Timely recognition of total elbow and radial head arthroplasty adverse events: an analysis of reports to the US Food and Drug Administration

An Analysis of the Food and Drug Administration Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience Database for MAGnetic Expansion Control Spinal Rods

BACKGROUND

MAGnetic Expansion Control (MAGEC) rods can prevent repeated lengthening operations for scoliosis patients. However, there have been several Field Safety Notices issued, including a worldwide product recall due to actuator endcap separation. We aimed to review adverse events reported to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regarding MAGEC rods, focusing on MAGEC X.

METHODS

Reports submitted to the Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience database in relation to MAGEC devices were accessed and analysed using R Statistical Software. Exclusion criteria included duplicate and literature review reports (n = 54). Free-text data were analysed using inductive content analysis.

RESULTS

1016 adverse events were reported to 11/30/2023. 99.0% (1006) were submitted by the manufacturer. Reports primarily arose from the UK (465, 45.8%) or US (421, 41.4%). From free-text data the most frequent adverse events were distraction mechanism failure (573), device wear (272), and actuator seal damage (180). Rod fracture (n = 48) was not significantly associated with rod diameter (≤ 5.0 mm or > 5.0 mm), p = 0.736. 234 reports referenced MAGEC X devices; actuator endcap separation was identified in 41.9% (99). Other events include failure of distraction (63), surface damage (31), and rod fracture (15). On 06/30/2020 MAGEC X2 received FDA approval. Twenty reports reference devices manufactured after this date, seven describe distraction mechanism failure; notably there are no reports of endcap separation.

CONCLUSION

These data represent the largest series of adverse events reported for MAGEC rods, including significant new data regarding MAGEC X. As well as endcap separation, failure of distraction, surface damage, and rod fracture were reported.

Assessing the Reproducibility of Research Based on the Food and Drug Administration Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience Data

OBJECTIVE

This article aims to assess the reproducibility of Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience (MAUDE) data-driven studies by analyzing the data queries used in their research processes.

METHODS

Studies using MAUDE data were sourced from PubMed by searching for "MAUDE" or "Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience" in titles or abstracts. We manually chose articles with executable queries. The reproducibility of each query was assessed by replicating it in the MAUDE Application Programming Interface. The reproducibility of a query is determined by a reproducibility coefficient that ranges from 0.95 to 1.05. This coefficient is calculated by comparing the number of medical device reports (MDRs) returned by the reproduced queries to the number of reported MDRs in the original studies. We also computed the reproducibility ratio, which is the fraction of reproducible queries in subgroups divided by the query complexity, the device category, and the presence of a data processing flow.

RESULTS

As of August 8, 2022, we identified 523 articles from which 336 contained queries, and 60 of these were executable. Among these, 14 queries were reproducible. Queries using a single field like product code, product class, or brand name showed higher reproducibility (50%, 33.3%, 31.3%) compared with other fields (8.3%, P = 0.037). Single-category device queries exhibited a higher reproducibility ratio than multicategory ones, but without statistical significance (27.1% versus 8.3%, P = 0.321). Studies including a data processing flow had a higher reproducibility ratio than those without, although this difference was not statistically significant (42.9% versus 17.4%, P = 0.107).

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings indicate that the reproducibility of queries in MAUDE data-driven studies is limited. Enhancing this requires the development of more effective MAUDE data query strategies and improved application programming interfaces.

Short- to Mid-term Results of Patient-Specific Polymethylmethacrylate Radial Head Prosthesis in Complex Radial Head Fractures Using 3-Dimensional Mold System

Background: We used antibiotic-impregnated polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) bone cement to make a patient-specific radial head prosthesis (RHP) by applying the 3-dimensional (3D) designing technique in patients with Mason types 3 and 4 radial head fractures. The aim of this study is to report the short- to mid-term outcomes of this procedure. Methods: This is a prospective study of all patients who underwent a patient-specific PMMA bone cement RHP at our institute over a 1-year period from May 2017 to June 2018. The outcome measures included range of motion, grip strength, visual analogue scale (VAS) for pain at rest and at activity, disabilities of arm, shoulder and hand (DASH) score and Mayo elbow performance index (MEPI). Radiographs of the elbow ere obtained at final follow-up and any complications were also recorded. Results: Our study included eight patients with a mean follow-up of 18 months (13-20 months). The mean arc of extension-flexion and supination-pronation of the operated side was 86% and 96% of the unaffected side, respectively. Mean grip strength was 86% of the unaffected side. The mean VAS for pain at rest was 0 and during activity was 2 out of 10. The mean DASH score was 8 out of 100 (0-22), showing minimal disability and ability to cope with most living activities. MEPI showed four excellent, three good and one fair result. One patient complained of proximal forearm pain that appeared 1 year after surgery. No patient complained of ulnar nerve symptoms requiring intervention. No RHP was removed during the follow-up. Conclusions: PMMA RHP can be used safely as an alternative to metal prostheses to restore valgus and axial stability of the forearm. The use of 3D printing optimised the design and surgical technique of radial head arthroplasty, and we need further studies to assess the long-term follow-ups. Level of Evidence: Level IV (Therapeutic).

