|
Model Number MCPX-30 |
Device Problem
Fracture (1260)
|
Patient Problems
Failure of Implant (1924); Loss of Range of Motion (2032)
|
Event Date 10/01/2020 |
Event Type
Injury
|
Manufacturer Narrative
|
The reported event could not be confirmed, since the device was not returned for evaluation and no other additional information is available.More detailed information about the complaint event as well as the affected device must be available in order to determine the root cause of the complaint event.If any further information is provided, the investigation report will be updated.Device disposition is unknown.
|
|
Event Description
|
The manufacturer became aware of a post market clinical follow-up report received from (b)(6), in (b)(6).The title of this report is ¿a retrospective data collection of the treatment of degenerative or post-traumatic disabilities in the metacarpophalangeal (mcp) and proximal interphalangeal (pip) joints with the silicone and preflex prostheses¿ which is associated with the stryker ¿silicone pip and preflex mcp¿ prosthesis.This study includes research done on 109 patients (142 implants) requiring surgery between the period 2007 and 2019.It was not possible to ascertain specific device details from the report, or to match the events reported with previously reported complaints.Therefore, new complaint was initiated in the system for the post-operative complication mentioned in the report.This product inquiry addresses rupture diagnosed after 91 months of implantation along with significant reduction in range of motion, without pain (radiographic control-reduced spacing) which was reimplanted on (b)(6) 2016 the report states: ¿in the second case, following a first implantation on a d4 mcp, the diagnosis of rupture was established after 91 months.The patient presented in consultation for a significant reduction in range of motion, without pain.The patient took some delay before deciding to go to consultation.The survivorship of the prosthesis in this particular case can be approximately 91 months.¿.
|
|
Event Description
|
The manufacturer became aware of a post market clinical follow-up report received from urgence main mulhouse, clinique du diaconat, in france.The title of this report is ¿a retrospective data collection of the treatment of degenerative or post-traumatic disabilities in the metacarpophalangeal (mcp) and proximal interphalangeal (pip) joints with the silicone and preflex prostheses¿ which is associated with the stryker ¿silicone pip and preflex mcp¿ prosthesis.This study includes research done on 109 patients (142 implants) requiring surgery between the period 2007 and 2019.It was not possible to ascertain specific device details from the report, or to match the events reported with previously reported complaints.Therefore, new complaint was initiated in the system for the post-operative complication mentioned in the report.This product inquiry addresses rupture diagnosed after 91 months of implantation along with significant reduction in range of motion, without pain (radiographic control-reduced spacing) which was reimplanted on (b)(6) 2016.The report states: ¿in the second case, following a first implantation on a d4 mcp, the diagnosis of rupture was established after 91 months.The patient presented in consultation for a significant reduction in range of motion, without pain.The patient took some delay before deciding to go to consultation.The survivorship of the prosthesis in this particular case can be approximately 91 months.¿.
|
|
Manufacturer Narrative
|
The reported event could not be confirmed, since the device was not returned for evaluation and no other additional information is available.This complaint has been reported during a literature review performed by the post market surveillance group.No product identification is possible as the affected device was not returned.A review of the device history for the reported lot did not indicate any abnormalities.No corrective actions are required at this time.More detailed information about the complaint event as well as the affected device must be available to determine the root cause of the complaint event.Based on the investigation, no definitive relation could be established between the product and the reported failure adverse consequence.If any further information is provided, the investigation report will be updated.
|
|
Search Alerts/Recalls
|
|
|