RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Clinical investigations to evaluate high-risk orthopaedic devices: systematic review of the peer-reviewed medical literature
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2023.08.24.23294479
DO 10.1101/2023.08.24.23294479
A1 Lübbeke, Anne
A1 Combescure, Christophe
A1 Barea, Christophe
A1 Gonzalez, Amanda Inez
A1 Tucker, Keith
A1 Kjærsgaard-Andersen, Per
A1 Melvin, Tom
A1 Fraser, Alan G
A1 Nelissen, Rob
A1 Smith, James A
YR 2023
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/08/24/2023.08.24.23294479.abstract
AB Purpose The objective of this systematic review was to give an overview of clinical investigations regarding hip and knee arthroplasty implants published in peer-reviewed scientific medical journals before entry into force of the EU Medical Device Regulation in May 2021.Methods We systematically reviewed the medical literature for a random selection of hip and knee implants, to identify all peer-reviewed clinical investigations published within 10years before and up to 20years after regulatory approval. We report study characteristics, methodologies, outcomes, measures to prevent bias, and timing of clinical investigations, of 30 current implants. The review process was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.Results We identified 2912 publications and finally included 151 papers published between 1995 and 2021 (63 on hip stems, 34 on hip cups, 54 on knee systems). We identified no clinical studies published before CE-marking for any selected device, and no studies even up to 20 years after CE-marking in one quarter of devices. There were very few randomized controlled trials, and registry-based studies generally had larger sample sizes and better methodology.Conclusions The peer-reviewed literature alone is insufficient as source of clinical investigations of these high-risk devices intended for life-long use. A more systematic, efficient and faster way to evaluating safety and performance is necessary. Using a phased introduction approach, nesting comparative studies of observational and experimental design in existing registries, increasing use of benefit measures, and accelerating surrogate outcomes research, will help to minimise risks and maximise benefits.Competing Interest StatementAL declares no conflicts of interest. AL is the current president elect of the International Society of Arthroplasty Registries (ISAR).CC declares no conflict of interest that could be perceived as prejudicing the impartiality of the research reported.CB declares no conflict of interest that could be perceived as prejudicing the impartiality of the research reported.AIG declares no conflict of interest that could be perceived as prejudicing the impartiality of the research reported.KT declares no conflict of interest that could be perceived as prejudicing the impartiality of the research reported.PKA declares no conflict of interest that could be perceived as prejudicing the impartiality of the research reported.AGF declares no conflict of interest that could be perceived as prejudicing the impartiality of the research reported.TM declares no Competing Financial Interests and declares the following Non-Financial Interest: he is an unpaid advisory board member of Pumpinheart Ltd.; previously a senior medical officer in medical devices at the Health Products Regulatory Authority, Ireland; previous co-chair of the Clinical Investigation and Evaluation Working Group of the European Commission.RN declares no conflict of interest that could be perceived as prejudicing the impartiality of the research reported.JAS became a consultant and subsequently employee of Alvea LLC beginning in January 2022.Clinical Protocols https://osf.io/6gmyx Funding StatementThis study was supported by a Horizon 2020 grant from the European Union (project number 965246).Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:Source data were openly available before the start of the study. For the published literature, we searched Embase through Ovid, PubMed, and Web of Science. All Web of Science core collection editions, apart from Conference Proceedings Citation Index Science (CPCI-S), 1990-present and Conference Proceedings Citation Index Social Science & Humanities (CPCI-SSH), 1990-present, were searched. We used the general structure of Device name AND Hip [or Knee] AND Humans for all searches. Search results were combined and automatically de-duplicated in Endnote web, and one author (JAS) manually de-duplicated the results before screening for inclusion and exclusion was done. Full details of searches are provided in Appendix II. Link to device list from ODEP ODEP: https://www.odep.org.uk/ Link to FDA database: https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/search/default.cfm).I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.YesAll data produced in the present work are contained in the manuscript