Testing of Orthopaedic Implants: A Comprehensive Overview of Stakeholders and Processes

Orthopaedic implants are critical medical devices designed to restore function and alleviate pain for patients with musculoskeletal conditions. Ensuring the safety and effectiveness of these implants is paramount, necessitating rigorous testing throughout their life cycle, from initial design to post-market surveillance (1). This article provides a detailed examination of the various entities involved in the testing of orthopaedic implants, with a particular focus on the regulatory landscape in the United Kingdom and the influence of international standards.

The regulatory environment for medical devices, including orthopaedic implants, is becoming increasingly stringent (4). This trend reflects a global commitment to enhancing patient safety and addressing concerns identified through historical device performance. Consequently, manufacturers face more demanding requirements for pre-market evaluation and ongoing monitoring of their products. This emphasis on comprehensive testing and compliance can influence the cost of bringing new implants to market and may potentially affect the pace of innovation (5). Balancing rigorous safety standards with the need to foster innovation remains a key consideration for both the industry and regulatory bodies.

The Role of the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) in the UK

In the United Kingdom, the primary authority responsible for overseeing the medical devices market, including orthopaedic implants, is the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) (4). The MHRA plays a multifaceted role in ensuring the safety and performance of these devices. A central function is the registration of all medical devices, including orthopaedic implants, before they can be legally placed on the market in Great Britain (8). This registration requirement extends to custom-made devices, and manufacturers based outside the UK must appoint a UK Responsible Person to manage the registration process on their behalf (8).

Beyond registration, the MHRA actively engages in market surveillance, continuously monitoring the performance and safety of medical devices available in the UK (8). This includes specific attention to high-risk devices such as metal-on-metal hip replacements, for which the MHRA has issued updated guidance for patient follow-up and investigation (13). The agency is also responsible for designating and monitoring UK Conformity Assessment Bodies, also known as Approved Bodies, which are independent organisations authorized to conduct conformity assessments for certain categories of medical devices (8). These assessments are crucial for verifying that devices meet the requirements of the Medical Devices Regulations 2002 (UK MDR 2002) and other relevant legislation, which the MHRA is responsible for enforcing (4). Furthermore, the MHRA operates the Yellow Card scheme, a system for reporting adverse events associated with medical devices, contributing to ongoing safety monitoring (13). The agency also provides extensive guidance to manufacturers on various aspects of medical device regulation, including the processes for conformity assessment, registration, and proper labeling (8).

Following the UK's departure from the European Union, the regulatory landscape has undergone significant changes. Transitional arrangements have been implemented to allow the continued acceptance of CE-marked medical devices on the Great Britain market for a limited period, extending until June 2028 for many types of devices (8). However, the UKCA (UK Conformity Assessed) marking now serves as the new pathway for placing medical devices on the market in Great Britain (6). This shift necessitates that manufacturers understand and comply with both UK and EU regulations if they intend to access both markets, adding complexity to the process of market access (6). It is important to note that the UK MDR 2002, which currently governs medical devices in Great Britain, is largely derived from previous EU directives, indicating a foundational alignment with the European regulatory framework, although future divergence is possible as the UK develops its own strengthened regime (4).

MHRA's responsibilities

International Regulatory Bodies and Their Influence

While the MHRA oversees the UK market, orthopaedic implant manufacturers often target a global audience, requiring them to navigate the regulatory landscapes of various international bodies. Key among these are the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Union (EU) Medical Device Regulation (MDR)(1). The FDA sets rigorous standards for medical devices in the United States, employing a risk-based classification system. High-risk devices, which include many orthopaedic implants, typically require premarket approval (PMA), a stringent process involving extensive clinical data. Devices deemed substantially equivalent to those already on the market may follow the premarket notification (510(k)) pathway (3).

