2023 International Academy of Toxicologic Pathology (IATP) Satellite Symposium: “Medical Device Safety Assessment: Pathology and Toxicology Perspective”
Restricted accessMeeting reportFirst published online June, 2025
2023 International Academy of Toxicologic Pathology (IATP) Satellite Symposium: “Medical Device Safety Assessment: Pathology and Toxicology Perspective”
Medical devices represent a complex category of medicinal products with varying definitions depending on the regional jurisdiction of regulatory agencies. A common aspect of these definitions is that a medical device is intended to be used for specific medicinal purpose where the primary intended action of the device is not achieved through pharmacologic (or other chemical) means. While regional regulatory frameworks for medical devices are different than for pharmaceutical or biological products, medical device manufacturers are required to evaluate the safety and performance of these products in the context of their intended use. In biological safety evaluation, histopathology plays a relevant role in assessing medical device biocompatibility. This manuscript provides a broad overview of biocompatibility assessment with a deeper look at the role of the toxicologic pathologist in assessing innovative and emerging bone therapies. The content of this manuscript is based on individual presentations delivered at the 2023 International Academy of Toxicologic Pathology (IATP) Satellite Symposium held in conjunction with the Annual Congress of the European Society of Toxicologic Pathology (ESTP) on 26 September, in Basel, Switzerland.
AgnesCJKaroichanATabrizianM. The diamond concept enigma: recent trends of its implementation in cross-linked chitosan-based scaffolds for bone tissue engineering. ACS Applied Bio Materials. 2023;6(7):2515-2545.
3.
AlbrektssonTJohanssonC. Osteoinduction, osteoconduction and osseointegration. Eur Spine J. 2001;10(suppl 2):S96-101.
4.
AlvesAWancketLMetzA. Current considerations in medical device pathology. In: Jean PierreBoutrand, ed. Woodhead Publishing Series in Biomaterials, Biocompatibility and Performance of Medical Devices. 2nd ed.Cambridge, UK: Woodhead Publishing; 2020:491-543.
5.
BenfenatiEManganaroAGiniG. VEGA-QSAR: AI inside a platform for predictive toxicology. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the workshop “Popularize Artifical Intelligence (2013); December 2013; Turin, Italy.
Chavarri-PradoDBrizuela-VelascoAÁlvarez-ArenalÁ, et al. The bone buttress theory: the effect of the mechanical loading of bone on the osseointegration of dental implants. Biology. 2021;10(1):12.
8.
ChoiYGEckertSEKangKLShinSWKimYK. Epidemiology of implant mortality disparity among intraoral positions and prosthesis types. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2017;32(3):525-532.
EMA. ICH Guideline M7 (R2) on Assessment and Control of DNA Reactive (Mutagenic) Impurities in Pharmaceuticals to Limit Potential Carcinogenic Risk. Netherlands: Agency EM; 2023.
14.
EpsteinNE. Complications due to the use of BMP/INFUSE in spine surgery: the evidence continues to mount. Surg Neurol Int. 2013;4(suppl 5):S343-S352.
FergusonRJPalmerAJTaylorAPorterMLMalchauHGlynJonesS. Hip arthroplasty. Lancet. 2018;392:1662-1671.
20.
GilmanCEJayasuriyaAC. FDA approved bone grafts and bone grafts substitute devices in bone regeneration. Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl. 2021;130:112466.
21.
HeiseTSawyerAYHiraiTSchaibleSSyHWickramasekaraS. Report on investigation of ISO 10993-12 extraction conditions. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2022;131:105164.
ISO 10933-1:2018. Part 1: Evaluation and testing within a risk management process. Biological Evaluation of Medical Devices. Geneva, Switzerland: International Organization for Standardization; 2018.
24.
ISO 10993-11:2017. Part 11: Tests for systemic toxicity. Biological Evaluation of Medical Devices. Geneva, Switzerland: International Organization for Standardization; 2017.
25.
ISO 10993-17:2023. Part 17: Toxicological risk assessment of medical device constituents. Biological Evaluation of Medical Devices. Geneva, Switzerland: International Organization for Standardization; 2023.
26.
ISO 10993-18:2020. Part 18: Chemical characterization of medical devices within a risk management process. Biological Evaluation of Medical Devices. Geneva, Switzerland: International Organization for Standardization; 2020.
27.
ISO 10993-23:2021. Part 23 Test for irritation. Biological Evaluation of Medical Devices. Geneva, Switzerland: International Organization for Standardization; 2021.
28.
ISO 10993-6: 2016. Part 6: Test for local effects after implantation. Biological Evaluation of Medical Devices. Geneva, Switzerland: International Organization for Standardization; 2016.
29.
ISO/TS 21727:2019. Application of the threshold of toxicological concern (TTC) for assessing biocompatibility of medical device constituents. Biological Evaluation of Medical Devices. Geneva, Switzerland: International Organization for Standardization; 2019.
30.
JacksonNAssadMVollmerDStanleyJChagnonM. Histopathological evaluation of orthopedic medical devices: the state-of-the-art in animal models, imaging, and histomorphometry techniques. Toxicol Pathol. 2019;47(3):280-296.
