Innovation in orthopaedic surgery as it relates to evidence-based practice

Clinical innovation ethics frameworks: A systematic narrative review

BACKGROUND

It is common for doctors to engage in clinical innovation-i.e. to use novel interventions that differ from standard practice, and that have not yet been shown to be safe or effective according to the usual standards of evidence-based medicine-in the belief that this will benefit their patients. Clinical innovation is currently poorly defined and lacks cohesive oversight mechanisms.

METHODS

A systematic narrative review, with the aim of identifying areas of similarity and divergence in innovation ethics frameworks developed across different medical specialties.

RESULTS

47 articles were included in the review. Few ethical issues raised by the ethics frameworks appear to be unique to distinct areas of practice. While variations exist in the oversight mechanisms suggested, these are again not specific to areas of practice, but rather reflect either cautious or more permissive attitudes towards clinical innovation.

CONCLUSIONS

There is considerable overlap amongst ethics frameworks developed for use in diverse areas of practice. This reflects a tendency to treat innovative interventions in each area of practice as "exceptional" and a failure to develop "higher order" frameworks such as those that have been developed for research. Those involved in the oversight of clinical innovation need to aim for a balance between exceptionalism and harmonisation.

New versus old: 95 degree angled blade plate versus distal femoral locking plate. A randomized clinical trial

INTRODUCTION

The purpose was to compare the locking condylar plate (LCP) with the 95° angled blade plate (ABP) for distal femoral fracture patterns amenable to either device. Our hypothesis was that LCP would outperform ABP with primary outcome of nonunion and secondary outcomes of reoperation and malunion.

METHODS

78 adult patients with 79 eligible fractures and mean age of 60 years were prospectively randomized to LCP (n = 45) or ABP (n = 34). Mean ISS was 16. 22% fractures were open. Patient-reported functional outcomes were assessed with the Musculoskeletal Function Assessment (MFA).

RESULTS

All patients were followed to union, and mean follow-up was 25 months. There were no differences in age, sex, fracture pattern, co-morbidities or mechanism for the two groups. Three patients had infections, one superficial after LCP and one deep infection each after ABP and LCP. Three patients developed nonunion after LCP versus none after ABP (p = 0.06). Nine patients healed with minor deformity after LCP versus 5 following ABP. One fracture had major deformity after ABP versus two after LCP. Eight patients had a secondary procedure following LCP versus two after ABP (p = 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The investigation failed to support newer technology being better. Evidence did not indicate the LCP was superior to the ABP. Trends for primary union and fewer secondary procedures suggest that ABP may have superior performance to LCP for fracture patterns which may be treated with either implant.

Introduction of New Technologies in Orthopaedic Surgery

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.

A critical reflection on the technological development of deep brain stimulation (DBS)

Since the translational research findings of Benabid and colleagues which partly led to their seminal paper regarding the treatment of mainly tremor-dominant Parkinson patients through thalamic high-frequency-stimulation (HFS) in 1987, we still struggle with identifying a satisfactory mechanistic explanation of the underlying principles of deep brain stimulation (DBS). Furthermore, the technological advance of DBS devices (electrodes and implantable pulse generators, IPG’s) has shown a distinct lack of dynamic progression. In light of this we argue that it is time to leave the paleolithic age and enter hellenistic times: the device-manufacturing industry and the medical community together should put more emphasis on advancing the technology rather than resting on their laurels.

Patient-specific instruments: industry's innovation with a surgeon's interest

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was (1) to survey the orthopaedic companies about the volume of patient-specific instruments (PSI) used in Europe and worldwide; (2) to survey a group of knee arthroplasty surgeons on their acceptance of PSI and finally; (3) to survey a medico-legal expert on PSI-related issues.

METHODS

Seven orthopaedic implant manufacturers were contacted to obtain their sales figures (in volume) of PSI in Europe and worldwide for the 2011 and 2012 period. During the Open Meeting of the Belgian Knee Society, a survey by a direct voting system was submitted to a selection of knee surgeons. Finally, a number of medico-legal 'PSI-related' questions were submitted to an adult reconstruction surgeon/legal expert.

RESULTS

The total volume, for all contacted companies, of PSI in Europe for 2012 was 17,515 total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and 82,556 TKA worldwide. Biomet (Warsaw, USA) was the number one in volume, both in Europe as worldwide with their Signature system. Biomet represented 27 % of the market share in PSI worldwide. Stryker preferred not to reply to the survey because of the FDA class 1 recall on ShapeMatch cutting guides. Eighty per cent of the Belgian knee surgeons expressed a great interest in PSI and especially, for 58 % of them, if it would increase their surgical accuracy. They valued it even more in unicompartmental arthroplasty, and 55 % was ready to use single-use instruments. Surprisingly, 47 % of surgeons thought it was the company's responsibility if something goes wrong with a PSI-assisted case. The medico-legal expert concluded that PSI is a complex process that exposes surgeons to new risks in case of failure and stated that companies should not produce surgical guides without validation of the planning by the surgeon.

CONCLUSION

Patient-specific instruments is of great interest if it can proof to increase the surgical accuracy in knee arthroplasty to the level surgeons are expecting and if in the same time it would make the surgical process more efficient.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

V.