You are right that 100% inspection is not 100% effective, but 100% is more likely to catch a problem than AQL. Implantables are a high risk product.
Depending on what is being inspected and the method, some types of inspection are over 90%. Visual inspection has a much lower detect rate. Even so, 100% visual inspection is more likely to catch a intermittent problem or a hard to see problem because there are more opportunities to see the problem.
In some cases AQL might be acceptable, such as inspecting at an intermediate step when there is a good inspection later in the process. Destructive testing is another area where AQL might be acceptable. Double checks of the process where a sample is subjected to greater inspection detail, outside inspection service checks, or similar is another case where AQL may be acceptable.
But without details about how you are thinking about using AQL sampling, it is hard for anyone to help you.