The field of medicine relentlessly pursues scientific advancement through ongoing basic science research and clinical investigation. In the present landscape of rapidly evolving technology in economic-driven medical systems, the interest and enthusiasm to innovate newer and more advanced products, diagnostic methods, less-expensive drugs and treatment methods has never been greater. Reitsma and Moreno, in their text titled Ethical Guidelines for Innovative Surgery, aptly describe this persistence ‘‘new is hot, old is not’’ [17, 18]. In the field of orthopaedics, millions benefit from medical innovations on a daily basis. The raise in multidisciplinary research between surgeons, basic scientists, bioengineers and product engineers, however, has resulted in numerous ‘‘innovations,’’ of which not all have turned out to be beneficial to patients. We have learned repeatedly that new products, however, promising the preliminary studies, may ultimately prove to have no benefit. Further, hundreds of thousands of patients have experienced harm and complications as a result of new medical devices, drugs and therapies that lacked proper testing or inadequate scientific backing by clinical trials [24]. A common problem within the field of orthopaedics is that the motivation of the inventors (to improve health care) and manufacturers (to increase profit) to develop a new product may not completely align. Moreover, there is a lack of consensus on how ‘‘innovation’’ is defined. The April 2012 issue of Nature featured an article on rewardable innovation in drug therapy which reviewed nine articles that investigated the definition of innovation [2]. While the authors found that ‘‘newness’’ and ‘‘usefulness’’ were used in all but two studies, not a single study defined innovation as ‘‘has to be beneficial to patients’’ [2]. The purpose of this article is to emphasize that innovative medical devices and treatments must be safe, effective and economical but, above all, must result in no harm to patients. Moreover, new products should be judged critically by orthopaedic surgeons, scientists and industry prior to being utilized in standard clinical care. Furthermore, the following should be considered when evaluating innovative products: (1) the quality of the available scientific evidence, (2) potential conflicts of interest that may have influenced the presented evidence and (3) the influence that marketing may have on our evidence-based practice.