Risk of Recall for Total Joint Arthroplasty Devices Over 10 Years

BACKGROUND

Orthopaedic devices comprise nearly 20% of devices on the market and 12% to 20% of these devices undergo a recall within 10 years. More than 95% of these devices are approved without supporting clinical data through the Food and Drug Administration's 510(k) pathway. The risk of recall of orthopaedic arthroplasty devices approved through the 510(k) pathway has not been previously studied.

METHODS

The FDA 510(k) database was queried for orthopaedic devices approved between January 01, 2008 and December 31, 2018 and subsequently codified to hip and knee arthroplasty devices using product codes. The database included 904 arthroplasty devices during the study period, with hip and knee making up 53.7% (485) and 46.3% (419) of devices, respectively. Information regarding numbers, dates, and reasons for recall were recorded. Cumulative incidence function was conducted to compare the risk of recall between hip and knee arthroplasty.

RESULTS

In total, 94 (19.4%) hip and 85 (20.3%) knee devices were recalled. The hazard of recall by 10 years for hip and knee arthroplasty devices was approximately 24%, with no statistical differences between each region. The most common causes of recall were process control and device design, accounting for 29.6% and 26.3% of recalls, respectively, with no significant difference between study groups.

CONCLUSION

The risk of recall for arthroplasty devices is more than that previously understood. Improved postmarket surveillance strategies along with increased physician participation in detecting and reporting device safety issues are necessary to strengthen patient safety.

Adverse Events Associated With Robotic-Assisted Joint Arthroplasty: An Analysis of the US Food and Drug Administration MAUDE Database

BACKGROUND

The use of robotic assistance in arthroplasty is increasing; however, the spectrum of adverse events potentially associated with this technology is unclear. Improved understanding of the causes of adverse events in robotic-assisted arthroplasty can prevent future incidents and enhance patient outcomes.

METHODS

Adverse event reports to the US Food and Drug Administration Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience database involving robotic-assisted total hip arthroplasty (THA), total knee arthroplasty (TKA), and partial knee arthroplasty were reviewed to determine causes of malfunction and related patient impact.

RESULTS

Overall, 263 adverse event reports were included. The most frequently reported adverse events were unexpected robotic arm movement for TKA (59/204, 28.9%) and retained registration checkpoint for THA (19/44, 43.2%). There were 99 reports of surgical delay with an average delay of 20 minutes (range 1-120). Thirty-one cases reported conversion to manual surgery. In total, 68 patient injuries were reported, 7 of which required surgical reintervention. Femoral notching (12/36, 33.3%) was the most common for TKA and retained registration checkpoint (19/28, 67.9%) was the most common for THA. Although rare, additional reported injuries included femoral, tibial, and acetabular fractures, MCL laceration, additional retained foreign bodies, and an electrical burn.

CONCLUSION

Despite the increasing utilization of robotic-assisted arthroplasty in the United States, numerous adverse events are possible and technical difficulties experienced intraoperatively can result in prolonged surgical delays. The events reported herein seem to indicate that robotic-assisted arthroplasty is generally safe with only a few reported instances of serious complications, the nature of which seems more related to suboptimal surgical technique than technology. Based on our data, the practice of adding registration checkpoints and bone pins to the instrument count of all robotic-assisted TJA cases should be widely implemented to avoid unintended retained foreign objects.

