Risk of Recall Among Medical Devices Undergoing US Food and Drug Administration 510(k) Clearance and Premarket Approval, 2008-2017.

Importance: The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) uses 510(k) clearance and premarket approval (PMA) pathways to ensure device safety before marketing. Premarket approval evaluates high-risk medical devices and requires clinical trials, whereas 510(k) clearance evaluates moderate-risk devices and relies on benchtop (nonclinical and biomechanical) and descriptive data. Existing literature suggests that the clinical trials required by PMA are associated with reduced risk of recall compared with devices granted 510(k) clearance. Several investigators have found weaknesses in pivotal PMA trials, raising safety concerns. Furthermore, methodological factors may have led to a previous underestimation of recall risk for devices with PMA. Objectives: To compare risk of recall and high-risk recall between devices that received 510(k) clearance and those that received PMA and to compare the risk of recall between devices for medical specialties. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study compared devices with 510(k) clearance vs those with PMA that reached the market between January 1, 2008, and December 31, 2017. Two- to 12-year follow-up was obtained from the FDA's 510(k) and PMA medical device database. Orthopedic surgery was chosen arbitrarily as the reference category for analysis between specialties because no baseline exists. Statistical analysis was performed from February 1 to November 1, 2020. Main Outcomes and Measures: The FDA issues recalls for safety concerns. These recalls are stratified into class I, II, and III, with class I representing high-risk issues for serious harm or death. The main outcome was the hazard ratio of any recall and class I recall between devices with PMA and those with 510(k) clearance. The secondary outcome was the recall hazard ratio between specialties with respect to the reference category. A single Cox proportional hazards regression model evaluating the association of medical specialty and FDA approval pathway with the risk of recall was performed. Results: During the study period, 28 246 devices received 510(k) clearance and 310 devices (10.7%) received PMA; 3012 devices (10.7%) with 510(k) clearance and 84 devices (27.1%) with PMA were recalled. A total of 216 devices (0.8%) with 510(k) clearance and 16 devices (5.2%) with PMA had class I recalls. Devices with PMA compared with those with 510(k) clearance had a hazard ratio for recall of 2.74 (95% CI, 2.19-3.44; P < .001) and a hazard ratio for high-risk recall of 7.30 (95% CI, 4.39-12.13; P < .001). Only radiologic devices were associated with an increased risk of recall (hazard ratio, 1.57; 95% CI, 1.32-1.87; P < .001), whereas 6 specialties were assocated with a decreased risk compared with the orthopedic reference category: general and plastic surgery, otolaryngology, obstetrics and gynecology, physical medicine, hematology, and general hospital. Conclusions and Relevance: This study suggests that high-risk medical devices approved via PMA are associated with a greater risk of recall than previously reported. Most recalls are for devices with 510(k) clearance, also raising safety concerns. Strengthening postmarketing surveillance strategies and pivotal trials may improve device safety.

Biologic Grafts for Use in Pelvic Organ Prolapse Surgery: a Contemporary Review.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Pelvic organ prolapse (POP) is a common condition and there is a plethora of surgical techniques available to address this problem. We present a review of biologic grafts, including the latest literature to help guide a surgeon's choice on the type of biologic materials to augment repairs. RECENT FINDINGS: Since the 2019 Food and Drug Administration (FDA) ban on mesh, including xenograft, there is a sparsity of biologic graft products available for POP repairs. This has led to a significant decrease in surgical application. Surgeons must be familiar with the biochemical properties, processing, and clinical application of biologic grafts prior to use. They should also be familiar with alternative operative techniques that utilize autografts, although there is limited outcome data on these techniques. With heightened awareness of mesh and its complications, biologic grafts have made a resurgence. Surgeons must be well versed on their available options. Current literature is limited, and studies have not demonstrated superiority of biologic graft over native tissue repairs for prolapse. Nevertheless, there is a role for these types of biologic graft material in specific patient populations. Future studies are warranted.

Food and Drug Administration Malfunction Recalls of Left Ventricular Assist Devices.

