Software-related recalls in computer-assisted hip and knee arthroplasty.

PURPOSE: Computer-assisted arthroplasty supports the surgeons in planning, simulating, and performing the replacement procedure, using robotic or navigation technologies. However, the safety of the technology has not been widely ascertained. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) database was interrogated about software-related recalls in computer-assisted arthroplasty, aiming to assess: (1) the incidence, (2) the root causes, and (3) the actions taken due to recalls. METHODS: The Medical Device Recalls database was investigated about software-related recalls in computer-assisted hip and knee arthroplasty surgery, between 2017 and 2022. The incidence of the software-related recalls, the root causes according to FDA and manufacturers, and the corrective actions taken by firms were determined. RESULTS: Eighteen recall numbers could be identified (1.6%), corresponding to 11 recall events. A total of 4634 units were involved. The FDA determined root causes were: software design (66.6%), design change (22.2%), manufacturing deployment (1, 5.6%), and design manufacturing process (5.6%). Among the manufacturers' reasons for recalls, a specific error was declared in 16 cases (88.9%). In seven cases (43.8%), a coding error about lower limb alignment assessment was identified. Seventeen software-related recalls (94.4%) were classified as class 2; only one case was class 3 (5.6%). Return of the device was the main action taken by firms (8, 44.4%), followed by software update (7, 38.9%). CONCLUSION: Software-related recalls in computer-assisted hip and knee arthroplasty were quite uncommon among all the recalls, deemed non-life threatening and usually due to software design errors. The main actions taken by manufacturers were the return of the device or the software update.

Investigation and analysis of four countries' recalls of osteosynthesis implants and joint replacement implants from 2011 to 2021.

BACKGROUND: Medical devices are used in almost all orthopedic surgical subspecialties, and the frequency of adverse events is increasing, which should not be ignored. To provide suggestions on how to avoid implant recalls from the perspective of manufacturers, medical institutions and supervisions, as well as how to respond promptly to adverse events. METHODS: The research extracted recalls of osteosynthesis implants and joint replacement implants from January 1, 2011, to June 30, 2021, in the CNMPA, FDA, HC and ATGA websites and collected the information on device name, recall time, recall class, recall manufacturer, device classification and affected areas. Moreover, the McKinsey 7S model and fishbone diagram were used to analyze recall reasons. RESULTS: A total of 315 cases of osteosynthesis implants and 286 cases of joint replacement implants were reported in China, the USA, Canada and Australia. The recalls number from 2016 to 2021 was more than that from 2011 to 2015 for osteosynthesis implant (p = 0.012) and joint replacement implant (p = 0.002), and both mainly focused on class II (76.19% and 78.32%). There were statistical differences in the four countries for both implants (p = 0.000), especially osteosynthesis implant between China and the USA (p = 0.000), China and Canada (p = 0.001), the USA and Australia (p = 0.002), and joint replacement implant between China and Australia (p = 0.000). CONCLUSIONS: To avoid the recalls of such implants, manufacturers should strictly select implant materials and components, develop detailed labels and instructions, severely control the packaging process and establish the integrity of medical device data. Medical institutions should standardize procurement procedures, use qualified equipment and train medical workers. It also requires supervisions to conduct premarket safety assessments. In addition, regulators should strengthen supervision and establish reporting systems to deal with the occurrence of adverse events promptly.

Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators in patients with long QT syndrome: a multicentre study.

BACKGROUND: Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) therapy has been proven effective in the prevention of sudden cardiac death, but data on outcomes of ICD therapy in the young and otherwise healthy patients with long QT syndrome (LQTS) are limited. AIM: We sought to collect data on appropriate and inappropriate ICD discharges, risk factors, and ICD-related complications. METHODS: All LQTS patients implanted with an ICD in 14 centres were investigated. Demographic, clinical, and ICD therapy data were collected. RESULTS: The study included 67 patients (88% female). Median age at ICD implantation was 31 years (12-77 years). ICD indication was based on resuscitated cardiac arrest in 46 patients, syncope in 18 patients, and malignant family history in three patients. During a median follow-up of 48 months, 39 (58%) patients received one or more ICD therapies. Time to first appropriate discharge was up to 55 months. Inappropriate therapies were triggered by fast sinus rhythm, atrial fibrillation, and T-wave oversensing. No predictors of inappropriate shocks were identified. Risk factors for appropriate ICD therapy were: (1) recurrent syncope despite b-blocker treatment before ICD implantation, (2) pacemaker therapy before ICD implantation, (3) single-chamber ICD, and (4) noncompliance to b-blockers. In 38 (57%) patients, at least one complication occurred. CONCLUSIONS: ICD therapy is effective in nearly half the patient population; however, the rates of early and late complica-tions are high. Although the number of unnecessary ICD shocks and reimplantation procedures may be lowered by modern programming and increased longevity of newer ICD generators, other adverse events are less likely to be reduced.

