How should new orthopaedic implants be introduced: an example and recommendations for best practice

Continued advancements in orthopaedics have led to the development of many new implants; many of these are being utilized in clinical practice with little or no evidence base for their safety or effectiveness. Highly publicized failures in orthopaedic technology have led to an increased awareness of this issue in both medical and non-medical circles. In most cases, the significant harm caused to the public could have been avoided by the appropriately staged implementation of new implants. This review comments on the current literature regarding the optimal practice for the introduction of new orthopaedic technology. The authors' experience with the failed ESKA Adapter Short-stem/Modular Hip is described; the methodology used for its evaluation is used as a basis to discuss what was successful about the process and also give warning on what could be improved upon. The ideal practice requires new orthopaedic implants to be evaluated by high-volume surgeons in specialist orthopaedic hospitals. These studies should include biomechanical studies, radiostereophotometric analysis, implant retrieval and outcome assessment. Results and complications should be reported early to the appropriate joint registry and regulatory body. Once a suitable evidence base has developed, the implant can be distributed into wider clinical practice or withdrawn. These recommendations aim to protect the patient and public from harm while allowing surgical innovation to still continue.

Medical innovation laws: an unnecessary innovation

Objective This paper aims to demonstrate that any suggestion that there is a need for specific innovation laws is flawed. Innovation is central to good medical practice and is adequately supported by current law. Methods The paper reviews the nature of medical innovation and outlines recent attempts in the UK to introduce specific laws aimed at 'encouraging' and 'supporting' innovation. The current legal framework is outlined and the role of the law in relation to medical innovation explored. Results The analysis demonstrates the cyclic relationship between medical advancement and the law and concludes that there is no requirement for specific innovation laws. Conclusions The law not only supports innovation and development in medical treatment but encourages it as central to a functioning medical system. There is no need to introduce specific laws aimed at medical innovation; to do so represents an unnecessary legal innovation and serves to complicate matters. What is known about the topic? Over recent months, there has been a great deal of discussion surrounding the law in the context of medical innovation. This was driven by the attempts in the UK to introduce specific laws in the Medical Innovation Bill. The general subject matter - negligence and the expected standard of care in the provision of treatment - is very well understood, but not in cases where the treatment can be described as innovative. The general rhetoric in both the UK and Australia around the Medical Innovation Bill demonstrates a lack of understanding of the position of the law with regards to innovative treatment. What does this paper add? This paper adds clarity to the debate. It presents the law and explains the manner in which the law can operate around innovative treatment. The paper asserts that medical innovation is both supported and encouraged by existing legal principles. What are the implications for practitioners? The paper presents an argument that can guide the policy position in this area. It also provides clarity around the legal position and expected standard of care for those who are introducing innovative medical treatment.