Left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) are being increasingly implanted given the increasing prevalence of patients with advanced heart failure stages. However, they are not exempt from device malfunctions. A PubMed search for the key words (left ventricular assist device malfunction) (ventricular assist system malfunction) was performed. We identified 28 publications in the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) website database that addressed LVAD malfunction. Twenty-nine FDA recalls were identified regarding LVAD malfunctions: 17 regarding HeartWare ventricular assist device, six for HeartMate II, three for HeartMate 3, and three for total artificial heart. Mechanisms involved in LVAD malfunction include battery malfunction, loose driveline connector, malfunction of the system controller, loose power supply connector ports, malfunction of the driveline splice kit, problems with the percutaneous lead connection, disconnection of the bend relief and outflow graft and outflow graft occlusion among others. Multiple mechanisms could be linked to LVAD malfunction. However, multiple device modifications have been developed over the past decade to avoid recurrent malfunctions. Constant improvements and research in biotechnology are needed to prevent these complications. It remains to be seen if newer generation devices will lead to improved patient outcomes over the long term.

Lack of Regulations and Conflict of Interest Transparency of New Hernia Surgery Technologies.

BACKGROUND: Medical devices introduced to market through the 510K process often have limited research of low quality and substantial conflict of interest (COI). By the time high-quality safety and effectiveness research is performed, thousands of patients may have already been treated by the device. Our aim was to systematically review the trends of outcomes, research quality, and financial relationships of published studies related to de-adopted meshes for ventral hernia repair. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Literature was systematically reviewed using PubMed to obtain all published studies related to three de-adopted meshes: C-QUR, Physiomesh, and meshes with polytetrafluoroethylene. Primary outcome was change in cumulative percentage of subjects with positive published outcomes. Secondary outcome was percentage of published manuscript with COI. RESULTS: A total of 723 articles were screened, of which, 129 were analyzed and included a total of 8081 subjects. Percentage of subjects with positive outcomes decreased over time for all groups: (1) C-QUR from 100% in 2009 to 22% in 2018, (2) Physiomesh from 100% in 2011 to 20% in 2018, and (3) polytetrafluoroethylene from 100% in 1979 to 49% in 2018. Authors of only 20% of articles self-reported no COI, most representing later publications and were more likely to show neutral or negative results. CONCLUSIONS: Among three de-adopted meshes, early publications demonstrated overly optimistic results followed by disappointing outcomes. Skepticism over newly introduced, poorly proven therapies is essential to prevent adoption of misleading practices and products. Devices currently approved under the 510K processes should undergo blinded, randomized controlled trials before introduction to the market.

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.

Change in Surgical Practice for Women With Leiomyomas After the U.S. Food and Drug Administration Morcellator Safety Communication.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the association between the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) communication discouraging use of power morcellators on changes in surgical practice for women with uterine leiomyomas. METHODS: This is a cross-sectional study using data from 2013 to 2014 in the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project State Inpatient and State Ambulatory Surgical Databases from Arizona, Florida, Kentucky, and New Jersey. Women with a diagnosis of leiomyomas who underwent hysterectomy or myomectomy were included in the analysis. Multivariable models were used to assess changes in the proportion of hysterectomies performed laparoscopically, vaginally, or by laparotomy in the 15 months before the FDA safety communication in April 2013 (January 2013 to March 2014) to the 9 months after the FDA communication (April to December 2014). Changes in the proportion of women who underwent myomectomy compared with hysterectomy were also evaluated during this time period. RESULTS: There were 77,637 hysterectomy and myomectomy cases analyzed from states with both inpatient and ambulatory surgery data; 59% of patients were outpatients. Overall, there was a 4% (95% CI 3.2-4.8%) decrease in the use of laparoscopic hysterectomy for treatment of uterine leiomyomas from 62% of all hysterectomies before the FDA communication on morcellation to 58% afterward. Changes in surgical practice were more pronounced in the inpatient compared with outpatient setting; inpatient laparoscopic hysterectomy decreased by 7% (95% CI 6.1-7.9%) from 24% to 17% of all hysterectomies with an accompanying increase in abdominal hysterectomy of 8% (95% CI 6.7-8.6%) from 71% to 79%. There were no significant changes in the proportion of women with leiomyomas who underwent myomectomy compared with hysterectomy. CONCLUSION: The FDA communication discouraging the use of power morcellators was associated with a decline in laparoscopy to perform hysterectomy, particularly in the inpatient setting. There was no change in the selection of myomectomy compared with hysterectomy for leiomyoma treatment after the FDA communication.