In Europe, the EU MDR, fully implemented in May 2020, introduced enhanced requirements for medical devices, emphasizing more robust clinical evaluation and post-market surveillance (5). Notably, all orthopaedic and traumatology implants are classified as Class III under the EU MDR, subjecting them to the most stringent regulatory scrutiny (5). The EU also maintains Eudamed, a European database designed to centralize information regarding the safety and performance of medical devices available within the European Union (6). The UK's regulatory framework, particularly the UK MDR 2002, has historically been closely aligned with EU directives (4). The transitional arrangements that currently recognize CE marking further illustrate this connection, indicating a temporary alignment with European standards (8).

The global regulatory landscape presents a complex interplay of harmonization and divergence (3). While international standards organizations like ISO aim to create universally applicable guidelines, specific regulatory requirements and approval processes often differ significantly between regions, such as the distinct pathways for UKCA marking, CE marking, and FDA approval. This necessitates that manufacturers often undertake market-specific testing and gather tailored evidence to satisfy the requirements of each target market, potentially leading to increased costs and timelines for global market access (5).

Independent Testing Laboratories and Their Crucial Role

Independent testing laboratories are essential stakeholders in the orthopaedic implant testing ecosystem. These laboratories provide unbiased verification of the safety and performance of implants through a wide array of tests conducted according to recognized international standards (2). Many of these laboratories hold accreditations such as ISO 17025 and GMP, demonstrating their commitment to quality and reliability (24).

The services offered by independent testing laboratories are comprehensive, encompassing mechanical testing to evaluate the strength and durability of implants under various loading conditions (2). They also conduct biocompatibility testing to assess how implant materials interact with the body, ensuring they do not elicit adverse reactions (2). This includes specialized tests for extractables and leachables (32). For articulating implants, wear testing is performed to simulate long-term use and evaluate the generation of wear debris (24). Additionally, these labs offer chemical and material analysis to determine the composition and properties of implant materials, as well as cleanliness testing to ensure implants are free from contaminants (2). Many laboratories also provide regulatory testing and strategy support, assisting manufacturers with the necessary testing for regulatory submissions across different markets (18). In cases of implant failure, they can conduct a thorough failure analysis to identify the root causes (2). Furthermore, they offer sterilization validation services to confirm the effectiveness of sterilization processes (24). Several reputable independent testing laboratories operate within the UK, including Lucideon, TestLabs, and Medical Engineering Technologies (MET) (24).

Manufacturers frequently choose to outsource testing to these independent laboratories to benefit from their specialized expertise, advanced equipment, and recognized accreditations. This can streamline the often complex regulatory approval process and potentially reduce the costs associated with establishing and maintaining comprehensive in-house testing capabilities (2). The reliance on standardized testing protocols, such as those defined by ASTM and ISO, by these independent labs ensures consistency and comparability of test results across different manufacturers and geographical regions. This facilitates regulatory review and enhances confidence in the overall performance of orthopaedic implants (3).

The Manufacturer's Internal Testing and Quality Control

Orthopaedic implant manufacturers bear the primary responsibility for ensuring the quality, safety, and performance of their devices. This is achieved through the implementation of robust internal testing and quality control procedures at every stage, from the initial design and manufacturing processes to ongoing post-market surveillance (2). Their internal testing activities typically include rigorous material testing to verify the properties of the raw materials used in the implants (3). Dimensional inspection is crucial to ensure that the final products adhere to precise design specifications (2). Manufacturers also conduct in-house mechanical testing, including static and fatigue tests, to evaluate the structural integrity and durability of their implants (2). Maintaining cleanliness during the manufacturing process is paramount, necessitating strict cleanliness control procedures (2). Surface finish inspection is also critical to ensure the implants have a smooth, defect-free surface (39). Furthermore, manufacturers must validate the effectiveness of their sterilization processes to guarantee the sterility of the final product (30).

