ArticleClinical orthopaedics and related research2016
How do Orthopaedic Devices Change After Their Initial FDA Premarket Approval?
Article in Clinical orthopaedics and related research, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
17 citing papers in PubMed.
- Medical Device Recalls in Neurosurgery: A United States Regulatory Analysis.Neurosurgery practice · 2026Review
- From Concept to Clinic: Pre-Clinical Testing and Regulatory Considerations in Spine Implant Development.JOR spine · 2026Review
- Management of Severe Elbow Arthritis in a Young Patient.Journal of hand surgery global online · 2025Review
- Polymethyl Methacrylate for Elbow Arthroplasty: Is There Another Way?Journal of hand surgery global online · 2024Article
- Lifecycle evaluation of medical devices: supporting or jeopardizing patient outcomes? A comparative analysis of evaluation models.International journal of technology assessment in health care · 2024Article
- Risk of Recall Associated With Modifications to High-risk Medical Devices Approved Through US Food and Drug Administration Supplements.JAMA network open · 2023Article
- A Pilot Experiment to Measure the Initial Mechanical Stability of the Femoral Head Implant in a Cadaveric Model of Osteonecrosis of Femoral Head Involving up to 50% of the Remaining Femoral Head.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2023Article
- Risk of Recall Among Medical Devices Undergoing US Food and Drug Administration 510(k) Clearance and Premarket Approval, 2008-2017.JAMA network open · 2021Article
- Impact of Health Care Reform on Technology and Innovation.Hand clinics · 2020Review
- Postmarket Modifications of High-risk Plastic Surgery Devices.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2020Article
- Policy and Ethical Considerations for Widespread Utilization of Generic Orthopedic Implants.Arthroplasty today · 2019Article
- Generating evidence for new high-risk medical devices.BMJ surgery, interventions, & health technologies · 2019Review
- Transparency and Dermatologic Device Approval by the US Food and Drug Administration.JAMA dermatology · 2018Article
- Factors influencing the reporting of adverse medical device events: qualitative interviews with physicians about higher risk implantable devices.BMJ quality & safety · 2018Article
- Article
- ArthroplastyWatch.com three-year follow-up: where do we stand now?EFORT open reviews · 2016Article
- Analysis of Trends in FDA-Recalled Hip Arthroplasty Devices: A Retrospective Review.JB & JS open accessArticle
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe FDA approves novel, high-risk medical devices through the premarket approval (PMA) process based on clinical evidence supporting device safety and effectiveness. Devices subsequently may undergo postmarket modifications that are approved via one of several PMA supplement review tracks, usually without additional supporting clinical data. While orthopaedic devices cleared via the less rigorous 510(k) pathway have been studied previously, devices cleared through the PMA pathway and those receiving postmarket PMA supplements warrant further investigation. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We asked: What are (1) the types of original orthopaedic devices receiving FDA PMA approval, (2) the number and rate of postmarket device changes approved per device, (3) the types of PMA supplement review tracks used, (4) the types of device changes approved via the various review tracks, and (5) the number of device recalls and market withdrawals that have occurred for these devices?
methodsAll original PMA-approved orthopaedic devices between January 1982 and December 2014 were identified in the publically available FDA PMA database. The number of postmarket device changes approved, the PMA supplement review track used, the types of postmarket changes, and any FDA recalls for each device were assessed.
resultsSeventy original orthopaedic devices were approved via the FDA PMA pathway between 1982 and 2014. These devices included 34 peripheral joint implants or prostheses, 18 spinal implants or prostheses, and 18 other devices or materials. These devices underwent a median 6.5 postmarket changes during their lifespan or 1.0 changes per device-year (interquartile range, 0.4-1.9). The rate of new postmarket device changes approved per active device, increased from less than 0.5 device changes per year in 1983 to just fewer than three device changes per year in 2014, or an increase of 0.05 device changes per device per year in linear regression analysis (95% CI, 0.04-0.07). Among the 765 total postmarket changes, 172 (22%) altered device design or components. The majority of the design changes were reviewed via either the real-time review track (n = 98; 57%), intended for minor design changes, or the 180-day review track (n = 71; 41%), intended for major design changes. Finally, a total of 12 devices had FDA recalls at some point during their lifespan, two being for hip prostheses with high revision rates.
conclusionsRelatively few orthopaedic devices undergo the FDA PMA process before reaching the market. Orthopaedic surgeons should be aware that high-risk medical devices cleared via the FDA's PMA pathway do undergo considerable postmarket device modification after reaching the market, with potential for design "drift," ie, shifting away from the initially tested and approved device designs. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: As the ultimate end-users of these devices, orthopaedic surgeons should be aware that even among high-risk medical devices approved via the FDA's PMA pathway, considerable postmarket device modification occurs. Continued postmarket device monitoring will be essential to limit patient safety risks.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.