Search PubMed⌕ Search

PubMed · 10171242

Danger: implants.

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

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

Safety aspects and quality assessment in MRI and MRS: a challenge for health care systems in Europe.

Despite advances in international cooperation, the application of the safety regulations of different countries remains an important challenge for manufacturers and health care workers in the European Union. Rapid technological development during the last 20 years, and the still controversial nature of certain potential effects of magnetic or electromagnetic fields, make the task particularly difficult for MRI and MRS. As the relevant literature is rather extensive, the present work will limit its goals to four questions: 1) How is MRI and MRS safety regulation managed within the European Union? 2) Concerning direct potential physiological effects, what is presently well known and controlled, and, conversely, what are the remaining open (and often controversial) questions? 3) As metallic implants are probably the main risk in routine MRI, what regulatory strategy is in progress in Europe? 4) As indirect risks related to artifacts must not be underestimated, what European programs have been developed for quality assessment in MRI and MRS? In all of these fields, evidence is provided demonstrating the need for a mutual recognition of common standards for the European Union and the United States.

Equipment Safety↗