Single-incision sling operations for urinary incontinence in women.

BACKGROUND: Urinary incontinence has been shown to affect up to 50% of women. Studies in the USA have shown that up to 80% of these women have an element of stress urinary incontinence. This imposes significant health and economic burden on society and the women affected. Colposuspension and now mid-urethral slings have been shown to be effective in treating patients with stress incontinence. However, associated adverse events include bladder and bowel injury, groin pain and haematoma formation. This has led to the development of third-generation single-incision slings, also referred to as mini-slings.It should be noted that TVT-Secur (Gynecare, Bridgewater, NJ, USA) is one type of single-incision sling; it has been withdrawn from the market because of poor results. However, it is one of the most widely studied single-incision slings and was used in several of the trials included in this review. Despite its withdrawal from clinical use, it was decided that data pertaining to this sling should be included in the first iteration of this review, so that level 1a data are available in the literature to confirm its lack of efficacy. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of mini-sling procedures in women with urodynamic clinical stress or mixed urinary incontinence in terms of improved continence status, quality of life or adverse events. SEARCH METHODS: We searched: Cochrane Incontinence Specialised Register (includes: CENTRAL, MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process) (searched 6 February 2013); ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP (searched 20 September 2012); reference lists. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials in women with urodynamic stress incontinence, symptoms of stress incontinence or stress-predominant mixed urinary incontinence, in which at least one trial arm involves one of the new single-incision slings. The definition of a single-incision sling is "a sling that does not involve either a retropubic or transobturator passage of the tape or trocar and involves only a single vaginal incision (i.e. no exit wounds in the groin or lower abdomen)." DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three review authors assessed the methodological quality of potentially eligible trials and independently extracted data from individual trials. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 31 trials involving 3290 women. Some methodological flaws were observed in some trials; a summary of these is given in the 'Risk of bias in included studies' section.No studies compared single-incision slings versus no treatment, conservative treatment, colposuspension, laparoscopic procedures or traditional sub-urethral slings. No data on the comparison of single-incision slings versus retropubic mid-urethral slings (top-down approach) were available, but the review authors believe this did not affect the overall comparison versus retropubic mid-urethral slings.Types of single-incision slings included in this review: TVT-Secur (Gynecare); MiniArc (American Medical Systems, Minnetonka, USA); Ajust (CR Bard Inc., Covington, USA); Needleless (Mayumana Healthcare, Lisse, The Netherlands); Ophira (Promedon, Cordoba, Argentina); Tissue Fixation System (TFS PTY Ltd, Sydney, Australia) and CureMesh (DMed Co. Inc., Seoul, Korea).Women were more likely to remain incontinent after surgery with single-incision slings than with retropubic slings such as tension-free vaginal tape (TVTTM) (121/292, 41% vs 72/281, 26%; risk ratio (RR) 2.08, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.04 to 4.14). Duration of the operation was slightly shorter for single-incision slings but with higher risk of de novo urgency (RR 2.39, 95% CI 1.25 to 4.56). Four of five studies in the comparison included TVT-Secur as the single-incision sling.Single-incision slings resulted in higher incontinence rates compared with inside-out transobturator slings (30% vs 11%; RR 2.55, 95% CI 1.93 to 3.36). The adverse event profile was significantly worse, specifically consisting of higher risks of vaginal mesh exposure (RR 3.75, 95% CI 1.42 to 9.86), bladder/urethral erosion (RR 17.79, 95% CI 1.06 to 298.88) and operative blood loss (mean difference 18.79, 95% CI 3.70 to 33.88). Postoperative pain was less common with single-incision slings (RR 0.29, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.43), and rates of long-term pain or discomfort were marginally lower, but the clinical significance of these differences is questionable. Most of these findings were derived from the trials involving TVT-Secur: Excluding the other trials showed that high risk of incontinence was principally associated with use of this device (RR 2.65, 95% CI 1.98 to 3.54). It has been withdrawn from clinical use.Evidence was insufficient to reveal a difference in incontinence rates with other single-incision slings compared with inside-out or outside-in transobturator slings. Duration of the operation was marginally shorter for single-incision slings compared with transobturator slings, but only by approximately two minutes and with significant heterogeneity in the comparison. Risks of postoperative and long-term groin/thigh pain were slightly lower with single-incision slings, but overall evidence was insufficient to suggest a significant difference in the adverse event profile for single-incision slings compared with transobturator slings. Evidence was also insufficient to permit a meaningful sensitivity analysis of the other single-incision slings compared with transobturator slings, as all confidence intervals were wide. The only significant differences were observed in rates of postoperative and long-term pain, and in duration of the operation, which marginally favoured single-incision slings.Overall results show that TVT-Secur is considerably inferior to retropubic and inside-out transobturator slings, but additional evidence is required to allow any reasonable comparison of other single-incision slings versus transobturator slings.When one single-incision sling was compared with another, evidence was insufficient to suggest a significant difference between any of the slings in any of the comparisons made. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: TVT-Secur is inferior to standard mid-urethral slings for the treatment of women with stress incontinence and has already been withdrawn from clinical use. Not enough evidence has been found on other single-incision slings compared with retropubic or transobturator slings to allow reliable comparisons. A brief economic commentary (BEC) identified two studies which reported no difference in clinical outcomes between single-incision slings and transobturator mid-urethral slings, but single-incision slings may be more cost-effective than transobturator mid-urethral slings based on one-year follow-up. Additional adequately powered and high-quality trials with longer-term follow-up are required. Trials should clearly describe the fixation mechanism of these single-incisions slings: It is apparent that, although clubbed together as a single group, a significant difference in fixation mechanisms may influence outcomes.

