-
A new call for a registry
I just came across a new paper describing the need for improved monitoring of mesh device results. It’s interesting but I still see a fear of disclosing the bad devices and/or their makers. They describe a “successful” effort to get a change in a mesh device Indications For Use (IFU). But don’t name the manufacturer or the device. Apparently the AHSQC was involved. But what good is the AHSQC to the patient if the data is hidden? It seems to be for the device makers and the surgeons. Better than nothing but in the age of “informed consent” how can it not be rational to make the data transparent?
The change was in the advice to the surgeons, the Indications For Use. But the patient is left out of the loop. The surgeon can still use in the wrong way.
Anyway, it looks like progress. Could move much faster though.
Excerpt:
“Recently, the Americas Hernia Society Quality Collaborative (AHSQC) was able to affect a change in the IFU for a broadly marketed hernia mesh device after several surgeons raised concerns of central mesh fractures, resulting in unexpected hernia recurrences. ……
Subsequently, the manufacturer issued a medical device correction, citing hernia-specific details: ….
The medical device correction advised against the usage of the device in the context of a specific type of hernia repair. ”
Log in to reply.