Literature DB >> 20939777

New orthopedic devices and the FDA.

Ujash Sheth1, Nhu-An Nguyen, Sean Gaines, Mohit Bhandari, Charles T Mehlman, Guy Klein.   

Abstract

Each year the field of orthopedics is introduced to an influx of new medical devices. Each of these medical devices has faced certain hurdles prior to being approved for marketing by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Among the regulatory pathways available, the 510(k) premarket notification is by far the one most commonly used. The 510(k) premarket notification allows the manufacturer to receive prompt approval of their device by demonstrating that it is "substantially equivalent" to an existing legally marketed device. In most instances, this proof of substantial equivalence allows manufacturers of medical devices to bypass the use of clinical trials, which are a hallmark of the approval process for new drugs. As a result, most medical devices are approved without demonstrating safety or effectiveness. This article reviews the regulatory processes used by the FDA to evaluate new orthopedic devices.

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 20939777     DOI: 10.1615/jlongtermeffmedimplants.v19.i3.20

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Long Term Eff Med Implants        ISSN: 1050-6934


  8 in total

1.  How do Orthopaedic Devices Change After Their Initial FDA Premarket Approval?

Authors:  Andre M Samuel; Vinay K Rathi; Jonathan N Grauer; Joseph S Ross
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2015-11-19       Impact factor: 4.176

2.  Market approval processes for new types of spinal devices: challenges and recommendations for improvement.

Authors:  Arno Bisschop; Maurits W van Tulder
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2016-05-27       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 3.  AAOS Research Symposium Updates and Consensus: Biologic Treatment of Orthopaedic Injuries.

Authors:  Robert F LaPrade; Jason L Dragoo; Jason L Koh; Iain R Murray; Andrew G Geeslin; Constance R Chu
Journal:  J Am Acad Orthop Surg       Date:  2016-07       Impact factor: 3.020

Review 4.  Early migration of tibial components is associated with late revision: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 21,000 knee arthroplasties.

Authors:  Bart G Pijls; Edward R Valstar; Klaas-Auke Nouta; Josepha Wm Plevier; Marta Fiocco; Saskia Middeldorp; Rob Ghh Nelissen
Journal:  Acta Orthop       Date:  2012-11-09       Impact factor: 3.717

Review 5.  Early subsidence of shape-closed hip arthroplasty stems is associated with late revision. A systematic review and meta-analysis of 24 RSA studies and 56 survival studies.

Authors:  Paul van der Voort; Bart G Pijls; Marc J Nieuwenhuijse; Jorrit Jasper; Marta Fiocco; Josepha W M Plevier; Saskia Middeldorp; Edward R Valstar; Rob G H H Nelissen
Journal:  Acta Orthop       Date:  2015       Impact factor: 3.717

Review 6.  Early proximal migration of cups is associated with late revision in THA: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 26 RSA studies and 49 survivalstudies.

Authors:  Bart G Pijls; Marc J Nieuwenhuijse; Marta Fiocco; Josepha Wm Plevier; Saskia Middeldorp; Rob Ghh Nelissen; Edward R Valstar
Journal:  Acta Orthop       Date:  2012-11-05       Impact factor: 3.717

7.  Customizable orthopaedic oncology implants: one institution's experience with meeting current IRB and FDA requirements.

Authors:  Alexander R Willis; Joseph A Ippolito; Francis R Patterson; Joseph Benevenia; Kathleen S Beebe
Journal:  Springerplus       Date:  2016-07-04

8.  The era of phased introduction of new implants.

Authors:  B G Pijls; R G H H Nelissen
Journal:  Bone Joint Res       Date:  2016-06       Impact factor: 5.853

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.