PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 2620082

[Classification of implants with reference to safety considerations].

Abstract

Implants are listed both in the German Drug Law (Arzneimittelgesetz) and in the Regulations of the Safety of Medical Technical Equipment (Medizingeräteverordnung). In recent time, various guidelines concerning implants have been under discussion in Europe. It is surprising to note that more than one set of guidelines has been thought to be necessary. The present article discusses possible definitions of some of the terms employed in connection with implants, and attempts to identify the differences and common features of implants under aspects of safety, thus providing a broader base for public discussions. An analysis of the implants presently available has shown that it is useful to establish a hierarchy of possible hazards that takes into account the danger to the patient under worst-case conditions. A survey has demonstrated that in the worst case, most implants are associated with only an impairment or inconvenience for the patient, but no threat to life. In contrast, a minority of implants are of such a nature that in the case of severe failure, a life-threatening situation can develop for the patient. Such a hazard is not dependent upon whether the implant has a driving energy source or not. These findings indicate that within the framework of safery considerations, more attention need to be paid to "passive" implants than has been the case so far.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

W Irnich, R J Tobisch, M S Tuleimat. 1989. [Classification of implants with reference to safety considerations].. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2620082/

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Corporate financial decision-makers' perceptions of workplace safety.

This study, through a random national survey, explored how senior financial executives or managers (those who determined high-level budget, resource allocation, and corporate priorities) of medium-to-large companies perceive important workplace safety issues. The three top-rated safety priorities in resource allocation reported by the participants (overexertion, repetitive motion, and bodily reaction) were consistent with the top three perceived causes of workers' compensation losses. The greatest single safety concerns reported were overexertion, repetitive motion, highway accidents, falling on the same level and bodily reaction. A majority of participants believed that the indirect costs associated with workplace injury were higher than the direct costs. Our participants believed that money spent improving workplace safety would have significant returns. The perceived top benefits of an effective workplace safety program were increased productivity, reduced cost, retention, and increased satisfaction among employees. The perceived most important safety modification was safety training. The top reasons senior financial executives gave for believing their safety programs were better than those at other companies were that their companies paid more attention to and emphasized safety, they had better classes and training focused on safety, and they had teams/individuals focused specifically on safety.

Accident Prevention↗