An exploratory analysis of U.S. FDA Class I medical device recalls: 2014-2018.

Medical device manufacturing and distribution is globalised; consequently, medical device failures pose serious but preventable global public health hazard. Moreover, a clear understanding of recalls will help firms improve their operations. This study examines 871 U.S. FDA Class I (i.e. most serious) medical device recalls, highlights the shortcomings of the recall reporting system and proposes recommendations for improvement. Top three recall reasons are: "packaging" (47.4%), "component" issues (14%) and "design" (13.3%). About 40% of recall events have mischaracterised or ambiguous "FDA Determined Cause". Ninety-four firms are related to the recalls and the majority (78%) of the recall events emanate from U.S.-headquartered firms. Thirty-four firms (36%) have been acquired or are a subsidiary of another. Results also yield recommendations for improvement. The cause classification scheme needs revision and there might be a case for more than one classification scheme. Specifically, the "device design" cause designation is conflated with "component quality" issues. "Other", "unknown" and "under investigation" designations should be replaced with real cause determinations. The effectiveness of "Good Manufacturing Practices (GMP)" and the impact of mergers and acquisitions (M&A) on device quality should be examined. Devising a "recall severity measure" and improving and standardising the recalls database are other important issues. Results and recommendations may hold lessons for other jurisdictions as well.

Software-Related Recalls of Health Information Technology and Other Medical Devices: Implications for FDA Regulation of Digital Health.

Policy Points: Medical software has become an increasingly critical component of health care, yet the regulation of these devices is inconsistent and controversial. No studies of medical devices and software assess the impact on patient safety of the FDA's current regulatory safeguards and new legislative changes to those standards. Our analysis quantifies the impact of software problems in regulated medical devices and indicates that current regulations are necessary but not sufficient for ensuring patient safety by identifying and eliminating dangerous defects in software currently on the market. New legislative changes will further deregulate health IT, reducing safeguards that facilitate the reporting and timely recall of flawed medical software that could harm patients. CONTEXT: Medical software has become an increasingly critical component of health care, yet the regulatory landscape for digital health is inconsistent and controversial. To understand which policies might best protect patients, we examined the impact of the US Food and Drug Administration's (FDA's) regulatory safeguards on software-related technologies in recent years and the implications for newly passed legislative changes in regulatory policy. METHODS: Using FDA databases, we identified all medical devices that were recalled from 2011 through 2015 primarily because of software defects. We counted all software-related recalls for each FDA risk category and evaluated each high-risk and moderate-risk recall of electronic medical records to determine the manufacturer, device classification, submission type, number of units, and product details. FINDINGS: A total of 627 software devices (1.4 million units) were subject to recalls, with 12 of these devices (190,596 units) subject to the highest-risk recalls. Eleven of the devices recalled as high risk had entered the market through the FDA review process that does not require evidence of safety or effectiveness, and one device was completely exempt from regulatory review. The largest high-risk recall categories were anesthesiology and general hospital, with one each in cardiovascular and neurology. Five electronic medical record systems (9,347 units) were recalled for software defects classified as posing a moderate risk to patient safety. CONCLUSIONS: Software problems in medical devices are not rare and have the potential to negatively influence medical care. Premarket regulation has not captured all the software issues that could harm patients, evidenced by the potentially large number of patients exposed to software products later subject to high-risk and moderate-risk recalls. Provisions of the 21st Century Cures Act that became law in late 2016 will reduce safeguards further. Absent stronger regulations and implementation to create robust risk assessment and adverse event reporting, physicians and their patients are likely to be at risk from medical errors caused by software-related problems in medical devices.

MEDICAL DEVICE RECALLS IN CANADA FROM 2005 TO 2015.

