PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 10171242

Danger: implants.

S Findlay·D Podolsky
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

The superheated debate over breast implants awakened a sleeping giant of an issue clouding "medical devices"--the government's clumsy nomenclature for any medical product that is not a drug, from breast implants and artificial hips to X-ray machines and surgical thread. Some 130 categories of high-risk devices are in use with little or no proof of safety, reliability or effectiveness. All appeared before 1976, the year that the Food and Drug Administration got the authority to regulate such products. Under activist chief David Kessler and with added clout from a 1990 law, the FDA plans to scrutinize the entire 130-item list. Five will get special attention starting early next year: saline-filled breast implants, inflatable penile implants, testicular implants, heart-bypass pumps and cranial stimulators. U.S. News has looked at all five devices, using FDA data obtained through the Freedom of Information Act. In-depth computer analysis suggested that penile implants deserve closer examination. Why is clear from the following report.

Explore related subjects

Equipment SafetyFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedProduct Surveillance, PostmarketingProstheses and ImplantsUnited StatesUnited States Food and Drug AdministrationJournal Article

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

S Findlay, D Podolsky. 1992-08-24. Danger: implants.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10171242/

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2002

Compliance testing of medical diagnostic x-ray equipment: three years' experience at a major teaching hospital in Western Australia.

The impact of a formal compliance testing program has been evaluated three years post-implementation on a major teaching hospital (Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital) with 46 x-ray tubes located throughout 37 rooms. The mandatory program, implemented by the statutory authority in January 1997, called for all medical (including chiropractic and dental) equipment used in human diagnosis to be tested at prescribed frequencies using established protocols. The application of the required test methods demonstrated various non-compliance issues. Notices of non-compliance were received for approximately 60% of the equipment in the hospital following the equipment's first annual test. The reasons for, and the significance of, failure varied according to equipment category, test category, equipment use and equipment age. However, at the end of the third year of testing, approximately 75% of the tested x-ray units satisfied the compliance criteria. The main reasons for non-compliance were found to be design limitations of old technology and the current radiation legislation that makes it difficult for some older equipment to meet the relatively stringent criteria.

Equipment Safety↗
PubMed2002

Effect of home monitoring on a high-risk population.

A large cohort of infants (8,998) at high risk for sudden and unexpected death was followed with home cardiorespiratory monitoring over a five-year period. These infants included premature infants (23-36 weeks post-conceptual age), SIDS siblings, and infants who experienced an Apparent Life-Threatening Event. The overall SIDS rate in this high-risk population was 0.55/1,000, a rate significantly less than the 0.85 deaths/1,000 reported in the "general population" of Georgia over this same time period. In addition, we report our experience with using home monitors as a diagnostic tool, as well as how monitors can actually be cost-effective. Editorial opinions, and lay press summaries of the CHIME study (JAMA, May 2, 2001) imply that home cardiorespirtory monitors are of little value. Despite the fact that the study never made this claim, many clinicians are now referring to this study as evidence that home monitoring is ineffective and not needed. This article disputes those misconceptions about home cardiorespiratory monitors based on our experience with a large high-risk population of infants.

Equipment Safety↗