Author:
Katrina Hutchison
(MENAFN- The Conversation) The past year has seenwide concernabout the safety of medical implants. Some of the worst scandals have involved devices for women, such as texturedbreast implantswith links to cancer, and transvaginal mesh implants, which were the subject of asenate inquiry .
But women are harmed not only by 'women's devices' such as breast implants and vaginal mesh. Women are also more likely to be harmed by apparently gender-neutral devices, likejoint replacementsandheart implants .
Read more:
We can cut private health insurance costs by fixing how we pay for hip replacements and other implants
In recently publishedresearch , I explored the reasons for this. I found gender biases at all stages of design and use of medical implants.
Proposed changes to how devices are regulated, such as introducinga national register of all implants , will make it quicker to identify dodgy devices. But this will not address gender bias in how devices are designed and used.
Bias starts with design, then lab testing
Biological and social factorscan affecthow women present when injured or ill, and how well treatments work. Often, device designersdo not take these differences into account .
The lab tests used to make sure implants are safe often ignore the possibility women could havedifferent reactions to materials , or their activities couldplace different loads on implants .
Read more:
Medicine's gender revolution: how women stopped being treated as 'small men'
Bias continues with clinical trials
Some medical device companieshave exploited regulatory loopholesto get devices to market in the UK without clinical trials. Even when trials take place, womenare not always included . Or researchersdo not analyse the data for gender differences .
Regulators such as the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the United States and Australia's Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA)often approve deviceswithout data split by gender on how well devices perform or how safe they are.
Then there's the doctor-patient relationship
The gender of the doctor and patient can make a difference to what women learn about their implant. Thevery low numbers of women in surgerymean female patients often see male surgeons. And there issome evidencemale doctors tend to treat female patients in a more paternalistic and less patient-centred way.
Then there's the issue of whether surgeons raise important safety issues with their female patients. For example, some surgeonsfeel uncomfortablediscussing whether it's safe to have sex after a hip implant, especially with female patients. This is important as some sexual positionsare saferthan others.
Read more:
Women have heart attacks too, but their symptoms are often dismissed as something else
Let's look at one example, a hip implant
The DePuy ASR (articular surface replacement) hip implant caused serious complications forpatients around the world ,including Australia , such as inflammation, painful growths, dislocations and metal toxicity.
Despitemedia coverage , few were aware this hip implant wasmore than twice as likelyto fail in women.
In the case of hip implants, the same models are available for women and men, implying these devices are gender neutral. Most models come in a range of sizes, with some havingbetter outcomes for women . But women are not small men, and there are gender differences in basic activities involving the hip,such as walking .
Whenwomen stand up from sittingorhave sex , the fragile edges of their hip sockets tend to bear greater loads than men's. This 'edge loading' increases the risk hip implants will wear down and release dangerous metal particles.
When women stand up from sitting, their hip sockets tend to bear greater loads than men's.
from www.shutterstock.com
These differences would not matter if lab tests showed equal safety of hip implants for men and women. However, evidence is not collected on this. In fact, international standards for lab tests that measure rates of wear in hip implants ignore gender differences, and only testnormal walkingrather than more stressful activities, such as running or having sex.
The FDA, TGA and other regulators often approve new hip implants based on their similarity to already approved models. Thishappenedwith the ASR hip implant. Regulators did not need new data, let alone evidence the hip was equally safe for women and men.
It's a concern internationally
Internationally, there is increasing concern about the regulation and safety of medical implants. An international group of journalists released adamning reportlate last year. TheFDA's 510(k) process , which approves new devices based on their similarity to existing ones, allows approval of some high-risk implantswithout additional evidence .
The situation is no betterin Europe , where commercial agencies do the approvals. This system has been criticised for approving deviceswithout good dataand forlacking transparencywhen it comes to implant recalls.
Read more:
What is the Medical Technology Association and how does it wield its power?
The FDA has taken some steps to address gender bias,issuing guidancefor companies to provide data on their devices in women and men. However, this is not binding. A study of devices approved after its introduction foundonly 17%included data analysis by sex.
How could we improve things?
In Australia, scandals with implants have led tocalls for bansandregistries . These are good ideas, but will not prompt new devices to be designed with women in mind, nor improve patient communication.
Read more:
The TGA's proposed breast implant ban exposes a litany of failures, and fails to protect women
Surgeons need to raise topics important for their patients to know about surgery, however uncomfortable it makes them feel. Current efforts to improve theculture of surgery , and to attract traineeswho better reflectthe communities they serve may help.
But there is a long way to go.
Regulators like the TGA and FDA can influence device design by requiring data on the safety and performance of all new (and modified) devices in both women and men. The FDA experienceshowsthese requirements must be binding if they are to work.
Safety
Gender
Inequality
Gender bias
Medical devices
Patient safety
Women's health
Medical regulation
Biomedical devices
MENAFN1108201901990000ID1098872003
Legal Disclaimer:
MENAFN provides the information “as is” without warranty of any kind. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for the accuracy, content, images, videos, licenses, completeness, legality, or reliability of the information contained in this article. If you have any complaints or copyright issues related to this article, kindly contact the provider above.