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

BACKGROUND: The 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? METHODS: All 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. RESULTS: Seventy 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. CONCLUSIONS: Relatively 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.

[Poly Implant Prothèse (PIP®) incidence of complications in breast reconstructive surgery: A retrospective comparative analysis]. / Poly Implant Prothèse (PIP®) et incidence des complications en reconstruction mammaire: une étude rétrospective contrôlée.

INTRODUCTION: On 29 March 2010, the Poly Implant Prothèse (PIP(®)) breast prosthesis was withdrawn from the market by the ANSM. In this study we review our experience with PIP(®) implants in breast reconstruction. We compare our complications with other types of breast implants used during the same period at our institution. PATIENTS AND METHOD: This is a retrospective study conducted at the Hospital René Huguenin of the Institut Curie (Paris, France). It includes 327 prostheses, from 268 patients who underwent surgery for breast reconstruction between February 2008 and February 2012: 69 PIP(®) (Group 1), 82 Mentor(®) (Group 2) and 179 Allergan(®) (Group 3). The objective of the study was to compare the rates of early and late complications for each prosthesis. Our results are compared with the current literature. RESULTS: With regard to the rate of early complications (hematoma, infection, seroma, wound dehiscence), no difference was observed between the three groups (P not significant). However, the study found that 100% of the 13 PIP(®) implants with early complications required surgical revision. There were too few late complications (capsular contracture, prosthetic rupture) in our cohort to allow statistical comparison between the three groups (P not significant). We compare our results with the current literature. CONCLUSION: This study highlights the lack of significant difference in the occurrence of early adverse events between the three groups of implants. This may explain the time taken for surgeons to become aware there was a problem with the PIP(®) implants. The low rate of late complications in our series does not allow statistical analysis between the three groups of implants.