31.
JamesAWLaChaudGShenJ, et al. A review of the clinical side effects of bone morphogenetic protein-2. Tissue Eng Part B Rev. 2016;22(4):284-297.
32.
Japanese Standards Association. JIS T0993-1. Published 2020.
33.
KatsoulisVBenetouVKarapetyanT, et al. Excess mortality after hip fracture in elderly persons from Europe and the USA: the CHANCES project. J Intern Med. 2017;281(3):300-310.
34.
KerschnitzkiMWagermaierWLiuYRoschgerPDudaGNFratzlP. Poorly ordered bone as an endogenous scaffold for the deposition of highly oriented lamellar tissue in rapidly growing ovine bone. Cells Tissues Organs. 2011;194:119-123.
35.
KhanSNCammisaFPJrSandhuHSDiwanADGirardiFPLaneJM. The biology of bone grafting. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2005;13:77-86.
36.
KimTSeeCWLiXZhuD. Orthopedic implants and devices for bone fractures and defects: past, present and perspective. Eng Regen. 2020;1:6-18.
37.
LaTrentaGSMcCarthyJGBreitbartAS, et al. The role of rigid skeletal fixation in bone-graft augmentation of the craniofacial skeleton. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1989;84:578-588.
38.
LewisRWBillingtonRDebryuneEGamerALangBCarpaniniF. Recognition of adverse and nonadverse effects in toxicity studies. Toxicol Pathol. 2002;30(1):66-74.
39.
LienauJSchmidt-BleekKPetersA, et al. Differential regulation of blood vessel formation between standard and delayed bone healing. J Orthop Res. 2009;27(9):1133-1140.
40.
LiuYManjubalaISchellH, et al. Size and habit of mineral particles in bone and mineralized callus during bone healing in sheep. J Bone Miner Res. 2010;25(9):2029-2038.
41.
MunroICFordRAKennepohlESprengerJG. Thresholds of toxicological concern based on structure-activity relationships. Drug Metab Rev. 1996;28(1-2):209-217.
42.
NakamuraTTakemotoM. Osteoconduction and its evaluation. Chapt 8, In: TadashiKokubo, eds. Woodhead Publishing Series in Biomaterials, Bioceramics and Their Clinical Applications. Cambridge, UK: Woodhead Publishing. 2008.
43.
National Standard of the People’s Republic of China. GB/T16886.1. Published 2022.
44.
NyskaASchiffenbauerYSBramiCTMaronpotRRRamotY. Histopathology of biodegradable polymers: challenges in interpretation and the use of a novel compact MRI for biocompatibility evaluation. Polym Advan Technol. 2014;25:461-467.
PeresIRoloPSoares dos SantosMP. Multifunctional smart bone implants: fiction or future?—a new perspective. Front Bioeng Biotechnol. 2022;10:912081.
48.
PoblothAMChecaSRaziH, et al. Mechanobiologically optimized 3D titanium-mesh scaffolds enhance bone regeneration in critical segmental defects in sheep. Sci Transl Med. 2018;10(423):eaam8828.
ProcterPHulsart-BillströmGAlvesA, et al. Gluing living bone using a biomimetic bioadhesive: from initial cut to final healing. Front Bioeng Biotechnol. 2021;89:728042.
51.
RatnerBD. The biocompatibility manifesto: biocompatibility for the twenty-first century. J Cardiovasc Trans Res. 2011;4:523-527.
52.
RooneyJPCNCegerPDanielABTruaxJAllenDGKleinstreuerNC. Analysis of variability in the rabbit skin irritation assay. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2021;122:104920.
53.
RousselleSDRamotYNyskaANDJ. Pathology of bioabsorbable implants in preclinical studies. Toxicol Pathol. 2019;47:358-378.
Vallet-RegíM. Evolution of biomaterials. Front Mater. 2022;9:1-5.
57.
WancketLMSchuhJCLDrevon-GaillotE. Biomedical materials and devices. Haschek and Rousseaux’s Handbook of Toxicologic Pathology: Volume 2: Toxicologic Pathology in Safety Assessment, Fourth Edition. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier Science Publishing; 2023:427-266.
58.
WangWYeungKWK. Bone grafts and biomaterial substitutes for bone defect repair: a review. Bioact Mater. 2017;2(4):224-247.
59.
WeberFE. Reconsidering osteoconduction in the era of additive manufacturing. Eng Part B Rev. 2019;25(5):375-386.
60.
WhitakerLA. Biological boundaries: a concept in facial skeletal restructuring. Clin Plast Surg. 1989;16(1):1-10.
61.
WinklerTSassFADudaGNSchmidt-BleekK. A review of biomaterials in bone defect healing, remaining shortcomings and future opportunities for bone tissue engineering. Bone Joint Res. 2018;7(3):232-243.
62.
ZhangXWilliamsD. Definitions of Biomaterials for the Twenty-First Century. Mater Today. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier; 2019.
63.
ZinsJEKusiakJFWhitakerLADHE. The influence of the recipient site on bone grafts to the face. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1984;73(3):371-381.
