
    Related Audio and Videos
    PubMed Articles
    Guidelines
    The treatment of glenohumeral joint osteoarthritis. -American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) | 9/11/2009
    Results provided by:
    PubMed
    Clinical Trials
    Readers of This Also Read...
    JBJS Jobs
    01/22/2014
    Pennsylvania - Penn State Milton S. Hershey Medical Center
    04/16/2014
    Ohio - OhioHealth Research and Innovation Institute (OHRI)
    10/04/2013
    California - Mercy Medical Group