To ensure consistent quality, manufacturers typically implement comprehensive quality management systems, often adhering to standards such as ISO 13485, which outlines the requirements for a quality management system specific to the medical device industry (2). These systems dictate the procedures for quality control, including detailed testing protocols and thorough documentation. Manufacturers often utilise advanced metrology equipment, such as coordinate measuring machines (CMMs) and sophisticated optical inspection systems, to achieve the high levels of accuracy and quality required for orthopaedic implants (2). The data generated from a manufacturer's internal testing program forms a vital component of the technical documentation that must be submitted to regulatory bodies to obtain market approval, such as CE marking or UKCA marking (8). Demonstrating a strong commitment to internal quality control and testing is therefore essential for gaining access to the market.

Moreover, continuous internal testing and quality control processes enable manufacturers to closely monitor their production, identify any potential issues at an early stage, and implement corrective actions. This proactive approach fosters continuous improvement in both the design and manufacturing of orthopaedic implants (2).

Comprehensive Testing Regimes for Orthopaedic Implants

Orthopaedic implants undergo a comprehensive suite of tests designed to evaluate their mechanical properties, biocompatibility with the human body, and resistance to wear and tear over their intended lifespan (3).

Mechanical Testing

Mechanical testing is crucial for assessing the strength, durability, and overall performance of orthopaedic implants under various loading conditions that they will encounter within the body (2). A range of mechanical tests is commonly performed, including tension, compression, bending, fatigue, torsion, and shear testing (2). For certain implants, such as bone screws and hip implants, axial-torsion testing is conducted to evaluate their performance under combined linear and rotational forces (3). These tests are performed according to well-established standards (3, 23, 30, 31, 40, 41). Examples of key standards include ASTM F543 for bone screws, ASTM F382 for bone plates, ASTM F1717 for spinal implants, ISO 7206 for hip implants, and ISO 14243 for knee implants (3). These standards provide detailed methodologies for determining critical mechanical properties such as bending strength, bending stiffness, fatigue limit, pull-out strength, and torsional strength (3). The design of these mechanical tests is intended to closely simulate the forces and stresses that orthopaedic implants will experience within the human body during various activities, ensuring they can withstand the expected loads and movements without failure (3).

Mechanical test types

Biocompatibility Testing

Biocompatibility testing is essential to evaluate how the materials used in orthopaedic implants interact with the body (32). The primary goal is to ensure that the implant does not cause any harmful biological effects, such as toxicity, inflammation, or infection (32). This testing is conducted in accordance with the ISO 10993 series of standards, which provides a comprehensive framework for the biological evaluation of medical devices (32). This international standard encompasses a wide range of tests, including cytotoxicity testing to assess potential damage to cells, sensitization testing to evaluate the likelihood of allergic reactions, irritation testing to check for tissue irritation, genotoxicity testing to identify potential genetic damage, and systemic toxicity testing to assess overall toxic effects (32). Extractables and leachables testing, as outlined in ISO 10993-18, is also a critical component, aiming to identify any potentially harmful substances that may be released from the implant material under various conditions (32). Successful completion of biocompatibility tests is a fundamental prerequisite for obtaining regulatory approval and ensuring the safe clinical use of orthopaedic implants (32).

Biocompatibility tests

Wear Testing

Wear testing is particularly important for articulating orthopaedic implants, such as joint replacements, to evaluate their long-term performance and the potential generation of wear debris (3). The wear and tear of articulating surfaces can lead to the release of wear debris, which can trigger adverse tissue reactions in the body. Wear testing is conducted using specialized simulators that replicate the complex motions and loads experienced by implants within the body (36). Key standards in this area include ISO 14242 for hip joint prostheses and ISO 14243 for knee joint prostheses, as well as ASTM F2025 for the gravimetric measurement of polymeric components used in these devices (31). Regulatory bodies are increasingly emphasizing the importance of robust long-term performance data, including the results of wear testing, to ensure the durability and safety of orthopaedic implants over their expected lifespan (5).