The FDA and Ensuring Safety and Effectiveness of Devices, Biologics, and Technology

Orthopaedic devices account for nearly 20% of all devices on the market, with more than 600 novel orthopaedic devices cleared or approved by the FDA for marketing in the United States annually. Advances in technology and biologic therapies offer tremendous potential for patients with musculoskeletal ailments; however, it is important that the safety and effectiveness of these products be assessed to safeguard the public health. The FDA uses multiple different premarket pathways for devices, biologics, and combination products based on perceived risk of the novel product. More than 97% of orthopaedic devices go through the FDA's 510(k) pathway, which does not require clinical trials. The remaining high-risk devices must receive premarket approval and submit clinical trial data demonstrating safety and effectiveness. Similarly, high-risk biologics must obtain a biologics license application by submitting clinical trial data. Postmarketing surveillance strategies, including extended clinical trials or real-world evidence from registries, are increasingly being relied on by the FDA to expedite approval while also improving its capacity to identify problematic products.

Pathologic Periprosthetic Fracture After Radial Head Arthroplasty: A Report of 2 Cases

CASE

We present 2 cases of pathologic periprosthetic radius fractures in the setting of osteolysis after radial head arthroplasty (RHA) with a porous-coated, press-fit implant. Both patients were managed with implant removal without subsequent instability. Although radiographic lucencies are common after RHA, progressive bone resorption can result in subsequent periprosthetic fractures.

CONCLUSION

Although osteolysis after RHA is not always clinically significant, these cases demonstrate that this radiographic finding may indicate adverse clinical consequences. Surgeons who perform implant excision should be ready to address further instability as needed.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level V, case reports.

Analysis of 408 Total Ankle Arthroplasty Adverse Events Reported to the US Food and Drug Administration From 2015 to 2018

Background. Total ankle arthroplasty (TAA) use has increased with newer generation implants. Current reports in the literature regarding complications use data extracted from high-volume centers. The types of complications experienced by lower-volume centers may not be reflected in these reports. The purpose of this study was to determine a comprehensive TAA adverse event profile from a mandatory-reporting regulatory database. Methods. The US Food and Drug Administration's Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience (MAUDE) database was reviewed from 2015 to 2018 to determine reported adverse events for approved implants. Results. Among 408 unique TAA device failures, the most common modes of failure were component loosening (17.9%), intraoperative guide or jig error (15.4%), infection (13.7%), and cyst formation (12.7%). In addition, the percentage distribution of adverse event failure types differed among implants. Conclusion. The MAUDE database is a publicly available method that requires mandatory reporting of approved device adverse events. Using this report, we found general agreement in types of complications reported in the literature, although there were some differences, as well as differences between implants. These data may more accurately reflect a comprehensive profile of TAA complications as data were taken from a database of all device users rather than only high-volume centers.Levels of Evidence: NA.

Bent or broken: analysis of set screw fracture in the TFNa implant

Objectives

To evaluate set screw fracture in the Trochanteric Femoral Nail Advanced implant (TFNa, Synthes, West Chester, PA) and to identify additional mechanisms of set screw failure in the TFNa.

Materials and methods

Patients who had experienced failure after open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) with the TFNa were identified. TFNa implants were explanted and inspected following revision surgery. Medical device reports (MDRs) and manufacturer’s inspection reports describing similar failures for the TFNa in the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience (MAUDE) database were also reviewed.

Results

Four set screw fractures that occurred at a level II trauma center were observed. Sixty-seven reported failures were identified in the MAUDE database for review. Twenty-eight failed implants were returned to the manufacturer for inspection with a published inspection report available for analysis. Set screw fractures can occur in the TFNa when the set screw is deployed prematurely into the proximal screw aperture prior to blade/screw insertion. The set screw can also bend and deform if it is advanced against a helical blade/lag screw that is not fully seated into position, thereby potentially compromising its function.

Conclusion

The TFNa set screw allows for potential fracture during implant insertion leading to uncontrolled collapse, early excessive proximal femoral shortening, and rotational instability of the helical blade/lag screw. Similar failures in the TFNa can be prevented by having the surgeon inspect the proximal screw aperture after attachment of the proximal aiming aim to ensure the set screw has not been deployed prematurely.

Level of evidence

Therapeutic Level III.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s10195-021-00594-8.

Adverse events involving hallux metatarsophalangeal joint implants: Analysis of the United States Food and Drug Administration data from 2010 to 2018

BACKGROUND

The prevalence of osteoarthritis of the hallux metatarsophalangeal joint (MTPJ) is 1 in 40 people over the age of 50. Surgical treatment options for MTPJ arthritis include joint preservation, joint resurfacing, and arthrodesis. Hallux MTPJ implants have evolved over the past several decades, but are associated with various complications. The aim of this study was to examine the MAUDE database to determine reported adverse events for hallux MTPJ implants.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The US Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience (MAUDE) database was reviewed from 2010 to 2018 to review voluntary reported adverse event reports for approved implants within the United States. We recorded the type of adverse event and excluded duplicate reports and those extracted from already published literature.

