Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41947919›Full record

ArticleJB & JS open access

Analysis of Trends in FDA-Recalled Hip Arthroplasty Devices: A Retrospective Review.

Lucas P A Lorimer, Kalter Hali, Jonathan Raspanti, Sam Keshen, Bheeshma Ravi, Lazaros A Poultsides, Johnathan R Lex, Nikolaos A Stavropoulos, George C Babis

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JB & JS open access. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Lucas P A LorimerRoyal College of Surgeons in Ireland. Dublin, Ireland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0000-2190-4787
Kalter HaliDivision of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Toronto. Toronto, Ontario, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6729-8628
Jonathan RaspantiDivision of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Ottawa. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8314-5472
Sam KeshenDivision of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Toronto. Toronto, Ontario, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8266-1675
Bheeshma RaviDivision of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Toronto. Toronto, Ontario, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1829-6885
Lazaros A PoultsidesAcademic Orthopedic Department, School of Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, General Hospital Papageorgiou, Thessaloniki, Greece.
Johnathan R LexDivision of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Toronto. Toronto, Ontario, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8171-5344
Nikolaos A StavropoulosSecond Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, School of Medicine, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens. Konstantopouleio General Hospital, Athens, Greece.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7481-2771
George C BabisSecond Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, School of Medicine, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens. Konstantopouleio General Hospital, Athens, Greece.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5710-7314

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Hip arthroplasty implants are classified as Class III medical devices by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), requiring rigorous evaluation to ensure safety and efficacy. While these standards aim to ensure safety, device recalls remain an essential component of postmarket surveillance to address unforeseen performance issues. The objective of this study was to characterize the frequency, causes, and regulatory origins of FDA-recalled hip arthroplasty implants, identifying trends in device failure and implications for patient safety. Methods: A retrospective review of the FDA's medical device recall database was conducted, focusing on implantable hip arthroplasty devices and assistive technology from 2002 to 2024. Data were categorized by device type, recall class, reason for recall, and regulatory approval pathway. Trends over time were analyzed using negative binomial regression. Results: Of 1,863 hip-related recall records screened, 771 implantable devices met inclusion criteria. Design flaws accounted for the most recalls (35.8%), followed by packaging (24.9%) and labelling errors (11.7%). Most recalls were Class II (94.3%) and approved through the 510(k) pathway (94.7%). The number of recalls peaked in 2014 and has declined in recent years (p < 0.001). Robotic-assisted and navigation-related systems accounted for 1.8% of recalls and were frequently associated with software-related design problems (57.1%). Conclusion: Most recalled hip implants were approved through the 510(k) pathway. However, this likely reflects the high volume of devices approved through this mechanism rather than inherent pathway risk. Design-related failures were most prevalent, often involving modular junctions or material degradation. Although robotic and navigation systems currently account for a small minority of recalls, they introduce novel, distinct software-related failure modes that warrant continued postmarket surveillance as these technologies evolve. Level of Evidence: Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Identifiers

PMID41947919
PMCPMC13052952

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.