Navigating the UK Market: The Approval Process

Bringing an orthopaedic implant to the market in the UK involves a series of well-defined steps (8). The process begins with a conformity assessment, where manufacturers must demonstrate that their devices meet the requirements outlined in the UK Medical Devices Regulations 2002 (UK MDR 2002) (8). The specific type of assessment required depends on the risk classification of the device. Higher-risk devices, such as most orthopaedic implants (typically Class IIa, IIb, and III), necessitate evaluation by a UK Approved Body, an independent organization designated by the MHRA (4). Lower-risk devices (Class I) may be eligible for self-certification (4).

Upon successful completion of the conformity assessment, devices must bear the UKCA mark, indicating compliance with the relevant UK regulations (6). Following this, all medical devices, including those with the UKCA mark or a valid CE marking (during the transitional period), must be registered with the MHRA before they can be legally placed on the market in Great Britain (8) Manufacturers located outside the UK are required to appoint a UK Responsible Person to handle the registration process (8). Throughout this process, manufacturers must compile and maintain comprehensive technical documentation that provides evidence of the device's compliance with regulatory requirements (8). Finally, manufacturers are obligated to establish and maintain robust post-market surveillance systems to monitor the performance of their devices after they are on the market, including the reporting of any adverse events and the implementation of corrective actions if necessary (6).

Custom-made orthopaedic implants are subject to specific requirements. While they are not initially required to bear the UKCA mark, they must still adhere to the relevant provisions of the UK MDR 2002 and be registered with the MHRA (9). The conformity assessment process, particularly the involvement of independent Approved Bodies for higher-risk devices, serves as a critical gatekeeper, ensuring that only devices that meet the necessary safety and performance standards are allowed to enter the UK market (4). Furthermore, regulatory approval increasingly relies on the presentation of strong clinical evidence that demonstrates the safety and effectiveness of orthopaedic implants in patients (5).

Transparency and Traceability: Publicly Accessible Databases and Registers

Several publicly accessible databases and registers contribute to the transparency and traceability of orthopaedic implants. In the UK, the National Joint Registry (NJR) plays a significant role by collecting data on hip, knee, shoulder, elbow, and ankle joint replacement surgeries performed across England, Wales, Northern Ireland, the Isle of Man, and Guernsey.46 While not a registry of certified implants, the NJR monitors the performance outcomes of various implants, surgeons, and hospitals, aiming to enhance patient safety and improve overall outcomes (46). The Orthopaedic Data Evaluation Panel (ODEP) further contributes to transparency by providing independent ratings on the strength of evidence supporting the performance of medical implants, based on data submitted by manufacturers (13). These ratings assist surgeons and hospitals in making evidence-based decisions when selecting implants for their patients.

At the European level, Eudamed serves as a comprehensive database intended to provide information on medical devices available in the EU, including crucial safety and performance data (6). Additionally, OrthoLoad offers a publicly accessible database containing in-vivo load data collected from instrumented orthopaedic implants in patients during various physical activities. This information is invaluable for research and development purposes (52). While the MHRA mandates the registration of medical devices in the UK, the extent to which its device registration database is publicly searchable for certified implants requires further investigation based on the provided information. Systems like the NJR and ODEP provide valuable post-market data on implant performance, which can significantly influence surgeons' choices, guide manufacturers in refining their products, and potentially inform future regulatory decisions (46). The increasing demand for greater transparency regarding the safety and performance of medical devices, including orthopaedic implants, underscores the importance of these publicly accessible resources (4).

Organizations Driving Standards: ASTM and ISO

ASTM International and the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) are the leading international organisations responsible for developing and publishing technical standards for a wide range of medical devices, including orthopaedic implants (3). These organisations develop standards that cover various critical aspects of orthopaedic implants, including standardised test methods for mechanical testing to evaluate strength, durability, and fatigue performance (3). While ISO 10993 is the dominant standard for biocompatibility, both organisations contribute to guidelines in this area (34). They also define standardised protocols for wear testing of joint replacements (36), establish material specifications for the materials used in implants (34), and provide guidance on nomenclature, classification, labeling, and packaging (1). Regulatory bodies worldwide, including the MHRA, FDA, and those in the EU, often reference or directly adopt ASTM and ISO standards in their regulations and guidance documents (3). Compliance with these internationally recognized standards is frequently a key requirement for obtaining market access in various countries. The widespread adoption of ASTM and ISO standards facilitates international trade in medical devices by providing a common framework of requirements that are recognized across different nations (23). It is important to note that these standards are not static but are continuously reviewed and updated to reflect the latest advancements in scientific knowledge, materials technology, and clinical experience, ensuring their ongoing relevance and effectiveness (23).

Conclusion

The testing of orthopaedic implants is a complex and multi-layered process involving a diverse group of stakeholders. Regulatory agencies like the MHRA in the UK establish the overarching framework and requirements for market access and post-market surveillance. International standards organizations such as ASTM and ISO provide the technical specifications and testing methodologies that underpin the evaluation of implant safety and performance. Independent testing laboratories offer specialized expertise and facilities to conduct these tests objectively. Orthopaedic implant manufacturers themselves play a crucial role through rigorous internal testing and quality control procedures. Furthermore, post-market surveillance systems, exemplified by the UK's National Joint Registry and the ODEP ratings, provide valuable insights into the long-term performance of implants in clinical practice. These various entities are interconnected and interdependent, each contributing to the overarching goal of ensuring the safety and efficacy of orthopaedic implants for patients. The continuous evolution of testing standards and regulatory requirements reflects an ongoing commitment to enhancing patient safety and improving the outcomes of orthopaedic surgery. The ultimate driving force behind all these efforts is the well-being of patients who rely on these critical medical devices to improve their quality of life.

Works cited

1.     Role of Labeling Requirements in Orthopedic Implants - I3CGlobal, accessed on April 1, 2025, https://www.i3cglobal.com/labeling-requirements-in-orthopedic-implants/

2.     Orthopedic Implant Testing - Applied Technical Services, accessed on April 1, 2025, https://atslab.com/specialty/medical-device-components/orthopedic-implant-testing/

3.     Orthopedic Implant Testing Guide - ADMET, accessed on April 1, 2025, https://www.admet.com/about-admet/resource-library/orthopedic-implant-testing-guide/

4.     HC 163 Regulation of medical implants (11th July 2012), accessed on April 1, 2025, https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmsctech/writev/163/m00.htm

5.     New EU medical device regulation may impact orthopaedics, traumatology - Healio, accessed on April 1, 2025, https://www.healio.com/news/orthopedics/20190710/new-eu-medical-device-regulation-may-impact-orthopaedics-traumatology

6.     The impact of the European Union's Medical Device Regulation on orthopaedic implants, technology, and future innovation - Bone & Joint, accessed on April 1, 2025, https://boneandjoint.org.uk/Article/10.1302/0301-620X.106B4.BJJ-2023-1228.R1/pdf

7.     Guest Editorial: New Medical Device Regulation in Europe: A Collaborative Effort of Stakeholders to Improve Patient Safety, accessed on April 1, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7170685/

8.     Regulating medical devices in the UK - GOV.UK, accessed on April 1, 2025, https://www.gov.uk/guidance/regulating-medical-devices-in-the-uk

9.     Custom-made devices in Great Britain - GOV.UK, accessed on April 1, 2025, https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/custom-made-medical-devices/custom-made-devices-in-great-britain

10.  Quality and Regulatory - Ortho Consulting Group, accessed on April 1, 2025, https://orthocg.com/quality-and-regulatory/

11.  UKCA Mark for Medical Devices | TÜV SÜD - TUV Sud, accessed on April 1, 2025, https://www.tuvsud.com/en-us/industries/healthcare-and-medical-devices/medical-devices-and-ivd/medical-device-market-approval-and-certification/ukca-for-medical-devices

12.  Understanding The New MHRA Requirements For Medical Devices In Great Britain, accessed on April 1, 2025, https://www.meddeviceonline.com/doc/understanding-the-new-mhra-requirements-for-medical-devices-in-great-britain-0001

13.  All metal-on-metal (MoM) hip replacements: updated advice for follow-up of patients, accessed on April 1, 2025, https://www.gov.uk/drug-device-alerts/all-metal-on-metal-mom-hip-replacements-updated-advice-for-follow-up-of-patients

14.  Medical Device Alert - GOV.UK, accessed on April 1, 2025, https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5954ca1ded915d0baa00009b/MDA-2017-018_Final.pdf

15.  All patients with metal-on-metal hip implants should undergo tests, says MHRA | The BMJ, accessed on April 1, 2025, https://www.bmj.com/content/358/bmj.j3246

16.  Chapter 6: Conformity Assessment - GOV.UK, accessed on April 1, 2025, https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6143184be90e070433f6c3ac/Chapter_6_Conformity_Assessment_PDF.pdf

17.  Orthopaedic and Dental Medical Devices - BSI Group, accessed on April 1, 2025, https://www.bsigroup.com/globalassets/meddev/localfiles/en-gb/technologies/bsi-md-orthopaedic-and-dental-brochure-uk-en.pdf

18.  MDR and UKCA Services for Orthopedic Medical Devices - SGS, accessed on April 1, 2025, https://www.sgs.com/en-us/services/mdr-and-ukca-services-for-orthopedic-medical-devices

19.  Medical devices: conformity assessment and the UKCA mark - GOV.UK, accessed on April 1, 2025, https://www.gov.uk/guidance/medical-devices-conformity-assessment-and-the-ukca-mark

20.  MDR and UKCA Services for Orthopedic Medical Devices - SGS, accessed on April 1, 2025, https://www.sgs.com/en/services/mdr-and-ukca-services-for-orthopedic-medical-devices

21.  Guidance Document for Testing Non-Articulating, 'Mechanically Locked', Modular Implant Components | FDA, accessed on April 1, 2025, https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents/guidance-document-testing-non-articulating-mechanically-locked-modular-implant-components

22.  The impact of the European Union's Medical Device Regulation on orthopaedic implants, technology, and future innovation | Bone & Joint, accessed on April 1, 2025, https://boneandjoint.org.uk/Article/10.1302/0301-620X.106B4.BJJ-2023-1228.R1

23.  Medical Device Standards and Implant Standards - Standards Products - Standards & Publications - Products & Services - ASTM, accessed on April 1, 2025, https://www.astm.org/products-services/standards-and-publications/standards/medical-device-standards-and-implant-standards.html

24.  Orthopaedic & Medical Device Testing Services - Lucideon, accessed on April 1, 2025, https://www.lucideon.com/testing-characterisation/orthopaedic-testing

25.  Test Labs - Medical Device Testing Laboratory | Global Compliance, accessed on April 1, 2025, https://testlabsuk.com/

26.  Medical Engineering Technologies: Global Excellence in Medical Device Testing, accessed on April 1, 2025, https://met.uk.com/

27.  Medical Device Testing and Scientific Support Services - Intertek, accessed on April 1, 2025, https://www.intertek.com/medical/scientific-support/

28.  Orthopaedic & Medical Device Testing Services - Lucideon, accessed on April 1, 2025, https://www.lucideon.com/uk/testing-characterisation/orthopaedic-testing

29.  World-Class Laboratory Services at Orthoplastics, accessed on April 1, 2025, https://www.orthoplastics.com/news/post/world-class-laboratory-services-at-orthoplastics

30.  Testing of Biomechanics and Orthopedics | ZwickRoell, accessed on April 1, 2025, https://www.zwickroell.com/industries/medicalpharmaceutical/biomechanics-and-orthopedics/

31.  Orthopaedic Implant Static and Fatigue Testing for Mechanical Strength | Lucideon, accessed on April 1, 2025, https://www.lucideon.com/testing-characterisation/orthopaedic-testing/static-fatigue-testing-orthopaedic-implants

32.  Biocompatibility Testing for Bone Implants: A Comprehensive Overview, accessed on April 1, 2025, https://ebi.bio/biocompatibility-testing-for-bone-implants-a-comprehensive-overview/

33.  Medical and Orthopaedic Device Biocompatibility Testing - Lucideon, accessed on April 1, 2025, https://www.lucideon.com/testing-characterisation/orthopaedic-testing/medical-device-biocompatibility-testing

34.  Biocompatibility assessment of biomaterials used in orthopedic devices: An overview (Review) - PMC, accessed on April 1, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8461597/

35.  Regulatory Strategy and Testing for Orthopaedic & Medical Implants | Lucideon, accessed on April 1, 2025, https://www.lucideon.com/testing-characterisation/regulatory-testing/orthopaedic-medical-implants

36.  Hip Wear Testing - ISO 14242, ASTM F2025 | Lucideon, accessed on April 1, 2025, https://www.lucideon.com/testing-characterisation/test-methods/hip-wear-testing-test-methods

37.  Wear & Biotribology - Exponent, accessed on April 1, 2025, https://www.exponent.com/capabilities/wear-biotribology

38.  Orthopaedic Implant Wear Testing & Tribology with Surface & Debris Analysis | Lucideon, accessed on April 1, 2025, https://www.lucideon.com/testing-characterisation/orthopaedic-testing/orthopaedic-implant-wear-testing-tribology

39.  Quality control for orthopaedic implants Article - Vision Engineering, accessed on April 1, 2025, https://www.visioneng.com/resources/application-notes/orthopaedic-implant/

40.  ASTM Medical Device Standards, accessed on April 1, 2025, https://jp.astm.org/industry/medical-device/

41.  ASTM F2887-17 - iTeh Standards, accessed on April 1, 2025, https://cdn.standards.iteh.ai/samples/96551/e1241b8f3f22497abc398d8a6c12b16d/ASTM-F2887-17.pdf

42.  Implant Testing - Endolab, accessed on April 1, 2025, https://www.endolab.org/implant-testing.asp?sid=&id=278&ss=&cat1=1&cat2=

43.  Quality Assurance for the Highest Medical Standards. - Zeiss, accessed on April 1, 2025, https://asset-downloads.zeiss.com/catalogs/download/iqs/7d83192f-1cab-48d5-9bd1-127a4c3c3d7c/IQS_Medical_Orthopedics_Brochure_A4_EN_Digital.pdf.pdf

44.  A Guide to Mechanical Testing of Medical Devices | ADMET, accessed on April 1, 2025, https://www.admet.com/about-admet/resource-library/mechanical-testing-of-medical-devices/

45.  Government response to the House of Commons Select Committee on Science and Technology report of session 2012-1 "Regulation - GOV.UK, accessed on April 1, 2025, https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a74a7d740f0b61df477765a/8496.pdf

46.  NJR Privacy Notice / GDPR - The National Joint Registry, accessed on April 1, 2025, https://www.njrcentre.org.uk/privacy-notice-gdpr/

47.  About the NJR - The National Joint Registry, accessed on April 1, 2025, https://www.njrcentre.org.uk/about-the-njr/

48.  The National Joint Registry - Working for patients, committed to excellence., accessed on April 1, 2025, https://www.njrcentre.org.uk/

49.  Joint replacement surgery: the National Joint Registry - HQIP, accessed on April 1, 2025, https://www.hqip.org.uk/national-programmes/joint-replacement-surgery-the-national-joint-registry/

50.  ODEP is the Orthopaedic Data Evaluation Panel, accessed on April 1, 2025, https://www.odep.org.uk/

51.  Introducing ODEP - NEC ODEP, accessed on April 1, 2025, https://www.odep.org.uk/about/introducing-odep/

52.  OrthoLoad, accessed on April 1, 2025, https://orthoload.com/