RESULTS

Among 64 reported hallux MTPJ implant adverse events, the most common modes of adverse events were component loosening (34%), infection (14.1%), component fracture (9.4%), inflammation (9.4%), and allergic reaction (7.8%). Regarding implant type, Cartiva SCI had the highest percentage of adverse events (23.4%), followed by Arthrosurface ToeMotion (20.3%), Ascension MGT (12.5%), Arthrosurface HemiCAP® (10.9%), Futura primus (9.4%), and Osteomed Reflexion (6.3%). There was an increase in reported adverse events after 2016. The MAUDE database does not report the total incidence of implant insertion.

CONCLUSION

Our study of the MAUDE database demonstrated that component loosening and infection are the most common modes of adverse events for hallux MTPJ implants. Cartiva accounted for one-fourth of the implant-related adverse events during our study period, followed by ToeMotion, and Ascension MGT implants. Continued reporting of adverse events will improve our understanding on short and long-term complications of various hallux MTPJ implants.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV; Case Series from Large Database Analysis; Treatment Study.

Risk Factors for Revision Surgery Following Radial Head Arthroplasty without Cement for Unreconstructible Radial Head Fractures: Minimum 3-Year Follow-up

BACKGROUND

Revision rates following radial head arthroplasty (RHA) for unreconstructible radial head fractures (RHFs) differ vastly in the literature, and little is known about the risk factors that are associated with revision surgery. The purposes of this study were to assess the revision rate following RHA and to determine the associated risk factors.

METHODS

A total of 122 patients (mean age, 50.7 years; range, 18 to 79 years) with 123 RHAs who underwent RHA for unreconstructible RHFs between 1994 and 2014 and were ≥3 years out from surgery were included. Demographic variables, injury and procedure-related characteristics, radiographic findings, complications, and revision procedures were assessed. Cox regression analysis was performed to identify the risk factors that were associated with revision surgery following RHA.

RESULTS

The median follow-up for the study cohort was 7.3 years (interquartile range [IQR], 5.1 to 10.1 years). All of the patients had unreconstructible RHFs: Mason-Johnston type-IV injuries were the most prevalent (80 [65%]). One or more associated osseous or ligamentous injuries were seen in 89 elbows (72.4%). The median time to surgery was 7 days (IQR, 3 to 11 days). Implanted prostheses were categorized as rigidly fixed (65 [52.8%]) or loosely fixed (58 [47.2%]). A total of 28 elbows (22.8%) underwent revision surgery at a median of 1.1 years (IQR, 0.3 to 3.8 years), with the majority of elbows (17 [60.7%]) undergoing revision surgery within the first 2 years. The most common reason for revision surgery was painful implant loosening (14 [29.2% of 48 complications]). Univariate Cox regression suggested that Workers' Compensation claims (hazard ratio [HR], 5.48; p < 0.001) and the use of an external fixator (HR, 4.67; p = 0.007) were significantly associated with revision surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

Revision rates following RHA for unreconstructible RHFs are high; the most common cause for revision surgery is painful implant loosening. Revision surgeries are predominantly performed within the first 2 years after implantation, and surgeons should be aware that Workers' Compensation claims and the use of an external fixator in management of the elbow injury are associated with revision surgery.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Adverse events related to total ankle replacement devices: an analysis of reports to the United States Food and Drug Administration

Background

The published outcomes of total ankle replacement (TAR) implants came from limited institutions creating observational bias. For broader perspective, we queried the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience (MAUDE) voluntary database to explore complications reported outside published literature.

Methods

The database was reviewed retrospectively between November 2011 and April 2019 using two product codes assigned to six TAR devices.

Results

Among 648 relevant reports available in the database, common complications were aseptic loosening (19.3%), infection (18.2%), and alignment/mechanical issues (16.5%). Others included instrument/instrumentation complications, impingement, polyethylene problems, fractures, avascular necrosis of talus (AVN), and packaging issues.

Conclusion

MAUDE database revealed various patterns of device-related malfunctions that have been under-reported in published data. Despite inconsistency in the available reports, it provided opportunities for improvements in quality control, device design, and ultimately patient safety. Database would be further strengthened by more robust reporting mechanism or mandatory reporting of device-related complications.

