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.

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.