OBJECTIVES: Medical devices are ubiquitous in modern medical care. However, little is known about the epidemiology of medical devices in the healthcare marketplace, including the rate at which medical devices are subject to recalls or other advisories. We sought to study the epidemiology of medical devices in Canada, focusing on device recalls. In Canada, a recall may signify a variety of events, ranging from relatively minor field safety notifications, to removal of a product from the marketplace. METHODS: We used data from Health Canada to study medical device recalls in Canada from 2005 to 2015. We analyzed the risks of medical device recalls according to the risk class of the device (I lowest; IV highest) and the hazard priority of the recall (Type I highest potential harm; Type III lowest potential harm). RESULTS: During a 10-year period, there were 7,226 medical device recalls. Most recalls were for intermediate risk class (Class II, 40.1 percent; Class III, 38.7 percent) medical devices. Among recalled devices, 5.0 percent were judged to have a reasonable probability of serious adverse health consequences or death (Type I recall Hazard Priority classification). While the number of medical devices marketed in Canada is not known, over a similar 10-year period, 24,849 new Class II, II, and IV medical device licenses were issued by Health Canada. CONCLUSIONS: Several hundred medical device recalls occur in Canada each year. Further research is needed to characterize the nature of medical device recalls, and to explore how consumers use information about recalls.

Overview of high-risk medical device recalls in obstetrics and gynecology from 2002 through 2016: implications for device safety.

The field of women's health has endured numerous recent controversies involving medical devices such as pelvic meshes, laparoscopic morcellators, and a hysteroscopic sterilization device. With the recent passage of the 21st Century Cures Act, new legislation will change how the Food and Drug Administration regulates medical devices. Given these controversies and new changes, we investigated high-risk, class I recalls in women's health from 2002 through 2016. Class I recalls for medical devices are defined by the Food and Drug Administration as the most serious recall events and are designated for situations when there is a reasonable probability of serious adverse health consequences or death. We defined a recall event as a group of unique Food and Drug Administration recalls that share a similar reason for recall and occurred within a 1-month time frame. In total, 7 class I recall events were identified encompassing 83 unique recalls affecting >88,000 medical devices in distribution. Recalls involved a broad range of devices used in women's health including diagnostic assays for chlamydia and gonorrhea, a laparoscopic tissue morcellator, and obstetrical/gynecological surgical kits. Four of 7 (57%) recall events were due to postmarketing problems such as improper packaging and labeling while the remaining 3 (43%) recalls were due to premarketing problems (eg, software issues). Additionally, 3 of 7 (43%) recall events were cleared via the 510(k) pathway, while the remaining were essentially exempt from any form of premarket approval. Two recall events involved sterility concerns of 71 surgical kits used in obstetrics and gynecological surgeries representing the majority of affected devices (78,423) in distribution. Class I medical device recalls are rare but serious events. Most recalled devices in women's health had minimal preapproval regulation and were recalled due to both premarketing and postmarketing reasons. Future regulatory efforts to improve postmarketing surveillance may mitigate the potential impact and frequency of class I recalls, but do not replace the need for a higher burden of proof for both safety and efficacy prior to medical device approval.

Premature Trigger of ERI in Medtronic EnRhythm Devices.

BACKGROUND: Medical technology has made significant advances over the last few decades with smaller and more dynamic pacemakers. However, technical failures leading to premature replacement is a cause of concern. We present a series of Medtronic EnRhythm devices that reached premature elective replacement indicator (ERI). METHODS: The database of Centre of Heart Rhythm Disorders was searched for EnRhythm device implantation from 2006 to 2011. Battery depletion <8.5 years was considered premature considering the projected average longevity to be 8.5-10.5 years. An unexpected premature ERI was defined when it was reached within 3 months of last normal check. Device follow-up was conducted every 3 months after advisory. RESULTS: A total of 88 EnRhythm pacemakers were implanted. Over a median follow-up of 6.2 years (range: 0.3-9.2), 39 (44.3%) EnRhythm devices reached premature ERI. In 11 (28%), ERI was not recognized and patients were being investigated for other causes of unsteadiness or dyspnea prior to device check. Notably, three (7%) patients had premature ERI < 3.5 years. Ten (25.6%) had sudden and unexpected premature ERI. While asynchronous pacing was observed, there were no cases of absence of pacing. CONCLUSIONS: The rate of premature ERI for EnRhythm devices was 44.3%, significantly higher than reported by the manufacturer. Of concern, a sizeable proportion occurred unexpectedly, warranting more frequent reviews and empirical replacement in some patients. With the experience of the EnRhythm, appropriate monitoring strategies are recommended for future advisories.