Literature DB >> 27004163

New regulations for medical devices: Rationale, advances and impact on research and patient care.

Gerold Labek1, Harald Schöffl1, Christian Ioan Stoica1.   

Abstract

A series of events relating to inferior medical devices has brought about changes in the legal requirements regarding quality control on the part of regulators. Apart from clinical studies, register and routine data will play an essential role in this context. To ensure adequate use of these data, adapted methodologies are required as register data in fact represent a new scientific entity. For the interpretation of register and routine data several limitations of published data should be taken into account. In many cases essential parameters of study cohorts - such as age, comorbidities, the patients' risk profiles or the hospital profile - are not presented. Required data and evaluation procedures differ significantly, for example, between hip and spine implants. A "one fits for all" methodology is quite unlikely to exist and vigorous efforts will be required to develop suitable standards in the next future. The new legislation will affect all high-risk products, besides joint implants also contact lenses, cardiac pacemakers or stents, for example, the new regulations can markedly enhance product quality monitoring. Register data and clinical studies should not be considered as competitors, they complement each other when used responsibly. In the future follow-up studies should increasingly focus on specific questions, while global follow-up investigations regarding product complication rates and surgical methods will increasingly be covered by registers.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Arthroplasty; Medical device; Outcome; Regulation; Research

Year:  2016        PMID: 27004163      PMCID: PMC4794534          DOI: 10.5312/wjo.v7.i3.162

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  World J Orthop        ISSN: 2218-5836


  7 in total

Review 1.  The operation of the century: total hip replacement.

Authors:  Ian D Learmonth; Claire Young; Cecil Rorabeck
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2007-10-27       Impact factor: 79.321

2.  Future clinical and economic impact of revision total hip and knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  Steven M Kurtz; Kevin L Ong; Jordana Schmier; Fionna Mowat; Khaled Saleh; Eva Dybvik; Johan Kärrholm; Göran Garellick; Leif I Havelin; Ove Furnes; Henrik Malchau; Edmund Lau
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2007-10       Impact factor: 5.284

Review 3.  Revision rates after total joint replacement: cumulative results from worldwide joint register datasets.

Authors:  G Labek; M Thaler; W Janda; M Agreiter; B Stöckl
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  2011-03

4.  Hip resurfacing: a complex challenge for device regulation.

Authors:  Art Sedrakyan
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2012-10-02       Impact factor: 79.321

5.  Distributed analysis of hip implants using six national and regional registries: comparing metal-on-metal with metal-on-highly cross-linked polyethylene bearings in cementless total hip arthroplasty in young patients.

Authors:  Ove Furnes; Elizabeth Paxton; Guy Cafri; Stephen Graves; Barbara Bordini; Thomas Comfort; Moises Coll Rivas; Samprit Banerjee; Art Sedrakyan
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2014-12-17       Impact factor: 5.284

6.  Metal-on-metal failures--in science, regulation, and policy.

Authors:  Art Sedrakyan
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2012-03-13       Impact factor: 79.321

7.  3M Capital hip arthroplasty: 3-8-year follow-up of 208 primary hip replacements.

Authors:  Niloy Roy; Saqif Hossain; Charles Ayeko; Henry M McGee; Christopher F Elsworth; Leo G H Jacobs
Journal:  Acta Orthop Scand       Date:  2002-08
  7 in total
  1 in total

Review 1.  Cardiac implant registries 2006-2016: a systematic review and summary of global experiences.

Authors:  Shixuan Zhang; Sebastian Gaiser; Peter L Kolominsky-Rabas
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2018-04-12       Impact factor: 2.692

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.