Key result
Prospective cohort series or large registries may be more effective and practical than randomized controlled trials for evaluating new surgical technologies in orthopaedics.
Highlights the potential utility of prospective cohorts and registries over RCTs for evaluating new orthopaedic surgical technologies.
Prospective cohorts or registries may offer practical advantages for orthopaedic technology evaluation; leaves open whether they outperform RCTs in validity.
New orthopaedic technology is constantly being developed to help improve patient care. New technology may lead to a waste of resources or lead to harm for the patient if it is not properly evaluated before it is accepted as a standard of care. The purpose of this article is to assess how new technology can be implemented safely while maintaining an environment that allows for surgical innovation through an evidence-based approach. Although randomized controlled trials (Level-I evidence) are typically seen as the so-called gold standard with regard to treatment efficacy, randomized trials may not be the most effective form of evaluating a new technology. In many circumstances, a prospective cohort series or large registry that documents outcomes and adverse events may be more effective and practical for the evaluation of a new surgical technology.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ahn et al. (2009) conducted a review in Orthopaedic conditions requiring new technology. New orthopaedic technology was evaluated. Prospective cohort series or large registries may be more effective and practical than randomized controlled trials for evaluating new surgical technologies in orthopaedics.
Synapse has enriched 4 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: