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

Barriers and facilitators of implementation of new antibacterial technologies in patient care: an interview study with orthopedic healthcare professionals at a university hospital

BACKGROUND

Antimicrobial resistance is a major global health threat. Therefore, promising new antibacterial technologies that could minimize our dependence on antibiotics should be widely adopted. This study aims to identify the barriers and facilitators of the adoption of new antibacterial technologies in hospital patient care.

METHODS

Semi-structured interviews, based on the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research, were conducted with healthcare professionals related to the orthopedics department of an academic hospital in The Netherlands.

RESULTS

In total, 11 healthcare professionals were interviewed. Scientific evidence for the effectiveness of the technology was the most explicitly mentioned facilitator of adoption, but other (often contextual) factors were also considered to be important. At the level of the inner and outer setting, high costs and lacking coverage, competition from other firms, and problems with ordering and availability were the most explicit perceived barriers to adoption. Participants did not collectively feel the need for new antibacterial technologies.

CONCLUSIONS

Barriers and facilitators of the adoption of new antibacterial technologies were identified related to the technology, the hospital, and external factors. The implementation climate might have an indirect influence on adoption. New antibacterial technologies that are scientifically proven effective, affordable, and easily obtainable will most likely be adopted.

Gaps in the evidence underpinning high-risk medical devices in Europe at market entry, and potential solutions

AIM

To determine the level of evidence for innovative high-risk medical devices at market entry.

METHODS

We reviewed all Belgian healthcare payer (RIZIV-INAMI) assessor reports on novel implants or invasive medical devices (n = 18, Class IIb-III) available between 2018 to mid-2019 on applications submitted for inclusion on their reimbursement list. We also conducted a review of the literature on evidence gaps and an analysis of relevant legal and ethical frameworks within the European context.

FINDINGS

Conformity assessment of medical devices is based on performance, safety, and an acceptable risk-benefit balance. Information submitted for obtaining CE marking is confidential and legally protected, limiting access to clinical evidence. Seven out of the 18 RIZIV-INAMI assessor reports (39%) included a randomized controlled trial (RCT) using the novel device, whilst 2 applications (11%) referred to an RCT that used a different device. The population included was inappropriate or unclear for 3 devices (17%). Only half of the applications presented evidence on quality of life or functioning and 2 (11%) presented overall survival data. Four applications (22%) included no data beyond twelve months. The findings from the literature demonstrated similar problems with the study design and the clinical evidence.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

CE marking does not indicate that a device is effective, only that it complies with the law. The lack of transparency hampers evidence-based decision making. Despite greater emphasis on clinical benefit for the patient, the provisions of the European Medical Device Regulation (MDR) are not yet fully aligned with international ethical standards for clinical research. The MDR fails to address key issues, such as the lack of access to data submitted for CE marking and a failure to require evidence of clinical effectiveness. Indeed, a first report shows no improvement in the clinical evidence for implantable devices generated under the MDR. Thus, patients may continue to be exposed to ineffective or unsafe novel devices. The Health Technology Assessment Regulation plans for Joint Scientific Consultations for specific high-risk devices before companies begin their pivotal clinical investigations. The demanded comparative evidence should facilitate payer decisions. Nevertheless, there is also a need for legislation requiring comparative RCTs assessing patient-relevant outcomes for high-risk devices to ensure implementation, including development and implementation of common specifications for study designs.

Femoral neck prostheses: A systematic analysis of the literature

Primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) is one of the most successful surgical procedures. Considering the demographic change the use of new ultra-short femoral implants has gained importance especially when treating young patients. Main features are bone conservation, metaphyseal anchoring and thus reducing stress shielding by proximal load transferring. The objective of this study is to give an overview over the subject of femoral neck prostheses. A systematic review was conducted. A total number of 27 publications were taken into this systematic review. Over all, just a few follow-up, biomechanical and radiostereometric studies have been conducted in the past. Still no long-term results (>10 years of follow-up) are available. The available mid-term results indicate unsatisfactory survival rates. Aseptic loosening was the most common reason for revision. Valgus angle and good bone mineral density were considered to be crucial for primary stability of femoral neck prostheses. Register data report a very low percentage of femoral neck prostheses in THA with even more diminishing implantation rates. To conclude, further studies are necessary in order to provide evidence-based recommendations. Currently, due to the inhomogeneous and poor data a reasonable and legitimate recommendation cannot be given.