Showing posts with label surgeon. Show all posts
Showing posts with label surgeon. Show all posts

Monday, June 13, 2016

The surgeon has responsibility for the use of new technologies

A recent article discusses the surgeon's responsibility for the use of new technologies:

The bullet points are

➢ The introduction of new devices, biologics, and combination products to the orthopaedic marketplace is increasing rapidly.

➢ The majority of these new technologies obtain clearance to market by demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate (previously approved device) according to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 510(k) process.

➢ Surgeons play a critical role in the introduction of new technologies to patients and must take a leadership role in promoting safe, efficacious, appropriate, and cost-effective care, especially for operative procedures.

➢ Surgeons should monitor and document their patients’ clinical outcomes and adverse events when using new technology, to ensure that the new technology is performing as desired.

This fits right in with a prior post: 

Analysis of FDA-Approved Orthopaedic Devices and Their Recalls.



These authors note that there are two paths by which medical devices, such as shoulder implants, can obtain approval for use by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).  The more stringent Premarket Approval (PMA) review requires clinical trials, and the Premarket Notification 510(k) process generally exempts devices from clinical trials if they prove to be "substantially equivalent" to existing devices.

They hypothesized that because 510(k) approval was less stringent, it would be more commonly used on one hand and devices approved by this mechanism would be more likely to be recalled.

They searched for the following: PMA and 510(k) clearances for orthopaedics and non-orthopaedic specialties from 1992 to 2012. They also searched for all device recall events from 2002 to 2012. For the top-twenty recall companies, they calculated the odds ratio that compares the likelihood of recall for 510(k)-approved devices with that for PMA-approved devices.

While non-orthopaedic devices are increasingly approved by PMA:


Orthopaedic devices continue to be approved principally by 510(k):


The type of approval process is strongly related to the frequency of recall:from 2002 to 2012, the percentage of recalled devices was 17.8% for 510(k)-cleared devices and 1.6% for PMA-approved devices. 

They conclude that 510(k)-cleared devices were 11.5 times more likely to be recalled than PMA-approved devices; therefore is concerning that most orthopaedic devices are cleared through the 510(k) process with limited clinical trials data.

Comment: These data suggest that the 510(k) process, being easier and less expensive, is being used for devices that are not, in fact, "substantially equivalent to existing devices. " If they were "substantially equivalent", the recall rate discrepancy would not be what it is. It may be time to re-look at what it takes to qualify for 510(k) approval.

When we see data, such as that shown below from the AOA registry, it makes us wonder how "new" implants come to market, and which ones were claimed to be "substantially equivalent".



Tuesday, January 27, 2015

The ream and run: not for every patient, every surgeon or every problem


The ream and run: not for every patient, every surgeon or every problem

This article was invited by International Orthopaedics. The abstract is reproduced here.


The purpose of this paper is to provide some essential and basic information concerning the ream and run technique for shoulder arthroplasty.

In a total shoulder arthroplasty, the humeral head prosthesis articulates with a polyethylene glenoid surface placed on the bone of the glenoid. Failure of the glenoid component is recognised as the principal cause of failure of total shoulder arthroplasty. By contrast, in the ream and run procedure, the humeral head prosthesis articulates directly with the glenoid, which has been conservatively reamed to provide a stabilising concavity and maximal glenohumeral contact area for load transfer. While no interpositional material is placed on the surface of the glenoid, animal studies have demonstrated that the reamed glenoid bone forms fibrocartilage, which is firmly fixed to the reamed bony surface. Glenohumeral motion is instituted on the day of surgery and continued daily after surgery to mold the regenerating glenoid fibrocartilage. When the healing process is complete - as indicated by a good and comfortable range of motion - exercises and activities are added progressively without concern for glenoid component failure. 

The experience to date indicates that a technically well done ream and run procedure can restore high levels of comfort and function to carefully selected patients with osteoarthritis, capsulorrhaphy arthroplathy, and posttraumatic arthritis.

Patients considering the ream and run procedure should understand that this technique avoids the risks and limitations associated with a polyethylene glenoid component, but that it requires strong motivation to follow through on a rehabilitation course that may require many months. The outcome of this procedure depends on the body’s regeneration of a new surface for the glenoid and requires rigorous adherence to a daily exercise program. This paper explains in detail the principal factors in patient selection and the key technical elements of the procedure. Clinical examples and outcomes are demonstrated.

===



To see the topics covered in this Blog, click here

Use the "Search" box to the right to find other topics of interest to you.

You may be interested in some of our most visited web pages including:shoulder arthritis, total shoulder, ream and runreverse total shoulderCTA arthroplasty, and rotator cuff surgery as well as the 'ream and run essentials'

Monday, November 11, 2013

The role of the surgeon in the result of surgery

For any person, it takes time to acquire a new skill - whether it is painting, golf, woodcarving or a surgical procedure new to that surgeon. The manner in which the skill level moves from beginner to advanced is referred to as the 'learning curve'. This learning curve is different for every person and every skill. 






The learning curve has been well documented with respect to the acquisition of surgical skill. We like to say, 'the surgeon is the method'. It matters who holds the surgical tools, just like it matters who holds the paint brush.



Here are some relevant posts.
   Effect of surgeon volume on the result
   Effect of surgeon volume on cost and outcome
   Effect of surgeon volume on cost
   Effect of surgeon experience on outcome
   Effect of surgeon experience on complications
   Effect of surgeon experience on result 1
   Effect of surgeon experience on result 2
   Effect of surgeon volume on revision rate
   Effect of provider volume
   Effect of surgeon volume on shoulder arthroplasty result
   Effect of hospital volume


Conflict of Interest
   The Sunshine Act/Industry Payments to Doctors
   Sunshine rule
   Disclosing conflict of interest
   Conflict of interest and liability
   Demographics of disclosure at the AAOS
   Effect of company support
   Thromboembolic prophylaxis and conflict of interest
   Conflict of interest and MRIs
   Conflicts of interest


**Check out the new (under construction) Shoulder Arthritis Book - click here.**