Recall Rates of Total Knee Arthroplasty Devices Are Dependent on the FDA Approval Process.

device recall fda knee arthroplasty orthopedic surgery

Journal

Cureus
ISSN: 2168-8184
Titre abrégé: Cureus
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101596737

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
14 Aug 2020
Historique:
entrez: 18 9 2020
pubmed: 19 9 2020
medline: 19 9 2020
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Introduction The medical device industry has grown substantially in recent years. There is limited research examining orthopedic subspecialties and the recall of orthopedic devices. We hypothesize that knee arthroplasty devices cleared through the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 510(k)-notification process would have a higher recall rate than the premarket approval (PMA) process. Methods The FDA database was thoroughly queried for all knee arthroplasty surgical devices from January 1, 2007 through December 31, 2017. Recalled devices were analyzed by manufacturer, type of implant, recall class, manufacturer-determined reason, FDA-determined reason, quantity affected, submission type, and distribution within the United States or internationally. Results Out of over 30,000 medical devices on the market, a total of 300 knee arthroplasty devices from 18 different companies were recalled during the time frame of this study. Tibial components accounted for 35.33% of devices, polyethylene implants for 38.67%, and femoral components for 15%. The most common reason for recall was device design (n = 134, 44.67%), followed by process control (n = 32, 10.67%). Of the 300 knee arthroplasty devices recalled, 267 (89.0%) were cleared through the 510(k) premarket notification process and 33 (11.0%) devices were approved through the PMA process. Conclusions A larger proportion of knee arthroplasty surgical devices cleared through the 510(k) process were recalled compared to implants approved through the stricter PMA process. Changing the 510(k) process may enable manufacturers to improve upon the safety of their devices.

Identifiants

pubmed: 32944459
doi: 10.7759/cureus.9744
pmc: PMC7489788
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Pagination

e9744

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2020, Pellerin et al.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

The views expressed in this article are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Navy, Department of Defense, or the United States Government. LCDR Cory Janney is a military service member (or employee of the U.S. Government). This work was prepared as part of their official duties. Title 17, USC, §105 provides that ‘Copyright protection under this title is not available for any work of the U.S. Government.’ Title 17, §101 defines a U.S. Government work as a work prepared by a military service member or employee of the U.S. Government as part of that person’s official duties.

Références

J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2018 Sep 5;100(17):1455-1460
pubmed: 30180053
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007 Apr;89(4):780-5
pubmed: 17403800
Arch Intern Med. 2011 Jun 13;171(11):1006-11
pubmed: 21321283
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2017 Mar 15;99(6):e26
pubmed: 28291189
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2016 Mar 16;98(6):517-24
pubmed: 26984921
Cureus. 2018 Aug 9;10(8):e3123
pubmed: 30338198
Milbank Q. 2014 Mar;92(1):114-50
pubmed: 24597558

Auteurs

Carl Pellerin (C)

Department of Orthopaedic Surgery and Rehabilitation, University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, USA.

Micah Adamson (M)

Department Orthopaedic Surgery, University of California Los Angeles Medical Center, Santa Monica, USA.

Cory Janney (C)

Department of Orthopaedic Surgery and Rehabilitation, Naval Medical Center San Diego, San Diego, USA.

Classifications MeSH