Frequency of safety signals from scientific reports, manufactures, registers, and other sources for a random selection of hip and knee prostheses

Journal Article (2025)
Author(s)

Yijun Ren (Politecnico di Milano)

Lotje A. Hoogervorst (Leiden University Medical Center)

Enrico G. Caiani (Politecnico di Milano, IRCCS Istituto Auxologico Italiano)

Perla J. Marang-van de Mheen (Leiden University Medical Center, TU Delft - Safety and Security Science)

James A. Smith (John Radcliffe Hospital, University of Oxford)

Alan G. Fraser (University Hospital of Wales)

Rob G.H.H. Nelissen (Leiden University Medical Center)

Anne Lübbeke (University Hospital of Geneva, University of Oxford)

DOI related publication
https://doi.org/10.2340/17453674.2025.44035 Final published version
More Info
expand_more
Publication Year
2025
Language
English
Journal title
Acta Orthopaedica
Volume number
96
Pages (from-to)
460-466
Downloads counter
158
Reuse Rights

Other than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download, forward or distribute the text or part of it, without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license such as Creative Commons.

Abstract

Background and purpose — The safety and performance of hip and knee prostheses can be assessed by ana-lyzing peer-reviewed literature, registry reports, and safety notices published by national competent authorities/regula-tory agencies, or manufacturers. The percentage of hip and knee prostheses with a safety signal published through any of these data sources is unknown. We aimed to assess the frequency of signals identified for a random sample of 10 hip stems, 10 hip cups, and 10 knee implants. Methods — 3 literature libraries were searched to find safety signals defined as information on patterns/occurrences that may alter the device’s benefit–risk profile, reported in peer-reviewed publications for the randomly selected implants. Annual registry reports from 5 national registries were examined to check whether any of the selected implants had outlier performance. The CORE-MD post-market surveillance (PMS) tool was used to collect all related safety notices from 13 competent authority/regulatory agency websites. Manufacturers’ websites were screened for any reported safety information. Results — Safety signals were identified for 21 of the 30 randomly selected implants: 18 identified by registries, 7 by the CORE-MD PMS tool, and 8 based on literature, with 10 implants identified by multiple sources. There was no systematic pattern in timing of publication with a particular source publishing safety signals earlier than other sources. Conclusion — 70% of the randomly selected hip and knee prostheses had ≥ 1 safety signals published, with registries as the source for the majority. No single source identified all 21 implants with signals, which highlights the need for a comprehensive surveillance strategy to aggregate safety signals from multiple sources.