Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26584802›Full record

ArticleClinical orthopaedics and related research2016

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

Andre M Samuel, Vinay K Rathi, Jonathan N Grauer, Joseph S Ross

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

17 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Management of Severe Elbow Arthritis in a Young Patient.Journal of hand surgery global online · 2025
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Postmarket Modifications of High-risk Plastic Surgery Devices.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2020
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Generating evidence for new high-risk medical devices.BMJ surgery, interventions, & health technologies · 2019
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Andre M SamuelDepartment of Orthopaedics and Rehabilitation, Yale School of Medicine, 800 Howard Ave, New Haven, CT, 06510, USA.
Vinay K RathiYale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA.
Jonathan N GrauerDepartment of Orthopaedics and Rehabilitation, Yale School of Medicine, 800 Howard Ave, New Haven, CT, 06510, USA. jonathan.grauer@yale.edu.
Joseph S RossDepartment of Internal Medicine, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Device ApprovalOrthopedic EquipmentProduct Surveillance, PostmarketingUnited States Food and Drug AdministrationCross-Sectional StudiesDatabases, FactualEquipment DesignHumansMedical Device RecallsOrthopedic ProceduresPatient SafetyRetrospective StudiesRisk FactorsSafety-Based Medical Device WithdrawalsTime FactorsUnited States

Identifiers

PMID26584802
PMCPMC4773325

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.