Registry-based PMCF for Orthopaedic Implants (NJR & EPRD) | Eclevar MedTech
Registry PMCF · Orthopaedic Implants · EU MDR

Registry-based PMCF for orthopaedic implants.

A short read on using the NJR and EPRD to build post-market clinical evidence under EU MDR: what the registries can and cannot prove, and how to turn that into a defensible PMCF strategy.

NJR · 4.6M+ records EPRD · 2.63M+ procedures Annex XIV
Eclevar MedTech receiving the Platinum Award at the xShare and EUCROF Open Call Awards for Clinical Research in Amsterdam Platinum Award 2026

Eclevar MedTech and Milo took the Platinum Award at xShare & EUCROF.

Top prize in the xShare x European CRO Federation "EHDS & Clinical Research" Open Call, awarded to Eclevar MedTech and its Milo Health platform, presented at the EUCROF 2026 conference in Amsterdam.

Co-funded by the European Union

Horizon Europe · Grant Agreement No. 101136734 · Amsterdam, 2 Feb 2026

Trusted by medical device manufacturers

Implant makers who build real-world evidence.

Orthopaedic and spine sponsors rely on Eclevar to turn registry data into Notified Body-ready PMCF. Read all client success stories.

TERUMO Meril NIHON KOHDEN VYGON Coloplast SHOFU ASAHI INTECC RegenLab TERUMO Meril NIHON KOHDEN VYGON Coloplast SHOFU ASAHI INTECC RegenLab
Dr Nikhil Khadabadi, CMO Orthopaedics and Spine at Eclevar MedTech and former TÜV SÜD reviewer
Dr Nikhil Khadabadi CMO · Orthopaedics & Spine · Ex Notified Body reviewer Former reviewer at TÜV SÜD
Expert view, from the reviewer's side

Registry evidence is a strategy, not a bolt-on.

Dr Nikhil Khadabadi, CMO for Orthopaedics and Spine and a former TÜV SÜD reviewer, designs registry strategy into the clinical evaluation from the start. The scale of the NJR and EPRD is only useful if your exact implant family, version history and regulatory claims are translated into a retrievable cohort and a defensible analysis plan.

"The mistake I see most often is that registry evidence is treated as something to bolt on after the CER has already been written."
Ex NBFormer TÜV SÜD reviewer
NJR · EPRDNational arthroplasty registries
Annex XIVRegistry evidence, mapped to claims
Class IIb & III implants Survivorship & revision PMCF evaluation report
LinkedIn
Aligned to EU MDR 2017/745 Annex XIV Part B ISO 14155:2026 ISO 13485 21 CFR Part 11 GDPR
Why registries

The scale the registries bring.

National arthroplasty registries hold more longitudinal implant data than any prospective study could generate. Used well, that is post-market evidence at a scale reviewers respect.

4.6M+NJR procedure records (hip, knee, ankle, elbow, shoulder), UK
2.63M+EPRD hip and knee procedures since 2012, Germany
~76%EPRD national coverage in 2022 (voluntary registry)
What the full guide covers

Three things it settles.

01

What NJR & EPRD can, and cannot, provide

Survivorship, revision patterns and comparative performance, versus the endpoints registries simply do not capture.

02

Using registry evidence under MDR Annex XIV

Start from the claim, get device identification exact, and be honest about confounding, bias and endpoint definitions.

03

From registry access to Notified Body-ready evidence

Map claims to data, identify the residual gaps, and design only the lean complementary study that fills them.

The registries

NJR and EPRD at a glance.

RegistryCountryScale & scope
NJR
National Joint Registry
United Kingdom4.6M+ procedure records across hip, knee, ankle, elbow and shoulder.
EPRD
German Arthroplasty Registry
Germany2.63M+ hip and knee procedures since 2012, with around 76% national coverage in 2022 (voluntary registry).
The method that makes it defensible

Knowing the registries exist is the easy part.

The hard part is translating your exact implant family, version history and regulatory claims into a retrievable registry cohort and a defensible analysis plan. That is what the full guide walks through.

  • Data-access application. How to write an NJR or EPRD request that returns the exact subset you need.
  • Replace or complement. When registry data genuinely replaces a prospective study, and when it absolutely does not.
  • The lean complementary study. Designing only the study that fills the real, residual gaps.
  • Confounding & iteration. Handling confounding, learning curves and device iteration so the analysis holds up.
  • One report. Structuring the single PMCF evaluation report a reviewer can follow end to end.
Official content

Our content, signed Eclevar.

Whitepapers, client testimonials and publications produced by our teams and partners (BSI, TÜV SÜD, RegenLab).

Whitepaper by BSI and Eclevar on the EU MDR
Whitepaper · BSI × Eclevar

A BSI and Eclevar whitepaper on the EU MDR.

Written with Notified Body BSI: a practical reading of the clinical evidence expectations under EU MDR 2017/745, the standard your registry evidence has to meet.

PMCF Studies · Regenerative Medicine · 5 EU Countries

A client's live testimonial on Eclevar's capability to run complex trials.

Eclevar manages RegenLab's PMCF programme on chronic wound devices. This is a randomized study of 160 patients across 14 sites in 5 EU countries, covering both diabetic foot ulcer (DFU) and venous leg ulcer (VLU) indications, combining Eclevar's ISO 14155 clinical expertise with the Milo Studio platform.

« Eclevar, with its tailor-made approach and advanced Milo Studio platform, represents a major strategic asset. »Antoine Turzi, CEO, RegenLab
160patients · 14 sites
5EU countries
RegenLab video testimonial on the PMCF programme managed by Eclevar
FAQ

Registry PMCF, answered.

Can registry data replace a prospective PMCF study for an orthopaedic implant?

Sometimes. Registries such as the NJR and EPRD prove survivorship, revision patterns and comparative performance, but they do not capture every endpoint. The method is to map your claims to registry data, identify the residual gaps, and design only the lean complementary study that fills them.

Which registries are used for orthopaedic implant PMCF?

Primarily the NJR (National Joint Registry, UK) with over 4.6 million procedure records across hip, knee, ankle, elbow and shoulder, and the EPRD (German Arthroplasty Registry) with over 2.63 million hip and knee procedures since 2012 and around 76% national coverage in 2022.

How does registry evidence fit EU MDR Annex XIV?

Start from the claim, get device identification exact, and be honest about confounding, bias and endpoint definitions. The registry cohort must be a retrievable, defensible subset that maps to your specific implant family and version history.

What is the most common mistake with registry-based PMCF?

Treating registry evidence as something to bolt on after the CER has already been written. Registry strategy should be designed into the clinical evaluation and PMCF plan from the start, not added at the end.

What does the full guide cover?

How to write an NJR or EPRD data-access application that returns the exact subset you need, when registry data genuinely replaces a prospective study and when it does not, designing the lean complementary study that fills only the real gaps, handling confounding, learning curves and device iteration, and structuring a single PMCF evaluation report a reviewer can follow end to end.

8-page methodology guide

Get the full guide, then book a strategy call.

We will send you the 8-page registry PMCF guide and, when you are ready, map your exact implant family and claims to a defensible NJR or EPRD strategy on a 30-minute call.

Reforming Clinical Evaluation of Medical Devices in Europe