Comparison of Early Fatigue Failure of the TFNa and Gamma 3 Cephalomedullary Nails in the United States From 2015 to 2019

OBJECTIVES

To compare reports of implant fatigue failure submitted to the FDA of 2 commonly used cephalomedullary nails.

METHODS

In total, 2724 medical device reports from the FDA's MAUDE database from Jan 2015 to Oct 2019 were reviewed for the Trochanteric Femoral Nail-Advanced (TFNa) and Gamma 3 implants.

RESULTS

Data from 342 implant failures included in the MAUDE database were analyzed. TFNa and Gamma 3 had 183 and 159 reported fatigue failures, respectively. All failed implants fractured in the same location through the proximal screw aperture. Time from implantation to failure was on average 2 months shorter for TFNa implants that were reported fractured than for Gamma 3 implants reported, a difference that was statistically significant (P < 0.05). In total, 100 implants were reported to have failed within the first 4 months (53 and 47 for TFNa and Gamma 3, respectively). For Gamma 3 implants that failed in the first 4 months, almost all of the available manufacturers' inspection reports revealed implant notches at the point of failure from drilling. For TFNa implants that failed early, only one reported notch was noted in the available inspection reports.

CONCLUSIONS

In contrast to other studies regarding fatigue failure, reported failures in both TFNa and Gamma 3 occurred earlier than can be attributed to delayed or nonunion. The reported failures of the TFNa in the MAUDE database occurred earlier than did those of the Gamma 3. Early failures of the Gamma 3 seemed to be the result of iatrogenic implant notching.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic Level III. See instructions for authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

3D printing-assisted fabrication of patient-specific antibacterial radial head prosthesis with high periprosthetic bone preservation

We present a novel fabrication and surgical approach for anatomical reconstruction of a fractured radial head using patient-specific radial head prosthesis made of polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) bone cement. To this end, the use of PMMA bone cement for prosthesis fabrication was initially investigated using computational modeling and experimental methods. The radial head prosthesis was fabricated through casting of PMMA bone cement in silicone mold in the operation room before implantation. To enhance the precision of bony preparation for replacement of the radial head, patient-specific surgical guide for accurate resection of the radial neck with the desired length was developed. Post-surgical clinical examinations revealed biomechanical restoration of elbow function, owing to the use of patient-specific radial head prosthesis and surgical guide. Importantly, follow-up radiographs after a mean follow-up of 18 months revealed bone preservation at the bone-prosthesis interface without any signs of erosion of the capitellum. Taken together, our method demonstrated the safety and efficacy of the PMMA radial head prosthesis in restoring elbow biomechanics. This also provides a very safe and cost-effective method for making various patient-specific prostheses with localized antibacterial delivery and close mechanical properties to native bone for improved periprosthetic bone regeneration.

Management of the failed radial head arthroplasty

Primary radial head arthroplasty (RHA) produces good or excellent results in approximately 85% of patients. However, complications are not uncommon and have been described in up to 23% of cases.

The number of RHA is increasing, and consequently the absolute number of complications is expected to rise as well. The decision on whether to revise or remove the prosthesis seems more likely to depend on the preference of the surgeon or the hospital, rather than on objectifying problems with the prosthesis.

The current article presents an algorithm for the work-up and treatment of most complications that can occur following RHA.

Five subgroups of problems were identified: osteoarthritis, stiffness, instability, infection and implant-related issues.

In short, the preferred treatment depends mainly on the chondral condition and stability of the elbow joint.

Cite this article: EFORT Open Rev 2020;5:398-407. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.5.190055

Indications and Clinical Results of Radial Head Replacement: Has Anything Changed?

Radial head fractures are common injuries comprising 1/3 of the fractures about the elbow. As a secondary valgus stabilizer of the elbow, radial head fractures can compromise elbow stability leading to long-term pain, dysfunction, and degenerative change. Furthermore, radial head fractures can be accompanied by associated injuries including ligamentous lesions that can further exacerbate elbow instability, leading to long-term sequelae. As fixation principles and technology have evolved, so has the ability to render surgical treatment for these fractures. In general, minimally displaced and some displaced fractures may be treated nonoperatively with early motion. Fractures with a block to rotation and displaced fragments with 3 or fewer fragments may be treated with open reduction and internal fixation. Comminuted fractures or those with greater than 3 fragments may be successfully treated with radial head replacement. Associated elbow instability will also influence treatment decisions.