THOUSANDS of artificial knee joints are implanted each year in the UK without sound evidence of their long-term safety and effectiveness, it is claimed.
Experts called for better long-term monitoring of patients undergoing knee replacement so the data can be gathered.
Knee replacement is one of the most common procedures in developed countries and tens of thousands of the operations are carried out in the UK each year.
Since the first procedure was performed in 1968 the number of available implants has proliferated, but a team of British, Australian and Swedish experts said this has occurred "with little or no evidence of effectiveness or cost effectiveness".
Professor Andrew Carr, from Oxford University, said: "The regulatory framework for new implants varies worldwide but has been generally much less rigorous than for new drugs.
"Currently, proof of safety of implanted materials is all that is required prior to approval for clinical use, rather than evidence for clinical effectiveness.
"Widespread surveillance of existing implants is needed alongside the monitored introduction of new implant designs as part of well-conducted, large-scale randomised trials."
The experts spelled out their message in an online edition of The Lancet medical journal.
Relying on reports of "revision" procedures, replacing failed implants, underestimates the scale of problems suffered by patients, they said.
Ageing populations, rising obesity rates and a larger number of younger patients raised the possibility of a rise in demand for knee surgery over the next two decades.
Mr Carr said: "Without high-quality, unbiased and reliable information, surgeons cannot make informed decisions on how to achieve the best outcome."
However, he stressed knee replacement surgery was still "one of the outstanding success stories of modern medicine".
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article