The need of innovation and of preservation of well-established techniques in the era of MDR for improving outcomes

The European Union Medical Device Regulation (MDR 2017/745) has introduced stricter requirements for clinical evidence, limited reliance on equivalence and expanded post-market surveillance for orthopaedic implants. While designed to improve patient safety following high-profile device failures, MDR implementation has been associated with longer certification timelines, increased costs and withdrawal of established implants, particularly in lower-volume indications. The central regulatory challenge is proportionality: novel devices require robust prospective evidence, whereas long-established implants with extensive clinical track records may warrant risk-based recertification pathways. Uniform regulatory application risks unintended consequences for intermediate- and lower-volume indications that fall between orphan-device provisions and standard MDR requirements. Orthopaedic societies may play a key role in developing speciality-specific evidence guidance to support regulators and notified bodies, improving clarity while maintaining patient safety and sustainable innovation.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
EFORT Open Reviews
Published
2026-05-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1530/eor-2026-0055
Primary Topic
Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

The need of innovation and of preservation of well-established techniques in the era of MDR for improving outcomes

Olof Wolf, Max Gordon, Viktor Mili-Schmidt
EFORT Open Reviews
Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
article

The need of innovation and of preservation of well-established techniques in the era of MDR for improving outcomes

Olof Wolf, Max Gordon, Viktor Mili-Schmidt
article en

Abstract

The European Union Medical Device Regulation (MDR 2017/745) has introduced stricter requirements for clinical evidence, limited reliance on equivalence and expanded post-market surveillance for orthopaedic implants. While designed to improve patient safety following high-profile device failures, MDR implementation has been associated with longer certification timelines, increased costs and withdrawal of established implants, particularly in lower-volume indications. The central regulatory challenge is proportionality: novel devices require robust prospective evidence, whereas long-established implants with extensive clinical track records may warrant risk-based recertification pathways. Uniform regulatory application risks unintended consequences for intermediate- and lower-volume indications that fall between orphan-device provisions and standard MDR requirements. Orthopaedic societies may play a key role in developing speciality-specific evidence guidance to support regulators and notified bodies, improving clarity while maintaining patient safety and sustainable innovation.

EFORT Open ReviewsVol. 11(5)
Uppsala University (SE), Uppsala University Hospital (SE), Danderyds sjukhus (SE), Karolinska Institutet (SE), Glanrhyd Hospital (GB)
Industry, innovation and infrastructure
Openalex Percentile: Top 11%
Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

The need of innovation and of preservation of well-established techniques in the era of MDR for improving outcomes — Olof Wolf, Max Gordon, et al. · EFORT Open Reviews (2026) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS